Arcen Games

Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Wingflier on October 12, 2017, 02:37:56 PM

Title: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: Wingflier on October 12, 2017, 02:37:56 PM
So I thought this (https://rngeternal.com/2017/10/01/going-deep-free-est-to-play/) was a fascinating side-by-side comparison of the top 5 card games on the Market right now (in terms of popularity).

What do you guys think?
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: TheVampire100 on October 12, 2017, 02:52:33 PM
Gwent is in the top 5? Okay, time to end my life.

The article is good and detailed though and it just shows, even if Hearthstone os one of the first popular online card games, it's also falling flat compared to others in the genre. especially the F2p experience is simply garbage by now because they churn out one set after another and its hard to keep up with the new cards and strategy changes unless you invest some good amount of money into it.

Also, I would like to show this, a comparison table of "almost" all the popular or known digital card games right now. It is a little dated though, because it was made in the beginning of 2017 but except that it still is accurate to the main aspects of the games.
http://worldcitiesranking.com/digital-card-games-comparison-table/
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: Wingflier on October 12, 2017, 06:02:41 PM
Quote
Gwent is in the top 5? Okay, time to end my life.
Why the hate for Gwent?

It's one of the most unique out there, and certainly the most unique of the popular bunch.
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: TheVampire100 on October 12, 2017, 07:28:00 PM
Because it's a terrible game. There is nothing fun or entertaining at this game, it's plain boring it serves little to no interactivity or tactic. It's simply a game "tug of war" which isn't fun to begin with but they literally made the concept even more unfun.

Also, unique does not mean it's entertaining. It is unique, yes, because no other game made something so plain, simple and useless than this game. But maybe "plain" the new casual trend.
But, yeah, at least it is unique.

I can see that people don't want to play another Hearthstone clone from which we have already more than enough (and if we look at the article, these types of games are the biggest money sinks you can get), but going so far and playing a game with literal no content is just... madness.
We have already other "unique" games out there that are far more interesting because at least tehy provide an entertainign game mechanic that centers not aroudn "who has the higher number on their field".
we have PvZ Heroes, whcih introduces asynchronous game mechanics, that are very unique to this genre.
We have Mabinogi Duel/Duel of Summoners, which removes the RNG completely from card draws simply because there are no card draws.
We have games like Duelyst and Shardboudn for a more boardgame-centered card game (but to be honest, Duelyst is falling flat since namco obtained the game and Shardboudn is still in development).

I would take any other game over Gwent.

But yeah, it's unique. Because no one wnats to make something like that.
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: Mánagarmr on October 13, 2017, 04:54:14 AM
...But yeah, it's unique. Because no one wnats to make something like that.
200 000 people disagree with you. I don't like Gwent either, but your posts here in this thread reek of "waah, people like stuff I don't, eww!" Please keep a more civil level than that.
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: TheVampire100 on October 13, 2017, 09:01:31 AM
You are right, I went overboard with this. But what I wrote stands true. The game is simple, plain and boring and no one can in any way make me believe it is not like this. The game has literally no gameplay at all.
As for the high playerbase, the game drives from the Witcher fanbase. Gwent was a mini game in Witcher and people liked it there. Teh developers made an entire game out of this with "improved" stuff and "deeper mechanics". People play it because they liekd Witcher, they liked the mini game.
People also like "simple". There is an increasing trend that games get more simple and less complex because that's what people nowadays want. I'm in a minority here, that I don't see any potential in this game simply because people liek it easy. You don't have to learn deep strategies for this game because there simply aren't any. The whole game is centered around getting high number cards out, playing cards that increase your number or decrease the enemy number or that draw new cards out of your deck, so you can play more in the next round. The game lacks the deep tatcical gameplay elements of any other game in the same genre, it is pretty much the most simple game that you can get in this genre.
There is some strategy involved, sure, but is so little and basically all decks are centered aroudn the same strategy that I mentioned above.
It's okay for those 200.000 people if they want a very plain game with little to no gameplay mechanics. But if I want a simple card game, I play Uno.
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: Misery on October 13, 2017, 11:10:24 AM
Dare I ask what "Gwent" is, exactly?

I know it's from the Witcher (not something Iv'e played) but that's all I know.  Yet I keep hearing about this, despite that it apparently started out as a mere minigame within that series?

If anyone here has actually played it, I'd be interested to know what exactly it's about and what the appeal is. 
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: Draco18s on October 13, 2017, 12:10:50 PM
Dare I ask what "Gwent" is, exactly?

I know it's from the Witcher (not something Iv'e played) but that's all I know.  Yet I keep hearing about this, despite that it apparently started out as a mere minigame within that series?

It was a Freemium card game inside the Witcher, one with very strong pay-to-win mechanics.
The reason it was popular was because it gave you something to do with your in-game currency that was borderline otherwise unspendable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxDz6RWncVM

Players then demanded that the company make Gwent as its own standalone game.
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: Wingflier on October 13, 2017, 12:40:29 PM
Vampire, I don't even know where to begin with your criticisms of Gwent. If it were a human being I presume you'd be about ready to murder it at this point.

From my perspective your seething (and somewhat irrational?) hatred for it are blinding you to the fact that it does have many redeeming features, as I would say all of the top 5 card games do, even the ones I can't stand, like Hearthstone (which I commonly watch people stream simply for the sheer entertainment value).

