PorousBoat

I agree completely on the level restrictions for upgrades. They really are just a truly meaningless time-check that, like you said, forces you to play Bad Harvest X amount of times. While I do understand where you're coming from on the other points, I think my take on it is that if we're making the player grind, they should be equally rewarded no matter what they grind. 5 hours of playtime is still 5 hours of playtime, you know? Like you said, variety is really nice when grinding, and if we let the player pick that variety themselves, the problem solves itself. I guess the bottom line is to tie the rewards to playtime rather than completion. Of course, you could balance it within in that game mode. So a higher diff of rPvE gives higher per-minute rewards than a lower one, and a std. campaign map gives less rewards per-minute than an expert one. To tie this together, 2 hours spent on rPvE should always give (close to) the same reward as playing a campaign map on an equivalent difficulty. This is of course something that's a little hard to balance, but with enough data and time I'm certain it's not impossible. In addition to this I'd also like to see those achievements we discussed earlier for long-term goals and rewarding things like clearing the entire campaign on expert. I think that's a great idea.

I'm not quite sure why some of you seem so keen on forcing all game modes to have a "reason" to play them. Shouldn't it always be up to the player if they want to play a certain game mode or not? Making certain rewards exclusive to certain game modes doesn't really make sense to me - If they're so boring/uninteresting/whatever (I don't really think they are, but that's the assumption), why make players slog through them for no reason? A hardcore PvE player most likely has no interest in clearing the entire campaign. Same goes for a speedrunner who literally couldn't care less about PvP. I say we reward players for doing anything. A reward proportional to playtime more or less solves that. If a player wants to grind for 12 hours a day, they'll be rewarded for 12 hours a day. If they only want to do their dailies and a mission or two (in their game mode of choice because they're playing this game for fun), they'll get a smaller reward to reward that as well. Don't strictly associate one reward with one game mode (like it is now with upgrades, for instance). If we want to keep players logging in and playing, forcing them to do things they find cumbersome is not a very good way to do that. Rewarding them for plaything their way is what I believe to be the best solution. That said, the reward doesn't have to be strictly in bfp. I just used that because it's the most "universal" currency.

I'm not sure if you read my entire post. A time-proportional bfp reward lets you play rPvE while still being rewarded for it in a meaningful way. This solves the issue of both card availability and incentives. I feel like the main goal should be to provide the tools for each player to play the game the way they want, and offering a meaningful reward for every way of playing does that just fine. Having the reward be different for each activity just forces players to play game modes they might not like very much. Basically, I don't see the point of adding a bunch of arbitrary resources when BFP works just fine as a reward. No one will ever complain about getting some more of those, you know?

Is there a point to even having upgrades as a mechanic in the first place? All you're doing by even having a system like that is grind-checking people no matter how you try to "fix" the system. No other card game that I know of has anything similar to an upgrade system, and for good reason. You already have progression in the game by way of acquiring cards, why make it even worse? One could even argue that upgrades actively detract from the feeling of progression because once you finally buy that Harvester, you realize that it's trash until you get it to U3, which even with your proposed system takes a non-insignificant amount of time. On top of that you still have charge upgrades, which are deceptively time-consuming to collect (3x as time-consuming as getting the deck itself, in fact). Upgrades are pretty dumb overall. Either give U3 out for free, or remove them and make U3 default. Standard PvE maps will become a bit easier, sure. Who cares? They're already piss-easy as it is. I don't think you have to worry so much about "incentives" for playing all the content in the game. Hell, if you want incentives, lower daily quest rewards slightly and put a small, but meaningful bfp reward on all game modes that's proportional to the time spent on the map. The anti-AFK system in tandem with time-proportional rewards prevents abuse, and all game modes feel meaningful to play. If someone thinks that std. Encounters With Twilight is the best thing to happen to gaming, they can grind that 50 times a day and get meaningful progression out of it. Why force players to experience content they have no desire to play? Let people play how they want.

