Tendou | 2015-11-19 19:14:24 |
CyberneticPony | 2015-11-19 23:53:50 |
Cooler | 2015-11-20 05:58:22 |
English version coming soon! :)
mamoulian | 2015-11-20 09:10:13 |
I'm glad that it looks like it isn't a reboot of spectro (like in the case of astral and spectro) so there will be place and audience for both of them. (I hope.) :) I'm curious about the purple mana on the left, have to rewatch or in english...
Sinist | 2015-11-20 14:05:59 |
Nice! Most cards are the same as Astral Masters, though Druid seems op)
CyberneticPony | 2015-11-20 14:53:39 |
I'm glad that it looks like it isn't a reboot of spectro (like in the case of astral and spectro) so there will be place and audience for both of them. (I hope.) :) I'm curious about the purple mana on the left, have to rewatch or in english... I think purple "mana" is like astral power in astral masters. Essentially, you fill your mana pool up to this amount at the beginning of each turn. Cooler | 2015-11-20 16:10:03 |
Wavelength | 2015-11-20 21:26:29 |
Looks good!!
I like the "Mana Storm" to prevent the game from becoming entirely a topdecking exercise. Have you tried out allowing the Mana Storm at any time, even when the player has cards? If so, what did it do to the game?
By the way, if you would like me to do any editing on the game's English game text, help text, or card text, feel free to shoot me an email. It means a lot to me for you guys to succeed. =)
CyberneticPony | 2015-11-20 22:54:37 |
Looks good!!
I like the "Mana Storm" to prevent the game from becoming entirely a topdecking exercise. Have you tried out allowing the Mana Storm at any time, even when the player has cards? If so, what did it do to the game?
By the way, if you would like me to do any editing on the game's English game text, help text, or card text, feel free to shoot me an email. It means a lot to me for you guys to succeed. =) I don't think being able to use mana storm is super necessary unless you're out of cards; there's a replace in the game you get once every turn. EDIT: I am super hyped for this game; it is already looking much more enjoyable than Astral Masters; Faerie Windcrafter was my favourite card in Astral Masters and it looks like it has been given a straight upgrade in this game! Not to mention, it looks like a class model (stuff like Order, Death, Life) rather than an element basis is being used, which will likely be great fun! Modified by CyberneticPony on 2015-11-20 23:16:26 Estarh | 2015-11-21 09:59:48 |
Have you tried out allowing the Mana Storm at any time, even when the player has cards? If so, what did it do to the game?
Yes, we tried. As result too often there were too many cards in player's hand and as result there was excessively big amount of different game situations player was able to achieve during one turn. It was excessively hardcore.
Is this game will be free? You can create big donatÑ service, like Hearthstone! That will be cause for popularisation Astral Heroes.
Cooler | 2015-11-21 17:41:06 |
Is this game will be free? It will be free-to-play, like Hearthstone.
Tjjjjjjjjjj | 2015-11-21 18:09:48 |
... It will be free-to-play, like Hearthstone.
Yes! Hurrah! Thank you!
The structure would be like astral masters I guess, some cards are not usable until paid.
Wavelength | 2015-11-22 14:38:59 |
Yes, we tried. As result too often there were too many cards in player's hand and as result there was excessively big amount of different game situations player was able to achieve during one turn. It was excessively hardcore. This is very interesting to hear - I asked for the exact opposite reason, thinking that introducing this large "possibility space" during any given turn (much like Spectro has during some games) would be a great thing to have in the game! I find it so curious that you found it does exactly what I thought it would do but that it actually hurts the play experience!! The structure would be like astral masters I guess, some cards are not usable until paid. In Hearthstone you can also "earn" booster packs of random cards by winning games, etc. Cooler | 2015-11-23 17:55:27 |
By the way, if you would like me to do any editing on the game's English game text, help text, or card text, feel free to shoot me an email. It means a lot to me for you guys to succeed. =) Cool! This would be VERY helpful!
CyberneticPony | 2015-11-23 23:40:58 |
This is very interesting to hear - I asked for the exact opposite reason, thinking that introducing this large "possibility space" during any given turn (much like Spectro has during some games) would be a great thing to have in the game! I find it so curious that you found it does exactly what I thought it would do but that it actually hurts the play experience!!
I recommend Mark Rosewater's Making Magic column to explain the reasons why complexity can hurt a game. In this particular case, I think adding mana storm at all times would add a huge amount of calculation involving probability of draws as an alternative to just playing your hand, which I think is not great in a game that is supposed to be focused on abilities and playing your cards out. Wavelength | 2015-11-25 08:04:41 |
... Cool! This would be VERY helpful!
Sure thing! Just email me whatever you need edited, and in case I miss the email and a week goes by without a response, let me know here. :)
Cooler | 2015-11-25 14:28:00 |
Sure thing! Just email me whatever you need edited, and in case I miss the email and a week goes by without a response, let me know here. :)
I've sent you one yesterday (from [email protected]).
