Messages

1

Announcements / Re: Shall we try again? Would you be willing to help us?

« on: June 27, 2016, 11:35:11 AM »

1) What did you enjoy most about the game?  What do you want to see remain the same as it was, no matter what?

I found the intricacies and complexities of deck building fascinating.  The wide variety of available boards / terrains was refreshing as well, as one never knew what sort of environment one would end up in -- requiring decks to be versatile.

2) What did you dislike about the game?  How can that be improved, so that it's more enjoyable to you in this version?

Losing cards as a result of losing games is beyond demoralizing; it's rage quit-inducing.  If this is to be a collectable card game, then it must not be possible for a player to lose their precious, hard-earned cards as a result of a loss.  Or, if this is a must-have feature for some portion of the population of players -- however large -- then an option must exist for there to be a league of players for whom this antiquated and punishing "ante" system does not apply.

3) How important to you were the Tournaments and League?  Did you ever participate in either or both of them?  If so, which ones and how often?  If not, why not?  How can they be improved?  What were the most and least enjoyable aspects of these features?

I did not participate in tournaments; I was a casual player.

4) If you were a member, how did you feel about migrations and events?  Did they happen too often or not enough?  Considering that they're an integral part of the game design, how can they be improved?

Migrations were rewards to players who played more often.  Thus, from the reverse perspective, they acted as a punishment to casual players: they got less cards.   As a result, casual players overall possessed weaker decks and less trade options as compared with players who played more consistently.  Migrations should occur periodically, not as a reward for having played frequently.

Migrations were also extremely easy to abuse.  I once purposely went out of my way to absolutely bury my rating by playing a trash deck over and over again versus anyone willing to play against me.  Suddenly, my migrations were absolutely fabulous.  I got all kinds of fun cards, cards I'd never previously even dreamed of owning.  Then, I slapped together a deck full of the disgustingly amazing cards that I'd acquired by this silly method, and began trouncing my way back up the ladder -- half the time sporting a rating that was absolutely no reflection whatsoever of my astounding deck packed full of godlike cards.

This is not a useful, sensible and reliable system.  This is absurdity.  Migrations should be periodic (once per day, etc) and equitable (one rare and two commons per migration, etc).  Trading should be restricted to only allow like for like -- that is, one rare for one rare; one common for one common.  This will at least somewhat prevent newer players from being ripped off for their better cards, as well as prevent collaboration that results in some abomination of a deck acquired by a single popular or influential player.

5) On what devices would you play SW?  Would you play on a a mobile device, or would you only play on a computer/laptop?  Is there any aspect of the game that can be changed to make you more likely to play on a mobile device?  Do you think the mobile version of the game should be run separately from the PC version?

I would likely only play on a PC, but I can see a mobile version being viable as well, such as for iPad.

6) Keeping in mind that the game will never be pay to win, what kind of features would make you consider signing up for a membership?

I am very happy to learn that the game will remain non-pay-to-win.  That's a very important feature.

Membership in a non-pay-to-win environment implies the granting of "frills".  What sorts of frills might be interesting in SpiritWars?  Extra deck slots comes to mind; this is more convenience than power, arguably.  Access to member-only leagues seems like a bad idea, as it will leave casual players out in the cold.  Cutesy cosmetic benefits -- your name shows up all glowy and stuff in games -- is a no-brainer, I suppose.  Perhaps spirits played by a membership player are animated on the board in some fashion, whereas non-members' spirits just sorta sit there.

2

News / Re: Status update + input needed

« on: January 07, 2013, 01:51:50 PM »

@Xaxyx... That's not trading, that's exploiting.

Tomato, tomato.  I recall at one point they even put some sort of "equivalent trading value" rule in place, to try to prevent players from ripping other players off and/or giving away valuable cards away by mistake.  Any sort of trade mechanic that requires so many crutches and scotch tape to be held together is probably better off ceasing to exist altogether.

As for migrations, I also believe they should be eliminated.  I think the negative migrations were a huge turn-off for people and probably led to a lot of /ragequit when someone had a few bad migs in a row.

Absolutely.  Losing a match already has a stigma attached: you lose rating points.  To also butcher that player's deck is just salt in the wound.  Conversely, a model wherein a player's primary source of intelligently improving his deck is attempting to defeat players whose decks contain the cards you're seeking is poor indeed.

Speaking from my own experience:  I recall getting a Unicorn (or something) in a migration.  Astounded at my good fortune (it fit my deck perfectly) I happily stuffed it in my deck, immediately played a game, lost -- and lost the Unicorn. 

And /ragequit.

I don't think the old system/model of population migrations will work.  I think the best way to go is selling packs of cards like almost every other CCG.  Give players the option to either buy or earn cards.  No migrations between players and no loss of cards.

That's certainly a viable and proven option.  Looking from the other end of the spectrum, though, we might want to be careful not to construct a model that favors or allows pay-to-win.  Either that, or have multiple leagues, where one league works like CCG and the other is a purely sealed deck-like environment (either cloned kingdoms, or equivalent-value kingdoms, with no trading or migrations at all).

