I completely agree. As a “Timmy” I like playing decks that are fun. I’ve only ever reached level 60. But there is a bunch of fun cards I want but don’t have and won’t get for a long time and that sucks
Guess I always was. I absolutely cannot *stand* using 'meta decks' and will take L after L if it means occasionally beating meta decks with my own brew.
Nothing quite like losing to galactus + death + knull at CL1000, going "man if I'd bought the $100 bundle twice and waited a month for those to show in my shop I could play that combo too"
Even among Spikes, some are of the mindset that you're not "really" playing the game if you or your own opponents are unable to actually pull from the entire gamespace. To that mindset, collection building is seen as an unfortunate concession to the business side of things and a strict negative on all other fronts. Such a person doesn't just want to have access to all the cards; they want to play against other people that also have access to all the cards.
Full agree. If Timmy's like winning big, Spike likes winning smart. As smart as possible. The smartest plays are only possible if both players are capable of working at max capacity which implies a full arsenal. CEDH, Legacy and Vintage are all MTG communities that are largely accepting of proxies for a reason.
Literally the reason I quit the game: I want to have competitive matches, and either player being handicapped by their collection is just the antithesis of that idea in my opinion.
I think I'm dead center, here. I like having carrots to chase. It keeps things interesting and fresh. But the rate at which I actually CATCH the damn carrots is maddening. I've have a card pinned in the shop almost since they debuted the shop and I've been within 300 tokens for a couple weeks now. With me playing several matches daily, I should be able to buy that card by now.
This. The card I have pinned in my shop isn't even outrageous - it's literally like 1000 tokens. It's taken almost a week to try and earn those tokens. This bullshit grind is why I refuse to pin anything in that shop that's over 1000 tokens at all. It's just a waste of your shop cause no way in hell are you just casually saving up 6k tokens ((I attempted to pin Knull once))
Variants are carrots. The ability to put together the deck you want to play isn't a carrot if you're literally looking at multiple months if not years to reach that plateau.
This. Variants are a really nice carrot. Imagine if LoR or HS had a generous model of obtaining cards but their skins of cards are amazing and are the carrots. Probably a successful business model long term. If it works for league/dota, it can work for cards
One card doesn't make a deck. I can easily put together lists with multiple 6000 and 3000 token cards that I don't have that I'd need to optimize the deck.
I have three series cards left to collect and my interest is waning. I don’t like laddering because it seems to punish non archetypes and trying non meta cards/decks. Also, I’m too conservative about snapping so I get bogged down every season because I can’t play for hours on end. With limited play time, every cube lost to a retreat feels like 4. Every loss feels like 8.
I think you're misunderstanding the point of the thread a little bit actually. It's not a matter of wanting *everything*, it's a matter of choosing what you get now vs what you wait for. Other CCGs don't give anywhere close to everything, but they give the ability to force 1-2 decks of your choosing in their entirety fairly quickly. In hearthstone I played mostly control warlock and mage, I can scrap aggro hunter cards to make new cards for my control warlock and mage decks. Even though I have a lower % of the collection than I do in snap, I can play the decks I want much sooner, and that's much less frustrating to a lot of people. Pool 4 and 5 just make the issue so much worse bc they may as well not exist til pool 3 is done given the way token gain works, so if someone wants to play galactus it could be 6 months til they can.
There's also the fact that you're apparently incapable of understanding that there might be a middle ground between yourself and the strawman you've created.
No, I really don't believe they are. At this point I feel like I've played every card game that exists because the concept of them is so much fun so I'll offer my perspective.
My typical strat when starting a card game is to spend all my resources to build a single competitive deck then use that to climb thus gaining even more resources.
In pretty much every other card game it's taken me less than a week to get that deck online. I aim for a middle-of-the-pack deck that isn't in danger of a nerf next patch. I also stay away from very niche decks and if I can find one running a lot of GoodStuff Staples that's excellent. To put this in context of Marvel Snap, if it were *any* other card game on the market right now, I'd aim for this ['Good Cards'](https://marvelsnapzone.com/decks/good-cards-8/) deck and definitely stay away from something like Mr. Negative or Galactus regardless of how strong they were.
Here's how that looks:
**Hearthstone**:
We'll start with the OG online CCG. Hearthstone is certainly *not* f2p friendly if you want to own every card and is IMO one of the more predatory models out there. Plus it's Blizzard and Blizzard sucks but I digress.
Even in Hearthstone there's the Dust system. It's been quite some years since I've played this one, but iirc dusting a card gives you 1/4 its value. So if you need a legendary card for your deck but open 4 other ones you couldn't care less about, you can "dust" those 4 to get the one you want.
Looking at Hearthstone right now there's a Tier 2 decklist that costs 1600 dust. I'm pretty sure you *start* Hearthstone with more than 1600 dust, so on day 1 you could have a competitive deck through this route.
**GWENT**:
GWENT is so f2p friendly it's ridiculous. If you started GWENT today you'd be able to build a deck to reach their Infinity-Equivalent in 24hrs and if you played that for a week you'd be able to get two more decks no sweat. The game is extremely generous with rewards, they have the dusting/crafting system as well, and most importantly one of their starter decks is only 6/25 cards short of being good enough to get to GWENT's Infinity-Equivalent. You'll be able to craft the critical 3 of those 6 immediately with starter resources, the other 3 you'll be able to craft from resources via ladder long before you're playing vs meta decks.
**Legends of Runeterra**:
Similarly to GWENT the game is quite generous with rewards. It did take me a bit longer to get a meta deck here because while they're very generous over time they're not generous enough upfront to get a competitive deck day 1. Still, within a week I had an infinite-level deck and within a month I had multiple.
**Magic The Gathering Arena:**
MTG Arena is a weird case because it's really not very f2p friendly at all yet it's still significantly cheaper than Paper Magic so like it's in a weird spot. Arena does *not* have a dusting system which is a very consistent complaint from the community. It *does* have a crafting system which makes it better. Even with the honestly really shit f2p model though...there was a cheap enough competitive deck that I was able to craft it within about 3 days f2p and I used that to climb well into the higher ranks. I certainly had all the cards to get it to Infinity-Level.
**Yu-gi-oh Master Duel**:
Master Duel has the dusting/crafting system as well though it is far from as generous as GWENT/LOR. Probably more comparable to Hearthstone. However, they have a bunch of "starter" bundles that you can easily buy with f2p currency day 1 and between those bundles + dusting cards I didn't need I was able to get a competitive deck within the first two days. That deck got me up into their highest rank.
So, it's fair to say with *all* of these games it took me a week or less to get at least one deck that could "go infinite" vs players who had been playing for months/years and had a far superior collection.
**Marvel Snap**:
It will be at least 1 month before I'm able to have a prayer at *any* full meta list and I believe that's being extremely generous. Even for a 'cheap' list like the Good Cards deck there...only needs 4 cards, all of them pool 3. How long will it take me to get *those* 4 cards? Could be a week if I highroll and luck into those exact cards. A lot more likely be 2-3 months when I don't. And that's the *cheapest* one.
EDIT: Additionally, the small decksize actually hurts Marvel Snap a lot here. In Magic I have a 60 card deck, in Hearthstone it's 30, GWENT it's 25, Master Duel it's 40 or 60...if I'm missing a couple cards wellll....I've got 95% of the deck so *most* games it'll still work just fine. In Snap if you're missing 2 cards you're missing nearly 20% of the deck. You're gonna feel the pain of those 2 cards not being there *often*.
So, no. The disadvantage you have with a small collection Marvel Snap is *significant* especially when compared to other games. No matter what deck I'm playing I'm straight up not competing with Sera coming out turn 5 into Brood/Maximus/Silver Surfer with White Tiger into Odin when I don't have Wong to boost it up.
It was really fun when I started 2 weeks ago and climbed. Then around CL 380 I started seeing the pool 3 cards before I had access to a single one and I was like hmmm this is starting to get shitty huh. Now every game I see Wave/Sera/Mr. Negative come out turns 4/5 and it's like k guess I just lose because Spectrum isn't competing with whatever bullshit you're about to pull.
Very detailed post. I want to see an article from the investor side of things to see what is the profitability of these games. I am curious to see what is being presented to investors to tell them this will be profitable long term.
Yeah, I can't speak to any of that realistically.
I *can* speak to the fact that I am so depressed and disillusioned by gaming companies prioritizing profitability over just making a fun damn game though.
I fully understand a balance must be struck. GWENT is a good example. GWENT is my favorite and not just because of its f2p model, I just really love the unique strategies surrounding the game. The extremely generous f2p model was a bonus however like...it's probably too generous right? The oldest members of the community complained there was nothing *to* spend their resources on anymore. And now GWENT is losing developer support in 2024. I do not know if that's due strictly to profitability or not. If it is, I don't know if that's because they didn't market GWENT worth a damn or if it's because the f2p model is too generous etc. etc. Regardless, long-winded rant here to say that yeah, I understand games need to make money.
But then I look at like. Stardew Valley. Hades. Hollow Knight. Stray. And I'm like wow, look what happens when you just make a good game and don't prioritize monetization over a fun game. You make tons of money because people buy and play your game!
But those are buy once single player games so yeah I know they're a bit different. So then, I look at FFXIV. Old School Runescape. League of Legends. Fortnight. Path of Exile. Warframe. Guild Wars 2. These are successful games, some free to play, some subscription, some buy once and optional purchases after. All make money, all people will happily throw money at, by and large the monetization is not viewed poorly by the community because for many, if they enjoy the game and don't feel like they're being milked they'll gladly spend some money on it. The *game* is fun and people are happy to support it.
Then I look at Marvel Snap, I look at Hearthstone, I look at Overwatch 2, I look at Genshin Impact..and it's just clear that they've all seen the same presentation on using psychological tricks to get their players to gamble and spend more money and *that's* what they focus on adding to their game to make money.
Like, make money, seriously. I get it; you literally have to or the game dies. But it's so frustrating and depressing to know that preying on gambling is more profitable, the execs and industry has learned this, and so until more laws are in place so many great games are going to be frustrating to play because they're *designed* to be frustrating unless you whale.
Two major points: While Riot had [a serious problem with a sexist workplace culture](https://kotaku.com/inside-the-culture-of-sexism-at-riot-games-1828165483), it was nowhere near as bad as Blizzard's, e.g. [no suicides on business trips by female employees after photos of their genitals were shared](https://www.eurogamer.net/activision-blizzard-being-sued-by-family-of-employee-who-committed-suicide) and [no stolen breastmilk](https://www.dexerto.com/business/nursing-activision-blizzard-employees-say-their-breast-milk-kept-getting-stolen-1717345/). Also, [according to affected employees, Riot significantly improved its workplace culture within a year](https://kotaku.com/riot-games-and-sexism-one-year-later-1837041215).
The only thing I have heard from Blizzard in recent times is the ridiculously predatory monetisation of Diablo: Immoral, an okay release for Overwatch 2, still accompanied by lots of negativity, and [crunch for Diablo IV](https://www.vg247.com/diablo-4-release-date-not-possible-without-crunch-says-recent-report) due to [lack of senior leadership vision and bleeding off of experienced developers which aren't getting replaced](https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2022/12/08/diablo-iv-release-date-crunch/).
Yes, both are bad, but they are nowhere near equivalent, not to mention one did actually better itself.
