1 pack in 2 days is too slow because actually as you can expect it's not 1 pack in 2 days. It's 23 packs in a month or so (after you get your first 23 packs fast).
When you count the relative value 5k packs are the best but it takes a crazy amount of time to grind so the next amount is 2k packs.
Minmaxers (okay, I am a minmaxer but there are a lot of people like me) won't be able to afford themselves wasting their gems on single packs. They will be saving for 2k pack but be frustrated they have to do it on a such slowly pace. Like me.
And while you grind your gems to this 2k pack you indeed don't have any progress at all. They can't remove the 2k pack now since it stimulates people to buy gems but it makes others to play a month with no progress at all.
I do win right now but it's too easy to overpower with p2w decks right now, or even worse, by those who haven't spent a dime yet have everything from ios version. The worst part here are heroes, since you can't build a competitive deck without a specific hero like knuckles, CC or prof. The only viable alternative is super brains or solar flare which are much worse.
No one expects anyone to get everything in a card game since there always are new expansions and card sets.
@megraam wrote:
1 pack in 2 days is too slow because actually as you can expect it's not 1 pack in 2 days. It's 23 packs in a month or so (after you get your first 23 packs fast).
When you count the relative value 5k packs are the best but it takes a crazy amount of time to grind so the next amount is 2k packs.
Minmaxers (okay, I am a minmaxer but there are a lot of people like me) won't be able to afford themselves wasting their gems on single packs. They will be saving for 2k pack but be frustrated they have to do it on a such slowly pace. Like me.
And while you grind your gems to this 2k pack you indeed don't have any progress at all. They can't remove the 2k pack now since it stimulates people to buy gems but it makes others to play a month with no progress at all.
I do win right now but it's too easy to overpower with p2w decks right now, or even worse, by those who haven't spent a dime yet have everything from ios version. The worst part here are heroes, since you can't build a competitive deck without a specific hero like knuckles, CC or prof. The only viable alternative is super brains or solar flare which are much worse.
No one expects anyone to get everything in a card game since there always are new expansions and card sets.
That's a good, respectful answer without hyperbole and only a little bit subjective. It's a shame you didn't start there and it took 8 pages to get to the actual problems you are having.
Problem 1) 2k and 5k packs make min/maxers (I'm one myself) suffer from not progressing because they feel the need to get the most (even though it's not really such a huge gain). I definitely agree with this and felt the same pain, but obviously I was doing it to myself for a greater gain. I think it might be best if they just removed those options and reduced the pack size to something like 500 and 1000 gems, and left the 2k and 5k packs as cash only. This reduces the psycological effect for us min/maxers while leaving the option for those who do want to spend some money. Another idea would be to have an option that combines gems and cash, for example 1000 gems + $7 for the 2K pack. That's very likely how many people purcahse the 2K and 5k packs anyway and it stops f2p players from feeling that they have to wait to get to 2K gems before getting new packs.
Problem 2) Unbalanced heroes. You are saying that you think that specific heroes are better than others. If this is true then it needs a rebalancing. I keep seeing threads about how each of the heroes seem to have some OP combination so I get the feeling that it's not as unbalanced as you seem to think. This is the kind of thing that should be discussed in the strategy section though because that's where people chime in with the best strategies on how to play each hero.
Problem 3) Mismatching. If you are getting matched against decks that are out of your league because they spent more money or have been playing longer, that definitely creates a bad experience. Giving everyone all the cards would certainly solve this, but, as I mentioned, that creates other problems. Getting more cards faster won't actually solve the problem as there will always be someone who has played more or spent more than you, though it might reduce it a bit, but what rate is the correct one. You didn't actually give an estimate of what rate you would be happy with. Even so, this wouldn't be at all necessary if you were just matched against people of the same level as you because then the games would be fair and would be enjoyable and fun.
@Gabochido wrote:
That's a good, respectful answer without hyperbole and only a little bit subjective. It's a shame you didn't start there and it took 8 pages to get to the actual problems you are having.