I am really, really positive to the idea of adding incentives for collectors and "grinders" beyond collecting the cards you actually play with. Promos and achievements are undoubtedly the way to go imo. More promos (possibly died to long-term progression to keep up rarity) is a great way to give both AH-grinders and collectors something shiny to work toward - Whether that something is a blinged-out Dreadcharger or a prestigious badge on your profile. This approach allows for much more liberal distribution of packs, also resulting in a situation where no one really has any reason to be upset about card prices tanking - There are still expensive mantlepieces to collect or long-term goals to grind for. I honestly think this beats out any format or "weekly deck" idea as it tackles the root cause of the symptoms either of those solutions would attempt to alleviate. Another upside to adding "skins" (promos) and milestones/achievements is that it eliminates the risk of any potential feel-bads pertaining to exactly how much each type of player must compromise. Instead everyone just gets to have what they want more or less.

@Eirias I really like that idea. Only thing I'd want is for there to be more than one each week. It'd be really sad if someone got stuck playing something they hate just because it was the flavor of the week. If you have 2-3 to choose between with the restrictions you proposed I think that strikes a nice balance between maintaining a healthy competitive environment and retaining a sense of progression even in PvP. It might even serve as a way for for experienced players to play out of their comfort zone without having to invest in a whole new deck.

As the one who sparked the discussion over in the discord, I think there's another important point to be made: There's a huge difference between "unfair" in PvP vs. "unfair" in PvE. When people play against other people, not feeling like you have the same means of winning as your opponent feels really bad. If you started a chess game with 3 fewer than your opponent because you completed fewer daily quests than them you're not going to feel very good about it. You'll feel like your loss was due to factors you couldn't control rather than skill (even if it was skill). When I try to bring my friends who like competitive games into this game, they're really hesitant to play it because why would they invest time in this supposedly "cool and unique game" when they could just download dota or buy SC2 for 25€ (both of which are also "cool and unique") and be on equal footing with everyone else right from the get-go? Sure, it's easy to just say "it's a TCG, man. Grind or go play something else!". Just because you enjoy the grind doesn't mean that other people necessarily have to be subjected to it. Keep in mind that only really dedicated people show their face around the forums - Go around and ask your friends. I think most of the would be more inclined to try the game if the PvP was more accessible. I say all this as someone who plays Magic: The Gathering - A game that's notoriously expensive. So many times have I wished that my entire collection (thousands of euros) would tank to 0.50€ overnight if it meant that I could bring my friends into the game without having to explain to them why spending 400€ on pieces of cardboard "...will be worth it in the end. I promise". Of course, this isn't as extreme of a case at all. The P2W days of EA are long gone, but as it stands now we're looking at a situation where you might end up being restricted by time instead. I've been having a hard time getting my friends to play by telling them that taking a week or two (possibly more later down the line if the rumors about rewards being boosted right now are true) to even be able to compete with me and other players with good decks "...will be worth it in the end. I promise". The difference between these two scenarios is that in the case of MtG or old EA Battleforge, they had to bring in the cash. With this project there is no commercial incentive, meaning there's no reason to "paywall" competitive play with a mundane time investment that just involves logging in for an hour to do dailies for a few weeks. The common argument is "Well what about the players who play this game for the trading? Isn't their way to play worth anything?", and while I personally have more than a few bones to pick with treating games like a stock market, I suppose that's valid. My concern is if the entire economy is entirely built around these people, leaving the lot of us who actually want to "play the damn game" getting the short end of the stick. I don't have a clear solution in mind, I think it'd be arrogant of me to champion a single way to do it. I do however have a rough idea that with some tweaking and tinkering could end up serving as an OK compromise: What if PvP offered you a "temporary" card pool where all cards where available exclusively for PvP use? If you wanted to use your sick promos you still can, but your deck is never limited by what cards you have or what level they are for PvP use - It's all player skill. This still leaves progression for PvE as well. I know the feeling of whipping out your first shiny new XL unit on Bad Harvest for the first time as much as the next guy, and I would never want to take that away from any newcomers, but PvP isn't meant to serve as that sort of setting. I don't mean for this solution to be final. There are definite flaws in it. It just serves as a suggestion to get the conversation going. I just want for everyone to be able to enjoy the unique PvP experience this game offers without having to slave through a bunch of grind for digital pieces of cardboard first.