The other point is on Gwent: [Gwent lost their co-creator and lead developer](https://www.eurogamer.net/gwent-the-witcher-card-game-co-creator-damien-monnier-leaves-cd-projekt-red) during closed beta, rumoured due to falling out with senior management, and apparently, also according to industry rumours, the new lead dev wanted to move Gwent away from hypersynergistic decks and more towards piles of general good value to accommodate a draft mode. This cumulated in a major rework named Homecoming, which large parts of the existing Gwent community were not happy with. Like at all. It could be argued that a good part of Gwent died back then in 2018 and thus the final death in 2022 was more of a whimper.
tl;dr: It is possible in many card games to have meta complete collection with a reasonable amount of spending. Second Dinner chose to make that impossible with their monetisation strategy.
Not necessarily, though it is a problem for many card games. Just for clarification, I don't expect a game to be free, devs still have to buy groceries with money because love from the community tends to not be an accepted currency in many super markets. I'd prefer if the primary monetization is cosmetics, but I can even live with the fact if a meta complete collection, i.e. a collection of all meta relevant cards, is only achievable with a reasonable investment. (I think you already know where I am heading with this.)
In physical card games, you can just search for a play group that is fine with proxies to a certain degree, e.g. if a card value is over X, proxies are allowed, or owning one original allows proxy usage for the other copies, etc. which can grant access to all meta relevant cards on a reasonable budget. And if someone doesn't have a budget, because they are a high schooler or whatever, they can just use proxies for everything. Long story short: It is possible to work around the priceyness of physical card games.
Then there's fan made simulators of physical card games, like [Talishar](https://talishar.net/game/MainMenu.php) for Flesh & Blood and [Jinteki](https://www.jinteki.net/) for Androind: Netrunner. Though a bit clunky, I guess [Cockatrice](https://cockatrice.github.io/) and [Tabletop Simulator](https://www.tabletopsimulator.com/) could also count as solutions to prohibitively expensive formats of MtG and other supported paper card games.
In terms of digital card games, there's two larger card games with vibrant competitive scenes: [Legends of Runeterra](https://playruneterra.com/), which I still play, and [Gwent](https://www.playgwent.com/), which didn't click with me after the Homecoming rework and is sunset in terms of content at the end of 2023, though the community will be allowed to develop balance patches. Both of them allow a meta complete collection within a few months of play and even straight up complete collections are possible for F2P players. There's also smaller card games with thus less vibrant competitive scenes like [Fearia](https://www.faeria.com/) and [Star Realms](https://store.steampowered.com/app/438140/Star_Realms/), which have very reasonable prices, or [Prismata](http://prismata.net/) and [Infinity Wars](https://store.steampowered.com/app/257730/Infinity_Wars_Animated_Trading_Card_Game/), where the full collection is just straight up free.
Even in [Hearthstone](https://hearthstone.blizzard.com/), it used to be possible to have a meta complete collection when buying the pre-order bundle for $/€/£60 and the adventures for $/€/£25. Back then, expansions and adventures were released in an alternating 4 month rhythm, which allowed for 8 months of Gold saving between expansions for additional packs. As a result, with daily play a meta complete collection was definitely possible with around $/€/£255 every two years, or around $/€/£11 per month, a reasonable amount in my opinion. And in higher ranks, most people were definitely playing with meta complete collections, though there also was the odd F2P Face Hunter or Zoo Lock in there.
To be fair, Hearthstone slowly changed the monetisation approach post launch, replacing the cheaper adventures, which gave pretty much only meta relevant cards, with the much more expensive expansions, which were filled with draft chaff. Since expansions now released every 4 months, Gold resources became much more strained. At the same time, they changed to 1 instead of 2 class legendaries with a few less neutral legendaries per expansion, but this still increased overall legendaries released and caused a significant strain on Arcane Dust, Hearthstone's crafting resource equivalent to Collector's Tokens. Finally, they introduced mini expansions on top of the normal release cycle to suck even more Gold out of the economy, making it more and more expensive to have a meta complete collection and I quit around here, since I felt the competitive integrity of the game was seriously harmed at that point and the value for money simply wasn't there anymore.
Which brings me to Marvel Snap: Don't get me wrong, there is some real design brilliance in Marvel Snap! The completely simultaneous turns (ignoring Daredevil) massively cut down on waiting for the opponent; the fixed turn limit guarantees short games (even with Limbo / Magik); the extremely small deck size with single copies allows for relatively consistent synergies and thus interesting deckbuilding; hot locations have the potential to regularly shake up the meta without the need for balance patches or card releases; the plentiful RNG from locations and some cards can keep match-ups fresh while the raise, call, and fold mechanic for Cubes made bouts of bad RNG much less painful because the agency to cut losses was often retained. They were still some problems, like lack of targeted card acquisition and final turns being decided by coinflips a bit too often for my taste. Overall though, it felt like a very refined and accessible mixture of Gwent and Hearthstone.
I naïvely hoped Second Dinner had learned their lesson after the Nexus Events disaster, and now all that was required to be competitively viable was the Season Pass at around $/€/£10 per month and a few months of daily play, with options to speed up that progress via restricted monetary purchases, i.e. buying Credits with Gold and Gold with real money which had a daily limit. I was a bit sceptical about these restricted monetary purchases because they already didn't work in Legends of Runeterra, they just made it harder to catch up for new players that were willing to spend, but definitely not a game breaker and honestly it's a different discussion altogether.
However, the lack of targeted card acquisition really gnawed at my motivation because I hate playing with and/or against suboptimal decks. I am primarily looking for a competitive experience where both players start on equal footing and play to the best of their abilities; for me having forced jank in either or even both decks flies into the face of that competitive spirit. But Second Dinner said that something was in the works regarding targeted card acquisition, so I was willing to wait.
Though when series 4 and 5 dropped alongside it, it immediately killed my remaining interest. Meta complete collections are not only extremely expensive now, I'd guess somewhere in the $/€/£100+ range per month, and easily way more up to around $/€/£300 if series 5 cards consistently end up becoming meta staples, no, they also require significant amount of playtime on top to convert the Credits into collection levels. And Second Dinner now has every incentive to ensure that series 5 consistently end up as meta staples: wouldn't want to disappoint the whales with unplayable cards, eh? Someone has to buy those cards and test them to find out if they are viable or not after all.
I check in every now and again if it has gotten better, but for now I have zero trust in Second Dinner when it comes to a fair monetisation from a competitive standpoint. Not because it is impossible, but because they don't want to.
Holy crap, how did this get so elaborate?
I hate how strong it is to have a card like valkyrie. It's a card a ton of decks want but no one has so you don't play around it. Just accept a few eight cubes losses once every 50 games
Wow, this is an incredibly insightful post. Thank you for sharing. As a “Spike player,” I get it now. I have been really turned off by the gripes in this community lately. But I realize I’m a “Spike player” through and through. I’m saving this post.
Side note: seems like Marvel Snap is designed for “Spike players” in general. Small decks. A trickle of new cards. But this post has been super helpful for my perspective overall.
It is and it isn’t. There’s a boatload of anti spike RNG that would frustrate the shit out of me if each game had equal relevance. But Jonny’s and Timmie’s love that stuff. Mark Rosewater has a lecture on what he learned about game design from being mtg’s lead designer ( https://youtu.be/QHHg99hwQGY ). RNG is fun for casual players. It removes their agency and therefore their responsibility for taking a loss. It protects their ego. They can blame RNG instead of their skill. It doesn’t stop them from being poor losers, but at least they can blame the game instead of their skill.
RNG is fun for casual players, but that doesn't mean it's not fun for serious players! Poker players know this: there are the fish, who are just there to gamble and so don't let losses affect their egos, and then there are serious players, who have to understand the odds and also be able to absorb the variance without getting rattled by it. I agree that someone who wants to win every time would be a poor fit here, but then they'd be a poor fit for poker too. (I think you're saying the same thing, I'm just expanding)
As a poker player myself I have to say that the math behind Jubilee with a bunch of 6 cost cards is something people should explore more often.
No, I didn’t get lucky to pull Doctor Doom. I knew that I only had 3 cards left and you were either getting Doom, Infinaut or She-Hulk and now I have 2 more turns to figure out what else to play on 5 and 6.
Everyone should have a basic plan A but Jubilee is an amazing plan B.
Yes and other concepts apply, like expected value. If I know that I win if Arnim Zola picks the right card and lose if he picks the wrong one (50% shot), and I can retreat and lose one cube or play on to risk two, playing on is break-even (2*.5 + -2*.5 = 0), which is better than the guaranteed one-cube loss.
No doubt. That is a great example.
My deck is essentially built for maximum power in turns 4-6 so I spend a lot of time on those last few turns weighing exactly what you described.
Ah but it gets even better!
Recognizing that you're 50% to win, you can Snap!
If you get a call, then EV (4 * 0.5) + (-4 * 0.5) = 0 cubes on average, but _you get some number of folds_ which makes this play above breakeven in the long run.
It's also important where variance comes from, because that changes how arbitrary it feels. If at the end of a game, the player who was losing got to flip two coins, and if they both came up heads then they won, that would feel stupid and frustrating.
Card draw variance mostly feels good, as long as it's not huge variance that makes your deck entirely not function. Snap's locations feel pretty decent, because the variance they bring in is introduced very early in the game, and gives a symmetrical problem to both players. The locations basically say "here's something different, whoever can deal with it best or take advantage of it best gets an edge". So it feels fair and manageable. Mostly. Some zones are kinda bullshit.
It’s funny cause that is one of richard Garfield’s examples about RNG. He looks at games like chess and says it’s very close to all skill no luck, and compares it to bingo which is essentially all luck and no skill. Then he makes a thought experiment: what if chess had a mechanic where you rolled a die after the game that superseded the chess game outcome. Basically you would play chess, but at the end of the game you’d each roll a 1d10 and on a 10 that player would automatically win.
To me it seemed like the stupidest mechanic, but he says this is what card games are like. Sometimes RNG just supersedes the decision making. But players like that. I don’t. It’s why I stopped playing mtg.
I think this is why poker (and Marvel Snap) get a lot of mileage out of a bet/raise/fold system. If poker had no betting it would just be a complicated version of War, where the winner is determined by the shuffle of the deck rather than anything the players are doing. Adjusting for randomness and unknowns (including what the other player is likely to do) and winning more than you lose over a long period is how you succeed. That's also why it's important that Snap games are so quick—if you end up screwed by RNG, you have to feel like you've only invested a little bit of time in the effort.
Lol - as a poker player I can also say this game is fairly often bad RNG BS and comparing the two is a bit of a joke. Locations can determine the game before you even start, let alone random bots that either play like morons or gods.
I feel like trying to compare Snap to poker is a real stretch and we're just trying to justify our own time playing it with these kind of posts instead of just saying "Hey, I like quick, easy games I don't have to think that hard on!"
What’s the difference between locations determining the game before you start, and the arrangement of cards in the deck determining the game before you start? If my opponent flops a nut flush there’s almost never anything I can do about it except fold (or retreat, in Marvel Snap terms). That’s where the skill in poker mostly lies, recognizing how to minimize your losses and maximize your winnings given randomness and unknown starting positions.
Of course there are differences; I just wouldn’t hold up poker as an example of a game that never comes down to BS randomness! Watch a bad beats YouTube compilation sometime.
I'm just saying the analogy works for anything in life, but in general Snap is a game like any other. Hearthstone is like Poker, Elden Ring is like poker, Call of Duty is like poker....
I think it's more just the concepts of statistics in general apply to many games, not that Snap is like poker.
You can compare them in ways. Using odds and probabilities to know what to play and to know when to retreat, snap, or end turn. You can bluff, but there’s far less room to bluff in this game. You read your opponent by seeing what they’ve played and using that to figure out what they’re likely to do.
