PDA

View Full Version : Mitigation of "Pay to Win" in PVE



Yoss
08-16-2013, 05:04 PM
IDEA SHOT DOWN
I'll leave it up for posterity's sake.

While posting in the "mercs should be tradeable (or not)" thread, the concept of "pay to win" came up for the umpteenth time and I thought of an idea.

What if each PVE item could not be used (could still purchase/trade) by a player until that player completes PVE content whose loot table has that item on it (regardless of whether the item dropped or not)? That way, even if you're paying money to buy Plat (from CZE) to buy Gold (from players) and thus PVE items on the AH, you can only buy things you've unlocked. (This assumes an economy something like the ones proposed here (link).)

To be clear, I love the idea that I can trade money for time leverage in Hex; it is one of my primary motivations for backing the game. However, as I said elsewhere, I do not want money to buy unfair advantage, and by that I mean that money should not buy things that are otherwise not obtainable (this includes bypassing content). (This is where the merc trading comes in, but that's for a different thread. Here's a link to the post that spawned my idea. It also has more detail about "pay to win" versus "earn it" in this game.)

Thoughts? Any other ideas for how to blend the "money buys time" concept into PVE more effectively?

EDIT:
More details due to feedback:
Would need a tooltip/popup/etc to tell players why an item is locked and how to unlock it.
Remember that your first loot drop from a given table will not net you everything you want from that table. This proposal would unlock everything on that table for you in the AH so that you don't have to grind/farm that table if you don't want to.
Also know that PVP cards will never be locked out.
Changed it from a purchase restriction to a use restriction. Then you could still trade for it, but not use it until you unlock, like in WOW.
If an item ever rotates out of all loot tables, it would automatically unlock for everyone.

Gen91
08-16-2013, 05:23 PM
So if I am offered a good trade for a specific good card, which matches perfect with my deck, maybe I can't trade with this person, just because I may have skipped one dungeon?

I don't think such artifical barriers would be any good for this game and may confuse a lot of ppl.

Gorgol
08-16-2013, 05:28 PM
I can see how it would work in regards to the AH, but would it just be "greyed out" as well in regards to trades? How would the initial person know where a specific card drops from? How do trades work exactly anyhow? Is it like chat channels, or forums, will we be able to inspect/see the persons inventory or available trade items? If I get mailed a card from a friend that I couldn't use, it'd be greyed out until I completed the required content?

This seems like a giant mess and an arbitrary barrier.

Hemlock
08-16-2013, 05:33 PM
If someone wants to slap down a few Jacksons to power through PVE content, I don't really have a problem with it. Is this about world firsts?

Barkam
08-16-2013, 05:44 PM
I am sorry, I don't think that is a very good idea. You have to remember that PvE's goal is to entice people to pay and not the other way around. Also, while I understand your sentiments, this is an awkward way of reaching your goal.

Xtopher
08-16-2013, 05:51 PM
I haven't kept up on all the discussions. Is it CZE's plan to sell individual cards and boosters, or just boosters? I'm personally against the concept of buying individual cards directly from CZE, but if that's what they've planned, I won't argue with it.

Barkam
08-16-2013, 06:01 PM
I haven't kept up on all the discussions. Is it CZE's plan to sell individual cards and boosters, or just boosters? I'm personally against the concept of buying individual cards directly from CZE, but if that's what they've planned, I won't argue with it.

CZE will not sell individual cards.

locust
08-16-2013, 06:02 PM
I dont think that people boosting there decks a bit by trading or buying in order to achieve better results in pve will pose a problem.

But i do belive it might be frustrating to certain players if we in fact do that restriction.

Its a tcg, people like to trade, sell and buy cards right from the get go without restrictions.

ShadowTycho
08-16-2013, 06:04 PM
So if I am offered a good trade for a specific good card, which matches perfect with my deck, maybe I can't trade with this person, just because I may have skipped one dungeon?

I don't think such artificial barriers would be any good for this game and may confuse a lot of ppl.
so you would have everything earnable in pve content readily accessible on the market at all times?
The only thing you could earn then would be gold to get those things. The game would be entirely about maximizing you gold farming ability.

I can see how it would work in regards to the AH, but would it just be "greyed out" as well in regards to trades? How would the initial person know where a specific card drops from? How do trades work exactly anyhow? Is it like chat channels, or forums, will we be able to inspect/see the persons inventory or available trade items? If I get mailed a card from a friend that I couldn't use, it'd be greyed out until I completed the required content?

This seems like a giant mess and an arbitrary barrier.
As above. though i expect it would only apply to legendary and/or rare things or maybe even only certain legendary or rare things. common and uncommon things would be just that.


If someone wants to slap down a few Jacksons to power through PVE content, I don't really have a problem with it. Is this about world firsts?

the problem comes that the actual process of getting that card is the pve game in its entirety excluding story.
there isn't anything you can do with this stuff once you get it other then go though the same process that would be needed to go through to get it. it only makes you better at getting more stuff, in this exact same manner.
this person would literally be paying to not play the game.


I am sorry, I don't think that is a very good idea. You have to remember that PvE's goal is to entice people to pay and not the other way around. Also, while I understand your sentiments, this is an awkward way of reaching your goal.
Pve also has the gold of being content in its own right. We have been told time and time again that pve should be fun on its own.
And it should. This would help.


I dont think that people boosting there decks a bit by trading or buying in order to achieve better results in pve will pose a problem.

But i do belive it might be frustrating to certain players if we in fact do that restriction.

Its a tcg, people like to trade, sell and buy cards right from the get go without restrictions.

Its also a mmo, people like to collect things that are difficult and exclusive to obtain. this would help with that.

locust
08-16-2013, 06:16 PM
"Its also a mmo, people like to collect things that are difficult and exclusive to obtain."

