Lacking incentive for the average player to remain active

[Gondorian]

@Gondorian ever played World of Warcraft back in the day? HS follows the same recipe by making you suffer constantly for the best endgame experience EVAR. SE doesn't feel like that though. Day 1 I can get everything with $20 and... that's it .__. You can play pop ups yeah if you're 13 and have free time all day but that's about it. Want 300 rating? Play rush aramia all day. There isn't a huge feeling of acomplishment when you win or get high ratings in SE because the gameplay itself is pretty straightfoward to where you can win by turn 5.

No, never played WoW.

You seem to be coming at it not from the enjoyment angle but the result angle. You want to win but there seems to be no challenge in it for you. Have you ever enjoyed actually playing the game? There's some fun competitive decks you can play that may not get to 300 very easily but much more of a challenge, which you seem to want.

[jonmaciel]

@Gondorian ever played World of Warcraft back in the day? HS follows the same recipe by making you suffer constantly for the best endgame experience EVAR. SE doesn't feel like that though. Day 1 I can get everything with $20 and... that's it .__. You can play pop ups yeah if you're 13 and have free time all day but that's about it. Want 300 rating? Play rush aramia all day. There isn't a huge feeling of acomplishment when you win or get high ratings in SE because the gameplay itself is pretty straightfoward to where you can win by turn 5.

The only endgame experience there follows that P2W model...once you've accumulated enough, then you can compete in the highest levels. Unless you're referring to single-player modes. Story mode in SE has some pretty big potential, so we'll see what they do with it.

I do agree that we need a gold dump. Using gold to play meltdown and earn more gold upon winning...there isn't much point in that as, once you've completed your set, there isn't anything to spend gold on. As such, a gold option to buy packs should be available. And when tournaments in-game are ready, a gold option to participate should be available too.

[LucasBlitz]

No, never played WoW.

You seem to be coming at it not from the enjoyment angle but the result angle. You want to win but there seems to be no challenge in it for you. Have you ever enjoyed actually playing the game? There's some fun competitive decks you can play that may not get to 300 very easily but much more of a challenge, which you seem to want.

Yes I have enjoyed this game ranging from all the fun heroes there are from Boris to Skervox and the meltdown combos too!
Solomentalis, Millstalker and the OTK decks are fun but tiring. If you're suggesting gimmick deck support sign me up!

The only endgame experience there follows that P2W model...once you've accumulated enough, then you can compete in the highest levels. Unless you're referring to single-player modes. Story mode in SE has some pretty big potential, so we'll see what they do with it.

I do agree that we need a gold dump. Using gold to play meltdown and earn more gold upon winning...there isn't much point in that as, once you've completed your set, there isn't anything to spend gold on. As such, a gold option to buy packs should be available. And when tournaments in-game are ready, a gold option to participate should be available too.

I'm reffering to what HS has being the Legendary rank mode after grinding the ladder and that lots of tournaments become prize pools if you have the experienced needed to win Here you complete your set and do pop ups or a tourney all day for SC .__. Not very exciting or adrenaline rushing.

[Kohen Gadol]

I agree that there is no better draw than the game itself being fun. Prizes will lose their luster eventually, but the challenge of the game will keep people playing and buying new product as it is released. As an aside, I understand the economic reasons to avoid it, but I wonder if a combination of making Pick a Card 500 SC instead of $5 and the ability to trade 10,000 gold for 100 SC might not boost activity. My thought is that as it becomes more feasible to put together an all foil deck, people will spend to work toward that.

[oggtheman]

Ultimately, I'd hope the main incentive for any player to play the game would be enjoyment. It's a game! Aside from enjoyment, the other reward for the average player is improving.

As more extrinsic rewards are added then you are gonna to shift the focus from "what experience will I have by playing this match?" to "what will I get when this match is over?". The game becomes like work. The fact you are suggesting raising prices for the good of the game scares me. Our card availability and pricing means that the main incentive, the enjoyment, is more accessible to more people. Sure, I love the thrill of opening booster packs and agree that that is diminished in SE because you can buy all the non-foils from the Merchant anyway for reasonable amount, but also the disappointment factor of a bad booster is lessened. Bad boosters put me off buying boosters, ultimately, driven only by addiction instead (which is not healthy and bad for the wallet).

When I play Hearthstone, it's purely to grind out some gold. It's like a job. The fun factor is diminished by focusing on the end point. Then I spend the gold on booster packs, which is a complete gamble, and every time I get a bad booster then the motivation to continue with the job is reduced. It's a vicious cycle downwards. Hearthstone is inherently enjoyable, but the overall experience is not so enjoyable because of all the business bullshit. When I play SE, it's for enjoyment. I don't care if I win or lose, although I will try my best to win.