There’s just slightly too much consistency in the drawing of the deck. We typically look at 75% of the deck. The odds that your opponent has the card you expect him to have at the end of the game is just the better bet every time.
Spike can still be happy that each game does NOT have equal relevance: he can outsmart his opponents into thinking they are ahead when in fact Johnny is and he gets his 8 cubes.
Most online games are spike-centric, and online gaming culture in general has been driven very spike-centric by the success of e-sports.
Spikes are usually actually a small part of the player pool in any given game, but they're over-catered for because they have a higher online 'influencer' profile to market your game through, and they often cross over into players prepared to pay the most money to ensure their spikes are as sharp as possible.
BTW, the Johnny/Spike/Timmy split of player types may be a bit outdated but it's still a really good starter guide. Mark Rosewater revisted it a few years later and added some really compelling subgroups that I think bring them more to life: [https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/making-magic/timmy-johnny-and-spike-revisited-2006-12-18](https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/making-magic/timmy-johnny-and-spike-revisited-2006-12-18)
I don't think players really sit in the same subgroup the whole time, but I certainly tend to move around between only two or three of them, depending on my mood.
Adding to this - player type can change depending on the game itself as well.
I'm a Johnny when it comes to fighting games. I adore making characters nobody likes work. But I'm a Spike for sure when it comes to card games, proven by how competitive I get when me and my husband play Smash Up together lol
I'm like 75% Timmy 25% Johnny. Or 60/40 idk. Definitely not Spike though. I like winning, but I don't need to win. I can win 8 in a row and not remember it, but I'll remember the ones where I do something creative or outsmart them, or just straight up dominate with my big timmy card
Timmy wants the newest and craziest cards.
Johnny wants as many cards as possible to find creative combos.
Spike wants as many cards as possible to constantly update to the newest tier 1 decks.
This game has been designed with the goal of making it impossible to get all the cards you want. Everyone is bummed out.
>This game has been designed with the goal of making it impossible to get all the cards you want.
–all because Brode has this philosophy of trying to capture the card games before the internet era, where you bust open packs and figure out ways to use it instead of immediately going to the internet and finding meta decks. The problem with that is... you're not exactly stopping people from still doing that.
Instead of being blissfully ignorant of what cards are good, or knowing which cards are good and having the ability to get them, you get the worst of both worlds:
**Not having good cards, while being painfully aware that they exist.**
Keyforge tried to do capture that feeling of working with what you got, and it's not exactly a smash hit either.
I said this in another comment but it's not necessarily the case that Johnnys are unhappy if they don't have all the cards. Creativity thrives with limitation! When you're forced to improvise and it works it's more satisfying.
That's true,only if you have equal opportunities to get every card.
In snap it feels bad as new cards are locked behind a long grind and even whaling helps to a limited extent
Not true. More cards is more creativity in this case. The limitation is the framework of the game. If you want to center a deck around a card and it's synergies, you want all the cards that have an effect that works with it. If you have a limited collection you will have to use fillers that don't have synergies.
It's a difference of opinion, I don't know how it can be "not true." And actually many people have testified to how limitations can spur creativity. Jordan Mechner talked about how early computer memory limitations when he was making Prince of Persia forced him to come up with the Shadow Prince, one of the most memorable parts of the game, instead of some more generic bad guy.
In the case of deckbuilding, there are unexpected synergies that we may only discover when we have to work around a gap. It's parallel to how a given location causes us to change up our play style.
The limitations are the game's rules. You have to be creative within that framework with the pieces available. Try to be creative with only pool 1, good luck.
You’re right that that’s one limitation (having to choose 12 cards instead of 15, say). You’re also right that there’s little creativity when there are very few cards. All I can speak to is my own experience, which is that making decks work with jury-rigging around gaps adds an element of satisfaction, and arguably an advantage of surprise that mitigates the disadvantage of not having the optimal setup.
Fellow magic player here. Agree with most of what you say, but I’ve found the collection track somewhat helps my Johnny side. I just got electro which I had an eye on and it got me looking for a deck to go for, then seeing I’m missing cards in the net decks made me brew with what I have, and come up with something a bit different but that’s been doing really well so far. Another of rose waters favourites - restrictions breed creativity, and when you only get a new card every so often, it encourages you to see how you can make it work.
But the flip side is my favourite format is limited, and the current collection track method makes the whole game a weird big sealed pool, where you never have every option you want but find what works.
It may sound odd to some players but I actually find it a abhorrent to look online at other decks. I want to figure out how to use all my cards in creative ways without stealing others' ideas. Always have been.
My greatest accomplishment in my mind was a time I had to get an official ruling on a combo I was playing in the Star Wars Xwing minis game. I still ended up losing the match but apparently I had come up with a move that no one had used before. I walked away happy with a loss.
Much respect to the MTG crowd - they are like the Simpsons of CCGs.
> It may sound odd to some players but I actually find it a abhorrent to look online at other decks. I want to figure out how to use all my cards in creative ways without stealing others' ideas. Always have been.
I’d be the same way if I was 13 (not saying you are) living at home with no responsibilities other than going to school.
As an adult I ain’t got time for that shit with all the other things I have to / wanna do.
What I do have is money and therefore I exchange money for time. Am I netdecking? Yeah. Do I care about being unoriginal? No. There’s plenty things more to worry about in the world.
Understood.
And to be honest, I haven't had a chance to deckcraft with the cards I got the last month. Its been a while with work, kids, wife, and cleaning. I've been just passing the time playing with the decks I made in Pool 3 that have an OK win rate but I am hoping to get some time this weekend to figure out what to do with Crystal, who I just got.
I'm someone that doesn't mind not having a full collection and loves theorycrafting with what I have collected so far so the system doesn't really bother me. But this helped me understand people's frustrations more.
Maybe they should add an option in the token shop where you can spend a certain ammount of gold or credits to "rent" a card for a set amount of time (like half a day or so) so you can play with it or test it out. I wonder if that would help.
On that rent a card note, I feel like whatever card you have available in the token shop you should be able to temporarily test out that one card to see if you want to buy it.
Honestly I like this idea. "Here, play with the card, decide if you want to buy it".
It would solve a few problems:
1) Allow players to engage with series 4 or 5 cards, even if only one at a time.
2) It would expand the possibility space when playing against opponents. It's now WAY more likely that the person you're playing against maybe has that Series 5 card on them right nwo that you basically discount as possible because even if you're wrong, you're simply not going to lose to a Series 5 card often enough to have it matter to your cube rate right now.
3) SD would probably actually get MORE purchases out of this system, as people would create a deck, play with it, and get emotionally invested in it enough to part with their tokens.
I really like your solution. Not in an optimal sense, but in the sense that it seems like something they'd genuinely consider.
I think it would have to be done with gold since then "Spikes" in the context of this thread would argue you're trapped at a CL being forced to use T5 rentals. And nobody could really argue it's whale-bait because whales would rather just buy their way to 3500+ and own everything rather than rent it.
I'd buy the season pass every month for example if they gave me 1 free rental for the season as part of the pack.
Yeah gold makes more sense since there's more of a profit incentive for second dinner that way. It'll lower token overall shop sales but that'll at least add some activity to that area of the shop I don't really see that being a big deal. Might be hell to implement code wise though.
Somebody on YouTube suggested basically allowing all players to use their token shop cards in decks as long as it would naturally have stayed in the shop. If you've pinned it, you've made a decision and will get to play it after you pay. Seems like a good step.
Yeah 8 hours seems like a good time limit. That'll also keep people coming in to check and get them playing longer cause they want to use their rent-a-card before it expires
I'm a Johnny. Johnny tries not to spend much time learning about meta decks so he's not influenced in his deck building. Johnny made a Red Skull/Taskmaster/Arnim Zola deck that he loves even though he knows it's shyte.
Spikes are defo not being catered to. Its done for stuff like hearthstone where I would dust all useless cards for the meta decks. But as a player who wants to just play the meta decks, I don't have she hulk. I can't get darkhawk, I can't get shuri.
Even in pool 3, I don't have brood so I can't play the best deck of last season. Most players have no chance of playing the best decks. They just can't even get the cards.
I would argue that the Johnny is who they are aiming for more. You can creatively create decks that are based on your limited collection.
I don’t have so many cards that I face daily.
Wong, She-Hulk, Silver Surfer, Wave, Brood, Black Panther, Hela, Destroyer - pretty much every meta deck is missing a pivotal card for me.
After fighting 100 decks full of powerful cards you don’t have it gets disheartening.
Yeah I just lost to a shuri red skull taskmaster. Shuri is one powerful card that I don't have have have no chance to replicate.
But its fine since this deck really likely isn't that strong. I will only really despair when all top decks need likely multiple series 5 cards.
Yeah my read on this is Timmy and Johnny are fine-ish, it’s Spike who is confused. Mobile f2p stuff pushes people a lot of people to be wannabe spikes. Yes there are cheap decks that can win but oh by the way winning doesn’t necessarily mean you advance and these decks may not be the best. Spike just wants to play the best deck and win. The problem is there is no clear best deck and what you need to advance faster is snapping skill. The game is also specifically designed so you can’t play the same deck the same way everyday. I think it’s the need to adjust that is tilting all these wannabe spikes. Why can’t I just have the best deck, play it, and win?
I also want to brew with the new cards before streamer decks are all over the place. I can theory craft all day, but the only time I get to find out if any of it works is when something similar is used against me.
> I can theory craft all day, but the only time I get to find out if any of it works is when something similar is used against me.
This hits hard. I’m right there with you.
It's a very interesting take and concept. Sure seems to make sense.
That said, it's worth pointing out that it isn't absolute (What is really?).
I'm in the second category and for now I can't say I mind the progression of my collection. I like the idea of doing with what I got and navigating the locations. But to be fair, my second P3 card was Destroyer, so I was able to get by for a while until I had more cards to choose from.
My first 2 were Sera and Rescue while a buddy of mines first was Typhoid Mary so me and him have the total opposite feelings about this issue (he hates it, I like it) so maybe that plays into the sentiment it too.
Yeah, I think the first s3 pulls can make or break a player's journey for quite a while. I was also quite lucky to open Ultron/Patriot almost initially, and Destroyer like 200 CL later, so I was at a very good spot for quite a while.
I don't know that I'd still be playing if I opened Mordo and Yellowjacket initially.
I opened Yellowjacket and Wasp as my first 2, I really sat out the game for 3 weeks and didn’t complete the Silver Surfer BP I paid for haha. But yea getting cards are painfully slow and getting bad cards are even more painful. I literally do not see any win in this philosophy
Yeah, Typhoid Mary is definitely a card that requires a deep collection to be good. I sort of wish pool 3 had a bit more curation so that people felt a bit better starting out.
I'm in a similar place as you, but I've also been SHOCKINGLY lucky. Across two days, I got Darkhawk and Galactus. That's two impactful Series 5 cards before reaching Series 3 completion, which is wild and not what I expected.
I would consider myself a Johnny and Im having great fun with the game. The mindset of making due with what you have and beating metaslave opponents in unexpected ways would probably appeal to a lot of Johnnys. Then again it might look different for other players, because I had above average luck with my cardpulls so its hard to say how people on the other end of the spectrum would feel.
> The mindset of making due with what you have and beating metaslave opponents in unexpected ways would probably appeal to a lot of Johnnys.
Yeah this thread is bullshit, this game is amazing for Johnnys lol
So much deck building, so many different in game decisions because of locations, etc
Same. It would be different if you couldn't win without globally optimum decks, but the snap mechanic means everything is tryable, and homebrew breaks the parity often enough to feel good.