3

News / Re: Status update + input needed

« on: January 04, 2013, 05:53:29 AM »

I liked the Trade version, but I think the final Member's Non-Trading version was better because dungeons were a lot less over-powered.

I agree that the "non-trading" version tended to diminish overall deck prowess.  However, I disagree with your overall point -- merely by the fact that ultimately, there was no such thing as a non-trading version.

If memory serves: after every battle, there was a chance that a spirit would migrate from the loser's deck directly into the winner's.  The probability of this event was inversely proportional to the ratings disparity between winner and loser.  Thus, players who manipulated the ratings system (golly I sure hated those guys!) could sandbag and potentially farm powerful cards in this manner -- especially since with a low rating, they'd get to go second.  This all of course blithely ignoring the potential for players to throw games to one another in order to attempt to instantiate an automated trade between them.  Or creating multiple accounts for similar purposes.  These sorts of nefarious activities were against the rules, but the only enforcement was manual, by administrators.

Thus, I raise: there should be a truly non-trading version where deck migrations never, ever occur.  Only then can the environment truly said to be fair, insofar as that everyone's card pool is determined solely by the fate of global migrations and the like.  (And these, too, should be ratings independent, if they weren't already.)

4

Forum Bugs, Suggestions, Complaints / Re: Suggestions for SpiritWars 2013

« on: January 03, 2013, 11:51:22 AM »

The relationship between rating and turn order should be severed.  Tying turn order to rating only serves to encourage the manipulation of rating in order to affect turn order.  There were players (*raises hand unabashedly*) who would purposely go on long losing streaks using garbage card decks in order to butcher their own rating, then swap to their "real" deck and play against high rated players, guaranteed to go second every time.  (Other rating manipulation shenanigans existed as well, though we can get into those later.)

Turn order should be random.  If, as asserted, going second is a supposedly distinct advantage over going first, then alter the *game mechanics* -- not the rating system -- to accommodate this disparity and level the playing field.  It took MtG a while, but eventually they came up with skipping the first card draw for the start player for tournament play.  This seems to work well.  Perhaps we could do something similar here, or even not so similar, for the first turn of player #2.

5

News / Re: Status update + input needed

« on: November 26, 2012, 09:08:24 AM »

Before you can choose between business models -- indeed, before you can even *define* them -- you must first necessarily define the game model.  The two concepts are intimately intertwined.

For example, if memory serves, you currently have two game models defined (I'll use the term "league" for ease of reference, though that may turn out to not be the most readily applicable term):

- Free to play league:  No ratings.  No trading.  No fatalities.  No victory migrations.  No activity migrations.  No population events.  Basically, a static, neutral environment.
- Paid league:  Ratings system.  Trading enabled.  Fatalities enabled.  Victory migrations.  Activity migrations.  Population events.  A dynamic environment, where players' ratings, as well as their kingdoms, are in a constant state of flux.

I would purport that this list of available league types is insufficient if it's your intention to attract a larger and more varying customer base.  For example, I'm quite confident that there are a significant number of potential players who would balk at the notion that they may pay money to play your game and earn spirits only to have those spirits taken away from them, either by the game or by either players.  Indeed, some players might object to the existence of any sort of kingdom alterations at all, preferring an environment in which all players used the same kingdom at all times, but with ratings enabled -- a level playing field, if you will.  And so forth.

Thus I propose that you consider widening your approach.  Consider having a variety of league types, running at varying intervals, configured with varying rule sets, perhaps even charging for differing costs depending on what's being offered.  Title them appropriately, make it extremely clear what's enabled and what's disabled for each league and how each feature functions, and charge for membership in each league separately.  Then, players can pick and choose which leagues are for them.

Examples of leagues for your consideration:

- Level Playing Field:  Limited duration, rated league.  All players start with identical kingdoms of spirits; these kingdoms never vary from one another under any circumstances.  (There could be population events, but these would need to be identical for all players.)

- No Trade League:  Limited duration, rated league.  Victory and activity migrations enabled.  Fatalities enabled.  Trading NOT enabled.  Thus, players' kingdom makeups are solely dependent upon individual performance, with a healthy dash of luck.

- Trade Only League:  Limited duration, rated league.  Migrations and fatalities NOT enabled.  Trading enabled.  Herein, players' kingdom makeups are determined solely by trade.  (More interesting might be to restrict trading to only the first week of play.)

From here, I'm sure you can imagine all sorts of fun variants for leagues.  A one week long "elimination league": where after N losses, players are eliminated; victory migrations are significantly increased; and the winner, rather than being determined by rating, would be the player with the largest kingdom at the end of the week.  A one day long "random league": where each game, rather than using decks built from kingdoms, players are instead assigned a random assortment of spirits to play with, perhaps leveraging many of the new spirits of a recent or upcoming expansion.  And so forth.

Each league -- or "event", if short enough in duration -- can cost a fee.  From there, the financial model is readily extrapolated.  Sell credits and spend credits on league memberships and event participations.  Or charge directly.  Or both.  But before you can establish a sound and practical business model, I would implore you to give some serious thought to your game model.  They are inseparable; and you have a tremendous opportunity here to accommodate a much greater berth of potential customers.