I agree that, from a business perspective, employing extrinsic rewards to make the game more addictive is likely a good idea but I'd be concerned if that became the driving force for most people. It runs the risk of harming the enjoyment factor. Nevertheless, I think Kyle will appreciate your post and take note of your opinions and those of people who reply here. Thanks.

The problem is that hearthstone is as fun but the packs are still hard to get

[LucasBlitz]

I agree that there is no better draw than the game itself being fun. Prizes will lose their luster eventually, but the challenge of the game will keep people playing and buying new product as it is released. As an aside, I understand the economic reasons to avoid it, but I wonder if a combination of making Pick a Card 500 SC instead of $5 and the ability to trade 10,000 gold for 100 SC might not boost activity. My thought is that as it becomes more feasible to put together an all foil deck, people will spend to work toward that.

Why do people keep saying this. Gold is a FREE currency. SC is a PREMIUM currency. No offense but that is the stupidest idea I've ever heard and it keeps on being repeated and my only question is WHY? How do you expect a company to make money if gold suddenly buys everything? There's people with over millions in their accounts.

The pick a card for 500SC sounds agreeable though.

[jonmaciel]

Why do people keep saying this. Gold is a FREE currency. SC is a PREMIUM currency.

Even HS gives you something to do with their free currency. Every game does. Meltdown gives you something to do with it but the prize is more of that free currency.

My thought is that as it becomes more feasible to put together an all foil deck, people will spend to work toward that.

That is exactly right. Once someone has their "favorite" deck, they can easily become obsessed with making it a full foil deck.

[Delay of Game]

I stick with with Shadow Era for 2 main reasons: (1) It's not a huge "time-suck," so I can play at my convenience, and (2) it's not a pay-to-win type of game that plagues many Apps/games nowadays. For that, I respect the game very much.

I spend a lot of SC, but it's because I feel like it, and not because it's somehow required to win or progress. I don't personally like the idea of converting gold to SC, although it would be nice if there were more avenues to use in-game gold for. The way SC are used now I think is great (foils/sleeves/mats) because it's all essentially "vanity" items that aren't mandatory to win, but plenty of players may feel it worthwhile to spend on.

For me, it's a fun and enjoyable game, and I'm not personally compelled to demand much more. Other players probably don't share my same perspective, and I understand. Different people look for different things (or more things) out of a game. And that's cool, too.

[MegasAlexandros]

I would like to say that i agree on the ranked and meltdown changes (and to propose a better draft mode if possible) ,agree on a non ranked ladder too , or only commons /uncommons or rare(or epic/legendaries) with number restrictions, for example at least 2o commons/15 uncommons and 5 rare or higher. I also strongly disagree on raising the price of the cards . It is fine where it is. And lastly i really look forward for the campaign

[Demnchi]

Even HS gives you something to do with their free currency. Every game does. Meltdown gives you something to do with it but the prize is more of that free currency.

Not to nit-pick but playing arena in HS costs you gold (free currency) and gives you gold for doing well. Yeah it always comes with a pack (that costs 100 gold), but if you do well you'll gain net gold in the end, just like Meltdown (only meltdown is much harder to see the return I would imagine).

@OP: I would definitely like to see some rewards for doing well on the quick match ladder outside of being one of the top, but I also don't feel its a necessity. However, your suggestion is much better than the HS route where its dictating what I should play in order to earn the free currency at all (seriously.... I don't want to play a mage or a priest today... give me a different quest).

As for Meltdown, I'm sure the meltdown tournaments will get that covered, especially if there is a gold version to play.

Granted, all that said I agree with Gondorian that the game should be played because its fun and rewarding in itself, not because you get more stuff in your inventory. But, I also agree that it wouldn't be a shame if there were some more varied things to do, hopefully the campaign in 3.0 will be a huge step in that direction.

As for the price, I think its great where its at, even if they could be earning slightly more money, one of the HUGE attractants this game still has is its low price point. That has been a thing ever since I've been here and was an original selling point for me as well.

PS: Oh and yeah, we shouldn't copy hearthstone's F2P model in any way, shape, or form. Its horrible for free players. Period.

Why do people keep saying this. Gold is a FREE currency. SC is a PREMIUM currency. No offense but that is the stupidest idea I've ever heard and it keeps on being repeated and my only question is WHY? How do you expect a company to make money if gold suddenly buys everything? There's people with over millions in their accounts.

Well, I mean. If players could buy gold at a rate from other players then the SC had to come from somewhere, therefore every time you convert gold into SC, meaning money was spent on that SC. It would only be a loss if you simply generated SC, then it would be a problem. I realize that lets SC be transferred into gold, but we can already do that. But its not like the idea itself can't work if its implemented correctly.