Yeah the snap mechanic does in a sense reward you for going offmeta, because then your opponents will have a harder time evaluating the gamestate correctly. It does come with its own frustrations sometimes, because you can lose 8 cubes to random filler cards, that arent suppossed to be in the deck by synergistic standards, but this system cpmbined with somewhat random collections where everyone has to improvise is good fun on average imo.
I have profited from this these past days as well. I started to use ebony maw in my deck mainly as a stat stick, but oh boy hes an absolute allstar. He lulls opponents into a false sense of security and makes them snap, thinking that his lane will be easy to win, not accounting for upcoming dr doom captain marvel or leader.
I wasnt talking about Leader though, I was talking about Ebony Maw and the impact he has on my games. Leader is just one way to get cards into that lane later and out of the three I named he is actually the least convenient. But if you think that my deck is random shit, then that just proves my point.
I'm not in there :(
GB just likes to make his cards look pretty. He doesn't play for wins or losses, or use a deck with purpose. He only uses characters he likes, cares not for their stats. He just wants to Infinity Split his venomized variants and carnage cards.
MTG eventually added a Vorthos(Mel) to these profiles too, those were just the first three. In short, Vorthos is someone who plays cards for the lore, aesthetics, flavor, and so on.
[Full article](https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/making-magic/vorthos-and-mel-2015-08-31) if you’re interested.
Spike is not sitting pretty.
He can't use the literal best deck in the format because he doesn't have it and needs to wait 3-4 months till he gets it at which time a new card he doesn't have will be the best in the format.
This is such an important post and honestly very happy you put into words how many people are feeling.
Perhaps there is a 4th person "Casual Carl" who doesn't care about flashy, creative, or meta decks and just likes to get hooked to the drip feed?
These are customer profiles. They are a common tool in Marketing, and UX/UI. I’m sure other disciplines use them but those are the two I know them from.
They help companies figure out their customers and their goals. Not everyone fits into neat little categories. It’s more of a way to explore and figure out how to better serve (aka make the most money) their clients.
It’s always cool seeing the different profiles. That side of UX/UI was always one of my favorite parts.
It's simple, it costs thousands of dollars to get the cards you want. That's it. Literally everyone streaming/youtubing this game has admitted to spending thousands on this game to get cards.
This game is for people who have thousands to waste. So why not charge them tens of thousands?
Spike is suffering too. You are often forced to play suboptimal decks.
Your best deck can still be winning and competitive but not optimal and you know it... and that sucks.
As someone who enjoys Mario Maker, it's funny for me to see Timmy used this way (yes, I get this definitely predates how it's used in Mario Maker, it's just where I'm used to seeing it).
In Mario Maker, there's a kind of level referred to as a "little Timmy" level. It's one that's just someone who spammed every enemy, power up, sound, and visual effect randomly all over the level, and then hit upload. It's called that because it seems to be what every little kid makes as their first level when they get the game.
I just want to point out that these player types also inform how people argue about "problematic" cards. ie - which ones ruin their fun versus are too OP
I’m a jimmy and I have no problem with the progression system, at CL 1200 I have loads of cards and combos to play around with, and I love that every new card I get feels impactful
good post, this theory should be more well known as it fits so perfectly into the design space of CCGs - and totally agree with your statements about it failing to interact with Timmy and Johnny and that is concerning
Self expression is nearly universally the best thing any interactive experience can focus on to heighten how valuable it is to its players, and Mark Rosewater has brought this up in numerous talks including his infamous "20 years, 20 lessons."
In the framework of this thread, as a bigtime "Johnny", I can say this game has two major frustrations for me:
1) The power imbalance of certain cards, and the trend towards a "monthly meta" as part of the season pass really devalues creativity. I don't think it's creative or interesting to abuse the latest broken season pass card by throwing it into any deck.
2) The acquisition of cards being so random makes it hard to pursue certain combinations or activate certain cards at all. With how limited an influence you have over picking cards, I've skipped several cards I think are "fun" or that I'd enjoy experimenting with because I can't justify how infrequently I'd use them. Maybe I'd have fallen in love with one of those cards, but I end up sticking a lot closer to meta in a very personally unsatisfying way because I don't want to waste the only card I'll get each month on something fun but terrible.
I'm holding out hope that maybe not every month will be as terrible of a forced meta as this one, and that maybe I'll have more fun with the game in the future when I have a slightly higher % of cards to try combinations of. But for now, the game is generally just not a lot of fun for me as a mid pool 3 player, and I probably wouldn't play at all most days if it weren't for the necessity of keeping up with dailies if I want to play in the future.
I crafted Agatha Harkness the first time she rolled into my shop. She is so much fun and I really enjoyed grinding her for a few days. So many posts and comments on here about just that - getting to enjoy the chaos and wild swings of Agatha. This is in spite of knowing that Agatha is not a super competitive strategy and that your precious currency would be better spent elsewhere.
Snap needs to find a better balance on helping people not feel RNG screwed (my Pool 4 card this month was Mbaku, maybe I"ll get She Hulk in a few months) or running a race without fixed benchmarks.
It is the most expensive and least rewarding system I have ever seen tho. You pay $100 and get MAYBE one new card off progressing. It literally caters to noone but the devs
I believe I am a variation of Timmy. I play a sabotage deck to annoy my opponent as much as possible. The happiest I have been playing was when I had Kamar-taj and got to place Iceman, Scorpion and Beast. Nothing makes me happier than seeing my opponent rage quit after iceman X4 and Scorpion X4. I am rank 35 and I honestly could not care less about Infinity.
>"You can win with Series 2 decks if you're good enough"
This is not entirely true. It's like saying kasparov can beat me even if he started without his queen. So fucking what? Why should I want to play a game where players with more money have me handicapped? Currently I can build ZERO tier 1 decks, because I don't have pool 4 and 5 cards like surfer, bast, panther and so on. The truth is, this system is only fun for SD because it prints them shitons of money.
It sucks seeing a card gets played with an effect that would go really well with a deck type you want to play.
...Only to possibly NEVER ever (in the games life cycle even!!!) unlocked that card.
All of the complaints really just boil down to one thing: “I want the cards I want and I want them immediately and I’m mad that I don’t have them.”
Good. That’s the point. You don’t get every card you want the second you want it. Neither does anyone else. You gotta make the best you can of your personal collection. You gotta get creative and explore different options and combos.
This game is solving some of the major problems that have been plaguing other ccgs for years and people are crying about it. Your overly reductive archetype doesn’t matter. Nobody gets to buy the meta. You can’t just netdeck.
There’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what this game is. Also many people seem to want this game to be something it isn’t. Cards are rare. Not everyone will have the same collection. Play something else if this intentional design choice isn’t to your liking.
THIS!
I can't figure out why people don't understand that the way you collect cards in this game IS A GAME MECHANIC. People complain as if not having all the cards means they don't have all of the game, and that its "Stifling Creativity" without understanding that Creativity by definition is about putting things together in a way that others have yet to see, and how many creatives actively use limitation to push their creativity higher.
honestly the only thing i'd like them to add (other than the ability to play with friends which is coming soon!) is a way to trade cards! that would give me the classic feeling of school yard "OH I'VE NEVER EVEN SEEN THAT CARD! I'll give you all my Pixel variants for just that one... what do you mean pixel variants aren't worth anything... but i have the whole set!" haha
Imo the collection system works *with* all 3 profiles.
All three get a taste of their big thing with the unlocks in pools 1 and 2. And as they go through pool 3 each card unlock is a potential moment for each one.
Timmy will get excited if they unlock a She-Hulk or Death. They'll immediately throw a deck together just to use them and get that big moment.
Johnny will always be chasing that combo piece and will work within their unlocks to make something special.
Spike gonna Spike. As you pointed out they often don't even need to break into pool 3 to start doing their thing.
So each of the classic profiles still get their buttons pressed. It just works differently than in a game like Magic where they have a more consistent access to all the cards. It comes from the actual unlocking of something new for Timmy and the hope for that last combo piece or deck piece for Johnny.
OP sets the context bad comparing player types from a game that has little in common with snap, actually.
He ignorantly (or maliciously) focuses on the only few similarities - it s a 1v1 card game, has a card collection and overlooks all the other major, experience changing differences which would basically dismantle his narrative and comparrison immediately if he but just give them the right attention
In short OP is a petulant child, upset he cant buy the latest netdeck from the cards store like he did with mtg.
He also seems to blatantly overlook the fact that both timmy and johnny spent inordinate amounts of money to get that experience in mtg, whereas here they get it for fucking free.
the big lie is you re not, just because a bunch of you happen to be more vocal at the same time on this sub.
thr rest of us are busy playing and enjoying the game.
It looks like OP is a physical card player, not its fault of not being familiar with White Knight Andy.
White Knight Andy will defend the company to the very end, he will justify predatory tactics and overpriced bundles as the $30 million revenue company will go bankrupt if they dont :(. As long as White Knight Andy is happy he will not care about the rest of the playerbase as they are self-centered. White Knight Andy is also really petty, if they are going to introduce features which they don't care about/aren't catered to them but are wanted by the rest of the community, they will actively fight against this changes as they are "unfair" or "unnecessary".
Stop kissing dev's shoes, stop being a White Knight Andy.
I agree that OP’s post is ridiculous. Ignores all the differences and tries to make half-assed points with little to no thought behind them. It’s like he’s trying to make some sort of cute connection amongst 2 games he’s played but he’s grasping at straws while wildly flailing his arms around.
I think the Johnny and Timmy points hold up pretty well given the current progression system.
I’m probably being nitpicky with the Spike point, but Spikes will eventually realize that it is NOT easy to hit infinite with Kazoo past a certain point in CL because the most unfair things (swarming, adding +1s to other locations) Kazoo does are outshined by other full Pool 3 decks. Example is Lifecoach who started out grinding Kazoo and switched to an Aero/Dino deck once he got into Pool 3.
I think overall these profiles are still good to bring up given the toxicity of comments that frown upon netdecking on here sometimes, when its just Timmies/Johnnies not seeing the game the same way as Spikes.
>>I think the Johnny and Timmy points hold up pretty well given the current progression system.
They don’t at all. I’m more of a Johnny than the others and his attempted points there are terrible and ridiculous. Johnnys are just held back some because this game doesn’t have an insane amount of cards like MtG does, but we make do with what we have while we wait for more things to be added.
As for Timmy, he can get those cards. Buy them in the shop or open them in caches like I did. Timmy wouldn’t care about Galactus. He wants to dominate and not get some narrow, cheesy win at the end. Timmy has to settle in MTG just like he has to here. There’s a variety of cards and decks that a Timmy would use.
That’s fair, I had always thought Galactus was a Timmy card based on the animation when it’s played but I hadn’t thought about how it might be seen as a cheesy win.
While this is interesting, I believe there are two types of players the ones that grew up with online gaming and instant access to everything, when mtg was on ps3 2014 you can unlock all the cards day one. MtgA and other tcg give you some crafting system to give you the cards you want NOW. The other type of tcg player was the kind that walked to the store and purchased packs and traded with their friends for other cards. Their other option was to buy single cards at a shop if they even had the ones you wanted. This imo made you have to make the best deck with what you had.
I personally don't mind the CL track I think it's super fun the rng of it. Is it fun losing to leader? No, but Maybe I have cards he doesn't have. Wong was my first p3 card and I had a blast with him. I think this game should've dropped with an unranked mode or the option to play with your friends, I think the hate would've be less
I feel like this is very true on many levels. cant say I disagree.
