3) On turn 6, move the other three Nightcrawlers out and fill the bar with Onslaught.
One week into the game, I'm getting a little tired of featured locations. In theory, it's a great way to mix up the meta. In practice, most of the locations are extremely unbalanced if you can prepare for them. I don't want to spend 3 days each week running weird decks with janky combos.
I did some quick research, and it does look like the sweet spot is about 70 rounds of play per day. (Since you earn one booster per round that the game lasts.) You want to earn about 10 credits per booster, since that is the consistent ratio for most levels. The one exception is that the first upgrade for a card costs 5 boosters + 25 credits. (And since you keep getting variants and splits that let you repeat that cheap upgrade, it's hard to tell what exact ratio you want.) If you complete 3 easy quests (50 credits each), 3 hard quests (100 credits each), and take the free 50 credits in the shop, that's 500 credits/day. The weekly quest is another 1350 credits total. On average, that's enough credits to pay for about 70 boosters earned from play.
Outside of those resources from playing and quests, things seem to be balanced around a 10-to-1 ratio. At first, the collection level track gives you 25 credits and 5 boosters for each new card. That's a bad ratio, but I guess it works out since you can spend it on the first upgrade for that new card. Eventually, you switch to collector's caches and collector's reserves, which have a consistent 10-to-1 ratio. The paid season pass actually gives a bit too many boosters for the credits. Since I bought it, I can no longer see which tiers were free. Because the paid pass gives you so many boosters for the new cards, I expect that the F2P players actually get a higher ratio of credits.
Thanks. I'm still swimming in credits now, but I've been planning around the assumption that I'll eventually run out. I'm "only" playing about 20 games/day, though, so if I keep up that pace maybe I'll hit the sweet spot where they even out.
This is the second time I've seen an OOC article call boosters more desirable than credits. Is this a long-running inside joke, or do you truly believe that? The universal opinion on Reddit was that people were excited to get credits instead of boosters, and disappointed when that was corrected the next day.
The Snap subreddit had this guide pinned for a while. Everyone should read it. I’m surprised by how much I learned even after I thought I’d looked up everything I needed to know: https://reddit.com/r/MarvelSnap/comments/y377gu/a_beginners_guide_to_marvel_snap/
I have mixed feelings so far. The number of currencies, tracks, and mission types is overwhelming at first, and if I didn’t know better I’d think this was a 3-year-old game that had slowly grown to be way more complex than it can handle. And the basic paid tier is $10/month, when I like to aim for $5/month in a game I’m enjoying.
On the other hand, I don’t think the system is too predatory. You earn most things through play, and all money can do is speed you along a little. I think I’d call this less predatory than a system like Hearthstone, where you can always pay to get that next legendary you want. And it isn’t too hard to find people on Reddit *begging* to pay money for targeted acquisition, so it feels like the designers intentionally chose a system that leaves money on the table. (On the other hand, everyone also seems to hate that lack of control. I’m not far enough along to have my own opinion.)
Every time I open a prismatic chest, I wonder whether I’m making my collection better or worse. It wouldn’t take much to bribe me into setting up 2FA, but it still has to be better than that.
That’s a relief. I’d given up on rotations, because the game doesn’t seem designed for them. But they’re desperately needed. Hopefully they arrive before it’s too late, and keep me interested in the game.
I wonder if we need better terminology than what "F2P" and "P2W" entail. Usually when I hear that something is "pay to win", I imagine that if I want to pay a few dollars per month then I'll lose to the person who drops $1000 on it. In this case, that's not true. There is a cost, and it does give you an advantage, but you can't just keep paying to progress. One minor (but real) boost for a minor cost, and that's all.
I think this could be a very healthy model. Games need people to pay for them, and the free tier is there to help bring in customers. In most F2P games, that's become a predatory system where they hope to find whales who will sink hundreds or thousands of dollars per year. In this case, I believe they max you out at $4/month. They're not trying to manipulate anyone into maxing out their credit card. That actually sounds great to me.
We need to call things what they are. Free Battlegrounds is a demo mode, perfect for new or casual players. If you play a lot, then the full game costs $4/month, and you have no worries that someone else can beat you by spending more. That sounds great! But Blizzard is unwilling to call it that, because they (correctly) fear the revolt that will happen if they say the free mode is only supposed to be casual. A side effect of all the manipulation from F2P games over the years is that many people have learned that these games should be free. And since Battlegrounds started out free, Blizzard has done nothing to prepare anyone for this approach.
Since Ben discussed it a little, I'm curious to hear if other people have ideas about how the progression system should work? Their collection system is unusual (needing only one copy of each card, and using a small number in a deck), so I agree that they need something different than other games. Making it easy to get the exact cards you want would probably make the game feel less interesting, but it's frustrating to have to grind with no control over the order you'll get cards.