Yeah you are right about that. It conflicts a bit.

If, like you are saying, that would be applied only to some specific legendary cards, for storyline sake and rarity sake it might be ok.

I was imagining someone wanting 4 copies of certain cards and be forced to farm or some other method instead of just buying or trading, or having good cards that someone wants to trade for more efficient cards in is particular deck.

ShadowTycho
08-16-2013, 06:39 PM
i believe yoss' suggestion is that some pve cards be made untradeable to people whom haven't met certain milestones.
this preserves the need for pve advancement by meeting those milestones while also allowing people to get play sets of what the want after meeting those milestones by letting them trade stuff freely.

But i have learned better then to interpret for yoss.

Hemlock
08-16-2013, 08:13 PM
It'll be interesting to see if you can ride through endgame PVE on cards/equipment alone. If we're allowed to keep the combos people are cooking up, probably. But if the Warrior preview is anything to go by, a fully leveled champ is going to have a gigantic influence on the game.

EntropyBall
08-16-2013, 08:17 PM
I don't think this is a good idea. In addition to the downsides others have mentioned, it would also reduce the value of DC and RL tiers, and hurt people who want to try and trade PVE stuff for PVP stuff. The demand for my Legendary Crown of Awesomeness will be greatly reduced if the only people who can use it are those who have killed the King of Awesomeness.

zadies
08-16-2013, 08:22 PM
Interesting that yoss wants everything tradable on one hand with mercs but wants to restrict tradability with the other. I have no issue with the idea but I intend to be on the top of the curve. This just makes it harder for new ppl to catch up, and also locks cards from people as content/duebgeons get rotated out so I am confused as to his forwarding the idea. Because if you need to beat a dugeon to get the loot you wouldn't be able to trade for the loot once the dungeon is no longer playable... Now given my intention of beating everything it only impacts who I can trade to and I love the idea of having things that others can never get.... Really could care less other then mercs but it won't impact me.

keldrin
08-16-2013, 09:43 PM
OK. I'm semi good with this.
My semi, is, that I should be able to trade and buy whatever I want.
But.... maybe the item can be locked on my account until I complete the necessary content.
Also, if the necessary content is not available. Like if CZE has stopped a paticular quest, dungeon, raid, etc. The requirement for completing that content should be removed.
This would allow it to impact value of trades less significantly. If you acquired something that wasn't unlocked for you, it would give you the proper motivation to do that content. Alternatively, it could remain trade stock on my account.

Kietay
08-16-2013, 10:27 PM
Money is an advantage in cards games. Im sure you knew this already. Do not try to change it.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-16-2013, 10:32 PM
This sounds like a terrible idea, no offense intended, I know well was meant. If you want to forego investing time to farm up cards and gear, and instead what to invest money (after all, time = money), then that should be perfectly allowable.

In the end, we all pay to win, whether we're paying time or money.

Zomnivore
08-16-2013, 10:38 PM
I think its essential that pve content and raid content be compelling to a large market, I just have no clue how you make systems that create an unbiased system without screwing up your business model.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-16-2013, 10:48 PM
Having the option to compete in the more difficult PvE content with the imposed restriction "can not spend cash to get anything" would make for an interesting challenge for many players, and would open up a whole new area of min-maxing. What will players do to get the decks they want/need to tackle this content?

Will they try to build strong decks entirely out of PvE cards and equipment?
Will they identify crucial PvP cards they need, grind for valuable PvE cards and equipment, and try to sell them for plat (or trade directly for the card/s)?
Will they identify encounters where their current, not min-maxed deck could potentially win 10% of games, and then play games ad nauseum until they finally hit the win?

PvE players will have options available to them. While Infinity Wars is a lot more open to abuse, I was able to get a full playset of their first set without spending a cent. Doing so would require far, far more grinding in Hex (assuming that it's not even nearly as open to abuse as IW is), just grinding for the PvP cards they need should be feasible.

Xtopher
08-16-2013, 10:59 PM
My hope is that grinding won't lead to people getting their hands on key PvP cards, but they will have to spend $$ to get them. On the PvE side, I have no problem with dedicated grinding leading to key PvE cards plus I'm okay with people selling or trading any PvE card on the AH.

Unhurtable
08-17-2013, 02:19 AM
What about people who want cards from Raids who don't want to raid? If the argument is "they shouldn't get them if they don't want to do raids" then why should PvE players be allowed to get PvP cards without having done PvP?

I also don't understand why we need to remove the "pay to win" factor on encounters that have already been completed. If this has to do with producer-trading, then this solution does not attack the problem, because the P2W has already happened before the trade was done. Should producers not be allowed to use their cards until they have defeated the instance the card stems from?

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-17-2013, 02:36 AM
I'm going to say it now - a system that stops a player using cards and equipment they already own simply because they haven't cleared the content it came from themselves won't be implemented. CZE has good customer service, and they wouldn't even think of punishing players who invested into the game in order to get this gear/equipment by not allowing them to actually use it.

What's the purpose anyway? There's no unfair advantage in this - every player has the choice to invest money into the game. If for whatever reason they don't want to, that's their prerogative.

Gen91
08-17-2013, 04:07 AM
so you would have everything earnable in pve content readily accessible on the market at all times?
The only thing you could earn then would be gold to get those things. The game would be entirely about maximizing you gold farming ability.

I trust Crypto, that they implement enough gold sinks to make gold into a stable currency.
Also, when ppl need to farm (rnd number) 3 hours to get one rare card from a raid,
they could set the price around equal to the highest amount of gold farmable in 3 hours, so that gold farming is one of the efficent ways to get things, but not the most efficent.

Yoss
08-17-2013, 01:16 PM
As with all ideas I post, it will require refinement, so thank you all for helping that process.