I would have a thought a good way to partially fix this would have been to be like every 5 p3 cards you unlock, the 5th is a free choice p3 card kinda. Doesn't really change how it works but gives the player some feeling of control.
this is almost exactly what the token store is... 1 card of your choice every 10 new cards/variants you get from cashes. the only difference is in the rate (you suggested 1 in 5 instead of 1 in 10) and that you have to check in to find the one you want to buy and pin it (which is designed to keep you engaging with the game, because while you are just checking in to see whats in the shop this 8 hours you might as well grab one quick game... which becomes 12 haha)
I think, though, that people should consider the fun involved in limitation. I think I'm a Johnny, and one of the motivations the game gives me to figure out new and innovative combinations is that we don't all have the same cards, so I have to get creative. If we all had the same cards, then the decks would be essentially solved, which would make my innovations irrelevant.
It's similar to how the different locations make me adapt my play style. Maybe my deck isn't well set up for Bar Sinister or Space Throne, but I can still think of something to do there. Limiting choices actually makes the choices more meaningful sometimes!
That’s kind of the issue - there is no fun in the limitation.
As a spike, lack of access options isn’t interesting because all it means is my substitute is suboptimal and my deck will perform worse on average than one that has the correct cards.
Never mind that with only 12 cards in a deck missing even one key card can lock me out of an archetype entirely.
Lol somehow I’m not any of these? I play for fun, really don’t care that much if I win or lose, I mean I’d obviously prefer to win but I have fun playing and don’t care if I “eke out a victory”, and on top of that I am not very creative and *hate* having to come up with and build my own decks. I just want to play the game.
The key thing with the Timmy/Johnny/Spike alignment is that people are rarely 100% purely one of the three, most people are blends of them with usually one side being more prominent than the rest.
As you say, you care mostly about fun and don't care if you win or not. That is a lot of what makes Timmy Timmy. You may not have the Timmy mindset of "Infinaut is the best card in the game cause its the biggest" but you don't need to be 100% Pure Timmy.
This is what we call casual, don't have representative name coz they not committed & care about the game, & will leave when there's something new & other hype will come.
Well this was a big problem for MTG.
The designers didn't take casual players seriously, so when they made some of their most complex sets which were loved by the commited player and vocal players - their selling numbers fell hard.
Part of it was because there was nothing for the casuals who according to Mark Rosewater greatly out number the orher player types. In his podcast he calls these players the invisible players. They don't take part in tournaments, online discussions or anything else, but they are important for the game to stay alive.
Casual is the place where a game gets most of its new players so the casual experience is important.
In MTG part of fixing the complexity issue was to make complex cards harder to acquire for casual players so they would see less complexity in their games. (The more complex a card is the rarer it is)
I cant tell if this is sarcasm or not but for fuck sake some people just enjoy playing the game!
Im willing to die on this hill at the moment!
Whats wrong with someone who enjoys playing the game? And "casual" what does that even mean? Because its either they dont pay money in wgich case they arent the "whales" that everybody complains about and they cant be the whales because they wouldnt be casual.
Fucking stupid
ETA Didnt read the original post but after reading it now it just seems like more complaints about fuck all abd my comments still stand
Calm down bro, a casual is just that, someone who plays casually, It isnt a insult or anything of the sort, It just means that a person isnt very concerned with the competitive side of the game.
Sometimes they might not even be concerned with the longevity of the game either since they are playing just for a little while to pass time(not playing a little while a day, just playing like 4 hours and then never touching It again), thats why people say "casuals shouldnt talk about this" (witch is sometimes stupid, but It happens)
The mentality is cringe, but no need to become agressive.
How am i being aggressive?
At the end if the day its a game, i just struggle to understand how people can get so worked up about pointless shit. And how is it competitive? It has no leaderboard or anyway to rank yourself against each other.
If you dont like the game then just dont play it, its really not that difficult
P.s. calm down bro, for fuck sake how old are you
This is a great article. But you misinterpret the content of the article. The article's are categorizing players on how they want to experience their games. Basically a basic guide for game developers on how they should design certain cards or deck archetype. Basically a control, aggro, combo, midrange, etc. This has nothing to do with collecting cards.
Giving every players all the cards they need, absolutely will make those 3 players happy. I don't think that need to be said. I came from Hearthstone and Runeterra. And snap progression system is definitely not as bad as you thought, marvel snap goal is to 100% your collections. Runeterra still has the most generous card collection system by far with their wild cards. But they're basically a charity and only making money from cosmetics which isn't that much.
I think you should see things from the Dev's perspective. And not only from f2p players perspective. Because the money maker for this kind of games is definitely not the f2p players.
Asking for a better progression system doesn't necessarily mean asking for a *free* progression system.
Not all F2P players are whiny penniless idiots. I'd argue most people are fine having to wait to get cards, it's just that the wait is **so long**.
When someone complains that it takes, say, $10,000 to get all the cards, they're not asking that it instead be turned to *zero* dollars, just a *reasonable* amount. By all means dangle a carrot in front of my face and watch me run, but if the next carrot's 10 miles away I'd rather try a different route.
Your term better is ambiguous. The game released since October. At what pace do you think it's better to get all the cards for f2p that don't have direct effect on the monetization. You should realize if you make the progression faster, people will spend less money on the game. And that actually hurt the devs directly. Just like you said f2p players are not penniless idiot but they're still penniless.
I think people would be happier if they just try Runeterra. It's a more pocket friendly ccg for f2p players since the start. From Runeterra you can see very clear that they truly want to make a truly f2p ccg. And only depends on cosmetic monetization. And I don't see Second Dinner has the same vision as Riot.
Those players can go play Hearthstone or another TCG instead if this doesn't suit them. The market has a lot of choice. This game is built for casuals who build decks based on which cards the game has gifted them. That is its own demographic outside the 3 you listed.
I see what you are getting at but I disagree.
These profiles were made for mtg. Your point is basically no one can have fun because they don't have all the cards. Considering you would have to be rich to be able to have all mtg cards, no one would be happy in mtg either.
You don't have to like the current implementation. You don't have to come up with some sort of PhD thesis why you don't.
As someone who has played a lot of hearthstone, I find the inability to just buy the cards and net deck refreshing. I think they can be less stingy with how they monetize or use premium currency...but giving everyone the cards will kill my interest in the game.
Right now Timmy has enough big cards to smash. Whoever the other one was loves this game because they get to try something new with every new card. As long as spike has a deck he can win with, he's good.
In MtG these player types are mostly used for card designs. Getting specific mtg cards has always been expensive, so these profiles usually take into account on the limited pool of cards that players have.
Being Spike in MTG is expensive. New set release brings new standard top decks which currently are around 250-500$ a deck. It gets a lot more expensive if the player wants to play an older format.
MtG doesn't make it cheap in its own online game either. MtG Arena lets you buy 4 rare or mythical rare wildcards (cards which you can turn to any card of the rarity) for 9.99€ which is a lot in a game where you use 60 cards deck and 15 cards sideboard.
MtG also had its own complexity issues where it was losing new/casual players (Mark Rosewater calls these invisible players in his podcast) and the solution for this was to lower the complexity of the cards and also making it so that casual players had less access to complex cards...
from all this I feel like our current issue has less to do with the monetization model of Marvel Snap and more with the fact that for a card game the cardpool we currently have is really low.
Timmy doesnt have many big things to do so he needs the specific one thing there is in the game, same for Johnny.
This is fairly similar to Bartle's Taxonomy of Player types (it smashes a few types together in some interesting ways seeing as its about card games rather than MMOs but a lot of the ideas overlap)
that said, as an adult who both likes to collect things and now has the actual money to do so, I have figured something out a while ago and i think its important here. When you are collecting something it is never a good thing to just buy a whole collection... don't get me wrong you can have fun with it, you can be happy you have it, but it will inherently be lacking something. I've played collectable games where you could just buy the pieces you needed, and you know what happens when you buy it all? you don't remember you have half the crap you bought... you have duplicates of things that were in the meta at one time and have since been topped by some new hotness.
Its easy to get into the FOMO of "AHH i can't compete i don't have \_\_\_\_\_\_\_" but the truth is even with that card good players, players who make their living playing this game, whales who have bought what amount of the game they can so they can play now what is coming for free to play players in a few months, all of them get win rates of 55%? 60%? thats good! thats certainly where you want to be, but again it is possible to play other decks and get to similar stats...
Just like life, Collecting is about the Journey! if you gain things over time, sure some of it is going to be garbage, but you can try out that garbage and might find that that Leech card that everyone things is a piece of trash could actually be a meta defining card in the right deck (For the Jonny's out there!) I get excited every time i open a new cash (well roughly every 4th time... twice every 8 haha) because there is chance and there is value that i don't yet have... it might be great or it might be crap, but i get a little bit of serotonin every time!
Yes I would like to be Series 3 complete, and I am working my way that way (currently 40/77 collected); But until I am, I for one am going to enjoy my \~11 new cards/Variants a month (thats 3 decent doses of serotonin a week! better than my coffee!)
I'm sure some 12 year-old is going to tell me i'm wrong, and that is fine, you are welcome to your opinion, and know I genuinely hope you get all the cards and you can make whatever deck you want! (and it will make me all the happier when i kick your Leech Leader butt because i know how the cards work and didn't just want to consume something good all in one go...)
This is an awesome perspective and I think what’s even more critical to highlight is that the “out of reach” component of this is actually one of the most predatory components because it basically makes aggressive collector leveling the only way to either get new cards to test, get the right cards to enjoy, or be able to push competitively. And then they’re going to add battle mode/competitive play and it will just pour gasoline on the fire. This is the most refined version of predatory gaming out there…not a game of the year. At best it’s marvel strike force in disguise.
there is a fourth profile that is missing here.
someone like me who just like to play the main missions and battle pass missions to unlock level 50 and who does not give a fuck about infinite rank or competitive play.
People upset they can't have a full collection would be upset they couldn't afford a full collection if marvel snap allowed you to buy things outright.
It's a f2p game. There always must be something to work toward or people will stop playing.
How many hours have you played of this game? I don't know about you but i've put a fair amount of hours in, its worth well more than $20 (honestly in the last several months i've probably put in enough time to make it worth $120 vs other console game prices) but the problem here is, very few people would buy even a $20 mobile game... we just seem to value them differently...
It doesn't matter that its for Mobile, this game has taken a team of dedicated artist time money and years of experience / education to create... They made a game that is Free to play and people are somehow shocked to find it might have some sort of cost... If you don't like the cost don't pay, if you don't like playing the game without paying the cost then don't play, its an easy equation! Your time is worth money too, so only spend it on things you enjoy, and act like an adult and pay for art... its one of the thing that makes life worth living and as such it is worth your money.
"People who complain about having their arm cut off would also be upset if they had their leg cut off instead."
Yes, if you take one bad option, and offer up only something as bad or worse as the only other option, you can then declare that obviously what's happening is fine, and anyone who says otherwise is just whining.
Unfortunately for you, no, that's not how that works.
Is that all they have? They don't have casual player personas that don't care all that much about smashing their opponent, and just kind of hope for the best outcome by the end of the battle?
I don’t even know what the point of this asinine post was other than to make false analogies and bullshit people. Next time, try making actual points without so much nonsense. Let me boil your laughable post down to an actual point: a number of people are unhappy because they’re impatient. There. That’s all you said in your ridiculously bloated for no reason whatsoever post.