Modified by Cooler on 2015-11-25 14:28:18 markgil | 2015-11-25 21:31:05 |
... It will be free-to-play, like Hearthstone.
so will AH be like AM & SM where you pay once and have access to everything or will it be like other collectable games where it's free to play but only with basic cards and you need to buy additional card packs for the good stuff?
Estarh | 2015-11-25 22:03:28 |
... so will AH be like AM & SM where you pay once and have access to everything or will it be like other collectable games where it's free to play but only with basic cards and you need to buy additional card packs for the good stuff?
We plan to sell premium subscription. It will be required for card replacement during combat. But it will be possible to purchase premium as for real money as for in-game currency. So paying real money will not be obligatory.
CyberneticPony | 2015-11-25 22:59:43 |
... We plan to sell premium subscription. It will be required for card replacement during combat.
O_O All my enthusiasm for the game has just disappeared.
Modified by CyberneticPony on 2015-11-25 23:15:06 Estarh | 2015-11-25 23:34:02 |
Do you think card selling is better than subscription selling?
SpectroStat | 2015-11-25 23:39:45 |
Do you think card selling is better than subscription selling? The fact that the game in this case does not play sometimes. Or to play or to leave, because without premium nothing (gives a great advantage ability to switch cards), in other words, if it is over people will not want to go and feel worse than before, which will affect online. CyberneticPony | 2015-11-25 23:50:46 |
Do you think card selling is better than subscription selling? You are giving a huge advantage to players that pay; replacing cards seems like an important ability, and by making it only for players that pay, there's no reason for free players to stick around, which will kill any free-to-play game.
It's one thing to sell side-graded classes, and it's one thing to give a player a strong ability that only they have. Modified by CyberneticPony on 2015-11-25 23:55:01 Estarh | 2015-11-26 00:03:32 |
Please keep in mind, that premium subscription will be obtainable via in-game currency. And players will be able to receive any amounts of such currency via quests system (completing quests will be quite similar to Spectromancer offline playing).
CyberneticPony | 2015-11-26 00:08:54 |
Please keep in mind, that premium subscription will be obtainable via in-game currency. And players will be able to receive any amounts of such currency via quests system (completing quests will be quite similar to Spectromancer offline playing). The in-game currency you need to generate will need to provide an incentive for getting the premium subscription; otherwise nobody will buy it (for example, you might need to grind a lot). This generally means you either need to invest a lot of time playing the game, or you need to invest money. Essentially, if you want to play the game for free, but not invest a lot of time, then you're being thrown in the dirt.
This will kill a free-game, especially a card game. A lot of people in this genre like fitting this kind of game around their schedule, not fitting their schedule around their game.
SpectroStat | 2015-11-26 01:03:53 |
I his opinions said. I know that playing, I will have enough for the premium, but if I suddenly get interrupted and lose the premium, will I lose the desire to return, if I will not be missed. I was planning to buy the game and add-ons, but do not plan to buy premium. I don't impose my opinion, just wondering why you chose this path of development. I understand free game + shop, or a paid game and all, but a free game where premium affects the success of any political party so I don't understand...
HeadphonesGirl | 2015-11-26 01:46:32 |
How much will the subscription be?
Cooler | 2015-11-26 08:29:46 |
This is complicated topic with lots of details, and even small details can significantly change playing experience. Decisions aren't made yet and even when decided - we still need to tune everything to make it work as desired. During the open beta we'll get more info to consider and make further decisions. 1) Although premium gives some advantage, this advantage isn't its primary goal, the goal is to a) make the gameplay more interesting and comfortable; b) provide additional features (not gameplay-related) We can tune that advantage in wide range and almost eliminate it if needed. But I don't see why it should be completely eliminated. In all games paid users has some advantage in different form. In AM free players can't use strong cards, just sacrifice them - isn't this disadvantage? 2) Premium is not intended to create a relatively small "elite" group of players, it is targeted as a thing which is affordable to most players. In good days in AM we had ~70%/30% split of reg/unreg players online and that's OK. 3) Premium subscription has 2 advantages over fixed-price one-time purchase: a) It's easier and more safe to pay a little amount right now rather than pay for entire lifetime and hope you won't be disappointed, you can leave at any moment. And you get a choice: pay little amounts multiple times or pay more at once with a significant discount. b) The cost is very flexible and allows to encourage any activity that is good for a project: you play well? OK - pay less, you share info about the game? Cool, you saved us some money - please have a free premium. 4) Premium isn't the only thing to sell. CyberneticPony | 2015-11-26 08:53:25 |
This is complicated topic with lots of details, and even small details can significantly change playing experience. Decisions aren't made yet and even when decided - we still need to tune everything to make it work as desired. During the open beta we'll get more info to consider and make further decisions.1) Although premium gives some advantage, this advantage isn't its primary goal, the goal is to a) make the gameplay more interesting and comfortable; b) provide additional features (not gameplay-related) We can tune that advantage in wide range and almost eliminate it if needed. But I don't see why it should be completely eliminated. In all games paid users has some advantage in different form. In AM free players can't use strong cards, just sacrifice them - isn't this disadvantage? 