It's just not true to say that Gwent has no interactivity. Yes, ultimately you are victorious by winning 2 out of 3 rounds, and each round is won by having a bigger army on your side of the board, but how is this inherently less interactive than getting your opponent's health total to zero?

You act as though there is no interactivity within the game whatsoever, but that is quite frankly not true. There are so many ways to interact with your opponent's side of the board including weather effects, nukes, spies, locks, steals, consumes, and countless more. It's true that some decks are more concerned about maximizing their own side of the board, but from what I've seen this is pretty rare. The most popular decks are filled to the brim with ways to punish or outplay your opponent for their mistakes.

Of course it's fair to say that Gwent is boring and/or not your cup of tea, I feel that way about many popular games and even T.V. shows (I can not for the life of me understand the appeal of Rick and Morty). But to claim that it's objectively terrible? I don't see it. As much as I despise Hearthstone, I can step outside of myself for just long enough to see the appeal to a much more casual audience, especially one who already loves Blizzard and has copious amounts of expendable income.

Quote
If anyone here has actually played it, I'd be interested to know what exactly it's about and what the appeal is.
I would say that the appeal of Gwent vs. the other popular card games is the strategic depth. It's true that it's not as flashy or visceral, but this is more than made up for by the removal of most random mechanics and level of depth.

So much of the game plays like a hybrid of Chess and Poker. You can't know exactly what your opponent is holding, but you can surmise it base on their behavior, and you can bluff with your own hand to try and make them reveal theirs.

So the 3 round feature is probably where the game gets the majority of its depth. Winning the first round gives one player a huge advantage, because the losing player *HAS* to win the second round, or they lose the game. This means that the player who is victorious in the first round can bait the "losing" player to expend all their best cards in a desperate attempt to win the second round, making the third round a breeze for himself.

But it's much more complex than that. Some decks specifically intend to lose the first round and play from behind. Some decks essentially want the first and second rounds to be passed and then put all of their power into the 3rd round, creating an unstoppably huge board that the opponent can't possibly deal with. Some decks actually attempt to win both the first and second round, not even giving the opponent a chance to recover.

It all hinges around the use of the pass mechanic to attempt to create leads which you believe your opponent can't overcome without an critical amount of resources, but doing so is always a gamble, and relies both on knowing the matchup and making educated guesses about what the enemy player has.

It's honestly difficult to explain but very fun to watch.
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: TheVampire100 on October 13, 2017, 12:47:01 PM
Don't even try, the game is dead to me. All what you mention is true but it still boils all down to the same core mechanic which is not fun to begin with.
So no, Gwent will never be a good game in my opinion. It works out as minigame because, like Draco said, i gave you soemthing to do with your money in the game. But as standalone game? it simply has not enough to offer for me.
Even Mabinogi Duel, which is just the bare bones of a card game, has more to play with than this game.
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: WolfWhiteFire on October 13, 2017, 05:19:58 PM
So is this entire thread going to about TheVampire100 simply stating that he doesn't like Gwent and why, in his own opinion, and Wingflier trying to convince him he should? Not really any reason to go back and forth with it, might as well just drop it and move on to other aspects of the article, the current conversation isn't really going anywhere. For example, that it is apparently cheaper to buy hearthstone cards through amazon than it's own in-game store, or the quality of the article, or what you think about the accuracy of the rankings at the end, or pretty much anything else anyone can think of.
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: Cyborg on October 13, 2017, 06:35:45 PM
So is this entire thread going to about TheVampire100 simply stating that he doesn't like Gwent and why, in his own opinion, and Wingflier trying to convince him he should? Not really any reason to go back and forth with it, might as well just drop it and move on to other aspects of the article, the current conversation isn't really going anywhere. For example, that it is apparently cheaper to buy hearthstone cards through amazon than it's own in-game store, or the quality of the article, or what you think about the accuracy of the rankings at the end, or pretty much anything else anyone can think of.

pay2win is lame, ergo most card games are lame.
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: Wingflier on October 13, 2017, 09:33:35 PM
Based on my experience with the 5 games in question, I'd say it's pretty accurate.

Even though it was written on an Eternal-based site, it's not unfair at all to say that Eternal is the most generous of them all, by a wide margin.

I don't even know what to make of Cyborg's comment without straining not to make my head explode. The entire point of the article is a comparison of the games' various free to play models so that you aren't forced to pay money in the first place.
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: TheVampire100 on October 14, 2017, 10:48:49 AM
Eternal has a different problem though, crafting takes forever. The recycling values of cards are trash and getting enough for even a common card takes forever. You get some shards from packs, that's good at least, no other game does this, but the point still stands, cards give little to no reward for recycling them, making crafting a pure nightmare there.
I have like 10-20 decks from the internet that I wanted to try out but I cannot get to finish a single one, because I don't get enough shards to get all the cards. And most of them are budget decks, tells enough about this system.
They are generous with giving out cards and rewards and such but they decide what cards you are getting in the end. In other games, the crafting system helps you to get the cards you missed from boosters or the RNG system, Eternal does this not.
It's still a better game than Hearthstone, in general it is better than most card games but this is probably the worst point of it.