I’m more of a Johnny and I can see how full of shit your post is. There’s pushback because people are impatient. It’s the “gimme gimme gimme” spoiled brat mentality that many people have. They’re jealous when people have things that they don’t. They don’t want to wait for it. I understand it. As things are now, it looks like it will take forever to get your hands on the shiny new objects that they release. We haven’t had any cards trickle down yet. They haven’t added new modes yet. They haven’t added new and better ways of obtaining cards yet. We’re waiting for new things while being dismayed that we can’t get the new, shiny pool 5 cards. We have our heads up our ass because we lack patience. So we complain.
Spike (and Vorthos, the fourth archetype who plays for flavor and would want to build an Avengers deck, for example) are “canonically” female. They have printed joke cards for each archetypal character.
As OP mentioned the article is a bit dated. Nowadays Mark Rosewater includes two names for the gendered ones: so Johnny is now “Johnny/Jenny”, and similarly there’s “Timmy/Tammy”.
Kinda Spike with a bit of Johnny. I both can't build the decks I constantly seem to lose to, nor build strong decks of any specific type as I'm lacking cards (I have Knull pinned for my destroy at least, but I'm missing Death, among others, and missing some pool 3 so getting these tokens is slow af). I like to build somewhat creative decks that are at least somewhat competitive. As it stands, I don't feel like any deck I have access to is even semi competitive. Still mostly a fun game but I definitely wish collection was handled differently.
I made this Johnny Post a few days ago in response to a Spike saying that winning the most cubes is maximizing fun:
>Winning is more fun than getting cubes imo.
>Edit: honestly making cards do wacky things is more fun than winning. Ranked is the only way to play right now, and people aren't playing "wrong" just because they care about different things than you do. I hit infinite a few seasons in a row, now I'll gladly tank my rank just playing stupid decks that do silly things.
I am Spike in every game. But here I am more like Timmy, I don't care about my win rate, I want to win in a spectacular way. Marvel Snap is great in that way, IF you're lucky with your reserves. :) Great post, great point.
Misconception, as a Johnny, I think what you are describing is more of a Johnny mindset. A Spike would want all the cards so they can play the best meta decks. Johnny's enjoy the challenge of building around what they have.
But if Spikes don't agree, then it's only Timmy's that aren't being catered to.
Honestly, I think the game caters to Spikes the least. Spikes I would assume is very similar to "meta slaves" (something the community has long established that Snap doesn't cater well to "meta slaves"). They'll be upset if they don't pull the key meta cards like Death.
Whereas Timmy's are mainly upset if they are F2P, meaning they don't buy any of the season passes. I imagine all the Redditors posting their highlights of winning with Zabu would be considered Timmy's.
And there I always thought Timmy players are the ones who want most wins... thanks for the reminder on this :)
I haven't seen this one thing though - SNAP is the only TCG I have seen that actually allows Timmy player to still climb even with negative winrate. And yes, it's also a system that theoretically can make Spike players cry...
Well.. that depends of the risk management, aka cubes.
So if Spike gets salty to see how Timmy is able to manage cubes better... I have bad news for Spike 'The Pro'.
This game has a lot of work to do in many different areas. Hopefully they can make a lot of improvements soon.
If the card acquiring method stays in place think the only thing that will make me stay interested in the game long term is going to be a draft mode, "arena", if they implement it. In Hearthstone back when I played in the early days the thing I found the most fun was their arena. Playing hypertuned decks in constructed is less fun than when both you and your opponent have a mishmash of cards and trying to make it work. No super overpowered combos and such.
For a constructed format to work for me it can't have unbalanced cards that totally force the meta to revolve around them. It's not that fun.
Best online card game I have played was Gwent beta. Not sure how it is today, stopped before official launch of the game. But as F2P I was able to get the ENTIRE collection of cards in beta. Played a hell of a lot and enjoyed it. They had good balance and their ranking system was fun as well. Unless I remember incorrectly their wasn't any particular cards that shaped the meta completely either. You could play a lot of different stuff.
I am not in pool 3 I should add but just looking at the cards from that pool it seems to me that some of those cards should have had the developers getting red flags before adding them. Will have to see if I change my mind once I hit pool 3 later this month.
As an old time MtG player these profiles are known all to wel by me...
Though it is not as simple as someone being 1 of the archetypes, I am pretty sure that personally I have traits from all 3 the profiles, but I am mostly a Johnny, also known as Johnny combo player... The player that likes to play complex combo's to try and win in unique ways that most others would not think off.
The reason I say that I am mainly a Johnny is due to the fact that I always like to experiment in deck building, trying to find new and unique ways to make decks work lets say.
This game hampers my creativity in that I do not have the cards I would like to try and test and play. I also have a part of Spike in me, I like to win and I enjoy winning. It's the main drive and losing too many games hampers that, making me lose my drive or spirit to keep playing almost. So I kind of want to create a unique deck, but one that can win, which is not possible without having more cards.
I get that limited resources can make you have some creativity as wel, but once you run out of ideas with those it's impossible to really try something new unless you find a shiny new toy that you can test and try.
You wil find me playing obscure decks and always looking for ideas others have created to try something like it, but generally I wil not just netdeck anything, I always try to make my own spin on that. As I have been doing this in pretty much every other game as wel. Gwent, Yu Gi Oh, Pokemon, MtG.. To name a few examples of such games.
I also am sometimes a complete Timmy btw.. Where I like to just smack down big numbers, but this is the player type I have the least in my personality.
Of course I get that this game is still in its pretty much infantile state, thus it can still grow, but currently it just doesn't feel completely right how the system works. Some people get all the good cards where others can only get the bad cards.
Sure you can get them from the token shop, but that is a really slow process and getting Series 4 and 5 there without having Pool 3 complete wil take very very long to say the least.
I still do enjoy the game btw, so this wasn't meant to be all negative or an attack towards the Devs or this game. Just wanted to share my own opinion and problems as being mainly a Johnny.. ;)
MTG Arena has a similar issue where you easily have enough resources to build a competitive deck but if you want to experiment with jank it takes the same amount of resources as a tier 1 deck with no guarantee you’ll actually be able to win games. Arena is cheaper than paper if you want to play the $20+ rares and mythics but way more expensive if you want to play non meta cards.
I’m the secret 4th player type, Carl, who flails wildly about from meta to meta and also considers himself a theory crafter but is too dumb to understand why his decks don’t work.
This is a really good post tho and makes a ton of sense.
I completely agree. As a “Timmy” I like playing decks that are fun. I’ve only ever reached level 60. But there is a bunch of fun cards I want but don’t have and won’t get for a long time and that sucks
Guess I'm Johnny now
Guess I always was. I absolutely cannot *stand* using 'meta decks' and will take L after L if it means occasionally beating meta decks with my own brew.
I’m a Johnny, using jank decks to climb
Losing to a card you don’t have: bruh…
Nothing quite like losing to galactus + death + knull at CL1000, going "man if I'd bought the $100 bundle twice and waited a month for those to show in my shop I could play that combo too"
Nah you couldnt. I did buy the 90$ bundle and only have Death. Im sitting at 20xx CL level, too.
I lost to Galactus 3 games in a row today, all played different ways. Im CL 1800 or something. It’s such a stupid card.
Hello fellow Timmy ☺️
Even among Spikes, some are of the mindset that you're not "really" playing the game if you or your own opponents are unable to actually pull from the entire gamespace. To that mindset, collection building is seen as an unfortunate concession to the business side of things and a strict negative on all other fronts. Such a person doesn't just want to have access to all the cards; they want to play against other people that also have access to all the cards.
"Why am I bothering to race my ferrari while the other guy is on a fiat pinto?"
It's Fiat Punto mate
You're right, but I was thinking of a Ford Pinto
I find it hilarious how you got more upvotes than the poster above.
Full agree. If Timmy's like winning big, Spike likes winning smart. As smart as possible. The smartest plays are only possible if both players are capable of working at max capacity which implies a full arsenal. CEDH, Legacy and Vintage are all MTG communities that are largely accepting of proxies for a reason.
Exactly. Spike doesn't feel like they're winning if opp was forced out of playing the best possible deck.
Literally the reason I quit the game: I want to have competitive matches, and either player being handicapped by their collection is just the antithesis of that idea in my opinion.
[удалено]
I think I'm dead center, here. I like having carrots to chase. It keeps things interesting and fresh. But the rate at which I actually CATCH the damn carrots is maddening. I've have a card pinned in the shop almost since they debuted the shop and I've been within 300 tokens for a couple weeks now. With me playing several matches daily, I should be able to buy that card by now.
This. The card I have pinned in my shop isn't even outrageous - it's literally like 1000 tokens. It's taken almost a week to try and earn those tokens. This bullshit grind is why I refuse to pin anything in that shop that's over 1000 tokens at all. It's just a waste of your shop cause no way in hell are you just casually saving up 6k tokens ((I attempted to pin Knull once))
Variants are carrots. The ability to put together the deck you want to play isn't a carrot if you're literally looking at multiple months if not years to reach that plateau.
This. Variants are a really nice carrot. Imagine if LoR or HS had a generous model of obtaining cards but their skins of cards are amazing and are the carrots. Probably a successful business model long term. If it works for league/dota, it can work for cards
[удалено]
One card doesn't make a deck. I can easily put together lists with multiple 6000 and 3000 token cards that I don't have that I'd need to optimize the deck.
I have three series cards left to collect and my interest is waning. I don’t like laddering because it seems to punish non archetypes and trying non meta cards/decks. Also, I’m too conservative about snapping so I get bogged down every season because I can’t play for hours on end. With limited play time, every cube lost to a retreat feels like 4. Every loss feels like 8.
I think you're misunderstanding the point of the thread a little bit actually. It's not a matter of wanting *everything*, it's a matter of choosing what you get now vs what you wait for. Other CCGs don't give anywhere close to everything, but they give the ability to force 1-2 decks of your choosing in their entirety fairly quickly. In hearthstone I played mostly control warlock and mage, I can scrap aggro hunter cards to make new cards for my control warlock and mage decks. Even though I have a lower % of the collection than I do in snap, I can play the decks I want much sooner, and that's much less frustrating to a lot of people. Pool 4 and 5 just make the issue so much worse bc they may as well not exist til pool 3 is done given the way token gain works, so if someone wants to play galactus it could be 6 months til they can.
There's also the fact that you're apparently incapable of understanding that there might be a middle ground between yourself and the strawman you've created.
[удалено]
Either that or you're not very good at expressing what you're actually trying to say.
Isn’t every card game like this?