2) Premium is not intended to create a relatively small "elite" group of players, it is targeted as a thing which is affordable to most players. In good days in AM we had ~70%/30% split of reg/unreg players online and that's OK. 3) Premium subscription has 2 advantages over fixed-price one-time purchase: a) It's easier and more safe to pay a little amount right now rather than pay for entire lifetime and hope you won't be disappointed, you can leave at any moment. And you get a choice: pay little amounts multiple times or pay more at once with a significant discount. b) The cost is very flexible and allows to encourage any activity that is good for a project: you play well? OK - pay less, you share info about the game? Cool, you saved us some money - please have a free premium. 4) Premium isn't the only thing to sell. 1) I really wonder what you mean by making the gameplay more interesting/comfortable I guess. I guess I'll wait for further announcement. 2) That's good, but you have to bear in mind the amount of people that will turn off a game just reading about a feature they see as "pay to win". They won't even register an account. AM's "free" version was essentially called a "trial" so losing critical features was a disadvantage, but it made it clear that was what it was doing, and also, it was a one-off payment to unlock the content. 3) It's an ongoing payment, which adds up over time. I'm not sure if the motivation is just trying to make more money from your regular customers (which is actually ok, Spectromancer I always felt was on the cheap side and you guys deserved more for it). I am perfectly ok with this if you're going to keep developing as long as the money keeps coming in. I do like the idea of playing well granting premium. I guess I'll see what you guys have in mind before I make the decision to purchase or not. One danger of subscriptions is that it encourages people to play your game a lot; and a lot of people in this genre don't want to keep paying for a game they might not necessarily want to play all the time, they want something they can pick up whenever they want to. 4) That's perfectly acceptable. Cooler | 2015-11-26 09:26:45 |
One danger of subscriptions is that it encourages people to play your game a lot; and a lot of people in this genre don't want to keep paying for a game they might not necessarily want to play all the time, they want something they can pick up whenever they want to.
I see your point. We should think about an option for this kind of players, I suppose it won't be difficult.
Cooler | 2015-11-26 09:48:53 |
I am perfectly ok with this if you're going to keep developing as long as the money keeps coming in.
Of course, the sense of moving to F2P model from one-time purchase is to avoid situation when people play the game and ask for improvements, but these improvements can't make any money. F2P model makes developer interested in keeping the game popular, and that's a "win-win" situation for both players and developer.
CyberneticPony | 2015-11-26 09:50:40 |
... Of course, the sense of moving to F2P model from one-time purchase is to avoid situation when people play the game and ask for improvements, but these improvements can't make any money. F2P model makes developer interested in keeping the game popular, and that's a "win-win" situation for both players and developer.
That's great thinking, and I'll be looking forward to a living, developing game!
markgil | 2015-11-26 12:16:42 |
personally as a SP only person, i would much prefer a one time payment. perhaps there is a way to do the subscription based model for MP and single payment for SP?
HeadphonesGirl | 2015-11-26 13:07:37 |
A compromise between the subscription and single-payment model might be allowing people to subscribe for as long as a full year with the rate being accordingly discounted.
Cooler | 2015-11-26 14:00:38 |
A compromise between the subscription and single-payment model might be allowing people to subscribe for as long as a full year with the rate being accordingly discounted. In F2P-games there is usually volume discount for buying in-game currency, so if you need 1200 gold for a year of premium it's much cheaper to buy it at once rather than buy 100 gold 12 times.
Modified by Cooler on 2015-11-26 14:01:02 HeadphonesGirl | 2015-11-26 15:51:29 |
... In F2P-games there is usually volume discount for buying in-game currency, so if you need 1200 gold for a year of premium it's much cheaper to buy it at once rather than buy 100 gold 12 times.
That seems like it should be fine. I'm definitely more of the type who'd prefer to make one payment and be done with it, but I probably wouldn't mind if I can do it for a year and it's not too expensive.
Wavelength | 2015-11-26 18:20:44 |
I'm certainly willing to try it out before I pass judgement, but I'm inclined to agree with Pony that offering a core game mechanic (Exchange) only to players who pay (in-game or real money), and especially making it subscription-only (rather than a one-time "forever" purchase) is likely to feel like insult on top of injury. There were months that I played very little Spectro, but I kept coming back because it was always there for me to jump right back in and play a game or two on equal footing with other people - had I been forced to pay in order to play a "fair" game, I wouldn't have come back. It would seem like too much of a "treadmill" where I'd have to keep earning in-game money to keep playing. This is just my personal view and I don't know how many people share it or hold a different one. I think your idea of other non-gameplay related features for Premium is a stronger one (League of Legends makes a ton of money selling "costumes" for in-game characters, I think Neopets makes good money selling accessories to put on your pet, and several online browser games have "premium" accounts that have badges on their profile, different color text in the lobby, etc.). I also think Hearthstone's "Arena" mode is a pretty brilliant way to make some money - charge for a limited number of plays in a special mode, and allow players to earn really cool rewards if they do very well in that mode. If the automated tournaments could support more than 4 people, and give great prizes to the winners, that might be worth paying for "entry tickets". Heck, even the live tournaments could use such a format. By the way, I received your email and the first set of translations is over halfway done - will have it back to you within a few days =) Modified by Wavelength on 2015-11-26 18:24:45 Valentyne | 2015-11-28 00:12:46 |
I know I'm a little late to the party, but, WOW! Looks awesome, guys! Nice work! markgil | 2015-11-29 22:16:12 |
i have faith that the creators will settle on an equitable system for playing and paying for AH. in looking at the youtube gameplay video, it certainly appears that the strategy aspect of the game has been greatly expanded from the previous versions and i assume that once the game is out, new cards will be created as DLC.
with he beta to begin in Dec, i assume the target for release is 1Q2016?