Problem 1) 2k and 5k packs make min/maxers (I'm one myself) suffer from not progressing because they feel the need to get the most (even though it's not really such a huge gain). I definitely agree with this and felt the same pain, but obviously I was doing it to myself for a greater gain. I think it might be best if they just removed those options and reduced the pack size to something like 500 and 1000 gems, and left the 2k and 5k packs as cash only. This reduces the psycological effect for us min/maxers while leaving the option for those who do want to spend some money. Another idea would be to have an option that combines gems and cash, for example 1000 gems + $7 for the 2K pack. That's very likely how many people purcahse the 2K and 5k packs anyway and it stops f2p players from feeling that they have to wait to get to 2K gems before getting new packs.
Problem 2) Unbalanced heroes. You are saying that you think that specific heroes are better than others. If this is true then it needs a rebalancing. I keep seeing threads about how each of the heroes seem to have some OP combination so I get the feeling that it's not as unbalanced as you seem to think. This is the kind of thing that should be discussed in the strategy section though because that's where people chime in with the best strategies on how to play each hero.
Problem 3) Mismatching. If you are getting matched against decks that are out of your league because they spent more money or have been playing longer, that definitely creates a bad experience. Giving everyone all the cards would certainly solve this, but, as I mentioned, that creates other problems. Getting more cards faster won't actually solve the problem as there will always be someone who has played more or spent more than you, though it might reduce it a bit, but what rate is the correct one. You didn't actually give an estimate of what rate you would be happy with. Even so, this wouldn't be at all necessary if you were just matched against people of the same level as you because then the games would be fair and would be enjoyable and fun.
This is exactly what I have said in my first post though. Just a little more detailed but the source of the problem is the same. Game suggests you to grind 2000 gems, doing it takes 2 weeks at best with no visible progress at all: it's very hard not to lose interest in the game.
Also there is what I call bottleneck: first 2000 come rather easily thanks to the hero quests and easy ladder but then the difference between first 2000 and second one is shocking and disappointing. This is what makes people quit and they DO quit since the game has drastically lost its popularity.
Heroes WILL be unbalanced. One hero will be definitely better than the other. No one plays z-tech or chomper, they are just as bad. When powers of the hero are in synergy with the deck you play it's much better. Compare green shadow moss with CC moss and you will understand what do I mean.
There are several staple cards most decks run be it a teleport for most popular zombies or grapes of wrath for popular plants (as in mirror nut as alternative to be picky). Some legendaries, sometimes in astonishing quantities (3 tricksters anyone?)
Being stomped by this kind of a deck feels better when you know you have something in your deck yourself. If you don't and you still see these cards beating you it's disappointing a lot.
The problem is, the ladder is quite full with them. The only bad thing here they stop your gems grind because of the faulty model gems per rank advance, it should be gems per win.
Instead of getting 40 gems per rank advance you should get 2 gems per win for example (talking diamond). I hope you understand why.
@megraam wrote:
This is exactly what I have said in my first post though. Just a little more detailed but the source of the problem is the same. Game suggests you to grind 2000 gems, doing it takes 2 weeks at best with no visible progress at all: it's very hard not to lose interest in the game.
Also there is what I call bottleneck: first 2000 come rather easily thanks to the hero quests and easy ladder but then the difference between first 2000 and second one is shocking and disappointing. This is what makes people quit and they DO quit since the game has drastically lost its popularity.
Heroes WILL be unbalanced. One hero will be definitely better than the other. No one plays z-tech or chomper, they are just as bad. When powers of the hero are in synergy with the deck you play it's much better. Compare green shadow moss with CC moss and you will understand what do I mean.
There are several staple cards most decks run be it a teleport for most popular zombies or grapes of wrath for popular plants (as in mirror nut as alternative to be picky). Some legendaries, sometimes in astonishing quantities (3 tricksters anyone?)
Being stomped by this kind of a deck feels better when you know you have something in your deck yourself. If you don't and you still see these cards beating you it's disappointing a lot.
The problem is, the ladder is quite full with them. The only bad thing here they stop your gems grind because of the faulty model gems per rank advance, it should be gems per win.
Instead of getting 40 gems per rank advance you should get 2 gems per win for example (talking diamond). I hope you understand why.
You do make some useful points. For example, perhaps making it so that you get a couple of gems after each win WOULD make the game more enjoyable and addictive (I've suggested it myself, actually).