Also, just ignore almost everything Cyborg says. His comments are often centered aroudn his limited view of the world.
But yeah, technically he is right, card games are P2W, denying this would simply be stupid. But that doesn't mean they cannot be fun. That's where he is wrong.
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: keith.lamothe on October 14, 2017, 11:22:40 AM
Also, just ignore almost everything Cyborg says. His comments are often centered aroudn his limited view of the world.
I'm just going to say this and go away again: if Chris and I had chosen that approach to Cyborg, it would have been detrimental to the quality of our games and a disservice to our customers.
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: TheVampire100 on October 14, 2017, 11:34:12 AM
Also, just ignore almost everything Cyborg says. His comments are often centered aroudn his limited view of the world.
I'm just going to say this and go away again: if Chris and I had chosen that approach to Cyborg, it would have been detrimental to the quality of our games and a disservice to our customers.
That's why I say "almost". His opinion on AI War 2 is topnotch and he also has good views on other stuff. But his world view is still very limtied and he does not allow anyone else to interfere with this view. If someone even gets close to piercing his safety bubble he starts to put this person on his ignore list, so he never has to deal with them again.
He does not want to interact other people with him, so why should I?
But again, this does not count for AI War or anythign he is itnerested in. But people should ignore his snarky comments on stuff he is not interested in them because that's how he is.
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: Wingflier on October 15, 2017, 02:57:34 AM
Quote
Eternal has a different problem though, crafting takes forever. The recycling values of cards are trash and getting enough for even a common card takes forever. You get some shards from packs, that's good at least, no other game does this, but the point still stands, cards give little to no reward for recycling them, making crafting a pure nightmare there.
Cards give the same value as they do in basically every other game, 1/4th of their value for recycling. Premium cards give full value.

Really though, if you're not playing Draft, you're doing it wrong. Draft allows you to do something that no other card game would even dream of, and pick your entire pack 4 times. If you pick every Rare and Legendary that comes across your path in Draft, you're guaranteed not only to fill your collection with great cards, but to have plenty of extra crafting dust to do whatever you want.

It's very simple, you either play Ranked or Gauntlet to accrue some gold (I was up to 50,000 before this event), then you spend it all on Draft and mega-upgrade your collection.

You can basically build whatever deck you want in just a few days if you do this right. It's really incredible.
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: TheVampire100 on October 15, 2017, 09:22:39 AM
Quote
Eternal has a different problem though, crafting takes forever. The recycling values of cards are trash and getting enough for even a common card takes forever. You get some shards from packs, that's good at least, no other game does this, but the point still stands, cards give little to no reward for recycling them, making crafting a pure nightmare there.
Cards give the same value as they do in basically every other game, 1/4th of their value for recycling. Premium cards give full value.

Really though, if you're not playing Draft, you're doing it wrong. Draft allows you to do something that no other card game would even dream of, and pick your entire pack 4 times. If you pick every Rare and Legendary that comes across your path in Draft, you're guaranteed not only to fill your collection with great cards, but to have plenty of extra crafting dust to do whatever you want.

It's very simple, you either play Ranked or Gauntlet to accrue some gold (I was up to 50,000 before this event), then you spend it all on Draft and mega-upgrade your collection.

You can basically build whatever deck you want in just a few days if you do this right. It's really incredible.
No they don't, unless they changed this recently. Last timne when I checked, a common card gives 1 shiftstone. 1. And no, the crafting cost is not 4, it's 20. That's1/20, not 1/4. If they have changed this, good for them and every player out there, but 1/20 is ridiculous.
I'm checkign this again to see, if it has changed, which would be really cool.

Also, I said already, other card games did what Eternal already did (you get your cards from draft), so it is not the first one, it is just the most favoured one.

Draft works that way, that you pass the booster to another player. if he picks the legendary card int he booster, you are screwed anyway you can get some.

Edit: I just checked it,, it's even worse than I thought. t least to some part. You are right, destroying cards gives1/4 of the shiftstone. If you recycle a legendary or rare card. Which you won't, if you have not tons of good cards already. A common card gives 1 (liek I said) and costs 50, so 1/50 of the price! Or 1/3200 of a legendary. Yeah, lot of boosters to open to get one. It's more likely you find one instead of crafting one. Uncommon costs 100 and yields 10 for recycling, so that's at least 1/10. But yeah, with common/uncommon cards you won't get far in crafting, it will take you forever to get a rare card (800)  and impossible to get a legendary (3200).
So no, it is NOT fair. Even if Eteneral is good in any other aspect, this part isn't good and I won't pretend it is.
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: Wingflier on October 15, 2017, 12:55:04 PM
Vampire, I don't know what to tell you except that you're doing it wrong.

Common and uncommon cards are so easy to acquire, you should never have to craft them anyway. Every time you open a pack you get a dozen of them. Every time you Draft you can choose from which ones you want.

Each Draft nets you around 2,000 crafting points, sometimes more, and that's before calculating the extra shiftstone you get from actually doing well in your run. That means in ONE DRAFT you can craft any and all commons and uncommons you could possibly want or need for any single deck. Not that you would have to ever do that, because they are so easy to acquire just from playing the game.

The only thing you ever have to spend your crafting points on are rares and legendaries. In ten Draft runs you could build basically any deck in the game, even the most expensive. There's no other F2P model even close to this generous.

