More quest places?


#1

I don’t understand why this is not a priority. It’s horrible as it is, not to mention that there are 8 quests in total.

Caps haters beware.

PLEASE MAKE THIS - more quest spots - A PRIORITY !!!

I’ve had over 10 friends leave from Duelyst because of this and I’m considering leaving myself.


#2

Not sure blackmail is the good way to go.


#3

What do you mean, more quest places/spots?

Do you mean you want to be able to do, say, 10 quests each day?

The game has a good gold-to-play ratio imo, the devs do need to make a living.

If that’s what you mean I disagree. I really like how it is now.


#4

No, the potential for players to earn in game currency is not good. At the current pace of new expansions being released new players have a very hard, unpleasant time catching up. This shows for example in the Steam player numbers with a significant decline of around 50% over the last month only. Retention of new players is terrible, conversion to paying customers even worse since everything seems ridiculously overpriced. Your argument that the devs need to make a living is moot when I see F2P games with better production value like Paladins which offer an extremely fair pricing structure.


#5

wait, why would the new player needs to really catch up to the meta?

i mean, i’ve only been playing for 2 weeks and i can reach gold 6, i think the basic cards are extremely amazing, i mean does most new players aim for S?

forgot to mention that i haven’t spend a dime on the game.


#6

This is an inherent factor in every card game, it’s not going to do you much good complaining about it. To try and make it up to people that came in late is to slow down release of sets for the core audience who aren’t going to leave the game unless, you guessed it, content is put on hold. It’s also a way for the devs to make a living. This:

is at once incredibly, extraordinarily callous, and ignores the whole point of releasing games commercially. Additionally, the comparison to another game with a much, much larger studio (it’s made by Hi-Rez, the Smite guys, who have the money and manpower to do exactly that) in a wholly different genre is a terrible way to argue your point.

People compare this game to Hearthstone because they’re actually, you know, comparable, and when you make that comparison, Duelyst is cheaper by orders of magnitude. Fair pricing structure? You need to save up 2.5k gold to get cards from an expansion in Hearthstone, which also suffers from the same “problems” of new players not having things that Duelyst does. In Duelyst it’s just more packs. In Hearthstone it’s a paygate to having good cards.

There’s not a day in Duelyst that I play where I don’t make enough gold to get at least one pack, even from playing just a few games, with the exception of the scenario I get only quests that are out of faction for me, and even then that’s only because I’m trying to hit S and want my chevrons. 5 Gold from the daily challenge + 20 from a daily win + 25 from any faction quest (which we will assume they all are for the sake of the average) + winning 2 out of 4 games for the faction quest (also a reasonable assumption) is already 65. You would need to win 6 more games, or do one more quest and win 2 more games in order to make that much, and that’s assuming you don’t have a welcome back bonus, or any leftover gold, at all. In games with similar currency schemes, that is utterly unheard of.


#7

For some reason I doubt that literally ten whole people from the same social group would leave a game ONLY because they can’t play three quests instead of two. They probably had other reasons too.


#8

The higher the rank the higher the monthly rewards which are of considerable value especially for new players growing their collection. So yeah I think if they had the choice every player would choose to be rank S over a lower rank.

I never said you cannot reach a reasonable rank with a cheap deck but it is also reasonable to assume you would have more success with a more expensive meta deck. Also these more expensive decks have epic/legendary cards which usually offer a more evolved, strategic play style which is more fun than the rather basic tactics cheap decks offer. Additionally the larger your collection the better you can experiment with deck builds which for me is a big part of the fun in TCGs.

Both under a competitive aspect and under the perspective of enjoyment of the game a large collection has advantages so it is just natural that new players strive to catch up.


#9

This basically reads “having more things is better.” I don’t think anyone is going to argue that, and it’s not really a point in your favor, either.

I don’t think it’s reasonable to say any of that, actually. I played a 7k dust Vet build for a month before Siphon got nerfed. I peaked at rank 2. Someone posted, earlier today I think, a 3.5k dust Mag deck that he made S with. Success comes down to playing the game, not having cards, because the commons and basics are playable staples, as they should be in any healthy card game. The “more evolved, strategic play style” is also not a cost issue, but something that has to do with deckbuilding.