@Gen91, 2; Gorgol, 3: Added tooltips to the OP to clear up confusion.

@Hemlock, 4: It's not about World Firsts, it's about mitigating "pay to win" sentiments from the F2P crowd.

@Barkam, 5: Please be more clear. How is this discouraging payment? I put a note in the OP that might address this.

@locust, 8: PVP cards would never be locked out. This idea is something like level restrictions on equipment in WOW and applies only to the PVE side. But instead of a level restriction it is a content-completed restriction.


i believe yoss' suggestion is that some pve cards be made untradeable to people whom haven't met certain milestones.
this preserves the need for pve advancement by meeting those milestones while also allowing people to get play sets of what the want after meeting those milestones by letting them trade stuff freely.

But i have learned better then to interpret for yoss.
You got it right. :D

@zadies, 14: As for dungeons rotating out, that's a wrinkle for sure. I guess restrictions would have to be removed on items that are no longer in any loot table, which makes sense.

@keldrin, 15: Yeah, a use restriction might be better than a trade restriction. That would feel more like what other games have done (WOW, Diablo 2, others).

@Kietay, jax: I'm one of the ones who wants to spend money for time, so I'm totally with you. I just don't think you should be able to use things you haven't unlocked yet. However, as soon as you unlock a dungeon or raid, you can instantly go to the AH a buy playsets of every single item on that loot table. There's your time leverage.


I'm going to say it now - a system that stops a player using cards and equipment they already own simply because they haven't cleared the content it came from themselves won't be implemented.
Why not? RPG/MMO games have done it for years and no one's complaining as far as I'm aware. (It's usually in the form of level restrictions, but the concept is exactly the same.) Also, as I said before, you would still be able to spend plenty of money to avoid grinding time.

In summary, I think maybe it should be a use restriction instead of a trade restriction, and the system should have some way to tell you how to unlock a given thing. And the whole point is that we want to be able to spend money to avoid grinding content we've already completed.

zadies
08-17-2013, 01:38 PM
A tcg is pay to compete... You might not win spending the most money but unless you have incredibly dumb luck someone buying a 6 boosters is not going to be able to compete with someone dumping hundreds on a specialized deck. If someone is completely f2p having more of them is nice but it is the conversion of them to paying customers that will allow the game to succeeded.

Being able to earn the best deck through time is all that is needed pay yo win means one of two things either you can buy an unfair advantage that is unobtainable through any other means or the other means to rightfully obtain it require that you play the game for an unreasonable amount of time. Anything that can be obtained in game and in amounts to be posted on the ah is obtainable in a reasonable amount of time through normal means so your really paying for convince which people who want to spend no money on a product attempt to construed as pay to win because they want everything free. Free to play does not mean you get everything for free only that with enough invested time that you in theory can get it.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-17-2013, 01:58 PM
Why not? RPG/MMO games have done it for years and no one's complaining as far as I'm aware. (It's usually in the form of level restrictions, but the concept is exactly the same.) Also, as I said before, you would still be able to spend plenty of money to avoid grinding time.
Level restrictions aren't exactly the same. I'd be far more satisfied with a restriction on certain gear and cards based on highest champ level, rather than on having cleared certain content.

If we use raid BoEs from WoW as an example - sure, they have a level requirement of 90 meaning that anyone but a maxed character can't use them, but there's not an additional requirement that that player has to go and clear whatever raid it came from before they can equip the BoE. They might not even be interested in that content.

However, even though I'd be more satisfied with it, I think the idea is entirely unnecessary and definitely can't support it. I mean, what goal is this even going to achieve? The strongest PvP decks coupled with gear should be able to crush most of the PvE content. As for raids? Well, given that players are only going to get raid gear/cards by beating a raid, then raids will be doable without any raid cards (a few KS backers aside, players have to do raids without raid cards) - basically, a player doesn't need to buy raid loot to beat a raid.

All I can see this doing is forcing someone who wants to pay to win doing so via PvP cards. If their main focus is PvE this could then lead to aggravation as this restriction forced them to buy PvP cards to achieve their end, when really they would've preferred certain PvP cards. Why not... you know... not have the restriction at all? ^^

While I can understand PvE in a card game could be hard to balance when the players have decks of varying power levels, I don't think this sort of restriction is the way to go about it. Single player games have always been tough to balance anyway; if they build difficulty to the level of the min-max crowd then it's often too difficult for your average player, but if they build difficulty to the average player the game's pretty easy for the min-max crowd. WoW has one of the better answers to this IMO - most of the content being pretty easy for players that have any clue about what they're doing (pretty much 99% of questing and levelling, dungeons, BGs and whatnot), and then high end content for players that want to min-max (heroic raids and arena).

ossuary
08-17-2013, 02:41 PM
Absolutely terrible idea. More pointless restrictions that would confuse and frustrate paying customers. No thanks. There's zero chance CZE would ever implement this.

Hemlock
08-17-2013, 02:53 PM
I'm still unclear on what exactly your proposal is trying to fix.

Paying to win PVE content isn't something I'd be interested in, but if someone decides to blow through dungeons with gear he bought, I don't understand how that harms me - or any other Hex player. I understand such limitations in a more open-world game, but as I understand it, PVE will be a one player game, except for raid content, which will be a three player game. I guess there's wild west mode, but I doubt that'll be a serious metagame anyway.