The best idea I've had is to group all the cards into sets of 10 or so. (Thematically, each set would hopefully be a team of some sort.) Then you would choose which team you are currently trying to "recruit" from. When you earn a new card, it would be a random one from that team that you don't yet have. Switching between teams has some cost to it - say, half of the resources equivalent to getting the next card. That way, you can bounce between teams to get the meta cards, but there is some motivation to stick around and complete the set. Of course, since I don't work for Second Dinner, I haven't gotten past the idea stages. I don't know how much effort it should take to earn each card, how quickly a paid player should be allowed to add cards, etc.
If the game does keep a system similar to what it has now, then I think there are two important changes they need to make: First, they need to break the cards up into smaller pools. Pool 3 has so many cards that it truly feels hopeless if you don't have a certain meta card yet and all your opponents do. Secondly, they can't give out new cards in the monthly pass or other events. Someone in pool 1 could earn a strong card that isn't supposed to be available until pool 3 normally, and their opponents won't feel like they're playing on an even field.
You’ve got to expect that it’s a 4/3 Quick Attack for 3, since a Yi deck will have no trouble triggering Flow. If the opponent can remove it, the next one will be 6/3. That is worth the price, especially with the minor cost reduction benefit.
I'm not sure how consistently he will level up - that depends on support extra attacks or out-of-combat strikes - but if he does, he’ll be a real threat
Fair enough. Fun is subjective, and I almost didn't put that second paragraph in my comment because I worried it would distract from the overall point.
In general, what I hope for is a variety of viable decks with a variety of play styles and no clear dominant one. As a secondary concern, I hope that today's viable decks are different from the ones we had 2 months ago or that we will have 2 months from now. It sounds like Rubin is making a lot of metrics that address my secondary concern, but none for the primary one.
Thank you. I had not noticed this in the Marvel Snap client. They really need to improve their interface
The best combo I've seen (for pool 1 at least) is:
1) Fill the bar with Nightcrawler.
2) On turn 5, move ONE Nightcrawler out and add ONE Blue Marvel.
3) On turn 6, move the other three Nightcrawlers out and fill the bar with Onslaught.
One week into the game, I'm getting a little tired of featured locations. In theory, it's a great way to mix up the meta. In practice, most of the locations are extremely unbalanced if you can prepare for them. I don't want to spend 3 days each week running weird decks with janky combos.
Yes, but the whole point of Marvel Snap is short games with a high level of chaos. Every deck has a strong potential counter out there.
I did some quick research, and it does look like the sweet spot is about 70 rounds of play per day. (Since you earn one booster per round that the game lasts.) You want to earn about 10 credits per booster, since that is the consistent ratio for most levels. The one exception is that the first upgrade for a card costs 5 boosters + 25 credits. (And since you keep getting variants and splits that let you repeat that cheap upgrade, it's hard to tell what exact ratio you want.) If you complete 3 easy quests (50 credits each), 3 hard quests (100 credits each), and take the free 50 credits in the shop, that's 500 credits/day. The weekly quest is another 1350 credits total. On average, that's enough credits to pay for about 70 boosters earned from play.
Outside of those resources from playing and quests, things seem to be balanced around a 10-to-1 ratio. At first, the collection level track gives you 25 credits and 5 boosters for each new card. That's a bad ratio, but I guess it works out since you can spend it on the first upgrade for that new card. Eventually, you switch to collector's caches and collector's reserves, which have a consistent 10-to-1 ratio. The paid season pass actually gives a bit too many boosters for the credits. Since I bought it, I can no longer see which tiers were free. Because the paid pass gives you so many boosters for the new cards, I expect that the F2P players actually get a higher ratio of credits.
Thanks. I'm still swimming in credits now, but I've been planning around the assumption that I'll eventually run out. I'm "only" playing about 20 games/day, though, so if I keep up that pace maybe I'll hit the sweet spot where they even out.
This is the second time I've seen an OOC article call boosters more desirable than credits. Is this a long-running inside joke, or do you truly believe that? The universal opinion on Reddit was that people were excited to get credits instead of boosters, and disappointed when that was corrected the next day.
The Snap subreddit had this guide pinned for a while. Everyone should read it. I’m surprised by how much I learned even after I thought I’d looked up everything I needed to know: https://reddit.com/r/MarvelSnap/comments/y377gu/a_beginners_guide_to_marvel_snap/
I have mixed feelings so far. The number of currencies, tracks, and mission types is overwhelming at first, and if I didn’t know better I’d think this was a 3-year-old game that had slowly grown to be way more complex than it can handle. And the basic paid tier is $10/month, when I like to aim for $5/month in a game I’m enjoying.