Are you know when we can play this game? Thanks for the answer.
Cooler | 2015-12-07 07:19:53 |
with he beta to begin in Dec, i assume the target for release is 1Q2016? It will be soft-launched. I.e. no exact release date, but smooth continuous improvement.
CyberneticPony | 2015-12-08 22:23:14 |
There's an update on the site now guys:
There's an update on the site now guys:
Its old.
CyberneticPony | 2015-12-10 15:12:11 |
... Its old.
It's not that old, it was there for only a few days from when I had last seen it.
mamouka | 2015-12-10 16:16:23 |
No, there was the old site available again for a while when DKill wrote it. Now it's the new one again. I like it, nice art. :)
It's not that old, it was there for only a few days from when I had last seen it.
Hmm, Its new now.
CyberneticPony | 2015-12-11 14:23:45 |
... Hmm, Its new now.
You probably saw a cached page or something. Rinswind | 2015-12-18 09:50:31 |
Why Prospectro.net haven't link for download beta-version of Astral Heroes?
CyberneticPony | 2015-12-18 12:57:20 |
Why Prospectro.net haven't link for download beta-version of Astral Heroes? It's not out yet.
markgil | 2016-01-12 11:28:44 |
Cooler, any update on the upcomming release of AH?
Cooler | 2016-01-14 07:34:44 |
Cooler, any update on the upcomming release of AH? Current estimation for public open beta launch is JAN-25 (+/- 3 days). LxSxDx | 2016-01-17 08:06:07 |
Ah this looks cool but your plan for "premium" is just terrible in my opinion it's kind of turning me off from trying it. You are competing with hearthstone which you can play completely for free, why would anyone pay a subscription fee for a game which will be much much smaller due to that? And also is much less polished I'm sorry to say. I think you definitely need to try selling cards instead just have some basic ones and then everything else takes either a really long grind or cash. Buying packs comes with some thrill in hearthstone or Mtg, I definitely wouldn't feel that sort of excitement paying a monthly premium bill just to compete fairly in fact I would never play a game that did that. And no, the fact that I could grind for hours to pay it instead of using real money doesn't make it any more appealing.
CyberneticPony | 2016-01-17 09:45:58 |
Ah this looks cool but your plan for "premium" is just terrible in my opinion it's kind of turning me off from trying it. You are competing with hearthstone which you can play completely for free, why would anyone pay a subscription fee for a game which will be much much smaller due to that? And also is much less polished I'm sorry to say. I think you definitely need to try selling cards instead just have some basic ones and then everything else takes either a really long grind or cash. Buying packs comes with some thrill in hearthstone or Mtg, I definitely wouldn't feel that sort of excitement paying a monthly premium bill just to compete fairly in fact I would never play a game that did that. And no, the fact that I could grind for hours to pay it instead of using real money doesn't make it any more appealing. Thanks for voicing this, it's a really good summary of why the premium model that was proposed is dangerous. SpectroStat | 2016-01-17 10:33:28 |
Don't worry Premium no longer gives in-game advantage in the match. Now it only increases the reward in points heroism (faster opening new cards) and also reduces the amount of crystals for games. Cooler | 2016-01-17 15:07:59 |
I think you definitely need to try selling cards instead just have some basic ones and then everything else takes either a really long grind or cash. Buying packs comes with some thrill in hearthstone or Mtg, I definitely wouldn't feel that sort of excitement paying a monthly premium bill just to compete fairly in fact I would never play a game that did that. And no, the fact that I could grind for hours to pay it instead of using real money doesn't make it any more appealing. 1. SpectroStat is right - premium (in current implementation) gives no any advantage in battles. 2. If you buy cards - doesn't it make you stronger and makes games less fair? 3. In 2 of 3 game modes (drafts and random decks) your cards ownership has no influence (like in the Arena in HS). These modes are most played in AM (at least by experienced players), so we expect them to be also most played in AH. Players, who're interested in playing these game modes aren't interested in buying new cards at all.
Modified by Cooler on 2016-01-17 15:09:11
I think you definitely need to try selling cards instead just have some basic ones and then everything else takes either a really long grind or cash.