Folk twinking out their characters has nothing to do with me. In fact, it's good for me, as I can sell them my rare loot for platinum - thus, in fact, making PVP less pay-to-win, as long as you're willing to grind a bit in PVE.

zadies
08-17-2013, 03:04 PM
Given the power level displayed for the pve cards and the gear for the pvp cards I doubt a pvp deck with a level one champ with no equipment no matter how good the deck is in constructed I doubt will be blowing through all the top tier of pve content... if it does then there is an issue with the pve balance being WAY too easy.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-17-2013, 03:39 PM
Given the power level displayed for the pve cards and the gear for the pvp cards I doubt a pvp deck with a level one champ with no equipment no matter how good the deck is in constructed I doubt will be blowing through all the top tier of pve content... if it does then there is an issue with the pve balance being WAY too easy.
The power level of PvE cards doesn't greatly exceed those of PvP cards. Of the three which you could make a case for - Void Breech, Void Marauder and Spectral Lotus - 2 are KS exclusive, and the other is raid loot (so no-one's going to get it early on, money or otherwise). You could make a case for the Clone Zone, but its power isn't on the level of the voids. And I'd argue that Ascetic Aspirant is only marginally behind the voids, due to multi-turn setup even after it enters the battlefield.

Furthermore, the difference between a top tier PvP deck and your average player's PvE deck should be significant. If not, then PvE is probably overtuned, and I'd be worried about your average player not being able to get through the content. Of course, a PvP deck can't just slap on any old equipment and be ready to go, but it should only take a few tweaks to be very strong in PvE.

Finally, champ level isn't really applicable. Whether I have a top tier PvP deck or a starter PvE deck when I start my PvE experience, my champ is going to be level 1 either way.

zadies
08-17-2013, 03:59 PM
You never specified what type of content you would be blowing through so you might have been trying to take a pvp deck through an end game raid on a fresh champ merc not starting from the beginning. We have seen a much larger percentage of the pvp cards and your saying the pve cards revealed already have more power then the top tier bomb drops for pvp so given I feel it is quite unlikely we have seen the pve bombs that is definitely saying the power level in pve is going to be a vast difference then pvp.

Kami
08-17-2013, 04:06 PM
You never specified what type of content you would be blowing through so you might have been trying to take a pvp deck through an end game raid on a fresh champ merc not starting from the beginning. We have seen a much larger percentage of the pvp cards and your saying the pve cards revealed already have more power then the top tier bomb drops for pvp so given I feel it is quite unlikely we have seen the pve bombs that is definitely saying the power level in pve is going to be a vast difference then pvp.

However, we've also yet to see all the various equipment available for PvP cards used in PvE either.

According to CZE, the power levels of PvP and PvE are about identical. I'd say that's based on individual card strength but we've yet to see the full card list.

It's very possible that there are combinations of PvE cards that completely blow away PvP cards used in PvE because mechanics can be more wild in PvE. Then again, I'd wager that the most insane decks will be a mix of PvP and PvE cards as opposed to an either/or situation.

zadies
08-17-2013, 04:10 PM
If the power level of the pve cards were equal to pvp cards there would be no reason to ban pve cards from pve. Saying you can do wild and crazy things in pve that would just make pvp no fun for your opponent would indicate to me that there is a difference in power levels.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-17-2013, 04:17 PM
You never specified what type of content you would be blowing through so you might have been trying to take a pvp deck through an end game raid on a fresh champ merc not starting from the beginning. We have seen a much larger percentage of the pvp cards and your saying the pve cards revealed already have more power then the top tier bomb drops for pvp so given I feel it is quite unlikely we have seen the pve bombs that is definitely saying the power level in pve is going to be a vast difference then pvp.
Oh, so it's my fault is it? >.>

Void Marauder and Void Breech don't actually have more power than The Transcended. They have more power relative to the ease of achieving their affect. The Transcended is quite literally a one card combo once you get it online, as it tutors out every other piece you need to win the game. Void Breech and Void Marauder are both very powerful, but Void Breech requires that you have decent troops out and that you'll benefit more from it than the opponent, and Void Marauder requires that you have copies of the actions you're playing already in the graveyard (plus is very expensive unless you've already got a few actions in there).

You've made assumptions about the PvE side of the game. Once again, if a top tier PvP deck does not do better in PvE than the a deck that has been put together by an average deckbuilder (ie. the average player), then PvE is likely overtuned. The thing about the top competitive decks, even in the most restrictive competitive formats (ie. standard for Magic) is that they're very, very good. Furthermore, you'd also potentially have the gear to back up said top PvP deck, and you'd be levelling a champ that could make it even more insane than it was in PvP.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-17-2013, 04:20 PM
If the power level of the pve cards were equal to pvp cards there would be no reason to ban pve cards from pve. Saying you can do wild and crazy things in pve that would just make pvp no fun for your opponent would indicate to me that there is a difference in power levels.
Balance. They can make cards with huge effects like Spectral Lotus in PvE because the mode is mostly dedicated to player vs computer interaction; that is, if you pull off a ridiculous early play, only the computer gets 'offended'. However, a card like Spectral Lotus in PvP would radically shape the format - every deck would run 4, and you'd lead to degenerate things happening early in games.

zadies
08-17-2013, 04:29 PM
Given what you are saying about balance and needing it for pvp and not pve that would indicate that the power level of pve cards is greater due to the lack of need of said balance. Not seeing how you can on one hand say Balance dictates that certain things can't happen in pvp but pvp decks are super awesome and can smash all pve challenges when some of them may require said non balanced mechanics.

TheKraken
08-17-2013, 04:34 PM
This would make the system too complicated and put unnecessary burden to the user. This won't be implemented. They may make these restrictions with equipment but not cards themselves.