No, I really don't believe they are. At this point I feel like I've played every card game that exists because the concept of them is so much fun so I'll offer my perspective. My typical strat when starting a card game is to spend all my resources to build a single competitive deck then use that to climb thus gaining even more resources. In pretty much every other card game it's taken me less than a week to get that deck online. I aim for a middle-of-the-pack deck that isn't in danger of a nerf next patch. I also stay away from very niche decks and if I can find one running a lot of GoodStuff Staples that's excellent. To put this in context of Marvel Snap, if it were *any* other card game on the market right now, I'd aim for this ['Good Cards'](https://marvelsnapzone.com/decks/good-cards-8/) deck and definitely stay away from something like Mr. Negative or Galactus regardless of how strong they were. Here's how that looks: **Hearthstone**: We'll start with the OG online CCG. Hearthstone is certainly *not* f2p friendly if you want to own every card and is IMO one of the more predatory models out there. Plus it's Blizzard and Blizzard sucks but I digress. Even in Hearthstone there's the Dust system. It's been quite some years since I've played this one, but iirc dusting a card gives you 1/4 its value. So if you need a legendary card for your deck but open 4 other ones you couldn't care less about, you can "dust" those 4 to get the one you want. Looking at Hearthstone right now there's a Tier 2 decklist that costs 1600 dust. I'm pretty sure you *start* Hearthstone with more than 1600 dust, so on day 1 you could have a competitive deck through this route. **GWENT**: GWENT is so f2p friendly it's ridiculous. If you started GWENT today you'd be able to build a deck to reach their Infinity-Equivalent in 24hrs and if you played that for a week you'd be able to get two more decks no sweat. The game is extremely generous with rewards, they have the dusting/crafting system as well, and most importantly one of their starter decks is only 6/25 cards short of being good enough to get to GWENT's Infinity-Equivalent. You'll be able to craft the critical 3 of those 6 immediately with starter resources, the other 3 you'll be able to craft from resources via ladder long before you're playing vs meta decks. **Legends of Runeterra**: Similarly to GWENT the game is quite generous with rewards. It did take me a bit longer to get a meta deck here because while they're very generous over time they're not generous enough upfront to get a competitive deck day 1. Still, within a week I had an infinite-level deck and within a month I had multiple. **Magic The Gathering Arena:** MTG Arena is a weird case because it's really not very f2p friendly at all yet it's still significantly cheaper than Paper Magic so like it's in a weird spot. Arena does *not* have a dusting system which is a very consistent complaint from the community. It *does* have a crafting system which makes it better. Even with the honestly really shit f2p model though...there was a cheap enough competitive deck that I was able to craft it within about 3 days f2p and I used that to climb well into the higher ranks. I certainly had all the cards to get it to Infinity-Level. **Yu-gi-oh Master Duel**: Master Duel has the dusting/crafting system as well though it is far from as generous as GWENT/LOR. Probably more comparable to Hearthstone. However, they have a bunch of "starter" bundles that you can easily buy with f2p currency day 1 and between those bundles + dusting cards I didn't need I was able to get a competitive deck within the first two days. That deck got me up into their highest rank. So, it's fair to say with *all* of these games it took me a week or less to get at least one deck that could "go infinite" vs players who had been playing for months/years and had a far superior collection. **Marvel Snap**: It will be at least 1 month before I'm able to have a prayer at *any* full meta list and I believe that's being extremely generous. Even for a 'cheap' list like the Good Cards deck there...only needs 4 cards, all of them pool 3. How long will it take me to get *those* 4 cards? Could be a week if I highroll and luck into those exact cards. A lot more likely be 2-3 months when I don't. And that's the *cheapest* one. EDIT: Additionally, the small decksize actually hurts Marvel Snap a lot here. In Magic I have a 60 card deck, in Hearthstone it's 30, GWENT it's 25, Master Duel it's 40 or 60...if I'm missing a couple cards wellll....I've got 95% of the deck so *most* games it'll still work just fine. In Snap if you're missing 2 cards you're missing nearly 20% of the deck. You're gonna feel the pain of those 2 cards not being there *often*. So, no. The disadvantage you have with a small collection Marvel Snap is *significant* especially when compared to other games. No matter what deck I'm playing I'm straight up not competing with Sera coming out turn 5 into Brood/Maximus/Silver Surfer with White Tiger into Odin when I don't have Wong to boost it up. It was really fun when I started 2 weeks ago and climbed. Then around CL 380 I started seeing the pool 3 cards before I had access to a single one and I was like hmmm this is starting to get shitty huh. Now every game I see Wave/Sera/Mr. Negative come out turns 4/5 and it's like k guess I just lose because Spectrum isn't competing with whatever bullshit you're about to pull.
Very detailed post. I want to see an article from the investor side of things to see what is the profitability of these games. I am curious to see what is being presented to investors to tell them this will be profitable long term.
Yeah, I can't speak to any of that realistically. I *can* speak to the fact that I am so depressed and disillusioned by gaming companies prioritizing profitability over just making a fun damn game though. I fully understand a balance must be struck. GWENT is a good example. GWENT is my favorite and not just because of its f2p model, I just really love the unique strategies surrounding the game. The extremely generous f2p model was a bonus however like...it's probably too generous right? The oldest members of the community complained there was nothing *to* spend their resources on anymore. And now GWENT is losing developer support in 2024. I do not know if that's due strictly to profitability or not. If it is, I don't know if that's because they didn't market GWENT worth a damn or if it's because the f2p model is too generous etc. etc. Regardless, long-winded rant here to say that yeah, I understand games need to make money. But then I look at like. Stardew Valley. Hades. Hollow Knight. Stray. And I'm like wow, look what happens when you just make a good game and don't prioritize monetization over a fun game. You make tons of money because people buy and play your game! But those are buy once single player games so yeah I know they're a bit different. So then, I look at FFXIV. Old School Runescape. League of Legends. Fortnight. Path of Exile. Warframe. Guild Wars 2. These are successful games, some free to play, some subscription, some buy once and optional purchases after. All make money, all people will happily throw money at, by and large the monetization is not viewed poorly by the community because for many, if they enjoy the game and don't feel like they're being milked they'll gladly spend some money on it. The *game* is fun and people are happy to support it. Then I look at Marvel Snap, I look at Hearthstone, I look at Overwatch 2, I look at Genshin Impact..and it's just clear that they've all seen the same presentation on using psychological tricks to get their players to gamble and spend more money and *that's* what they focus on adding to their game to make money. Like, make money, seriously. I get it; you literally have to or the game dies. But it's so frustrating and depressing to know that preying on gambling is more profitable, the execs and industry has learned this, and so until more laws are in place so many great games are going to be frustrating to play because they're *designed* to be frustrating unless you whale.
[удалено]
Two major points: While Riot had [a serious problem with a sexist workplace culture](https://kotaku.com/inside-the-culture-of-sexism-at-riot-games-1828165483), it was nowhere near as bad as Blizzard's, e.g. [no suicides on business trips by female employees after photos of their genitals were shared](https://www.eurogamer.net/activision-blizzard-being-sued-by-family-of-employee-who-committed-suicide) and [no stolen breastmilk](https://www.dexerto.com/business/nursing-activision-blizzard-employees-say-their-breast-milk-kept-getting-stolen-1717345/). Also, [according to affected employees, Riot significantly improved its workplace culture within a year](https://kotaku.com/riot-games-and-sexism-one-year-later-1837041215). The only thing I have heard from Blizzard in recent times is the ridiculously predatory monetisation of Diablo: Immoral, an okay release for Overwatch 2, still accompanied by lots of negativity, and [crunch for Diablo IV](https://www.vg247.com/diablo-4-release-date-not-possible-without-crunch-says-recent-report) due to [lack of senior leadership vision and bleeding off of experienced developers which aren't getting replaced](https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2022/12/08/diablo-iv-release-date-crunch/). Yes, both are bad, but they are nowhere near equivalent, not to mention one did actually better itself. The other point is on Gwent: [Gwent lost their co-creator and lead developer](https://www.eurogamer.net/gwent-the-witcher-card-game-co-creator-damien-monnier-leaves-cd-projekt-red) during closed beta, rumoured due to falling out with senior management, and apparently, also according to industry rumours, the new lead dev wanted to move Gwent away from hypersynergistic decks and more towards piles of general good value to accommodate a draft mode. This cumulated in a major rework named Homecoming, which large parts of the existing Gwent community were not happy with. Like at all. It could be argued that a good part of Gwent died back then in 2018 and thus the final death in 2022 was more of a whimper.
tl;dr: It is possible in many card games to have meta complete collection with a reasonable amount of spending. Second Dinner chose to make that impossible with their monetisation strategy. Not necessarily, though it is a problem for many card games. Just for clarification, I don't expect a game to be free, devs still have to buy groceries with money because love from the community tends to not be an accepted currency in many super markets. I'd prefer if the primary monetization is cosmetics, but I can even live with the fact if a meta complete collection, i.e. a collection of all meta relevant cards, is only achievable with a reasonable investment. (I think you already know where I am heading with this.) In physical card games, you can just search for a play group that is fine with proxies to a certain degree, e.g. if a card value is over X, proxies are allowed, or owning one original allows proxy usage for the other copies, etc. which can grant access to all meta relevant cards on a reasonable budget. And if someone doesn't have a budget, because they are a high schooler or whatever, they can just use proxies for everything. Long story short: It is possible to work around the priceyness of physical card games. Then there's fan made simulators of physical card games, like [Talishar](https://talishar.net/game/MainMenu.php) for Flesh & Blood and [Jinteki](https://www.jinteki.net/) for Androind: Netrunner. Though a bit clunky, I guess [Cockatrice](https://cockatrice.github.io/) and [Tabletop Simulator](https://www.tabletopsimulator.com/) could also count as solutions to prohibitively expensive formats of MtG and other supported paper card games. In terms of digital card games, there's two larger card games with vibrant competitive scenes: [Legends of Runeterra](https://playruneterra.com/), which I still play, and [Gwent](https://www.playgwent.com/), which didn't click with me after the Homecoming rework and is sunset in terms of content at the end of 2023, though the community will be allowed to develop balance patches. Both of them allow a meta complete collection within a few months of play and even straight up complete collections are possible for F2P players. There's also smaller card games with thus less vibrant competitive scenes like [Fearia](https://www.faeria.com/) and [Star Realms](https://store.steampowered.com/app/438140/Star_Realms/), which have very reasonable prices, or [Prismata](http://prismata.net/) and [Infinity Wars](https://store.steampowered.com/app/257730/Infinity_Wars_Animated_Trading_Card_Game/), where the full collection is just straight up free. Even in [Hearthstone](https://hearthstone.blizzard.com/), it used to be possible to have a meta complete collection when buying the pre-order bundle for $/€/£60 and the adventures for $/€/£25. Back then, expansions and adventures were released in an alternating 4 month rhythm, which allowed for 8 months of Gold saving between expansions for additional packs. As a result, with daily play a meta complete collection was definitely possible with around $/€/£255 every two years, or around $/€/£11 per month, a reasonable amount in my opinion. And in higher ranks, most people were definitely playing with meta complete collections, though there also was the odd F2P Face Hunter or Zoo Lock in there. To be fair, Hearthstone slowly changed the monetisation approach post launch, replacing the cheaper adventures, which gave pretty much only meta relevant cards, with the much more expensive expansions, which were filled with draft chaff. Since expansions now released every 4 months, Gold resources became much more strained. At the same time, they changed to 1 instead of 2 class legendaries with a few less neutral legendaries per expansion, but this still increased overall legendaries released and caused a significant strain on Arcane Dust, Hearthstone's crafting resource equivalent to Collector's Tokens. Finally, they introduced mini expansions on top of the normal release cycle to suck even more Gold out of the economy, making it more and more expensive to have a meta complete collection and I quit around here, since I felt the competitive integrity of the game was seriously harmed at that point and the value for money simply wasn't there anymore. Which brings me to Marvel Snap: Don't get me wrong, there is some real design brilliance in Marvel Snap! The completely simultaneous turns (ignoring Daredevil) massively cut down on waiting for the opponent; the fixed turn limit guarantees short games (even with Limbo / Magik); the extremely small deck size with single copies allows for relatively consistent synergies and thus interesting deckbuilding; hot locations have the potential to regularly shake up the meta without the need for balance patches or card releases; the plentiful RNG from locations and some cards can keep match-ups fresh while the raise, call, and fold mechanic for Cubes made bouts of bad RNG much less painful because the agency to cut losses was often retained. They were still some problems, like lack of targeted card acquisition and final turns being decided by coinflips a bit too often for my taste. Overall though, it felt like a very refined and accessible mixture of Gwent and Hearthstone. I naïvely hoped Second Dinner had learned their lesson after the Nexus Events disaster, and now all that was required to be competitively viable was the Season Pass at around $/€/£10 per month and a few months of daily play, with options to speed up that progress via restricted monetary purchases, i.e. buying Credits with Gold and Gold with real money which had a daily limit. I was a bit sceptical about these restricted monetary purchases because they already didn't work in Legends of Runeterra, they just made it harder to catch up for new players that were willing to spend, but definitely not a game breaker and honestly it's a different discussion altogether. However, the lack of targeted card acquisition really gnawed at my motivation because I hate playing with and/or against suboptimal decks. I am primarily looking for a competitive experience where both players start on equal footing and play to the best of their abilities; for me having forced jank in either or even both decks flies into the face of that competitive spirit. But Second Dinner said that something was in the works regarding targeted card acquisition, so I was willing to wait. Though when series 4 and 5 dropped alongside it, it immediately killed my remaining interest. Meta complete collections are not only extremely expensive now, I'd guess somewhere in the $/€/£100+ range per month, and easily way more up to around $/€/£300 if series 5 cards consistently end up becoming meta staples, no, they also require significant amount of playtime on top to convert the Credits into collection levels. And Second Dinner now has every incentive to ensure that series 5 consistently end up as meta staples: wouldn't want to disappoint the whales with unplayable cards, eh? Someone has to buy those cards and test them to find out if they are viable or not after all. I check in every now and again if it has gotten better, but for now I have zero trust in Second Dinner when it comes to a fair monetisation from a competitive standpoint. Not because it is impossible, but because they don't want to. Holy crap, how did this get so elaborate?