And no, the fact that I could grind for hours to pay it instead of using real money doesn't make it any more appealing. wat ??? Wavelength | 2016-01-18 01:39:56 |
With beta so close it's probably best to wait a couple weeks before making final decisions about the business model, but I do think that the people saying "sell cards" have a good idea. My instinct is that Constructed Decks will be the most popular mode, and allowing people to construct their dream deck quicker by paying some money could be a good source of revenue. (However, if rare cards are much more powerful than ordinary cards, like in Hearthstone, it runs the risk of alienating players by creating a "pay to win" environment, as Cooler brought up. It's best to pay for access, not for power.)
(@filip: What LSD said makes sense; you might have missed earlier in the conversation when it was mentioned that the important 'Replace Card' function would only be available to Premium accounts.)
LSD proposes the selling cards model (have some basic cards then pay cash for rares or grind to get them):
I think you definitely need to try selling cards instead just have some basic ones and then everything else takes either a really long grind or cash.
assuming that the rare cards provide an advantage (duh) any player who wants to be competitive has to either a) pay cash or b) grind
then LSD declares that grinding to get something that other players have acquired by paying cash is not an acceptable option:
And no, the fact that I could grind for hours to pay it instead of using real money doesn't make it any more appealing. i don't care if we are talking about rare cards or replace functions. could you please explain how the above argument makes any sense at all?
btw cooler was pretty clear and straightforward in his reply above:
premium (in current implementation) gives no any advantage in battles.
he has never lied or tried to spread misinformation before in my experience so i believe him when he says so Wavelength | 2016-01-18 21:18:35 |
btw cooler was pretty clear and straightforward in his reply above:he has never lied or tried to spread misinformation before in my experience so i believe him when he says so See the following post by Estarh from Nov 25. Maybe LSD's post will make more sense to you after reading it. Or am I misunderstanding your question? We plan to sell premium subscription. It
will be required for card replacement during combat. But it will be
possible to purchase premium as for real money as for in-game currency.
So paying real money will not be obligatory.
Cooler is not lying nor spreading misinformation, obviously. I believe that sometime in the last few weeks they decided to remove the premium subscription requirement on Card Replace, which I applaud. As a tangent, I believe that rare cards can be sold (and make money) without ruining the balance of the game - as long as these cards are desirable because they are fun and unique and not because they are more powerful than the commons. League of Legends allows you to buy (or grind) Champions to play as, but these Champions are balanced for competitive play so that theoretically none are stronger than any others - I think that's a great model to follow.
Modified by Wavelength on 2016-01-18 21:28:41
As a tangent, I believe that rare cards can be sold (and make money) without ruining the balance of the game - as long as these cards are desirable because they are fun and unique and not because they are more powerful than the commons.
this is a VERY important clarification - one that changes the whole nature of the argument (also it is one that LSD did not make at any point)
this does not hold true for any card game that i know of. even if there exist some rare cards that focus on fun/unique design, it takes only a handful of them to be more powerful than commons and the balance is broken. in my experience there are a lot more than a handful (in most games). let's face it: rare cards are more powerful than commons. at least some of them are. even if there is some card game where this does not hold true, it has to be an exception (please tell us if you know one such game). so in case that LSD had this model in mind while talking about rare cards (and how it is acceptable to buy them with cash or alternatively to get them by grinding) he should have specified it explicitly (since it is definitely not the standard for card games) especially since he mentions and compares with hearthstone in the very same post! otherwise his argument does not stand under logical scrutiny i'm sorry
ps:
assuming that the rare cards provide an advantage (duh)
Modified by filip on 2016-01-19 10:08:11 HeadphonesGirl | 2016-01-19 16:46:36 |
Having the rare cards would almost certainly have to provide some level of advantage unless they were just plain bad. Even if all it meant was you'd have more flexibility in the decks you can make.
Wavelength | 2016-01-19 17:48:01 |
Having the rare cards would almost certainly have to provide some level of advantage unless they were just plain bad. Even if all it meant was you'd have more flexibility in the decks you can make. Interesting point... my rebuttal would be that while this may technically be true, the game is strictly better for some/most players having higher flexibility in the types of decks they can create, right? It's good for everyone. This is qualitatively different (in my eyes) from a scenario where rare cards are actually more powerful than non-rares, which makes the game worse for players who don't have the cards they need to stand a fair chance. Spectromancer for example offers higher variety (use of all 16 classes) when you buy the full version, but not higher innate power, which I think most people agree is an equitable model.
CyberneticPony | 2016-01-19 18:30:50 |
... 1. SpectroStat is right - premium (in current implementation) gives no any advantage in battles. 2. If you buy cards - doesn't it make you stronger and makes games less fair? 3. In 2 of 3 game modes (drafts and random decks) your cards ownership has no influence (like in the Arena in HS). These modes are most played in AM (at least by experienced players), so we expect them to be also most played in AH. Players, who're interested in playing these game modes aren't interested in buying new cards at all.
Thanks for this, I'm glad the "replace" premium idea was removed! I'm definitely buying the game now! Cooler | 2016-01-19 19:54:10 |
Thanks for this, I'm glad the "replace" premium idea was removed! I'm definitely buying the game now!