If you listened to hex_colin's interview with Cory, Cory hit the nail in the head, I love this philosophy: he said that gold sinks are very important but he doesn't want to punish players, instead he wants players to have the incentives to, aka not a restrictive but an engaging system.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-17-2013, 04:47 PM
Firstly, let's stop making assumptions. Yes, the most powerful card available at the moment is a PvE card - Spectral Lotus. No, they couldn't let this card be in PvP, as that would warp constructed PvP entirely. Yes, this is the essence of the difference between PvE and PvP - allowing cards with crazy effects, be they crazy strong or crazy strange, that wouldn't fit into PvP for one reason or another. No, I did not say that the best PvP decks will "smash all PvP content". I said, and I quote, "The strongest PvP decks coupled with gear should be able to crush most of the PvE content". Now I will admit that I myself made an assumption here, and that assumption is that there will be a lot of non-dungeon and non-raid content in Hex PvE (which I would imagine to be the hard parts of the game), and that at least some of the dungeons will be tuned to a level that a top tier PvP deck with gear and a champ will be able to handle it. And before you go bending that, it's not fair to say "you said nothing about a champ or gear" because any PvE deck attempting the same dungeon would also have a champ and gear.

Simply put, if a top tier PvP deck (do you know how strong top tier PvP decks are going to be in Hex?) does not have a much easier time in most PvE encounters than the deck constructed by your averagely skilled PvE only player with PvE only cards available to them, then in all likelihood the content is overtuned. I'd be very, very, very surprised if when the full spoiler comes out, it was not possible to make many multitudes of very strong decks for PvE entirely out of PvP cards and gear. And let's face it, they're not going to be handing out Void Breeches and Clone Zones to every new player who starts the game, so why compare a top PvP deck to some of the best PvE cards?

To loop this back to the original point - if an unnecessary restriction were put into place such that players could not use PvE gear they've traded for or gotten off the AH until they had cleared the content it came from (in order to stop the perception of pay to win), then players who actually wanted the gear for this reason would simply buy PvP cards and equipment for those cards instead, build a top tier PvP deck - which they'll have access to - and likely have a much easier time in PvE than any other player facing this restriction would (or any player in general when PvE first comes out). While you can make the argument that a top tier PvP deck would lose to a top tier PvE deck - and logic would dictate this has to be true, given that PvE contains everything PvP does plus extras - I'd be surprised if you tried to make the argument that the deck one has available to them at the start of a PvE career can stack up to a top tier PvP deck complete with equipment.

If I may ask though, you are in favour of the restriction idea, correct? Why? From my point of view, it seems like a case of people who don't want to play in a particular way trying to impose their preferred method of play on others.

Edit: as an aside, the strongest PvE decklist I've come up with thus far contains only KS rewards and PvP cards. >.>

Barkam
08-17-2013, 04:47 PM
@Barkam, 5: Please be more clear. How is this discouraging payment? I put a note in the OP that might address this.

If we are to assume a normal distribution of player skill in the game and that CZE's goal is to monetize the PvE, the ideal situation for CZE is to have a soft paywall in the PvE. Maybe the top 5% can complete the campaign by only needing to run the dungeons twice. Maybe the next 20% would have to run the dungeons 4x to complete the campaign. Then maybe the next 50% would need to run the dungeons 10x to complete the campaign, etc. The numbers are not important. They are just to illustrate the point. So for those that want to overcome this grind "requirement," they can go to AH by using plat and buy strong cards that typically come from later dungeons and raids. Your idea here will remove this dynamic from the game and thus CZE has a harder time monetizing PvE.

I think your desire and belief for money not to garner advantages in PvE is misplaced in Hex, at least in the standard PvE format. I think you need stop trying to insert competition in the standard PvE format. If you want a level playing field in PvE, you'd have to wait for it in tournament PvE format. Your belief to make PvE fair is contradictory to making PvE fun, zany, wacky and providing exciting treats to the player population.

Hemlock
08-17-2013, 05:03 PM
Re: Why PVE cards are separate if they're often just as strong as PVP cards, there are some design spaces that work much better in PVE than PVP. The two I can think of off the top of my head are powerful, random effects (Moment of Glory, Spectral Assassin) and crazy-fying, board-upending effects (Void Breach, Clone Zone).

zadies
08-17-2013, 05:28 PM
Yeah we did sort of go on a tangent really doesn't matter about the PvP cards they will likely be helpful but not required. More to the point I agree with hemlock. It seems though that some posters on the forum seem to take f2p to mean cannot be monetized at all... Mercs from packs are bad armbridge fees in ah need to be nonexistent minimal, no buying pve cards... Just seems odd needs to be some middle ground.

Nthanel
08-17-2013, 07:02 PM
I got a novel idea: how about we wait till the game is out till we decide what needs to be fixed?

TheKraken
08-17-2013, 07:04 PM
I got a novel idea: how about we wait till the game is out till we decide what needs to be fixed?

You got a grand idea - that's the point of Alpha and Beta :x

MoikPEI
08-17-2013, 07:53 PM
If waiting for Alpha/Beta/Release is generally the wisest choice, why did Cory open a platform for guild suggestions?
He keeps lauding the community's creativity in interviews. He likely sees some value in this kind of thing.

ossuary
08-17-2013, 08:57 PM
Well, some people have more realistic / achievable / not insane ideas than others. :)

Nthanel
08-17-2013, 09:08 PM
Because currently pontificating on things we have no idea on to do with the game yet and/or making suggestions on things they are most likely working on is kinda pointless. Also Cory has already voiced his dislike of pay to win could be a pretty good hint that it's well in hand. But hey that's just me trusting the people designing the game.

Yoss
08-17-2013, 09:25 PM
If we are to assume a normal distribution of player skill in the game and that CZE's goal is to monetize the PvE, the ideal situation for CZE is to have a soft paywall in the PvE. Maybe the top 5% can complete the campaign by only needing to run the dungeons twice. Maybe the next 20% would have to run the dungeons 4x to complete the campaign. Then maybe the next 50% would need to run the dungeons 10x to complete the campaign, etc. The numbers are not important. They are just to illustrate the point. So for those that want to overcome this grind "requirement," they can go to AH by using plat and buy strong cards that typically come from later dungeons and raids. Your idea here will remove this dynamic from the game and thus CZE has a harder time monetizing PvE.

