Sprint #3 11/30/2012

[Logress]

I know it doesn't feel like anything fundamental has changed in the way we do EX cards as of today, but actually I feel there is and it will rear it's head over the next two months. And here is a KEY POINT of EX packs, because they are fixed packs what's limiting your access to them is more TIME than money. For example, if you play refess and you want 3 copies of the refess EX, that's 1200 Gran. This is rather difficult to accumulate in 2 months. According to what I've tracked, EX-savvy free to low spending players calculate ahead of time how much gran they will accumulate, and thus how many packs they can get before spending. If that's enough to satisfy their soul skill (for example, EX: Fenrir has a pretty interesting and unique soul, might be worth picking up 1X of the pack even if you don't plan to play him) needs, or even your 2x needs (not every card is a 3-of include, Oeste for example is probably more of a 2 copy girl), then you're in good shape. A low spender may supplement what he can scrape together with some spending.

Now, you may notice, we no longer give -1 gran on a loss. This increases the average player who plays a lot's income by 30% weekly gran. The % this gives to occasional players is much higher, but obviously the raw number is lower. I'm interested in how this changes two things as regard to the EX cards: access and spending. My guess is that it will decrease spending by a little and increase access to one sphere of EX per low spending/free users, which would be a favorable outcome at this point.

In any case, this will be something key for us to analyze while planning for shifting around how, when and for what we make income.

[GonFreeces31]

One thing I think you guys REALLY need to think about is spending options for new players. For example, if I was a new player, it would not make sense for me to purchase any individual set en mass. Sets in Alteil are not made self-sustaining the way they are in MtG, and so cards in any given set can't really be used without other cards in other sets.

This kind of creates a problem because for the new player, they essentially have three options - 1) spend ~$1000+ on like everything, 2) ~$50 spend on pre-builts, occasional lotto or EX, or 3) spend nothing.

[MysteryMan]

Anyone have any problem with the lending library idea to try and see how it works? Be aware that it would take developer resources to do if we do it in an upcoming sprint.

[GonFreeces31]

I know I've talked to Logress about that before. MtG reprints commons every set and that really does a lot for enabling lots of their rare cards. Alteil has had this problem where they release new and exciting cards... But then it's like wait, you can't actually construct a competitive file using these new cards unless you purchase this specific 2* from set 3 or have sufficient great spirits or whatever. I think this leads to a lot of frustration where people feel like they are forced to play handicapped/gimped files due to how cards are organized.

So if you could create some basic library - akin to commons in MtG, with the basic core soul skills, great spirits, possibly some free revivers and grims, well then that enables a lot of the rares and specialty tribes. Personally, I think it would be a great idea, but I don't know what your priorities/constraints are, or if this idea would even work.

[Peralisc9001]

Goblin / logress
Why do you not try monthly subscription a la wow? Just for 1 month get 50% up to 100% of the cards out there for 15$, see how it goes?

Of course have this for now as a one time only with no guarantee it will continue, just so you can see for sure where it goes!


Also exclusive cards is a bad idea. See the basic aspect of this game is already card exclusiveness and it got nowhere. I rather keep buying full games ...


Weekly cards is one of those better than nothing.


But what you really need still are lower prices. There are damn many cheaper games.
Sell some special packs similar to ex constantly?

[Peralisc9001]

And I still think modes are the most necessary change!

[Urkredel]

Another one is rotating pre-built grab bags of cards that last a week on a shop and rotate every week.

this sounds to me as the most appealing for the achievement of a critical mass.
Everyone wants a larger playerbase, and the most efficent way to retain a player is giving a way to spend its gran efficiently; prebuilt are good for that because
1- you know exactly what you buy
2- you obtain a playable file with a theme

..probably most veterans wont' care , but i think you should aim for different targets..

my 2 cents ofc

[Scientiafide]

If we reduce the cost by 10% the stats show that we actually lose more than 10% of sales because people buy less - and still doesn't solve the overlying issues with the model.

Hmm, I'm taking this to mean that players buy less because they're getting more product for less money? Or perhaps they buy less because they more easily manage to snag the cards they want? I'm not sure what you mean by that. If prices are lower I would think players would want to buy more product, not less (or at the very least, the same amount). Of course, the way to maximize profitability would be to find the sweet spot between the number of products sold and the total cost of the product, so maybe you mean that even with the increase in the amount of products sold you're making less money.

But yea it would be helpful if this were clarified , since I'm thinking there are a couple different explanations for it (all of which I'd imagine would require different courses of action).

[Callonia]

Have u guys thought about kongretate?

[MysteryMan]

If we reduce the cost by 10% the stats show that we actually lose more than 10% of sales because people buy less - and still doesn't solve the overlying issues with the model.

Hmm, I'm taking this to mean that players buy less because they're getting more product for less money? Or perhaps they buy less because they more easily manage to snag the cards they want? I'm not sure what you mean by that. If prices are lower I would think players would want to buy more product, not less (or at the very least, the same amount). Of course, the way to maximize profitability would be to find the sweet spot between the number of products sold and the total cost of the product, so maybe you mean that even with the increase in the amount of products sold you're making less money.

But yea it would be helpful if this were clarified , since I'm thinking there are a couple different explanations for it (all of which I'd imagine would require different courses of action).

Meaning that - according to the data I was given from past attempts - the total amount of cards people buy are less when they are less expensive. It's counter-intuitive.