I'd love for you to post the decklist of the list you were struggling to build.
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: TheVampire100 on October 15, 2017, 01:48:06 PM
You misunderstand the concept. I have all commons and uncommons (or maybe almost all). The thing is, you won't get any rares or legendaries fromt hem. Easy as that. There is no "you are doing wrong" int hat if there is somethign simply not possible.
I struggle to get all hte rares and legendaries I need.
And suddenly they release a 25k gold campaign that will require another big grind.

Also, you are contradicting yourself, in one poitn you say "you never should craft commons/uncommons" in the next one you say, I shall use rewards from draft to get them.
Aslo, get this, not everyone wants to paly draft all the time, not everyone wants to struggle with random cards just to get hsis collection. Even if this is generous, this shouldn't be a requirement to get your collection going.
Someone once told me, this wasn't a good or fun way on Solforge and he was right. I see this now in Eternal.

Please just stop pretending that this is totally fair for your own sake. You pretend this is al fun and generous. Even a great game can have its flaws and this is one.

Decklist? How about anything from this site: https://eternalwarcry.com/decks?dn=&dt=1&c=&at=&td=&e=

While we're at it, Elder Scrolls Legends, the other card game this developer team did, has some sort of bonus added to the Monthly Bundle: https://www.humblebundle.com/monthly
You get 2 Skyrim card packs, 100 gold (I think this is another pack worth), 1 event ticket and 100 soul gems.
Additionally you get Elder Scrolls Online and Quake Champions on top. The bundle is worth already for TESO, the stuff for Legends is the little extra on that.
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: Wingflier on October 15, 2017, 02:27:10 PM
Again, Vampire, you were just complaining several posts ago that you couldn't even get the commons and uncommons you need because they are so expensive.

This entire discussion has just been one huge example of red herrings and moving the goal posts:

You started with -

1.
Quote
The recycling values of cards are trash and getting enough for even a common card takes forever.
To which I responded, you should never have to craft commons and uncommons while rares and legendaries give 1/4th of their value, as they do in every other card game.

Then you changed your objection to:

2.
Quote
Also, you are contradicting yourself, in one poitn you say "you never should craft commons/uncommons" in the next one you say, I shall use rewards from draft to get them.
When I specifically said, "That means in ONE DRAFT you can craft any and all commons and uncommons you could possibly want or need for any single deck. Not that you would have to ever do that, because they are so easy to acquire just from playing the game."

I didn't contradict myself, I made the point several times that you don't have to craft commons and uncommons, and therefore I didn't understand why you brought it up in the first place (point 1).

You then changed your objection to:

3.
Quote
You misunderstand the concept. I have all commons and uncommons (or maybe almost all). The thing is, you won't get any rares or legendaries fromt hem. Easy as that. There is no "you are doing wrong" int hat if there is somethign simply not possible.
I struggle to get all hte rares and legendaries I need.
To which I had already responded, you can easily get whatever Rares and Legendaries you need simply by playing Draft.

You then change the subject again:

4.
Quote
Aslo, get this, not everyone wants to paly draft all the time, not everyone wants to struggle with random cards just to get hsis collection. Even if this is generous, this shouldn't be a requirement to get your collection going.
Okay, now you don't like Draft and that's the problem. So now it's not a problem with the card game, it's a personal issue.

5. There was also a final objection you made:
Quote
You are right, destroying cards gives1/4 of the shiftstone. If you recycle a legendary or rare card. Which you won't, if you have not tons of good cards already.
But here you seem either unwilling or unable to understand your own irrationality when it comes to building a deck. You *have* to recycle unwanted rares and legendaries, at least at the start, to build the deck you want. Which is fine, because you'll likely get them back anyway, or if you really want them again in the future you can craft them.

It seems like you want it all, to complete the entire collection of cards and to have a deck you can play NOW without having to grind.

You can't have it both ways friend. You can recycle unused rares and legendaries to build a deck you can play NOW or you can be very patient and use a budget deck to build your entire collection without recycling anything, which granted will take longer, but I suppose would be more efficient in the long run.

Can't have both though. The entire point of playing Draft to build a collection is simply taking every Rare and Legendary available to you and then recycling most of them towards the deck you want. This will net you about 2,000 crafting points each run. That means you can build any deck you want on that Eternal Warcry site in just a few days of playing.

You don't like Draft? Then you don't have to actually play the run. You just use Draft to improve your collection + increase your shiftstone and then resign.

Other than that I'm not sure what to tell you. It doesn't seem like you can stick with a single objection and continue changing the subject over and over again, without fully understanding the problem with your own use of the system.

Eternal is hands down the most generous card game out there, objectively, at least of the top 5. Read the original article, he goes into depth.
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: TheVampire100 on October 15, 2017, 04:38:43 PM
1.) No, I said it takes forver to get the crafting stuff for them forever, not, that I don't get the commons, that are two different things. You even just quoted it.

I just wanted to show that it takes long for tiny things to get (in terms of crafting). Please don't apply anythign I say to everythign that you see it migth fit. because that's totally not what I wanted to say.

2.) Yeah, they are, as I said, I have them all or at least I should have them all, might have one or two still missing.

3.) Again this is not entirely true. A booster from draft still applies the same rules as boosters that you normally open which means 1 rare and a CHANCE to get more. You get four boosters, so you can get 4 rares (if no one else picks them) with a small chance to get more than 4.