I think your desire and belief for money not to garner advantages in PvE is misplaced in Hex, at least in the standard PvE format. I think you need stop trying to insert competition in the standard PvE format. If you want a level playing field in PvE, you'd have to wait for it in tournament PvE format. Your belief to make PvE fair is contradictory to making PvE fun, zany, wacky and providing exciting treats to the player population.
I think you and I are saying the same thing. In the OP I say that I want to be able to spend money to bypass grinding, just like you said in this quote. The proposal is just to limit until you pass the content one single time, after which you can go hog wild with paying to get playsets of everything you just unlocked (or start using them if you already bought them).

From the OP:

To be clear, I love the idea that I can trade money for time leverage in Hex

Anyhow, I'm not going to defend this idea too hard; I'm on the "pay" side of things for the way I'll personally be playing, so it's no skin off my back. We'll see what the F2P crowd thinks and hopefully I won't have to say "I told you so".

Nthanel
08-17-2013, 09:53 PM
So, this is a glorified troll thread. Sad

Deathfog
08-17-2013, 10:03 PM
PvE is primarily going to be using PvP cards seeing as every single PvP card has equipment implementation. Trying to play exclusively with PvE restricted cards isn't likely to be viable, it might be an achievement though for some encounters/dungeons. Trying to master PvE while investing nothing into the game will probably be more headache than its worth long term.

zadies
08-18-2013, 04:04 AM
Real issue Yoss is that unlike after launch and I'm not talking beta the majority of the forum is backers and telling people who already have shown an interest in paying that money is evil will not work. Also given most of the forum has played a tcg before telling us that we can't buy use cards is contrary to that idea. I'm sure a person who wishes to spend no money and not contribute to the success of the game would love this idea but is it good for the game as a whole I'm not so sure.

Yoss
08-18-2013, 09:10 AM
Real issue Yoss is that unlike after launch and I'm not talking beta the majority of the forum is backers and telling people who already have shown an interest in paying that money is evil will not work. Also given most of the forum has played a tcg before telling us that we can't buy use cards is contrary to that idea. I'm sure a person who wishes to spend no money and not contribute to the success of the game would love this idea but is it good for the game as a whole I'm not so sure.
Yeah, I figured I might get this kind of reaction since most of us here are backers. However, I try to think like a game designer as well as a player. I still like this idea from a game design standpoint. It would still allow buying of loot, and use of that loot sooner than a free player would be able to. (F2P would have to grind the loot table many times in order to hit all the equipment and playsets, while money would just have to loot the table a single time and suddenly have it all.)

ossuary
08-18-2013, 09:57 AM
Yoss, this idea is simply untenable from a game design point of view. Locking content behind very specific and arbitrary barriers is confusing and enraging to players. This is the last thing a good game designer would do.

Bind on Equip or level cap are bad enough, but they are at least known factors. All you have to do for a level cap item is level up more, anywhere in the game. Having to go to one specific place and beat one specific challenge to be able to unlock an item you have already acquired is (through whatever means), simply speaking, ludicrous and terrible.

MoikPEI
08-18-2013, 10:01 AM
Locking content behind very specific and arbitrary barriers is confusing and enraging to players. This is the last thing a good game designer would do.

Good point. You should crosspost that to the merc-tradeability/exclusives thread. Might want to alter the language on the second part though.

zadies
08-18-2013, 10:38 AM
Not really because on the needs you have to squire them in the first place his comments are only valid in relation to loot you have already acquired through some means being locked. And merxs are just mind on pick up items which are a known example of locking content just like bind on equip, and most people playing f2p games are fimilar with the mode of acquisition of the mercs also they stated mercs were nontradable in kickstarter update 11.

felmare
08-18-2013, 10:44 AM
This would also limit the market and for those of us who will be trying to be trading pve items for gold->plat. It limits the amount of people you can actually trade to. If there is someone who hasnt beaten some content that you are trading from then that person cant buy your stuff. I dont like this idea at all because alot of the pvp minded people will probably buy all the good pve items and then faceroll it just for fun.

Stok3d
08-18-2013, 07:30 PM
I have one question. What if this person isn't really talented enough to break some of these milestones? Do you think it fair that they never are able to play with all the latest and greatest cards? I seem to relate this to WoW's PVP system where you need a particular threshold to unlock certain pieces of equipment. I was never a big fan. This behavior also lead to a lot of account sharing to circumvent the rules and opened a whole other can of worms.

I believe this would create more issues than you believe need resolved.

zadies
08-18-2013, 07:40 PM
Really Stoked given this effects pve only really it's a question of if those people are given the cards and can unlock the raids with them given they couldn't get to the raids without the cards do you want the possibility to be playing with them if there is a lfr que. Locking people out of pve gear is something that all mmos do to some extent other then nwo which I don't feel allowing everything be ahable didn't really work to well from my perspective.

BongoBong
08-18-2013, 07:58 PM
What population is a suggestion like this supposed to appease? I can't imagine the number of pve players who are worried about what other players are able to buy is high at all since they aren't competing with them in any way. Heck, even the small number of "world firsters" won't need a rule like this because they will have completed the most/hardest dungeons first anyways. Adding a confusing and annoying function that effects everyone to serve a very small portion of the community (whose complaints I wouldn't even say are all that legitimate to begin with) sounds like a very bad idea.

Xtopher
08-18-2013, 09:22 PM
Actually, Bongo, I've found that people are often jealous and grumble about players who buy their way into gear or cards. I agree it's not necessary and I'd rather not cater to people that look at the game this way (not saying the OP looks at it this way, in fact, he stated he does not).