It's F2P ;)
markgil | 2016-01-19 22:56:42 |
still somewhat confused as to how this will work but i guess all will be revealed soon enough. i'm happy as long as there will still be SP.
LxSxDx | 2016-01-20 06:25:47 |
Sorry you got consfused, Filip. "I definitely wouldn't feel that sort of excitement paying a monthly premium bill just to compete fairly in fact I would never play a game that did that. And no, the fact that I could grind for hours to pay it instead of using real money doesn't make it any more appealing. " It means I don't think having the option to grind instead of pay for a premium bill makes it better, it's what this entire thread has been about. I'm not sure what you are confused about, I'm sorry. My point was that it would be easier to get money by selling cards instead of a subscription. Does that make sense?
It means I don't think having the option to grind instead of pay for a premium bill makes it better, it's what this entire thread has been about.
but having the option to grind instead of pay for getting the rare cards is ok?
does that make sense?
Modified by filip on 2016-01-20 16:04:07 LxSxDx | 2016-01-21 00:58:31 |
...
but having the option to grind instead of pay for getting the rare cards is ok?
does that make sense?
I'm sorry, I'm not sure why you are so confused :( Yes, grinding gold to buy packs would be more enjoyable than grinding to buy a subscription fee, that's how hearthstone does it. Does that make sense? If you had to grind to pay a subscription fee it would not be very fun as the whole time you were grinding you would be at a disadvantage. Sorry, I'm not sure how to make that any clearer. Please pm me in game if you still don't understand that though, everyone else on this forum understood me perfectly so you're sort of creating unneeded posts that don't make a lot of sense.
If you had to grind to pay a subscription fee it would not be very fun as the whole time you were grinding you would be at a disadvantage.
but that is exactly what's happening in a game where you are grinding gold to buy packs! you are grinding with a starter deck (no rares) against decks potentially full of rares! why is that more fair or more enjoyable than grinding to buy a subscription? (i am assuming that the subscription gives you access to more powerful classes or some in-game premium feature)
truth be told, hearthstone tackles this problem in two ways:
1) arena (nice and elegant solution) everyone gets access to the same cards, even if they have not purchased the expansions! however, these cards are only available for the specific arena deck. they are not added to your collection permanently, so you cannot actually use them for creating your own decks and playing in the ranked constructed area. that means you can still use the arena as a grinding tool which lets you grind for gold vs other players without being at a disadvantage!
2) matching games between players of the same (or similar) level in the ranked constructed area. that way it is more probable (though still not guaranteed) in the beginning that you will play vs another player with a starter deck (you will avoid players with rare-decks). the same is true for most card games. of course when the game has a small player base then there is a better chance to get matched against a rare-deck (because there are not enough potential opponents looking for a game online). however this kind of solution could also be applied to a game where you have to grind for a subscription! people without enough gold to buy their subscription will be grinding against each other. when one of them has enough gold to buy the subscription, he/she will start levelling up more easily and start playing against opponents who also have the subscription. what's the difference compared to the "buy rares" model? i believe the difference is only an illusion in our mind
ps: you are right i will stop arguing about this here in the forum. perhaps we can talk about it online if we meet
Modified by filip on 2016-01-21 11:37:04 Cooler | 2016-01-21 13:43:34 |
but that is exactly what's happening in a game where you are grinding gold to buy packs! you are grinding with a starter deck (no rares) against decks potentially full of rares! why is that more fair or more enjoyable than grinding to buy a subscription?
I suppose that LxSxDx mean that grinding for premium and grinding for cards are stacked together and thus it's better to grind just for cards (because it won't be a TCG if you can't grind for cards ;)
I suppose that LxSxDx mean that grinding for premium and grinding for cards are stacked together and thus it's better to grind just for cards (because it won't be a TCG if you can't grind for cards ;)
ah ok then i see what you mean
Modified by filip on 2016-01-21 14:37:38 HeadphonesGirl | 2016-01-21 21:02:04 |
Cooler savin' the day as usual CyberneticPony | 2016-01-22 15:54:36 |
... It's F2P ;)
I just meant I'd be buying into it, rather than buying it. You know, support the devs with packs or something! :-P
jaylinboo02 | 2016-02-13 20:09:20 |
Do you think card selling is better than subscription selling? no
markgil | 2016-02-14 17:30:59 |
any updates on the AH beta?
Cooler | 2016-03-15 10:50:08 |
The game is finally available for download as the open beta test launched! Please visit http://astralheroes.com to download the game. We'd love to hear from you, so please share your ideas, suggestions and submit bug reports at the game forum. Let's make the game better together! mamoulian | 2016-03-15 10:58:10 |
The game is finally available for download as the open beta test launched! Please visit http://astralheroes.com to download the game. We'd love to hear from you, so please share your ideas, suggestions and submit bug reports at the game forum. Let's make the game better together! Yaaay, I think I got my program for today. :) Tendou | 2016-03-15 11:13:58 |
... Yaaay, I think I got my program for today. :)
Unable to create new account, because unable to enter @ sign to the e-mail line. Any such issue for somebody else?
mamoulian | 2016-03-15 11:27:17 |
... Unable to create new account, because unable to enter @ sign to the e-mail line. Any such issue for somebody else?