4.) Okay, now you are draggng this on me. Okay... what? Just...w hy? Don't you find any other arguments anymore or what? Draft is an optional game mode that shouldn't be mundane to get a decent collection. In any game. At all. This is nothing of "personal issues" and saying this is quite insulting to me. You should get a decent collection from playing the ame normally. Normally means, playing ranked/unranked games. Draft is an additional, optional game modes that rewards players who are interested in it additionally but it shouldn't be the main core to get cards. At all. This would just mean the game is awefully designed in every aspect. Which it isn't but that would be your statement right here, right now.

5.) Thsi si getting quite akward. Because... your arguments get less and less serious. Okay, let's say i want 1 legendary. that means I have to recycle 4 non-wanted legendaries. otherwise you won't get the needed shiftstone for it. Which means I first need these four legendaries. Whcih you don't get, unless, according to you, you play draft. A lot. All the time. or, wait, you said you simply can resign to get it. Which makes it even more aweful.
Basically your whole argumentation centers around "You don't play the game like it is meant to be" and "You have to play Draft so you get good cards". That's all you say and you repeat it over and over.  For what point? What point are you trying to make here? I said already that Eteneral is generous but you pretend it's perfect. There does not exist soemthign liek perfecton and ignoring glaring flaws won't help anyone.
Maybe you are just blind. or maybe I am just dumb because I don't see that the game is pure perfection.

Anyway, I drop this discussion now. this is getting out of hands on your end, you just want me to convince me ona  flawed system, so you stand right here. I don't even know why, everything has flaws, eternal is no exception. And I won't change my playstyle so I fit your playstyle. Now go ahead and tell me how wrong I am, that that's my personal issue and I play the game wrong and it's not the developers fault then. Do it, I don't care anymore.
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: Misery on October 15, 2017, 09:57:22 PM
Ugh, just stop, please.  This one is clearly going nowhere.

I swear, discussion of F2P *anything* always leads to arguments on any forum it appears on.

Back in my day, we bought ALL the cards.  Nothing was free!   Bah.
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: keith.lamothe on October 15, 2017, 10:11:29 PM
Back in my day, we bought ALL the cards.  Nothing was free!   Bah.
(https://forums.arcengames.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=19853.0;attach=10771;image)
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: Misery on October 16, 2017, 01:24:07 AM
Well the mana cost seems about right.
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: TheVampire100 on October 16, 2017, 03:43:32 PM
Ugh, just stop, please.  This one is clearly going nowhere.

I swear, discussion of F2P *anything* always leads to arguments on any forum it appears on.

Back in my day, we bought ALL the cards.  Nothing was free!   Bah.
I agree, this isn't going anywhere.

I also find it sad that people always beat on the same 5-10 card games liek there is nothing else out there. Like, Hearthstone, Duelyst, Gwent (now), Eteneral and TESL dominate the whole genre. There are many more interesting card games out there but people always mention just these.

While we're at generous card ganes, I started today Yu-Gi-Oh Duel links (Yu-gi-oh is another one of this card games, that gets most of the attention but more on a physical base than digital). Duel Limks is pretty much "half" Yu-gi-oh. Why? Because everthing has been halfed.
Monstercard zone and spell/trap card zone have 3 fields each instead of 5. Players start with 4000 lifepoints and not with 8000. Deck consists of 20 cards, not 40. Yep, they halved everything. For casual gamers? I don't know. The card game is, suprisingly for Yugioh, very fast paced, duels last only a few rounds.

The game is also centered more on Player vs environment. The game features a campaign were the player enters a virtual world to compete in some sort of environment, you can select between two characters, Yugi and Kaiba (yeah, the ones from the series) which start out with different decks. During your playtime you unlock other characters who have also their own deck isnpired by the series. You get all the cards from the deck and you can use the cards to your liking (free deck building).
Characters can be leveled for various rewards (cards, currency and deck slots), at certain levels they unlock abilities and you can use one ability to start your matches with.

Players can farm the PvE fights in the game world for quick gems (currency) and other rewards or they can compete int he PvP arena (which is simply monthly ranked matchmaking).
The game is very generous towards rewards, you get points for your performance on matches and for each 1000 points you get a new reward which can be anything from some currency to new cards or simply crafting materials that you can use for cards. "Keys" are a major aspect of the game to unlock and play with "legendary" duelists from the series which give you bigger rewards and are necessary to unlock new characters. The game has even an auto-duel function for PvE matches to farm rewards quickly.
Now, about being generous, the game gave me 2300 gems just for starting th egame for the first time (these are however given for specific milestones and events int he game, so not everyone might get the same, depending when they start). One pack costs 50 gems. 50, not 100 like in most games. Which means the game gave me 46 boosters away for free.

Another big part of the game is, that boosters cannot give you more cards that you can use. You have the same card three times? You won't get it again from this pack unless you recycle it so you get crafting materials for another card. the game even counts how any boosters you have to buy until you get teh whole collection from the set. This ranks between 200 boosters (for big sets) and 80 (mini sets). Now, the thing is, the game has many sets which is because the game exists for years as physical game and they simply have to apply these cards to the digigtal version. There are already multiple thousand cards out there. And they still haven't migrated all cards from the game.This means A LOT to colelct (if you want to have everything) but basically you can simply get the boosters you might see your playstyle fit. Sets are centered about different themes (fusion, water monsters, ps-monsters, spell combinations), so you can start your collection to your liking.
There are currently 13 sets in the game, which will overwhelm newer players. You can always check the full list of cards for each set and each set shows also some useful strategies and card combinations on the information cover.