I think it's similar to people that feel not getting a promo someone else has earned, because they chose not to attend the event, didn't know about it, came too late to the game, etc. somehow equates with being punished.

Nicalapegus
08-18-2013, 10:44 PM
I've always thought that P2W implied gaining a game changing advantage unobtainable outside of paying for it using real money. For such a reason League of Legends is considered Free to Play and not Pay to Win, as everything in that game is completely obtainable from simply playing it.

For that reason, Hex is F2P to me as well.

zadies
08-18-2013, 10:52 PM
Given no one can see my deck it shouldn't really matter to anyone how I got the cards... Really this will mostly impact who I can sell to so I'm not too worried either way. But in a tcg money equals options not directly letting you win.

Madican
08-18-2013, 10:54 PM
Hex can never be P2W with PvE because no matter how powerful your deck is you will be creamed by a raid boss if you don't follow the mechanics. Even the dungeons will prove to be a challenge since money doesn't equal skill. Throwing a bunch of powerful cards into a deck doesn't work for good TCG's, there needs to be strategy.

Jonesy
08-19-2013, 12:34 AM
um, there is no such thing as pay2win in pve, if you're not playing against another player its simply irrelevant.

Mathaw
08-19-2013, 06:47 AM
Money is an advantage in cards games. Im sure you knew this already. Do not try to change it.

The problem is that it's not just a TCG, it's an MMO as well.

As a couple have mentioned there is a bit of a conflict here if you can pay your way out of playing the PVE content.

It is a bit of a dilema.

WOW handles this quite well by having certain items that are BOP (bind on pickup, i.e. you own them and they cannot be traded). The conflict only comes into play when you recognise this game as a TCG.

Maybe it won't be an issue anyway, but definitely a valid topic of debate!

ossuary
08-19-2013, 07:12 AM
Not really. You aren't competing with anyone for rare drops in PVE. While it's true that this game is an MMO and a TCG at the same time, the MMO portion is completely segregated from the tournament TCG portion (PVP). So things that impact one don't necessarily impact the other.

In all real TCGs, if you have more money to spend than someone else, you have access to more or rarer or older cards than they do. This does not necessarily equate to skill, and a well-designed TCG will still give financially disadvantaged players a reasonable chance to win over an overfunded but underskilled opponent. So a TCG is not "pay to win" because money is not the only factor - a true pay to win experience essentially guarantees victory to whoever spends the most, not who is best.

On the MMO side of things, however, the whole debate is completely irrelevant, because you will not be in direct competition with anyone. I couldn't give two shits if someone else paid $1000 for a bunch of cards or equipment I don't have access to in the PVE section of the game, because I don't interact with them, ever. It doesn't affect me if they go on a high level raid, because they are instanced, and I don't have to see them or deal with them. My experience is not altered in the slightest by what some random player does - so who cares?

I see no reason whatsoever to limit people from spending money instead of time if they so choose. Frankly, I'm COUNTING on it, because I want to sell my stuff to those people so I can buy more packs. Let the time-short money-flush whales pay for me to play if they really want to. :)

Nicalapegus
08-19-2013, 07:27 AM
The problem is that it's not just a TCG, it's an MMO as well.

As a couple have mentioned there is a bit of a conflict here if you can pay your way out of playing the PVE content.

It is a bit of a dilema.

Maybe it won't be an issue anyway, but definitely a valid topic of debate!

It's actually not a valid topic of debate. You can't just throw money at the screen and beat a big boss. Go play MTG and buy the most expensive netdeck. That doesn't guarantee you anything. You still need to know your deck, know how to use it, and when/where to use your cards.

This isn't comparable to WoW at all. You're not just levelling your character, or changing a number to a higher number. You're making strategic descisions of what to put in your deck and what not to, when to use it when not to, how much lands, what your curve is, what the meta is, what the boss encounter is.... I could go on and on and that's exactly the reason we are all so excited about Hex.

Point is this-if you truly want to compare this to WoW or suggest that by simply throwing money at the game you'll win... you have never played a real tcg in your life.

-Beyond that... even if what you suggest is true that you can pay your way through PvE content... that doesn't really matter. It's PvE not PvP, and those are PvE cards not PvP cards. Let the people who have no skill pay their way through the content and you go ahead and don't.

Mathaw
08-19-2013, 07:33 AM
It's actually not a valid topic of debate…

That's a lot of debating for something that isn't a valid topic of debate ;)

Anyway, I wasn't comparing to WOW at all, that's a dirty debate trick (especially for someone who doesn't want a debate). I was merely referencing a mechanic in WOW that was relevant to the discussion.

Anyway, I'm not the one you want to be arguing with because I wasn't proposing or advocating anything; just joining the discussion like yourself.

Hatts
08-19-2013, 08:20 AM
@ Ossuary I couldn't agree more, and this is why I see this as a non-issue. If the purpose of this proposal is to prevent an 'unfair advantage' as Yoss says in the OP, then once again he is creating competition where none exists and then suggesting bizarre mechanics to facilitate this imaginary competition.

If this proposal is to mollify people who feel that they need to pay to win - that PvE content will be too difficult or too time consuming such that they feel the need to buy cards to progress in the game - then this still isn't a good solution. The correct solution is providing content that's enjoyable, with frequent enough awards so that progression in the game does not feel grindy.

Connected
08-19-2013, 01:37 PM
I got a novel idea: how about we wait till the game is out till we decide what needs to be fixed?

Pardon but I beg to differ, all sarcasm notwithstanding:


of a new kind; different from anything seen or known before:

There is very little novel about tapping out mentally. You're willing to spend $500 to back this game and then have no input into how it is developed? Uhh. OK. Well, I too have GK but I'm not going to just throw that $500 into a fire to watch it burn.

