Lacking incentive for the average player to remain active

[Kip thorp]

+1^

And that's all I got to say about that.

[Fionn Maccumhail]

I'm also in the camp of "it's great its free". I've not spent much on this game but I spent it because I felt the game deserved support. I have no interest in the pay to win CCGs. You can grind in SE buy the best way to do that involves playing (meltdown) games with other players. Being free keeps player numbers high. Not only that people who do well on the ladder or win a tournament/place well at meltdown are the best out of almost all the players. Players who win anything in a pay to win CCG simply have enough money/are willing to take enough money from other things in their life to play a small % of similar players and win.

[LucasBlitz]

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.



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.

Eh HS's F2P system is outdated due to lots of content being pumped out. The only thing is some of us think its simple math. Less money = Less dev focus because obviously there isn't any money to work with if you're juggling server costs and printing presses for Wulven. $20 every other day and then it becomes stagnant because there is no real reason to support the devs because everything's so damned cheap. It just needs a slight change like auction house selling foils for SC or giving all the cards a stable price but just a bit high depending on raririty. (I mean srsly Yari Bladedancer is like 900+ gold on its own and most warriors need 4)

[jonmaciel]

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).

Thats the point - you can get packs for gold there...granted their packs offer far fewer cards. I'm sure we could figure out a price model for it. If you have a chance to get foils with gold, people will spend all of it. :-)

As I said tho, using gold as an alternate tournament fee (when that feature becomes available) is still a good idea to me.

[G.P]

To be honest , Shadow Era , in its nature , is not really a game for normal casual players . It misses two things

1/ The feeling of accomplishments .
There are more people who play the game for the " do chores and get exclusive rewards " model than you think . While it's great that cards are easily accessible , this really helps a highly competitive nature of SE , it does little to keep casual players playing . I used to play Eredan Arena , every week , there's an exclusive card rewarded to players by opening chests acquired after playing a game . Pure RNG and rage-inducing , but it helps keep its facebook group alive .Honestly , that's hardly an "exclusive" thing as it's the only way to get new cards . However, It's more an accomplishment to get the exclusive cards than ,you know, head to the shop and purchase one with a few clicks

SE can do something like that as well , maybe some grinding for exclusive artworks , but i doubt it would be possible because SF doesn't have all the artworks needed for all it's card .

2/ The fun factor
Competitive nature of SE is suited for hard-core players , not casuals . It's fun in 200s rankings with all the goofy stuff flying around , but the more i climb the ladder , the duller the game gets . You gets a more-restricted meta , and most folks at 280+ play 3-4 meta climbing decks . It's not fun .
The fun mode ,aka meltdown , is locked behind a pay-wall that not easily accessible for new players , as well as the tedious waiting .

There's no custom (fun,goofy) game mode in the game , i have to search the tournament section in the forum to find one . And you know how often a casual player go to a forum

[oggtheman]

There is nothing wrong with gold to sc, as gold can buy the equivilant of sc anyway already on the merchant but they get to choose the cards

[jacqui]

I agree with many of the sentiments already expressed. Though I would like to point out that playing for fun and playing for achievements/incentives are not mutually exclusive. The game can be made to cater to both party's interests. One thing this game lacks that many successful games have are in fact "achievements." This is the model both Sony and Microsoft use for their respective platforms. I would think the goal should be to cater to the widest audience possible, and if incentivizing play for casual players achieves that, then it should certainly be looked into.

[Gondorian]

I agree with many of the sentiments already expressed. Though I would like to point out that playing for fun and playing for achievements/incentives are not mutually exclusive. The game can be made to cater to both party's interests. One thing this game lacks that many successful games have are in fact "achievements." This is the model both Sony and Microsoft use for their respective platforms. I would think the goal should be to cater to the widest audience possible, and if incentivizing play for casual players achieves that, then it should certainly be looked into.

Yeah, achievements makes sense. A rating per hero and class would also be good. Stuff like that is worth adding for sure.

[danae]

I agree that a rating per hero would make a huge change to the QM scene as the variety of decks/heroes out there would explode. Having a prize for the top 3 rated players per hero would give people incentive to play different heroes and people might not get quite as bored of the metagame at the higher ranks.

Different game modes like some sort of win streak challenge (gauntlet), 2 vs 2, story campaigns where we see the story of Balor explained every so often, etc. would keep the game fresh. Achievements as mentioned above will also give casual players something to aim for.

The game is great but it should offer modes where you can play casually but still be aiming for something.

[jacqui]

Rating per hero can indeed encourage people to use different heroes, increasing diversity which is better for the game.

Achievements can also help to accomplish that as well. "win X games with Y hero." "reach X rating with Y hero." Different benchmarks of X can be made for different tiers of achievements. 100's of achievements can be made easily and give people something to strive to accomplish while encouraging people to actually play the game.

By comparison, I don't see how the daily reward in its current implementation encourages anything other than logging in, pressing the button to get the free card, and then closing the app. It should instead be implemented to as an actual reward for doing something, like playing a game. For example, at the end of the user's first ladder game of the day, treasure chest opens up and gives the user their daily reward.