So you want to create a two-class-Gwent-society? The paying first class and the lousy rest? No thank you!
The more you explain your idea the worse it sounds
Bro, lets be serious - if we were talking about spending hundreds of dollars for great cards and only small piece of very affluent players could afford it - that could be two class , and a mistake because there are not enough so affluent players to make than even a flunet opponent search. But we are talking on spending litelarry few bucks, idk, 10$ for sufficent bundle of really good cards. Sorry but I dont belive that even a very avrage first world teenager cant spend 10$ for his favourite game. The reason if he dont will be only because he stubborlny dont want to do it - yet even than road to playing with similar to him is still open; he want higher ranks - let him pay 10 or 20 $ , its really peanuts and normal in gaming world avrage boundle prices;
According to you. Many players are happy to pay for cosmetics. This caters to both F2P players and paying users. If you can only obtain certain cards with money, CDPR has crossed a line where there is no coming back from. They are going to lose more money than they will gain with this practice. It's as simple as this. I understand you are looking for ways to help CDPR, but, please, think of something that doesn't lead to a quick demise.
The problem is that we are not talking about a onetime but constant payment to be able to stay on top. Because booster packs are usually random so you need to buy several to get the cards you want. I guess it wouldn't be that bad if you could decide which cards you get for your money like buying wild cards or something like that.
And then there are expansions and you need to buy new cards.
I think the best solution is to make the game more popular and attract more players with tournaments and cool events like faction challenges.
And then there are expansions and you need to buy new cards.
I think the best solution is to make the game more popular and attract more players with tournaments and cool events like faction challenges.
There's a consensus - not sure if it's necessarily a majority - that ANY abilities allowing TWO cards to be played at once is too powerful, with particular reference to the inclusion of defenders. In addition, Hen Gaidth allows you to replay Roche, so whilst it's not necessarily too ridiculous on its' own, it does become a bit stupid that you can easily play four cards in two turns. Portal is 13 provs, and requires you to not draw any 4 prov bronze. That's ok, in my book, it's "fair". So how does a leader ability, such as Francesca, allow you to play 4 dwarves for 11 provs (Novi Justice)?
Being able to use Pincer Manouver to play your defender, then play Syanna (for example), allows you to get off one of the most powerful orders with zero threat. This means you can play Roche and pull FOUR cards from your deck, then use Hen Gaidth to pull another 2. Six cards in two turns is broken. So is four dwarves in one turn.
It's not the only problem - that there are only around 5 or 6 viable decks out of 24 different leader abilities is clearly an issue.
Besides the defender discussion, you bring a lot of new points to the table. Most of them are actually right on the money. You have identified several key issues. Finding a solution is still going to be a challenge, though. One of the pitfalls is that fixing one thing might break another thing even more. It's like a spiderweb: everything is attached to everything.
To close the discussion on the defenders, there are various counters, some indirect: removal, seize, purify, move to a different row, bleeding (in round 2) or, instead of countering the opponent, play something more threatening yourself. Locks do not work, yes, that was only used as an example for counters to other threats.
One of the issues you have identified is when defenders are being used with another card played in the same turn, by using a leader ability, for example. However, this is not a reason to nerf defenders. No, we have to go to the root of the problem and that's the play-multiple-cards-in-one-turn. A straightforward suggestion I made was to Remove all Tutor Leaders (Francesca's Mystic Echo).
Fully agree with that, card for card system was the best in my opinion too
Post automatically merged:
Not many enough - according to CD-PR financial report
The revenue percentage from mobile seems low considering that that's where you hope to see purchases from a lot of new players. Also, percentages don't say anything if we don't know the actual numbers. 68% of what? 300 Euros?
While I think that mobile represents a large user base, those numbers are skewed because a lot of new mobile users have joined. Once a new expansion is released, let's compare the sales between platforms again. The gap is likely going to be (a lot) smaller.
It's not a problem for me to pay $10 or $20 for a game I really like playing. It's not inability to pay that would make me immediately stop playing if your idea was implemented. It's what it says about the game itself. A handful of extra powerful cards available for $1 each makes the game f2p & p2w. That means I'm immediately out.
Further, it likely also means that having a couple of those cards is virtually required for a competitive deck. That exacerbates the existing issue with lack of variety, lack of balance. It also says that having a handful of overpowered, must-have cards is a conscious design choice, it's not just an unintended consequence. 2 more reasons I'd be less likely to play.
Plenty of people do apparently get something out of paying for cosmetic items. Games like warcraft & eve have plenty of cosmetic items available for real money. I have to assume that's because people do buy them.
If you're looking to monetise the game, it needs to be done in a way that won't kill it immediately. A conscious pay to win design would kill it. I don't know what player numbers are like, but the first thing I'd look at would be a token sub. e.g. $1/month, $10/year, 3 month free for a new account. I certainly don't mind paying that for a fun game. But it would also increase the pressure on the designers to address some of the current frustrations.
Following Your argumemtation: If there are plenty of games like Clash of Titans and many People are playin' it You had to assume that's because its nothing wrong for them with paying to get advantage in the game. Clash of Titans was the most profitalbe app in the world in 2015 (only one year after release), generating 1.5millions of dollars daily revenue, and it's official profile in Facebook follows today 23 millions of people. Where is Gwent with it "everything-for-free" policy in compare to it after two years of activity?