On the other hand, I don’t think the system is too predatory. You earn most things through play, and all money can do is speed you along a little. I think I’d call this less predatory than a system like Hearthstone, where you can always pay to get that next legendary you want. And it isn’t too hard to find people on Reddit *begging* to pay money for targeted acquisition, so it feels like the designers intentionally chose a system that leaves money on the table. (On the other hand, everyone also seems to hate that lack of control. I’m not far enough along to have my own opinion.)
Every time I open a prismatic chest, I wonder whether I’m making my collection better or worse. It wouldn’t take much to bribe me into setting up 2FA, but it still has to be better than that.
Wait. You need a Google account to play? Is this true across all devices, including iPhone? If so, I guess I’m not trying this game out after all
Also, don’t play it if you do spend real money on the game. There are much better things to spend tha money on.
That’s a relief. I’d given up on rotations, because the game doesn’t seem designed for them. But they’re desperately needed. Hopefully they arrive before it’s too late, and keep me interested in the game.
Targon has a card named Celestial Impact but it’s not a Celestial card? Sigh..
Even without any other details provided, this line is the big news. I hope they come up with something good.
I wonder if we need better terminology than what "F2P" and "P2W" entail. Usually when I hear that something is "pay to win", I imagine that if I want to pay a few dollars per month then I'll lose to the person who drops $1000 on it. In this case, that's not true. There is a cost, and it does give you an advantage, but you can't just keep paying to progress. One minor (but real) boost for a minor cost, and that's all.
I think this could be a very healthy model. Games need people to pay for them, and the free tier is there to help bring in customers. In most F2P games, that's become a predatory system where they hope to find whales who will sink hundreds or thousands of dollars per year. In this case, I believe they max you out at $4/month. They're not trying to manipulate anyone into maxing out their credit card. That actually sounds great to me.
We need to call things what they are. Free Battlegrounds is a demo mode, perfect for new or casual players. If you play a lot, then the full game costs $4/month, and you have no worries that someone else can beat you by spending more. That sounds great! But Blizzard is unwilling to call it that, because they (correctly) fear the revolt that will happen if they say the free mode is only supposed to be casual. A side effect of all the manipulation from F2P games over the years is that many people have learned that these games should be free. And since Battlegrounds started out free, Blizzard has done nothing to prepare anyone for this approach.
Since Ben discussed it a little, I'm curious to hear if other people have ideas about how the progression system should work? Their collection system is unusual (needing only one copy of each card, and using a small number in a deck), so I agree that they need something different than other games. Making it easy to get the exact cards you want would probably make the game feel less interesting, but it's frustrating to have to grind with no control over the order you'll get cards.
The best idea I've had is to group all the cards into sets of 10 or so. (Thematically, each set would hopefully be a team of some sort.) Then you would choose which team you are currently trying to "recruit" from. When you earn a new card, it would be a random one from that team that you don't yet have. Switching between teams has some cost to it - say, half of the resources equivalent to getting the next card. That way, you can bounce between teams to get the meta cards, but there is some motivation to stick around and complete the set. Of course, since I don't work for Second Dinner, I haven't gotten past the idea stages. I don't know how much effort it should take to earn each card, how quickly a paid player should be allowed to add cards, etc.
If the game does keep a system similar to what it has now, then I think there are two important changes they need to make: First, they need to break the cards up into smaller pools. Pool 3 has so many cards that it truly feels hopeless if you don't have a certain meta card yet and all your opponents do. Secondly, they can't give out new cards in the monthly pass or other events. Someone in pool 1 could earn a strong card that isn't supposed to be available until pool 3 normally, and their opponents won't feel like they're playing on an even field.
You’ve got to expect that it’s a 4/3 Quick Attack for 3, since a Yi deck will have no trouble triggering Flow. If the opponent can remove it, the next one will be 6/3. That is worth the price, especially with the minor cost reduction benefit.
I'm not sure how consistently he will level up - that depends on support extra attacks or out-of-combat strikes - but if he does, he’ll be a real threat
Flow is a new keyword: “A card triggers it’s flow ability if you played 2+ spells or skills last round.
The difference is that the new version has Stealth. The rest of it is just rewording it to fit on the card (and, IMO, improving clarity)
Fair enough. Fun is subjective, and I almost didn't put that second paragraph in my comment because I worried it would distract from the overall point.
In general, what I hope for is a variety of viable decks with a variety of play styles and no clear dominant one. As a secondary concern, I hope that today's viable decks are different from the ones we had 2 months ago or that we will have 2 months from now. It sounds like Rubin is making a lot of metrics that address my secondary concern, but none for the primary one.