Are control cards expensive? No. Chromatic Cold is basic. Siphon is common. Dark Transformation is basic. Shroud is common (I think? Maybe basic.). The threats control decks play are expensive, and not because they’re more efficient than basic cards, but because their effects can spiral out of control. Vet plays Nimbus instead of Stormmetal Golem because if Nimbus isn’t answered, it can slowly spiral out of control. Could the same effect be achieved, of going late and playing big threats, with golems? Absolutely. It just doesn’t fit the archetype as well.

You could argue this for most archetypes, and the ones you can’t are the ones that separate Duelyst from other games; they’re things new players see and go, “whoah, I wanna try that.” So they work for it, and because they’ve done that, they’ve got time invested, which in turn leads them to continue playing the game. Handing someone everything from the beginning is a good way to say, “you’re done here, go find something else to waste time on.”

This is saying that because of the vast amount of cards, new players try to play to get more? Are you portraying this as a bad thing? This is the core concept of progression in games.


#10

Using incomplete quotes that totally misrepresent what I said is just rude. Do not do that again please. It really pisses me off.

It does not matter whether Paladins is a different genre. Both games had a production cost and both have running costs. That what makes them comparable. And Paladins most definitely has higher production costs as well as running costs for servers and so on as Duelyst, still manage to offer a fairer pricing structure. Also I fail to see how the size of the development studio matters.

I never said HS was better. All the TCGs I played so far with the exception of Faeria did try to rip of their customers by selling them ridiculously overpriced booster packs in ‘micro’ transactions which for a complete collection sum up to an amount equivalent to multiple AAA games. That is just pure insanity and I do not understand how anyone could defend that.


#11

I’m sorry, that wasn’t my intent. However, my point still stands. It works like this: Hi-Rez owns Smite, which I’m sure we can both agree is very popular. That genre is filled with microtransactions for both playable heroes, and for skins for each and every single one of those heroes. It’s not easy to get either of those things without buying them. It’s intentionally designed to be difficult, to get you to surrender your money. (I feel strongly about this because I play Dota instead.) Because it doesn’t cost anything to reproduce goods digitally, and those microtransactions are both expensive and very, very numerous, they run a very high profit margin, on a very large scale, on that game. They can then take that high profit margin, and use it to make a game with a lower profit margin as a way to attract paying customers. Duelyst is CPG’s only game, as far as I’m aware. The scenario is entirely different.

Additionally, it does matter that they’re different genres. Shooters aren’t known for their content delivery system. Shooters are known for, well, the shooting bits.

I never said you said Hearthstone was better; it’s just a more fair comparison. TCGs do that because they’re based off of the real-life business model, which is exactly the same. I think Richard Garfield is the one who pioneered it, chief designer for MTG when it launched. It’s a way to offer incremental payments for a product which over time earns more revenue than if the payment was a one-time deal. It also has the benefit of encouraging discussion and fostering creativity by making people use what they have. It’s a very, very large reason why card games are more compelling to larger audiences than, say, N++ is.

Well, in the case of this game, it has the very large advantage over MTG where competitive decks don’t cost upwards of $500, or even several thousand dollars. I’ll defend one over the other any day :V


#12

I’m a little confused as to why different quest options have to be a priority? I mean, yes it would be nice for a littler more variety, but what CPG has done is brilliant in my opinion. That is, having quests that can be easily completed by anyone of any skill level. I’m sure that they will get around to adding in more over time, and the fact that you can make an extra 5 gold just for taking a few minutes for a single turn of gameplay is amazing to someone like me, who thinks the challenges are one of the best ways to really get into the mechanics.
Also, it’s so very possible to get enough money to do a Gauntlet run every day, even if you lose most of your matches in the span of around an hour (Which I do quite often, I’ll admit).

If you really feel like leaving because you can’t just have the entire set of cards in a few days, then maybe CCGs just aren’t for you.