Connected
08-19-2013, 01:59 PM
While posting in the "mercs should be tradeable (or not)" thread, the concept of "pay to win" came up for the umpteenth time and I thought of an idea.
I enjoy your creativity. Even Edison failed in many of his inventions. I'm sure Leonardo did also.


What if each PVE item could not be used (could still purchase/trade) by a player until that player completes PVE content whose loot table has that item on it (regardless of whether the item dropped or not)? That way, even if you're paying money to buy Plat (from CZE) to buy Gold (from players) and thus PVE items on the AH, you can only buy things you've unlocked. (This assumes an economy something like the ones proposed here (link).)
To what end? I'll read on.


To be clear, I love the idea that I can trade money for time leverage in Hex; it is one of my primary motivations for backing the game. However, as I said elsewhere, I do not want money to buy unfair advantage, and by that I mean that money should not buy things that are otherwise not obtainable (this includes bypassing content).
All it takes is one devil's advocate to monkey wrench your logic by stating that your primary motivation is an unfair advantage. :P So I'll do it. Now we have a theoretical problem on our hands, the very one you wish to try and control - human envy. You will fail at accomplishing this goal because many people decry unfair advantage at any chance they can (and some will simultaneously reap the benefits of that advantage because they're bastards). Hell, you're even doing it here but then turning around and stating "Well, I don't want people to have an unfair advantage in the way I don't like it." which somehow equates to "bypassing content".


Thoughts? Any other ideas for how to blend the "money buys time" concept into PVE more effectively?
I think this is an absolutely terrible idea. You cannot eliminate money buying time because it always has and it always will. The difference between Hex and League of Legends (F2P but you buy time through RP to get heroes, runes, etc that would otherwise take longer)is that one only gains the advantage if they are impatient, which is negated by someone having patience.

Let's say that Super-Item X drops off a PvE boss. I'm a LuckyDuck for having won the roll to get it and due to my fortune I decide to sell it off to EnvyTrooper because I have something they want. You want that person to be forced to run the content to get the drop, but only once. But then they can bypass the content. But they can bypass it anyway due to the AH. But you don't want them bypassing content so they are forced to run it... Your logic is not sound.


I do not want money to buy unfair advantage, and by that I mean that money should not buy things that are otherwise not obtainable

If you cannot buy something that is unobtainable, but you state


Remember that your first loot drop from a given table will not net you everything you want from that table. This proposal would unlock everything on that table for you in the AH so that you don't have to grind/farm that table if you don't want to.

then we have a problem here. The loot drop you want isn't obtainable until it drops for you but you want to be able to buy it outright from the AH after only *ONE* run of the content! You don't want an unfair advantage but you want an unfair advantage! Let's slice this puppy up with Occam's Razor:

Forego the restriction and buy your item off the AH as soon as it's for sale. You've accomplished the exact same goal without unnecessarily complicating the entire process, creating endless hours of work for the development team and creating yet another action item for the project team. I'd keep going but that might create an unfair advantage for Hex in the marketplace by properly utilizing resources. :P


Would need a tooltip/popup/etc to tell players why an item is locked and how to unlock it.
No. Unnecessary coding. The idea of needing this popup is bad enough but MMO 101 - DO NOT PUNISH your playerbase. They'll disappear like a fart in the wind.


Remember that your first loot drop from a given table will not net you everything you want from that table. This proposal would unlock everything on that table for you in the AH so that you don't have to grind/farm that table if you don't want to.
That's the kicker right there - you simply don't want to grind for your loot. OK, so go buy it on the AH then. Problem solved. Oh, but you still want to run the content AND be handed your loot on a silver spoon? [insert something about getting omnomnom on delicious cake here and something else about opportunity cost/choice]


Also know that PVP cards will never be locked out.
Why are unfair advantages allowed here?


Changed it from a purchase restriction to a use restriction. Then you could still trade for it, but not use it until you unlock, like in WOW.
Having level restrictions in WoW makes sense and is implemented in a way where people do not feel punished for playing the game; the level restriction mechanic simply becomes the nature of the business. If you want these restrictions then put level requirements down. You are trying to reinvent the wheel and be unique and I love your creativity. Not all ideas are winners.


If an item ever rotates out of all loot tables, it would automatically unlock for everyone.
It should never be taken out of everyone's reach to begin with in such an overt fashion. Implement level requirements and skill-checks/quest requirements to accomplish this. Legendaries shouldn't be easily obtainable and if they CAN be traded it's going to cost two generations of labor to acquire it now as it should be.

I think your solution is to simply remove the RNG component from the game in your favor. Asking Crypto to spend more money undoing work they are already accomplishing isn't a good idea.

I enjoy your ideas for they make me think. Keep it up.

Nicalapegus
08-19-2013, 05:50 PM
...I wasn't comparing to WOW at all...


WOW handles this quite well by having certain items that are BOP (bind on pickup, i.e. you own them and they cannot be traded)

Yea...you clearly weren't comparing it to WoW. I'm also not arguing with you, I'm discussing it with you and the members of the forum. That's what the point of a forum is. If I came across as hostile I apologize; that wasn't my intent.

Also since you're so insistent on technicality, it should be abbreviated as WoW.

See: http://www.computer.org/portal/web/publications/style_acronyms

Just kidding :P Spell it how you want.

Lafoote
08-19-2013, 06:37 PM
"Back in the day" when we played Everquest, my friends and I would pay attention to what we bought. We always went out of our way to kill the mobs that dropped our gear so we could "earn" it. It was always satisfying to do so. However, without the gear(or cards) in question, would the fight even be winnable?

I do not favor the proposal, both because it may shackle players that are having difficulty, and because "pay2win" play is a win/win to the buyer and seller. Further, while this is an MMO, it is also a CCG and curtailing the effectiveness of the collecting is contrary to the genre.