Even for YouTube You have to pay today , or You will get ad-breaks every few minutes of watching video, bro - I know that it sucks, but its normal. You know how many people were who sad: "if YouTube will be with ads, i will stop using it"? Or "if i will have to buy membership on Youtube, i won't use it any more"? And guess what? The same people are still on YouTube today - or paying for membership, or wathing all these crappy ads thay YT serve them 24/7
Last edited:
If they wanted more $ it's quite simple - offer kegs that guaranteed 5 x Gold cards, but charge around $3 for it. It's reasonably easy to get to about 1000 ore in a few days, so getting lots of cards isn't THAT difficult. But I remember buying batches of 10 kegs using ore and must have piled through 50+ kegs to get one decent gold!
Assuming they're going to have to keep rebalancing the cards, golds people don't have today will come to the fore eventually, so it makes a lot of sense to allow people to buy their way to an entire card collection. Lot less elitist than allowing people with a spare $10 to buy the best card - we do that, we enter the god-awful FIFA Ultimate Team territory, where you're playing with cards you've "earned" against teams full of specials from sad people spending fortunes on packs.
Assuming they're going to have to keep rebalancing the cards, golds people don't have today will come to the fore eventually, so it makes a lot of sense to allow people to buy their way to an entire card collection. Lot less elitist than allowing people with a spare $10 to buy the best card - we do that, we enter the god-awful FIFA Ultimate Team territory, where you're playing with cards you've "earned" against teams full of specials from sad people spending fortunes on packs.
Last edited:
And World of Warcraft has a monthly subscription model, which is yet another way to monetize games. What works for some games, doesn't work for others. Heck, it might not even work for a whole genre. Most online CCG have the same business model because it works. Artefact tried to be different (with its P2W mechanics) and that game failed almost immediately, despite it being from Valve, a heavyweight studio.
OK You think that the best way to monetize game is to geave everything for free except od tottaly irrelevant things , I think otherwise - thats fine, we have to agree to disagree and lets end discussion here; and the time will tell who had right and who had not - or maybe we both are wrong? Who knows, we will see.
But I know one thing - if it was up to me, I surely tried to do small experiment with few new cards added to the game for 1$ ,and check the reaction of players - are they have tendency to purchase it, or no , or maybe they dont want to play gwent because of that at all - I have no idea. But after small experiment i will knew much more about real players tendencies through cards for real $, than from only my guts feelings or what i hear when I ask; and i think there is no need to continue these subject
Last edited:
There are a few flaws in this argumentation too. You say everybody can pay 10 dollars. Sure, but people started investing time in this game as a free one. More important, it would be 10 $ (or whatever amount) for the first set of cards. Then more for another, then another etc, forcing you to pay everytime if you want to stay in the game. Which is ludicrous.
Finally, if I have to pay real money for a card game, I'd rather play real cards like MtG or even a physical version of gwent. Not there, not that way, and especially not in the state the game is now. Do that now and maybe CDPR will make a few bucks, but I'm willing to bet you'll loose about 3/4 of the player base, which is probably more important than the revenue for an online game.
Now that being said, offering the possibility to pay real money to get cards that are obtainable otherwise by grinding, that's ok. And it's already there, although it is to buy random boosters (also the point of a CCG). But again, gwent is rewarding enough so that you can mill/craft cards pretty easily.
Finally, if I have to pay real money for a card game, I'd rather play real cards like MtG or even a physical version of gwent. Not there, not that way, and especially not in the state the game is now. Do that now and maybe CDPR will make a few bucks, but I'm willing to bet you'll loose about 3/4 of the player base, which is probably more important than the revenue for an online game.
Post automatically merged:
Now that being said, offering the possibility to pay real money to get cards that are obtainable otherwise by grinding, that's ok. And it's already there, although it is to buy random boosters (also the point of a CCG). But again, gwent is rewarding enough so that you can mill/craft cards pretty easily.
Honestly the Pay to Win concept would push me out of the game, it is not even the cost, but that it goes against everything Gwent and CDPR currently stands for (to me) and with the amazing new cardbacks they revealed during the stream those are very likely something I would spend money on.
Me too. I have spent money on this game...but i did that, because I wanted to. But if I'm forced to pay for cards, I'm out...
Ad breaks might be irritating but I can still watch the video for free. If they had a required paid membership I would be out.
Post automatically merged:
In My opinion it is a mistake to count only for new players kegs purchases, and not even tryin' to fight for advanced players money - if sameone is playin' gwent longer time, he usually have more kegs and Gold that he even need to spend for strong cards. IMO really good cards should be able to obtain only with real money - not a lot of money to made them easly affordable for every player - IDK, 1$ for a card with 11 provinsion or more, 50 cents for 9 - 10 provinsion will be much? SuperLike on Tinder costs more for God's sake :/So if one's really wants to create strong deck and play on pro , he need to pay these peanuts for it to support game and devs - It will cause strong cashflow to devs from game, and undoubtedly get them more motivation to constantly improve game - so something, that what We all players wish for
I wouldn't do it simply because this game is obviously going to be constantly adding new cards and I'm not interested in having to pay money for them over and over again. Even if it's a dollar or less a card. I know eventually it would hit a point where I would be like ok this is too much for this game. If I was to even consider doing that the devs would need to do MUCH better at balancing the game. Right now I get what enjoyment I can from playing but I just see so many problems with balancing and the devs really appear to not care much about them. I can't take the game seriously if it doesn't take itself seriously. Not to mention the fact that if you don't go to tournaments the game has almost no competitive value at all. I see no reason at all to play in pro rank.
Last edited: