I'm guessing you weren't here during the Sylvan Nerf of '09?

Again, I don't believe Jed reimbursed anyone who hadn't paid actual money for the game.

I also know that were several users who were going to leave after seeing their collection devalued by several hundred gp. It was Jed's willingness to make things right that kept many players around.

Have you spent any money on the game? Have you spent 1200gp on 3 thrones? How would you like seeing those thrones dropped to half that value and not get reimbursed for loss? If you knew that buying something at 200gp that could be dropped at any time to 100gp, would you still be willing to spend the 200gp? I certainly wouldn't.

Jed's reimbursement policy shows he cares about the players and wants to keep them around. It shows that he is wanting to be fair about how the game works, and keep his customers faith in the value and worth of his product.

The currently small player base and the drastic nature of the changes lead to the need for such a policy. When the player base is larger and the changes are smaller, the policy should be revisited.

_________________

Altren wrote:

I agree with Keyser, and that's what I'm planning to implement actually.

|| The Rise of the DCC | Plasmatium Netherious | Tastes Like Chicken | The Astridian Conspiracy ||

Guild -> | Platypus Rising|

Nope. I think I started shortly after it. Oddly, my primary faction is Sylvan...



I quit Pox for a while after they nerfed my faction once. It wasn't losing value that concerned me, but that the faction was so nerfed that basically I had to start over to keep playing. Nerfs that are justified and kept to reasonable levels won't generally get rid of players. I eventually came back and last time I checked, they have now completely un-nerfed all but one of the nerfs.



Absolutely. Not a lot, but I believe in supporting games I play. I bought the Sylvan starter army and a bit more gold so I can play the domain league starting tomorrow. I chose that faction/starter set because it seemed to be the one I could play most competitively with a modest expenditure and without needing cards worth over 300g each. It would be nice to have Teleports and Ivory Towers and I'll get them eventually, but even those aren't as expensive as Thrones were.



I'm happy he cares about the players. However, it is still a bad precedent that will require action again and again to satisfy. Sooner or later it will need to end and the sooner it ends the less painful it will be when it does.



Setting clear policies now while the player base is small will help in the long run...and I expect this game will become more and more popular.

I agree with you on the last part.. about setting clear policies. That's something I'm actually writing up.

_________________

Altren wrote:

I agree with Keyser, and that's what I'm planning to implement actually.

|| The Rise of the DCC | Plasmatium Netherious | Tastes Like Chicken | The Astridian Conspiracy ||

Guild -> | Platypus Rising|

Hi:

Excellent points on both sides of the aisle! Keyser, you have one post to respond before the Nighthawk that is a veritable "guide to the galaxy" can post a rebuttal. Please continue to keep things civil, or I will moderate something fierce!

As the self-ordained Minister of Moderators I cannot take sides in this matter.

DarkJello

_________________
Ad astra per alia porci!$!

Post up the draft of your policies, lets all get involved.
Hell, make it on the wiki, and we can start discussions on it.


Right, precedents will be set. And we cant change it cos its a bigger player base. Its like saying Jed cares for us when we are small, but when are are a large game, which i believe we will eventually, he wont.

But on the other hand, its good that TFW does own up to its.... mistakes(?) by offering to pay back.
Cards that go through the roof due to its cheapness(as opposed to things like rarity) should definately be looked at. In a perfect world, everything would cost between 10gold and 150 gold, each being a valueble addition to your deck.

NH, you should consider that, in effect, many of us are playtesting the cards. This is still a new game, and it doesn't have a massive playtesting program before cards are released. There are many combinations, possibilities, and card uses that the developers haven't thought of. As we, the small player base, find broken/overcosted/undercosted/overpowered/underpowered cards, the developers adjust the game to make it more fair/even/balanced.

Recently, it seems that the player base of TFW revealed that Fissure and Throne were too powerful and/or went against the direction the TFW team wants to take this game (i.e. many players were using MF as a second domain because it was the most efficient way to get to 2 domains quickly). As a result, Jed is changing such cards, which will result in a significant drop in their prices.

If he were not reimbursing players for the drop in these values, then many would have no motivation to continue experimenting: Why should I use a card to it's full potential when doing so could cause my collection to drop by 50% of its value?

When a rebalance causes a relatively small shift in prices, as should happen as the game gets bigger, more established, and has a larger player base, your argument for not needing such a policy is extremely valid.

When the game is at a point where hours upon hours upon hours of playtesting by a dedicated group out of the public eye, where a dedicated team of people play every possibility and combination of cards to get a fully balanced product, your argument for not needing such a reimbursement policy is extremely valid.

But right now, at this point and time in the game development, I strongly agree with Jed's policy.

_________________

Altren wrote:

I agree with Keyser, and that's what I'm planning to implement actually.

|| The Rise of the DCC | Plasmatium Netherious | Tastes Like Chicken | The Astridian Conspiracy ||

Guild -> | Platypus Rising|

We agree cards need to be adjusted from time to time: The question is reimbursement.

You have the effects or reimbursement on player decisions 180 degrees wrong.

Reimbursing does nothing to promote experimentation. What it does is take away a possible drawback of jumping on the wagon with everyone else.

The real question is: Do I want to spend lots of gold on cards everyone else is using given that at least some of them are likely to get nerfed and lose value....or do I want to see if I can find less used (cheaper) cards that are just as effective?

People who are experimenting by definition are using cards that are not already among the most popular and well known as power cards. A true experimenter could discover cards, use them for a while, sell them when they get expensive, and continue on to more cards...although, that can only be done if the cards are equal enough to be competitive.

The people who are complaining about spending lots of gold on cards that are being nerfed, bought them after everyone else already did. Although experimenters who held onto the cards benefit, reimbursement helps the bandwagoners more than the experimenters.

Not so, NH, not so.

Unless I want to spend all my gold buying three of every single card in the hopes that one of my experiments will cause a card value to go up, then sell it for a profit, there isn't much to be gained monetarily by experimenting with cards, showing uses for cards, or better uses for already popular cards.

What we are doing here is buying a product. That product is of a digital nature. That product can be changed by the modification of a couple lines of code. Two minutes on the part of the devs can dramatically change the value of the card in hand.

Jed knows that his changes can change the value of the collections of his customers. He wants to keep those customers around.

I spend money on a card. I make a great deck. I show that a card is awesome. Other players start using the card. It becomes too popular or is revealed to be "broken". It gets nerfed. My card value drops.

I spend money on another card. Same thing happens.

Eventually, I'm going to get tired of having all my ideas nerfed and my values destroyed and leave the game.

And here's the other side of the coin:

I see a card in play that is really good. It's expensive, but I buy it because I want to start using it. Others do the same. The card is really popular, amazing, broken.. and it gets nerfed. I lose half my gold invested. I'm going to be much less likely to buy cards in the future. The card buying economy goes stale.

_________________

Altren wrote:

I agree with Keyser, and that's what I'm planning to implement actually.

|| The Rise of the DCC | Plasmatium Netherious | Tastes Like Chicken | The Astridian Conspiracy ||

Guild -> | Platypus Rising|

If you bought it before it was recognized to be good, the value drops to about what you paid for it in the first place. If you truly wanted to be innovative, you'd sell when it became too popular.



Only if you don't like continuing to innovate. Are you now suggesting you don't like nerfs because you earlier said you thought they were needed sometimes.



Let me rephase that: I see a card that is broken. It's expensive because you pretty much need it to win and people like to win. I buy it because everyone's doing it....and then it gets nerfed. I lose half my gold invested. I'm going to be much less likely to bid the price of a card up to the moon knowing that it will only stay broken for so long. The card buying economy becomes more fluid.

I don't think that my words are translating to your computer screen very well. Somewhere along the electronic pathways of the internet, the message that a product should be what you paid for is getting lost.

I don't know about you, but when I buy something, I do so because I trust that, when I get home and use it, it will still be the same product I paid for. I do so knowing that the fundamental nature of my purchase won't change. If it did, I, as a consumer, would start to lose confidence in the company and wouldn't pay them money anymore.

I've spent quite a bit of money on this game. I almost left during the Sylvan Nerf if '09, but stayed because of Jed's reimbursement policy.

All of that being said, balancing needs to happen and will happen. Jed understands this perfectly:



At the same time, he also wants to keep his players happy and keep them spending money on the game. Here is what he did back in the Sylvan Nerf '09:







We were allowed to choose one OR the other of those options, NOT both.

_________________

Altren wrote:

I agree with Keyser, and that's what I'm planning to implement actually.

|| The Rise of the DCC | Plasmatium Netherious | Tastes Like Chicken | The Astridian Conspiracy ||

Guild -> | Platypus Rising|