Yep, I just copy+pasted the e-mail.
Cooler | 2016-03-15 11:57:26 |
Unable to create new account, because unable to enter @ sign to the e-mail line. Any such issue for somebody else?
On the site or in the game client? If on the game site - which browser do you use?
Modified by Cooler on 2016-03-15 11:58:31 GrimJ0ker | 2016-03-15 12:15:19 |
... Unable to create new account, because unable to enter @ sign to the e-mail line. Any such issue for somebody else?
Just write @ mamoulian | 2016-03-15 12:30:39 |
... On the site or in the game client? If on the game site - which browser do you use?
In the game, alt gr + v works like ctrl+v. I switched te language interface from hungarian to english but same result.
delete Modified by DKill on 2016-03-16 06:19:22 Tendou | 2016-03-15 13:30:49 |
I may say, some subjective opinion, i absolutely love it, really smooth, feels really good, but you just basically trying to spend as much mana as possibly can afford, and experience blitzkrieg each turn. This is all fun but i can't see how this may overcome the success of the very similar game Scrolls.
Wavelength | 2016-03-15 17:49:12 |
Congrats on launching the open beta!! I'm very glad you reached this milestone too, because it was hard holding back about saying on the forums all the good things I wanted to say while I helped with localization but was sworn to secrecy. :-)
How about those high-level Bots? They play such a good game of Astral Heroes!!
I may say, some subjective opinion, i absolutely love it, really smooth, feels really good, but you just basically trying to spend as much mana as possibly can afford, and experience blitzkrieg each turn. This is all fun but i can't see how this may overcome the success of the very similar game Scrolls. I thought the same thing, but only while I was doing the campaign. Once I was able to play against high-level Bots or other humans, the game took on a whole different dimension and I found that the tradeoff between rushing cards onto the board as quickly as possible vs. holding back and accumulating cards or spell power is often a very real and tough decision. I like the game a lot more than most online CCGs.
Modified by Wavelength on 2016-03-15 17:51:18 Wavelength | 2016-03-15 17:50:23 |
By the way, a question for everyone who has played multiplayer in the online League (either against other players or bots): What do you think your preferred play mode will be, in the long term? Custom Decks, Random Decks, or Draft Tournaments? Why?
HeadphonesGirl | 2016-03-15 18:04:13 |
Plays pretty nicely! I generally don't prefer deck building games, but I still find this fun, so that's a good sign. I had an elven mystic on the board and cast a spell which triggered its attack increase. I also had a priest of fire and I thought triggering the mystic's ability with the spell would then trigger the priest's, but it didn't. Is this a bug or does priest of fire's ability only trigger if you use an ability that has a cost? If so I think the description can be clearer because right now it just says "whenever an ally creature uses an ability." EDIT: I realize now the difference is in effect vs ability which I hadn't paid attention to at first. This is probably clear enough then Modified by HeadphonesGirl on 2016-03-16 04:27:40 Tendou | 2016-03-15 18:26:02 |
Congrats on launching the open beta!! I'm very glad you reached this milestone too, because it was hard holding back about saying on the forums all the good things I wanted to say while I helped with localization but was sworn to secrecy. :-)
How about those high-level Bots? They play such a good game of Astral Heroes!!
... I thought the same thing, but only while I was doing the campaign. Once I was able to play against high-level Bots or other humans, the game took on a whole different dimension and I found that the tradeoff between rushing cards onto the board as quickly as possible vs. holding back and accumulating cards or spell power is often a very real and tough decision. I like the game a lot more than most online CCGs. Yeah, it is definately better than other CCGs if that is the standard.
HeadphonesGirl | 2016-03-15 18:31:17 |
Already running into "cannot connect" which is not allowing me to play at all. Is this just for the beta or is the game always going to be "always online"? It is annoying when you can't play a single player game because it won't connect to a server. EDIT: already fixed, but this is still a criticism of mine if the game will require internet to function even in single player. It also appears to have caused the game not to register my last victory in the campaign. Modified by HeadphonesGirl on 2016-03-15 18:33:00 HeadphonesGirl | 2016-03-15 18:38:29 |
The game locked up for me here when I accidentally clicked on a card I didn't have enough mana to play. When I click the message doesn't go away. I can click "end turn" and the button animates and makes the click sound, but nothing happens.
HeadphonesGirl | 2016-03-15 18:53:37 |
Another thought, it would be very good if you could look at your and your opponent's discards. I accidentally clicked through the description of a spell he used and I wanted to read it but now it's gone.
Cooler | 2016-03-15 19:48:21 |
EDIT: already fixed, but this is still a criticism of mine if the game will require internet to function even in single player. It also appears to have caused the game not to register my last victory in the campaign. The server decided to reboot :( It warned me several times in an amicable way, you need to reboot to install the operating system updates, but every time I put it off. As a result, it delivered an ultimatum and rebooted without permission.
