RE: SPLINTERLANDS: A Bright Future
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
I think it is a great step forward in this game, my only issue is that so much money is needed to play competitive and there seems to be no limit. I wonder sometimes how we can let everybody have a chance to reach the top and turn investments into pure company participation that will give return from future player purchases from the big crowd we are hoping for. Or something in the middle.
Anyway, let me not forget to say that the SL team is absolutely organically amazing with the help from the Steem community as well, i see a great future ahead, 100%.
And on a personal note as it is your post at the end, i love the design man :-)
Posted using Partiko Android
0
0
0.000
Maybe we rename Novice League to Renegade League (lone wolves, 1 bcx) and make it a game within a game. Could be a compromise between what we have now and the Elective Leagues suggestion people are pushing.
It'd kill off a lot of that 'Pay to win' chatter too. If you just want to be successful in the game, without too much expense, play in the Renegade league.
I’d be interested in hearing more about this idea.
I think the thing we have to remember is that Splinterlands is a card game. And card games are, by their nature, a system that rewards those who invest resources to obtain more and better cards. If I purchase a MTG starter pack and never purchased any boosters or singles after that...well, I can’t really expect to be very competitive. Even then, I still spent money to buy the starter set.
The issue that arises is when we compare ourselves to a free app on the App Store that requires zero money upfront and zero money to play. Maybe there’s an offering of in-app purchases, but they are completely optional and not necessary to play.
In the first example, it’s an investment to own assets that may go up in value and be re-sold. Meanwhile, they can be used to enter local tournaments in an attempt to win more cards.
In the second example, there is no ownership. It’s a time investment that is rewarded w digital achievements that have no value outside the game.
It’s obvious that the second option is more favorable to attracting the most people. But when those people begin to grasp and understand the power of the first example (asset ownership and related benefits), that’s when things get exciting.
Anything that helps to retain player interest long enough for the light bulb to go off is a good thing.
But how would you perceive the reward system for players that are not investing any money into the platform? Would you reward them with some sort of in-game items that have no NFT ownership or value? Or would we still give this league the means to farm DEC, reward cards, etc? If it’s strictly 1 BCX, then one would assume the reward for doing well would NOT revolve around accumulating more cards and combining them.
Posted using Partiko iOS
Everyone starts in Renegade with base set of phantom cards.
If they want rewards (no change in rate), then they need to buy the Summoner's Spellbook. Renegade has its own leaderboard and tournaments.
Any account can graduate up to the main game at any time, for free, but dropping back to Renegade costs 1000 DEC.
Bronze becomes the lowest a non-renegade can drop at end of season.
Renegades can sell on the market, and with no need to stack multiples, they can save up to buy older/rarer/more powerful 1 bcx cards.
So the players in this league would simply play for entertainment? No rewards?
Just a way to enjoy the free-to-play aspect of the game without being forced to play against opponents that have dropped a lot of $ into cards? I can see the appeal of a level playing field where everyone has the same level cards.
If there’s no rewards, bots would have no reason to play in such a league.
I guess at that point it comes down to whether there is sufficient demand for such a league. We’d want there to be enough active players to ensure match-ups within a reasonable time.
Posted using Partiko iOS
One chest, for daily quest each day. Maybe see if we could throw in another few at end of season, or better yet, reward based on position on the renegade leaderboard.
But yeah; mostly just bragging rights.
Keep in mind, there are a heap of very rare, quite valuable cards, like Shin Lo.
hey @nateaguila
I'm a really involved Magic player from the past 10 years. I'm Maverick too and wrote a lot about the topic of entry point for competitive. I'm also the Italian translator for SM, spent quite some money on the game itself.
I point out numerous time how the comparison with MTG is totally wrong. In the Maverick chat this has been a long discussed topic, people throw the MTG reference without knowing formats or anything. Each card game as an entry barrier to play. As it is, the SM one is INSANELY high. This is a fact.
I consider competitive a full regular deck with all cards maxed. That would still me not play gold tournaments, but let's try to exclude that for a second.
A full regular deck, as it is, it's what. ALPHA + UNTAMED alone, full regular maxed is 8K.
https://monstermarket.io/cost-estimator
I've a 4K deck and am far from everything maxed. I'm holding only regular cards from original set, maxed or towards maxed.
MTG references:
Standard (rotating format, cards rotate every 3/6 months or year depending on releases)
Price for a competitive deck is 300/400$. Some season it's 700$, that's top.
Modern (non-rotating format, you have to add cards over time to stay on top as new release happen)
Price for a competitive deck is 800/1000$. 1200$ at best.
Legacy (Eternal format, almost no need to change any cards over several years of play. Non rotating)
Price for a competitive deck 1000/1500$.
Please use https://www.mtgtop8.com/index to check events and price of competitive decks.
Throwing the MTG reference as it is it's extremely wrong. I'm not saying that the investment shouldn't be made (and this validates your point of investing on assets that can be resold), but I'm pointing out since I joined this how not welcoming this game is for competitive players.
A casual one won't care about the cost of a maxed out deck, he won't buy that many boosters anyway.
Please let me know what do you think, I'm bafi#8941 on Discord too.
We are surely building something big.
Just so that we're on the same page of music...
Regarding the entry to play, you're saying that Splinterlands is INSANELY high. How do you define "entry barrier to play"? Last I checked, the entry has been reduced to zero to play the game. The bottom two leagues should be fine for those who have only level 1 cards, no? Yes, zero money invested will make the games more challenging...but not impossible. I expect you'd still win SOME of the time. Toss in a few bucks to buy some single Common cards off the market, and suddenly the win rate starts looking tolerable.
Is it the $10 Summoner Spellbook (account upgrade) that we're talking about? Maybe you think 10 bucks is too much for what they receive?
Regarding attaining a competitive deck, you'd have to define "competitive". Does competitive = MAXed? If so, I could understand why. In some of the other comments here, it's been pointed out that we should have different leaderboards for each league. If we do this, I think it will alleviate the idea that to be "competitive" requires MAX cards. Each league will feel competitive in its own right if players can see how they stack up against others in the same "investment tier".
sorry, was mentioning the "competitive entry barrier" that's why.
Replying to your question in order:
1- the entry to play is really acceptable for what is offered.
2- It's difficult to place a definition of what competitive is. From my background, I would say that if I play competitive I'm in a game where my choices are the same as other people and where my "weapons" won't differ from others.
the idea of investment tier is right, it will probably even out imbalances between players' deck.
I agree to a point.
I’ve played plenty of games where I had no hope in ever reaching top of the leaderboard. These are mainstream games where the top players have invested so much time, money, and practice into the platform that they seem like gods to the rest of the player base.
And yet it never reduced my enjoyment of the game. If anything, the challenge/difficulty level of a game is an important aspect to preserving player interest.
That being said, there clearly needs to be a balance, and I’m sure that what you’re getting at. And that makes sense. I’m optimistic that we’ll be able to find that balance for ranked card battles.
But at the same time, don’t forget that land will be adding games within games. At some point in the distant future, it’s possible that what we currently consider the “main event” (the core objective of the game) becomes only one of many activities within a larger ecosystem.
When that happens, it wouldn’t surprise me if each player saw the game (and the point of playing) in a different way. “Winning” for one person make look different than “winning” for another.
Posted using Partiko iOS