#13

One has to differentiate between paid cosmetics and paid game relevant content. When selling cosmetics everything is fair game for all I care. Games could sell cosmetic skins for thousand of bucks and I would not complain. However when it comes to game relevant content a game needs to offer a reasonable way to keep up without paying money otherwise it drifts off into P2W territory.

I never played Smite but if the progression is similar to Paladins there should be no problem even for casual players to unlock the game relevant content naturally just by playing.

Since you mentioned Dota2 that of course is the holy grail of F2P. One gets all game relevant content unlocked upfront and it is profitable just by selling cosmetics. Wish Valve would get into the card game market and take a big steaming dump on Blizzard and all others that think their can milk their customers for easy money.

That booster pack nonsense of course originated in real life. It was a ripoff then and with digital goods it has become even more of a bad joke. At least real cards (and I also think those in MTGO) can be sold again for money. With digital games however all the money invested will just evaporate once the servers go down. At least Blizzard has a decent track record of supporting even their older games for a long long time. With small indie devs like CPG you never know what will happen.

HS has the highest return of investment of any Blizzard game. The amount of money they are making by selling overpriced booster packs is insane compared to money they pay for development and maintenance. Duelyst pretty much has the same pricing structure so I find it very hard to imagine that CPG is struggling to keep the lights on. F2P progress is better in Duelyst but it is still painfully slow which is intentional since CPG just like Blizzard prefer the stick over the carrot. Again, I would love to see Valve prove them all wrong and show them how to build and run a real F2P card game just supported by cosmetic micro transactions.


#14

I don’t have the muse to read through all this. It’s a fact that duelyst is still even after some nerfs to the reward system more generous than hearthstone. It’s also a fact that with basic commons and rares one can build very viable decks. I myself got to diamond in my first month without paying money, which isn’t uncommon at all, and there even are some people like @freethinker that got into S during their first month. Sure, if they keep up releasing expansions as fast as they do, as a f2p newcomer you won’t achieve a full collection, especially if only playing a spare few matches a week. You can’t expect something else, there needs to be some space for profit.

TLDR: You won’t be able to get a full collection as a f2p, but it’s pretty easy to get competitive.

Oh yah and comparing CPG to valve is maybe a little bit unrealistic.


#15

I don’t think you read my post.


#16

Comparing the system to HS is just a non.argument imho, that’s just too greedy, in perfect blizzard style, I remember playing it for months and even after spending something like 40 bucks I still had like 2 legendaries (1 crafted and 1 found in a pack), then they even created adventures to squeeze some more money…

Anyway if anything in this game they could buff up again welcome back quest (which is VERY unlikely) but the rest is fine. Even while laddering i used only one faction and still managed to do gold. Even if you keep playing with one faction you can replace quests until you get your faction q or neutral ones, and even if you dont manage to get your faction’s and don’t want to lose rank in ladder you could still go on gauntlet to do the quest (and if all you want to do is laddering AND you can’t to the quests you can “compensate” with welcome back). I know that for newcomers it would be a lot harder since you want to reach a solid deck asap, but once you manage to have one that can bring you to diamond (and it doesn’t take very long actually) it will feel a lot smoother


#17

I did.

As I said I never played Smite so I cannot judge how easy it is to unlock heroes, only thing I can say if it is as easy as in Paladins it is not a problem.


#18

The point wasn’t about how difficult it is or isn’t (and I also stated it’s very difficult) but what the revenue from Smite allows Hi-Rez to do with Paladins.


#19

So your point is Paladins only has a consumer friendly pricing structure because Hi-Rez are using the profits from their other game to subsidise this non-profitable game? That sounds pretty far fetched. Then what about Dota2? Is Valve also subsidising that with their other profits?


#20

In fact they probably were in the beginning. Valve has the ressources to not suffer from losing money on their f2ps at first, so they can be really generous, they also have lots of money available to advertise it, so the playerbase can grow rapidly. This results in the fact that games like TF2 can exist based solely on the back of cosmetics. CPG can’t afford to lose money, even if its just for a short period of time, since they most likely don’t have the financial backup.