Additionaly you can buy themedecks for 500 gems which are obviously stronger than the starting decks for each character.

Biggest flaws? too many sets to overwhelm new players (and the nmber will rise), even if you get gems quickly. New players won't know which sets to buy first and might sink their ge,s into one set that they don't even need. Especially the first sets have now very much outdated cards (because konami never updated their cards) which are just terrible compared to newer cards.
Crafting is weird, the game does not use a pseudo currency like in other games, I think this is even worse than Eteneral, isntead they use different crafting materials made out of properties for cards, like earth or rarity of the card, additonally you also have to pay gold, which is a second, unneeded currency that exists for some reason. Some (cheap) cards can simply be bought for gold and do not need crafting materials.Alsom, the number of PvE players is limited, once you defeat them, they disappear and you have to wait for them to reappear. However, PvE is still made better and more rewarding than any other card game I know.
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: Misery on October 16, 2017, 08:23:30 PM
Eh, the bit about people just doing 5 or so card games isn't unexpected, really.  I find that's the case in ANY multiplayer game genre.

Fighting games, for instance.  There's tons of them!  And tons of them are great fun.  But there's very, very few that you can ACTUALLY expect to find opponents for in a reliable way.  And yeah, it's always been very frustrating.  Or the whole MOBA genre, where only a few of them even survived at all.   And I don't even want to talk about the RTS genre.

Card games at least are a bit easier to get into, so they may be more viable, but yeah, pretty much what I'd expect.
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: TheVampire100 on October 16, 2017, 09:10:45 PM
Eh, the bit about people just doing 5 or so card games isn't unexpected, really.  I find that's the case in ANY multiplayer game genre.

Fighting games, for instance.  There's tons of them!  And tons of them are great fun.  But there's very, very few that you can ACTUALLY expect to find opponents for in a reliable way.  And yeah, it's always been very frustrating.  Or the whole MOBA genre, where only a few of them even survived at all.   And I don't even want to talk about the RTS genre.

Card games at least are a bit easier to get into, so they may be more viable, but yeah, pretty much what I'd expect.
While were at this, why not be honest and say it's in any genre. Because it is. There are always aroudn 10 that are sticking out quite nice which drowns other games in the same genre. This is the biggest reason why SR didn't do as well as it could, because people simply got their heads into other games at that time and didn't even know it existed. That's why marketing is so essential in this business (as in any business). If people don't know you exist, why would they buy your stuff?
Doesn't help with all the content creators out there, who promote this even further and bloat a single thing to no end until the last person on earth knows about it. See Five Nights of Freddies. See Undertale. See Isaac. Of course these games sell well because they are also good games by themself but the main interest comes from popular people who play this and promote it on review sites, youtube or sinply twitter.
And this leads to a withdrawal of attention in other games, there is only so much viewing time we have each day.

But yeah, Multiplayer has a bigger impact because these games rely on a good amount of playerbase, otherwise they are empty, like your example, it's hard to find other players in fighting games. This is true to any multiplayer game that is not popular right now. Hyper Universe is an excellent game but it does not get enough atention, you wait 5-15 minutes to find a single match. And when you find it, one of the players does not notice this or forgot about the game or something else, so he does not connect and you are forced to search again 15 minutes. This lack of players in games lead that the players, that did play it, leave as well. Why would you waste 30 minutes each time if you could play something else that matches you in 2 minutes instead? I did this. because it was too tiresome to find matches. And this leads again to less palyers, more waiting time, more people will leave.... you see where this gets.

Card games have another problem, even if they are simple to get into (rules are easy to learn), the problem is the amount of collection. this is why Hearthstone is unplayable right now. You start with literal nothing and the game expects you to get a good set of cards in a very short time because it will match you with people that have better ccards than you very quickly. It does also not help that people, that start a new game, simply do not know, if the card is good or not. Yu-gi-oh is in itself an excellent card game but there are by now so many cards, players don't know where to start at, what boosters they should get, what cards are good and what not.
Same goes for any oher card game that is going aroudn for at least a year or two. Give Eteneral another year and it will end the same way. It has already two payable campaigns with extra cards and as new player you won't know which you should save your gold one first. Also, campaigns are an aweful idea in itself already, Hearthstone did well in corrupting this again.
I like campaigns for the extra bit of playing against AI decks, sometimes wit special rules. But I don't want to tie unlockable cards to this and I surely don't want to pay extra because of this reason. Put the new cards simply into a set and that's good enough, no reason to charge for an overpriced campaign.
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: Wingflier on October 16, 2017, 10:48:10 PM
Vampire, I wasn't trying to insult you or belittle your opinion. I just think you have some things factually wrong about Eternal's model.

I just reached Masters for the second time and I haven't spent any money on the game.

(https://i.imgur.com/AspCrDr.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/tcH6STk.jpg)

Obviously I'm not the best player in the world but I achieved the highest rank possible for free, and I only started about a month ago.