I mean, I'll teach you the ropes if you feel up for it.

@Lord NullPointer We should totally play some games over Xmage sometime though. It's actually decent.

I mean, most of us here love card games to a certain extent, and it wouldn't hurt to have someone else to sling some spells with. I'd even teach you to play if you're interested. You'll have to PM me about that though.

Looking on fleek haha

Abusing cliffdancing is perfectly fine in my books, as long as it's in the game. That doesn't mean I don't hate it, or that it's not frustrating to play against. It also doesn't mean that I don't think it should be fixes (it should). It just means that I won't berate someone for abusing it. It's unfair as hell, but that's what happens when you have a game like this. I will admit that I'm not completely unbiased though. I play tons of Magic: the Gathering, in which there are tons of completely broken cards and interactions, but that's just part of the game.

First off, I apologize for the mix-up with "Ziph" and "Zipf". It was a silly mistake for me to make. The law is relevant because it doesn't prove, but supports the theory that a very small part of the community will speak the loudest, and in this case the solo players seem like they're more frequent than they are. In short, I'm saying that they're most likely over-represented. As for the actual topic, I don't believe I twisted your words. I interpreted your response as a way of saying "A non-insignificant (or even major) part of the userbase don't do party-play." If that wasn't what you meant, I seem to have misunderstood you. I would really appreciate if you gave me a link or a pointer to one of those threads you talk about. You say that you don't mean to make my solution out to be punishing, but you completely disregard the idea without trying to find a compromise? I don't think that adds up, really. I can see how one could make it out to be punishing, albeit that's a very minor punishment I have to say. I think that this discussion could be a lot more productive if we instead of cherry-picking (I may be guilty of that too), we just try to break down why the solution isn't viable. If you think that you already explained that, I did not really see your point very clearly. The solution seems perfectly viable and rewarding to me, and I can see it working well because of how well it has worked in other games. It doesn't have to be executed exactly how I suggested. It could be in the form of a non-map specific party reward, or whatever else. Bottom line, I think promoting party-play and interaction between users is a good thing, and shouldn't be disregarded without being thoroughly investigated.

Again, I stand by the statement that most players engage in a fair amount of multiplayer. Look up Ziph's law, it answers your argument about "proof" of the larger portion of the userbase being solely solo players based on forum posts. My proof is just as valid as yours. All of my friends and most of the players I interact with on a daily basis used to engage in party-play enough that a quest of the sort that I suggested would be feasible About the "Beat a map with X players in your party" being easier than the latter; yes is it easier. That's the point. Encouraging multiplayer interaction is something that works great in a lot of games (LoL, WoT, DotA 2, did something like that IIRC, WoW, MMOs in general). It's not as punishing as you're making it out to be. The re-roll would be available in addition to your regular re-roll, and would only be usable on MP quests (to be honest, I find the free re-roll to be redundant because it's not really that punishing in the first place). My quest example was just that, an example. It wasn't an absolute statement on how the generic quests would look. There's very possibly a better way to phrase it.

First off, the amount of people who play solely solo PvP is so small it's niche. You can't account for them in this case as they account for such a small part of the userbase. With that said, there's a clear distinction to be made between a MP daily and a normal daily. The way you put it makes it sound like all PvE dailies say "Beat 1 map". From what I've understood, there will be quests in the style of "Beat map X". This is where having a generic multiplayer quest such as "Beat a map with X players in you party" is a good thing. If everyone has different dailies, then they can't play together in a feasible amount of time. This way you can even do dailies by way of rPvE. For solo players (who I firmly believe are in the minority)m rerolling would then yield you with a generic solo quest ("Beat solo map X" or just simply "Beat map X"). Rerolling is not as redundant as you make it out to be.