HeadphonesGirl | 2016-03-15 21:30:13 |
It appears at least some cards that boost ally attack can increase the
attack of "wall" cards, which I assume is not meant to happen like in
Spectromancer. Just now my opponent played a Soul Trap with Lord of the
Coast in play, and the Soul Trap gained 2 attack.
HeadphonesGirl | 2016-03-15 23:25:57 |
On the lobby:
When chatting, I'm running into an issue where the message I sent is invisible to me. I can see other people's messages but mine just say "You:" and then there is nothing after it. Other people are receiving the messages so it isn't a big issue.
Are you eventually going to be able to challenge people to ranked matches, or is it all going to be randomly chosen?
HeadphonesGirl | 2016-03-16 04:23:28 |
One last observation for the day: when you run out of cards and cast mana burn it's inconsistent whether it's spell damage. Bargul takes no damage, but Unicorn does. I would think Unicorn should get healed.
On that note I think unicorn is overly strong with the fire attack that does 15 damage to the whole board.
Probably won't be a long term player to be honest, but it's a good game. I can already see the things cropping up that make me not like deck building games, but if I was going to play one I'd definitely play this over hearthstone.
Estarh | 2016-03-16 08:22:54 |
Just now my opponent played a Soul Trap with Lord of the Coast in play, and the Soul Trap gained 2 attack.
It is intentional, to keep game rules simple.
One last observation for the day: when you run out of cards and cast mana burn it's inconsistent whether it's spell damage. Bargul takes no damage, but Unicorn does. I would think Unicorn should get healed.
Mana storm is player's ability, not spell. So Unicorn is not healed.
not like deck building games
There is random decks mode for people which dislike deck building. Modified by Estarh on 2016-03-16 08:56:08 Revival | 2016-03-16 08:58:21 |
I support that HeadphonesGirls said about unicorn: "On that note I think unicorn is overly strong with the fire attack that does 15 damage to the whole board." This card generally struck me as overpowered, but I guess that balance issues are not top priority now.
Cooler | 2016-03-16 09:32:20 |
When chatting, I'm running into an issue where the message I sent is invisible to me. I can see other people's messages but mine just say "You:" and then there is nothing after it. Other people are receiving the messages so it isn't a big issue. It's a recently added translation issue, fixed in the upcoming update.
Are you eventually going to be able to challenge people to ranked matches, or is it all going to be randomly chosen? Opponents for ranked matches will be always chosen by the server. To avoid powerleveling and generally making it more fair. HeadphonesGirl | 2016-03-16 15:49:08 |
Mana storm is player's ability, not spell. So Unicorn is not healed. There is random decks mode for people which dislike deck building.
Shouldn't that mean mana storm can hurt Bargul too, then? The random mode is what I spent the most time with. I like it, but it's still not like Spectromancer at all. That isn't a criticism but just my personal preference.
HeadphonesGirl | 2016-03-16 19:43:37 |
One idea I had today: for me personally, random deck battles would be more interesting if both players were shown the other's random deck at the beginning of the duel.
Not the order in which the cards would be drawn, just which cards are in each deck.
This would allow for some amount of planning and anticipation of what you may run into. As it stands now, you have absolutely no idea if playing a blitz of creatures is a good idea or not because you haven't got the slightest idea whether the next card your opponent draws will be armageddon or bloated zombie. Just as one example. The matches feel excessively random because of this.
Seeing what cards are in the deck so you can make educated guesses about what your opponent might be holding would make it a little more like Spectromancer, where there is an information game involved.
Wavelength | 2016-03-17 00:59:07 |
Shouldn't that mean mana storm can hurt Bargul too, then?
No. Bargul is literally immune to all damage except attacks. Unicorn's effect deals with spells specifically.
One idea I had today: for me personally, random deck battles would be more interesting if both players were shown the other's random deck at the beginning of the duel.
Not the order in which the cards would be drawn, just which cards are in each deck.
This would allow for some amount of planning and anticipation of what you may run into. As it stands now, you have absolutely no idea if playing a blitz of creatures is a good idea or not because you haven't got the slightest idea whether the next card your opponent draws will be armageddon or bloated zombie. Just as one example. The matches feel excessively random because of this.
Seeing what cards are in the deck so you can make educated guesses about what your opponent might be holding would make it a little more like Spectromancer, where there is an information game involved. I feel like maybe you should be able to see the composition of your own deck so you can craft a strategy around it (still torn about my own idea here) - I find it interesting that you suggest the exact inverse. Can you explain why you think it would be better for a player to know their opponent's deck, but not their own?
Modified by Wavelength on 2016-03-17 01:00:06 HeadphonesGirl | 2016-03-17 02:50:31 |
I feel like maybe you should be able to see the composition of your own deck so you can craft a strategy around it (still torn about my own idea here) - I find it interesting that you suggest the exact inverse. Can you explain why you think it would be better for a player to know their opponent's deck, but not their own?
I meant both players should see both at the beginning.
Modified by HeadphonesGirl on 2016-03-17 02:50:43 |