In any case, I didn't mean for it to be an argument, I enjoyed the conversation.
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: TheVampire100 on October 17, 2017, 01:00:54 AM
Yeah, this was some sort of misunderstanding on my end.
Also I never wanted to say that Eteneral isn't fair or generous or that you cannot reach high ranks for free (something I'm not even interested in).
All I wanted to make clear was that Etenerals recycling value is sless than most other games in the genre.
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: eRe4s3r on October 17, 2017, 08:43:58 AM
Maybe it's me but I just like how Elder Scrolls *functions* and looks and feels and I can never, ever go back to HS or Eternity because of this. In TES you can build really interesting synergy decks that can easily beat any so called "meta" deck that is ranked high (ranking matters zero in this game, luck of draw is far more important when you got 50 actual usable cards and 3 of a kind instead of 2 (HS).

And in HS it would take you what, 600 wins to unlock all of the expansions.... it's far easier to ignore that nonsense and craft a good deck for whatever lichking lord you unlock (in the prologue of that expansion) that way you can easily get to rank 10, but after that it will be a hard sad grind.

I also play a bit of Gwent every now and then and I have to admit I have a stronk dislike for this one because it isn't a skill game at all. You don't win because of a good play, you win because your opponent didn't have the card (nor could he ever hope to craft it with these laughable rewards) to beat yours when it mattered.... specifically that they added more of the "staying" creatures and made lane choice so wide for creatures (and changed what FOG does) robbed the game nearly entirely of any tactical challenge that it actually had in Witcher 3.

The joke is HS is extremely generous compared to Gwent. De-summoning a legendary gives you 400 dust in HS, enough to craft the commons and rares your deck needs to be good. While in Gwent, you only get 6 cards for 100 ore, and you only get 15 ore per "round" win. But is misleading because you can be losing a match (right from the start!) and not know that until the 3rd round. And rounds in Gwent take substantially longer. Also the reward scheme is after 6 round wins segmenting into 12 steps so you only get 15 ore for 2 round wins, meaning if you lose you are looking at 30m for 15 ore.

And unless I am blind, Gwent has neither daily login bonus nor a quest system...  so why would I play it daily?
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: Wingflier on October 18, 2017, 10:58:47 AM
I think you guys need to do a little more research on these rewards systems before you draw these sweeping conclusions about them.

Gwent actually has an amazing rewards system, if utilized correctly. It rewards the player on 4 different levels, just for playing the game in the most popular mode (constructed). In this way I like it better than many of the alternatives which typically force you to play some other mode in order to collect materials.

For example, in Eternal you have to play Draft to get the most out of your gold. In Elder Scrolls: Legends, you have to play Arena to get the most out of it. Duelyst and HS is the same way, etc. etc.

Gwent is the first card game I've played that doesn't force you to play other modes to get the best rewards. You can just play the damn game and it gives you everything you need.

So as you can see here (https://imgur.com/a/mCHzG), Gwent rewards you on 4 different levels just for playing the game in Ranked. Daily rewards, Level Rewards, Rank Rewards, and Season Rewards.

Daily rewards are based on how many rounds you won in a single day. Level Rewards are based on your total time played (essentially). Rank Rewards are instant rewards based on your progress climbing the ladder. Season Rewards are based on your final ladder position at the end of the Season.

(https://i.imgur.com/JKOGLwl.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/drbcF9M.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/OqJuaNC.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/VQnnD1S.jpg)

Yes, if you look closely at those screenshots I have nearly 10 card packs worth of resources I haven't even opened yet because the game is flooding me with rewards for climbing the ladder. It's easily the most intuitive and easily accessible rewards system of any card game I've played so far.

That doesn't mean it's the most generous though. Eternal I think is still the most generous by far, but Eternal's rewards require a fair bit of grinding to fully utilize. Gwent is the only card game I've ever played that requires literally no grinding at all. Play the main mode, win games, ? ? ? profit.

Within only a few days of playing I crafted this top 50 Ranked Monsters deck (http://www.gwentdb.com/decks/33070-top-50-gm-hive_kings-horseman-dagon) that I've been having a ton of fun with. But the way this system works is that it has a 'snowball' effect. Once you craft your first decent (in other words competitive) deck, then you climb ladder consistently which showers you with rewards allowing you to retroactively go back and experiment a lot more with your own creations.

Anyway, I've always had a knack for understanding systems. Sometimes you just have to do a little research to get the most out of them.
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: TheVampire100 on October 19, 2017, 02:07:31 PM
I think you guys need to do a little more research on these rewards systems before you draw these sweeping conclusions about them.
When I hear this, I just think "Why should I take extra research to look up a reward system when other games make it more straightforward?"
Honestly, this is just bad design, if this is not written on the paper how reards work or what the most effective way is to gain rewards.
When I look at Eternal, I can see that rnaked ranked gives me chests, draft gives me cards and gauntlet gives me also... chests? Well, Eternal has some inconstancy int heir rewards but you know that at least you get some... chests which give you... stuff.
Hoenstly, they could be more straightforward with their rewards, the whole "you get chests and the chests might contain other chests" is a little to random for my taste.
Then I look at Duel of Summoners, where they write exactly on the pack what the chance for each individual card is to appear in the pack. I know not every developer might want that inside in their drop rates and stuff but I think Duel of the Summoners is the most honest one out there regarding their rward system.
But besides packs it's also random as hell, you have quests, then you have daily challenges, you have this roulette thing after each win you have arenas, you have story mode... the list just goes on. And the rewards are, while always gems, so randomly decided. It's easy to get your gems for a pack each day but a little more regularity wouldn't hurt the game.

