Reduce Hero Price or Give away more free heroes in Training ground.

12 posts / 0 new
Last post
Earthconstruct
Reduce Hero Price or Give away more free heroes in Training ground.

I think it is about the time to reduce the hero price since relatively we are reducing the price "value"of new core - new core is still 5k while getting the best cards. Why not do it in one shot? =)

Besides, there are 27 heroes. I think you can give away 1-2 free heroes. Also, 70K cost too much for that many heroes and we are in 2k format.

That way, it will sustain new players interest. Even with same cards, continuous buying of a new hero, will give many iteration in building a deck.

hopeprevails
hopeprevails's picture

There are 7 free heroes, but isn't your first hero cheaper or something? Don't forget the rotating heroes are free.

Earthconstruct

Yeah, i do know. I should have said 1-2 free heroes "more" as the thread title suggested. I started when there's just 20 heroes, now we have 27.

The "Hero market" has been stagnant. More and more heroes were added but nothing changed. It even gave stress to rotating heroes, giving less probability to test out heroes you like. In fact, there's one change but we increased the price of new heroes from 70k to 90k.

We could say the issue of Hero is the same case as the "Card Market". New card sets( core, eve, rise, tribes etc..) are being introduced with increasing price pack - 5k, 7.5k 10k, 15k. It is getting harder to get cards for new players. Then, the price pack was increased further at the start of the Ganz Era and it did not do well with new players from steam and players in general.

But now we are back to same 5k price pack and we even regroup all the core, eve, rise, and tribes, into a new core pack to address the new player competitiveness. With that regard, there's a need to review the hero market as well.

Under 2k format which I like btw, the new core will address the lack of card collection for new players. Hence, something has to be done also to ease buying of heroes for them too. Let's do this in one shot to save time.

placidfac

I totally disagree with your whole premise. You get a free hero for every kingdom. I dont see that there is a need for cheaper heroes. If you want a hero, save up for them.

Earthconstruct

Your 1st reason of getting just a free hero for every kingdom is very shallow.
The second one is like saying theres no need for new core. If you want cards, save up for them.

You may want to try again.

placidfac

i could make the same arguments for your reasoning. the idea of giving heroes away at a lower cost is very shallow. (whatever that even means)

the difference between heroes and core is this. when you buy a hero, you know what you are getting. you know exactly what that hero can do. it has literally nothing to do with new core.

new core exists because there was so much trash in the antic sets that it was a momentous undertaking for new players to establish themselves as competitive, because the number of quality cards in the huge sets that antic put out was minimal. your odds of getting a good card in those packs were terrible. new core exists to make the game more accessible to new players.

cheaper heroes are not needed to make the game more accessible to new players. hell, olfaan is the best alchemy hero in most respects, unless you are playing ravi stall or a combo deck with drav.

70k is not an unreachable amount for players who want to get those heroes. stop whining for everything to be easier for you.

Earthconstruct

Hey placid, so how's your 14/27 heroes going since playing 2012? =) Have you turned into a just casual player?

Obviously, you don't know me. You don't just throw something into the air and assume that I'm whining and I want it easy. But I'm not here to show off my credentials. Let's just say, I'll benefit 0% from this. Moreover, I'm not trying to state the difference between heroes and new core. Actually, I'm pointing the similarity between the two, that there were "changes" that were introduced into them over the course of the game.

Your explanation of new core is what I've been saying as well, in simple terms. On a technical sense, new core is an attempt to bring back the status quo when the game was initially created. I'm sure Antic have computed everything into NUMBERS, like how long a new player will progress into this game, how much the game will profit, etc... Hence, it determined gold/gem/hero/pack prices, gold/gem/pack ratio, pack/market/singles probability, rewards system, and other variables of the game.

Focusing on the cards, many of the cards aren't useless before. But as you introduce a change like having new sets, their value changes. All the "NUMBERS" that I mentioned above changes as well, in this case, against the new players. To maintain the status quo, the game compensates by lessening the pack prices of old packs, tournament rewards were changed too. The card market especially singles, compensates too. However, Antic introduced a lot of sets and became careless in tribes and tribes2. Campaign rewards has been stagnant. Beginner's deck did not changed. Probabilities aspect became worse. Insane decks were obvious.. ahem! drav build. The game became against new players.