Unfortunately, you're very disrespectful and obnoxious in your tone, which is why you are getting the pushback. I don't know if you expect developers to pay more attention when you write like that but it doesn't really work that way, all you do is get those who get worked up about forum trash having fun at your expense.
You also make some rather poor points. Why would heroes have to be unbalanced? yes, it is difficult to balance them, but that should be the focus of the designers to make the game better. A game that tries to hide design problems by showering its players with rewards is destined for failure.
Here's another thing, when is enough, enough? In my experience, if a player keeps getting matched up against someone who has better cards than them, they won't be happy until they have EXACTLY the same cards as their opponents and anything before that will always generate posts like this one demanding bigger rewards. So the problem is usually not the progression rate, it's the balancing of the matchups. Unfortunately, in this model (collectible card game) there will always be cards that you don't have and there will always be people who are convinced that they can't win just because they don't have those cards.
You refuse to believe all this and insist that getting a faster progression would make the experience better. You insist that a game is not fun if it does not have constant and fast progression but I can tell you from experience that it's not so. It's true that modern online games and the microtransaction model has made many people very spoiled about this, but the most critically acclaimed games don't rely on a generous suite of rewards or fast progression, they rely on fun and addictive gameplay that you can repeat over and over.
Unfortunately, the best I can do to try to show you this is point you to a couple of examples: a game where progression is slow but the matchups are balanced and it is successful (Clash Royale) and a game where rewards are huge but the matchups are unbalanced and the game is unsuccessful (Solforge).
The focus should not be on making the progression faster, it should be on making the progression fun. That's what makes a good game succeed. I hope you understand why. (<- see how obnoxious this sounds?)
@Gabochido wrote:
Unfortunately, you're very disrespectful and obnoxious in your tone, which is why you are getting the pushback. I don't know if you expect developers to pay more attention when you write like that but it doesn't really work that way, all you do is get those who get worked up about forum trash having fun at your expense.
Which kind of pushback do I get, could you be more specific? Also who are "those who get worked up", care to give me at least 3 examples?
@Gabochido wrote:
You also make some rather poor points. Why would heroes have to be unbalanced? yes, it is difficult to balance them, but that should be the focus of the designers to make the game better. A game that tries to hide design problems by showering its players with rewards is destined for failure.
Please give me an example of a game where heroes are different yet balanced.
@Gabochido wrote:
You refuse to believe all this and insist that getting a faster progression would make the experience better. You insist that a game is not fun if it does not have constant and fast progression but I can tell you from experience that it's not so. It's true that modern online games and the microtransaction model has made many people very spoiled about this, but the most critically acclaimed games don't rely on a generous suite of rewards or fast progression, they rely on fun and addictive gameplay that you can repeat over and over.
Unfortunately, the best I can do to try to show you this is point you to a couple of examples: a game where progression is slow but the matchups are balanced and it is successful (Clash Royale) and a game where rewards are huge but the matchups are unbalanced and the game is unsuccessful (Solforge).
The focus should not be on making the progression faster, it should be on making the progression fun. That's what makes a good game succeed. I hope you understand why. (<- see how obnoxious this sounds?)
A faster progression will give the player a sense of a progress and an accomplishment. Right now in PVZH you have to grind for 2 weeks or more without having ANY progress which matters at all, since you can't afford to buy 2k pack or you can't progress at the ladder (I mean plat+ now).
Let me tell you, the most critically acclaimed and popular CCG has arguably more fun and addictive gameplay than PVZH (at least it definitely MORE variable) and its rewards and progression is much better than PVZH. Obviously I don't mean clash royale or solforge.
Which kind of a fun progression do you see in a PVZH past first 2k pack and plat league?
I think he was referring to mismatches like facing Rank 10-20 when you're maxed, and it's happened to me quite often on both ends of the scale.
The problem always stems back to the same thing, progression and gem progression, in a free to play game people expect it to be free and not have to lose to everyone who pays. Donations to any game should give you a little edge but shouldn't be so that it's impossible to win against them.
I do feel like this game does that to an extent, but at the same time progression for free players is much too slow and comes to an almost standstill.
On top top of that, they've completely crippled the drop rate of heroes leaving very little incentive to play at all. Couple that with the bugs not giving full gems when completing multiple quests it is just frustrating because sometimes you've waiting a week to get a good quest and you aren't rewarded for it.