Plants vs Zombies Heroes, which is currently my favourite one, is probably the most straightforward one. You get quests, which give 10 gems each day and you get gems for ranks in ranked matchmaking. Once you reach a new rank (5 wins), you get a gem reward depending on the rank you reached. if you reach a new league, you also get a big bonus (and the league defines your reward at the end of the season).
At the end of the season you get packs (not gems) depending on where you ranked, diamond rank (which is easy to reach) can give you 10 packs.
Additonally victories give you points that contribute to the weekly event card 8each week a new card is released) and if you get 1200, you get this card. Playing the daily challenge gives bonus points and playing with specific heroes gives also bonus points. Sounds actually more chaotic than it actually is, basically, ranked matches give you gems, season ranking gives you packs and normal wins give you event points.

With the third set recently released, the game offers now more variation than before, moving foward to more tactical aproaches. It will never reach the depth of Eternal or maybe even TESL but it has already surpassed Hearthstone (in my opinion) and of course Gwent. This is of course agueable, I bet people would disagree on this.

As for the new set, it's main theme are primeval times with dinosaurs and orimitve plants/zombies. New gameplay elemets include evolution (play on another creature, get an extra effect) and fusion (play this first, play another creature on it, get teh effects from it). Dinosaurs activate hteir effects whenever a card is drawn, included from summons.

Whiel we're at new sets, Duel Links (yugioh) released also a new mini set, mainly machine themed cards but also some magician cards. I got 500 gems free (which translates to 10 packs) for the release of the new set. I honestly cannt remember, what cards I got though, Yugioh has too many cards and when I build my decks, I don't look from which set they are. The game also introduced a new event game mode which is... not very good or fun. Basically, when you win matches, you get dice pieces and you can use thes epieces to roll a die at soem weird boardgame, at soem points you have to stop (regardless of your score) and fight an ai opponent, for wins you get coins which you can use for special event chests. The chests contain cards and keys, I believe some crafting resources as well but I got only keys and cards so far.
I cannot even tell if the rewards are worth the investment in this event.
Title: Re: A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games
Post by: eRe4s3r on October 20, 2017, 06:26:35 PM
I think you guys need to do a little more research on these rewards systems before you draw these sweeping conclusions about them.

Gwent actually has an amazing rewards system, if utilized correctly. It rewards the player on 4 different levels, just for playing the game in the most popular mode (constructed). In this way I like it better than many of the alternatives which typically force you to play some other mode in order to collect materials.

For example, in Eternal you have to play Draft to get the most out of your gold. In Elder Scrolls: Legends, you have to play Arena to get the most out of it. Duelyst and HS is the same way, etc. etc.

Gwent is the first card game I've played that doesn't force you to play other modes to get the best rewards. You can just play the damn game and it gives you everything you need.

So as you can see here (https://imgur.com/a/mCHzG), Gwent rewards you on 4 different levels just for playing the game in Ranked. Daily rewards, Level Rewards, Rank Rewards, and Season Rewards.

Daily rewards are based on how many rounds you won in a single day. Level Rewards are based on your total time played (essentially). Rank Rewards are instant rewards based on your progress climbing the ladder. Season Rewards are based on your final ladder position at the end of the Season.

(https://i.imgur.com/JKOGLwl.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/drbcF9M.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/OqJuaNC.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/VQnnD1S.jpg)

Yes, if you look closely at those screenshots I have nearly 10 card packs worth of resources I haven't even opened yet because the game is flooding me with rewards for climbing the ladder. It's easily the most intuitive and easily accessible rewards system of any card game I've played so far.

That doesn't mean it's the most generous though. Eternal I think is still the most generous by far, but Eternal's rewards require a fair bit of grinding to fully utilize. Gwent is the only card game I've ever played that requires literally no grinding at all. Play the main mode, win games, ? ? ? profit.

Within only a few days of playing I crafted this top 50 Ranked Monsters deck (http://www.gwentdb.com/decks/33070-top-50-gm-hive_kings-horseman-dagon) that I've been having a ton of fun with. But the way this system works is that it has a 'snowball' effect. Once you craft your first decent (in other words competitive) deck, then you climb ladder consistently which showers you with rewards allowing you to retroactively go back and experiment a lot more with your own creations.

Anyway, I've always had a knack for understanding systems. Sometimes you just have to do a little research to get the most out of them.

No, you have a knack for grinding and probably insane luck.... many hours of it, versus AI to get to level 10, and only then could you ever even get to any of the PnP rewards you described in Gwent. And conversely, after 6 hours !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ( I don't think a hundred ! do this boring crap justice) I am level 8 and STILL do not have access to ranked PnP. -> Uninstalled Gwent so really whatever ;)

Also I feel worth mentioning that your deck costs 5000 scrap !! After 6 hours of boring grind against AI I had exactly 125 and could maybe craft 5 cards, if I weren't choosy ! in HS from your first desummoned legendary you can craft 20 common cards and build an actual competitive deck. In Gwent you literally can not even play PnP unless you slog through 8+ hours of AI fights with starter decks against constructed synergy decks (which is about as much fun as it sounds)

So I think you are not looking at this reward system from where it matters, that's from the bottom. Where only level up rewards exist, and they suck as solo motivator for a 6+ hours casual card player. I actually got bored of Gwent before ever even getting to PnP !