Then came Ganz. Right of the bat, he increased all pack prices because he insisted that the gold/gem/pack ratio should be maintained as Antic planned it. I forgot what was it. What's worse, the power level of LA and DD set is so high that the card rarity is up one level. That's the worse era for new players to come in. But after that, Ganz made many compensation. He had the card/pack prices reduced, arena is rewarding, tweaked some heroes/cards, implemented 2k, the recent one is the new core.

As for heroes now, one may say that the changes in hero were minimal to affect new players. I may agree on that but as Ive said in earlier post, 2k is very restrictive if you are just starting the game. You need to maintain the interest of new players as they go along, increasing their shelf life until they became convinced that they want to stay. If you have many heroes, it gives more iteration in deck building.

On that long note =), any change in hero market is long overdue. It might not be drastic, as long there's a change that benefit new players.

Btw, the new core helps new players to be competitive in a way that they don't feel overpowered when they lose in arena. But make no mistake, it takes them time to develop more than we usually think it would. New core is a way to compensate for new players but the new patch in general created problems for them. New core became arena focused with guilds still using legacy cards/tribes2. Now, they need to decide where to put their gold/gem first. Keep in mind, guilds is where you farm too and you need legacy/tribes2 cards there to be competitive. --- the end =)

placidfac

Thanks for the history lesson, the issue I have with your whole argument can be summed up by answering your first question (how am i doing with a small number of heroes since 2012) check the leaderboards, im top 50 in both limited and standard (or at least i was yesterday before i logged off). Also, up until last week when several of my guildmates decided they were getting bored with the gw grind, i was in a top 5 epic guild. Strange that i was able to accomplish that with only 12 heroes!

The point is, just because something makes it easier for new players, doesn't mean it makes it necessary. The cards are more important to the deck than any particular hero. Until you get to the point where you are building a meta deck (think thania hourglass, dravkas combos or helm, ravi lifegain) you dont need to concern yourself with buying a new hero. The campaign gives you one from each kingdom.

To be completely honest, I am generally against reducing prices/increasing rewards because part of my ideology in this game (and in most walks of life) is that you get out of it what you put into it. People invest their time and money into this game, and just continuously making things cheaper and easier in the hopes of keeping new players interested only works up to a certain point. When everyone has the opportunity to have the best things immediately, there is no point in investing in the game.

Earthconstruct

Being you on top of the leaderboard or being top5 epic is irrelevant, because you are no longer a new player. Who knows what cards you got already, how many gems you have earned..etc. You are already a learned player who got help from older players from older guilds over the course of 4 years.

The mere fact that you are NOT buying heroes, only just 12 of them in 4 YEARS, it means that you decided to stay in the game and play it CASUALLY. And even if you decrease the hero price or even increase it, it does not affect you anymore or to an extent, you don't care anymore.

We are talking about new players here. They are trying out stuff, deciding if they will stay in the game. Hero pricing does matter to them than old players like us. They will extrapolate what they have in weeks into months then into years, and see if they can progress in the game reasonably.

I respect your idealogy but they are subjective, often times biased. That's why I want to be objective as possible. That's why i mentioned in the history about the "NUMBERS" of the game and about maintaining its status quo. If the game plans for a new player to stay in the game like after "4 weeks" of playing, the game should maintain it. Hence, any change in the game should have a "corresponding" compensation. That will assure that the game have a continuous influx of new players in the game.

BTW, top5 in epic, top 50 in arena? Cmon, when did you start doing that? Like yesterday.. =)

cewen

My thoughts:

20% off first hero (if bought with gems, 1 (or 2) kingdom packs)

Rest of the hero's 70k (including mek and those currently at 90k) - buy with gems = 1 or 2 kingdom packs.

Kingdom packs is a new feature after all, should be used as frequently as possible I think :)

bLub

I think having a discount on your first 1-2 heroes is a good idea.

winnerofall12

yeah it is good