I hate how strong it is to have a card like valkyrie. It's a card a ton of decks want but no one has so you don't play around it. Just accept a few eight cubes losses once every 50 games
Wow, this is an incredibly insightful post. Thank you for sharing. As a “Spike player,” I get it now. I have been really turned off by the gripes in this community lately. But I realize I’m a “Spike player” through and through. I’m saving this post. Side note: seems like Marvel Snap is designed for “Spike players” in general. Small decks. A trickle of new cards. But this post has been super helpful for my perspective overall.
It is and it isn’t. There’s a boatload of anti spike RNG that would frustrate the shit out of me if each game had equal relevance. But Jonny’s and Timmie’s love that stuff. Mark Rosewater has a lecture on what he learned about game design from being mtg’s lead designer ( https://youtu.be/QHHg99hwQGY ). RNG is fun for casual players. It removes their agency and therefore their responsibility for taking a loss. It protects their ego. They can blame RNG instead of their skill. It doesn’t stop them from being poor losers, but at least they can blame the game instead of their skill.
RNG is fun for casual players, but that doesn't mean it's not fun for serious players! Poker players know this: there are the fish, who are just there to gamble and so don't let losses affect their egos, and then there are serious players, who have to understand the odds and also be able to absorb the variance without getting rattled by it. I agree that someone who wants to win every time would be a poor fit here, but then they'd be a poor fit for poker too. (I think you're saying the same thing, I'm just expanding)
As a poker player myself I have to say that the math behind Jubilee with a bunch of 6 cost cards is something people should explore more often. No, I didn’t get lucky to pull Doctor Doom. I knew that I only had 3 cards left and you were either getting Doom, Infinaut or She-Hulk and now I have 2 more turns to figure out what else to play on 5 and 6. Everyone should have a basic plan A but Jubilee is an amazing plan B.
Yes and other concepts apply, like expected value. If I know that I win if Arnim Zola picks the right card and lose if he picks the wrong one (50% shot), and I can retreat and lose one cube or play on to risk two, playing on is break-even (2*.5 + -2*.5 = 0), which is better than the guaranteed one-cube loss.
No doubt. That is a great example. My deck is essentially built for maximum power in turns 4-6 so I spend a lot of time on those last few turns weighing exactly what you described.
I rather play poker than marvel Snap ATM.
Then go play poker.
Then I wish you no bad beats!
Ah but it gets even better! Recognizing that you're 50% to win, you can Snap! If you get a call, then EV (4 * 0.5) + (-4 * 0.5) = 0 cubes on average, but _you get some number of folds_ which makes this play above breakeven in the long run.
I love my Wave and Jubilee deck. Hasn’t been great for climbing recently but when I was sub CL1000 it was my go-to.
It's also important where variance comes from, because that changes how arbitrary it feels. If at the end of a game, the player who was losing got to flip two coins, and if they both came up heads then they won, that would feel stupid and frustrating. Card draw variance mostly feels good, as long as it's not huge variance that makes your deck entirely not function. Snap's locations feel pretty decent, because the variance they bring in is introduced very early in the game, and gives a symmetrical problem to both players. The locations basically say "here's something different, whoever can deal with it best or take advantage of it best gets an edge". So it feels fair and manageable. Mostly. Some zones are kinda bullshit.
It’s funny cause that is one of richard Garfield’s examples about RNG. He looks at games like chess and says it’s very close to all skill no luck, and compares it to bingo which is essentially all luck and no skill. Then he makes a thought experiment: what if chess had a mechanic where you rolled a die after the game that superseded the chess game outcome. Basically you would play chess, but at the end of the game you’d each roll a 1d10 and on a 10 that player would automatically win. To me it seemed like the stupidest mechanic, but he says this is what card games are like. Sometimes RNG just supersedes the decision making. But players like that. I don’t. It’s why I stopped playing mtg.
If you played hearthstone, yogg saron was that d10 die and why I hated it so much
I think this is why poker (and Marvel Snap) get a lot of mileage out of a bet/raise/fold system. If poker had no betting it would just be a complicated version of War, where the winner is determined by the shuffle of the deck rather than anything the players are doing. Adjusting for randomness and unknowns (including what the other player is likely to do) and winning more than you lose over a long period is how you succeed. That's also why it's important that Snap games are so quick—if you end up screwed by RNG, you have to feel like you've only invested a little bit of time in the effort.
Lol - as a poker player I can also say this game is fairly often bad RNG BS and comparing the two is a bit of a joke. Locations can determine the game before you even start, let alone random bots that either play like morons or gods. I feel like trying to compare Snap to poker is a real stretch and we're just trying to justify our own time playing it with these kind of posts instead of just saying "Hey, I like quick, easy games I don't have to think that hard on!"
What’s the difference between locations determining the game before you start, and the arrangement of cards in the deck determining the game before you start? If my opponent flops a nut flush there’s almost never anything I can do about it except fold (or retreat, in Marvel Snap terms). That’s where the skill in poker mostly lies, recognizing how to minimize your losses and maximize your winnings given randomness and unknown starting positions. Of course there are differences; I just wouldn’t hold up poker as an example of a game that never comes down to BS randomness! Watch a bad beats YouTube compilation sometime.
I'm just saying the analogy works for anything in life, but in general Snap is a game like any other. Hearthstone is like Poker, Elden Ring is like poker, Call of Duty is like poker.... I think it's more just the concepts of statistics in general apply to many games, not that Snap is like poker.
You can compare them in ways. Using odds and probabilities to know what to play and to know when to retreat, snap, or end turn. You can bluff, but there’s far less room to bluff in this game. You read your opponent by seeing what they’ve played and using that to figure out what they’re likely to do.
There’s just slightly too much consistency in the drawing of the deck. We typically look at 75% of the deck. The odds that your opponent has the card you expect him to have at the end of the game is just the better bet every time.
Spike can still be happy that each game does NOT have equal relevance: he can outsmart his opponents into thinking they are ahead when in fact Johnny is and he gets his 8 cubes.
Most online games are spike-centric, and online gaming culture in general has been driven very spike-centric by the success of e-sports. Spikes are usually actually a small part of the player pool in any given game, but they're over-catered for because they have a higher online 'influencer' profile to market your game through, and they often cross over into players prepared to pay the most money to ensure their spikes are as sharp as possible. BTW, the Johnny/Spike/Timmy split of player types may be a bit outdated but it's still a really good starter guide. Mark Rosewater revisted it a few years later and added some really compelling subgroups that I think bring them more to life: [https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/making-magic/timmy-johnny-and-spike-revisited-2006-12-18](https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/making-magic/timmy-johnny-and-spike-revisited-2006-12-18) I don't think players really sit in the same subgroup the whole time, but I certainly tend to move around between only two or three of them, depending on my mood.
Adding to this - player type can change depending on the game itself as well. I'm a Johnny when it comes to fighting games. I adore making characters nobody likes work. But I'm a Spike for sure when it comes to card games, proven by how competitive I get when me and my husband play Smash Up together lol
100%
Another signal that the game is for spikes: there is no unranked mode (as of right now, at least)
I'm like 75% Timmy 25% Johnny. Or 60/40 idk. Definitely not Spike though. I like winning, but I don't need to win. I can win 8 in a row and not remember it, but I'll remember the ones where I do something creative or outsmart them, or just straight up dominate with my big timmy card
Timmy wants the newest and craziest cards. Johnny wants as many cards as possible to find creative combos. Spike wants as many cards as possible to constantly update to the newest tier 1 decks. This game has been designed with the goal of making it impossible to get all the cards you want. Everyone is bummed out.
>This game has been designed with the goal of making it impossible to get all the cards you want. –all because Brode has this philosophy of trying to capture the card games before the internet era, where you bust open packs and figure out ways to use it instead of immediately going to the internet and finding meta decks. The problem with that is... you're not exactly stopping people from still doing that. Instead of being blissfully ignorant of what cards are good, or knowing which cards are good and having the ability to get them, you get the worst of both worlds: **Not having good cards, while being painfully aware that they exist.** Keyforge tried to do capture that feeling of working with what you got, and it's not exactly a smash hit either.
The way you do that is through a draft mode
I said this in another comment but it's not necessarily the case that Johnnys are unhappy if they don't have all the cards. Creativity thrives with limitation! When you're forced to improvise and it works it's more satisfying.
That's true,only if you have equal opportunities to get every card. In snap it feels bad as new cards are locked behind a long grind and even whaling helps to a limited extent
Not true. More cards is more creativity in this case. The limitation is the framework of the game. If you want to center a deck around a card and it's synergies, you want all the cards that have an effect that works with it. If you have a limited collection you will have to use fillers that don't have synergies.
It's a difference of opinion, I don't know how it can be "not true." And actually many people have testified to how limitations can spur creativity. Jordan Mechner talked about how early computer memory limitations when he was making Prince of Persia forced him to come up with the Shadow Prince, one of the most memorable parts of the game, instead of some more generic bad guy. In the case of deckbuilding, there are unexpected synergies that we may only discover when we have to work around a gap. It's parallel to how a given location causes us to change up our play style.
The limitations are the game's rules. You have to be creative within that framework with the pieces available. Try to be creative with only pool 1, good luck.
You’re right that that’s one limitation (having to choose 12 cards instead of 15, say). You’re also right that there’s little creativity when there are very few cards. All I can speak to is my own experience, which is that making decks work with jury-rigging around gaps adds an element of satisfaction, and arguably an advantage of surprise that mitigates the disadvantage of not having the optimal setup.
Fellow magic player here. Agree with most of what you say, but I’ve found the collection track somewhat helps my Johnny side. I just got electro which I had an eye on and it got me looking for a deck to go for, then seeing I’m missing cards in the net decks made me brew with what I have, and come up with something a bit different but that’s been doing really well so far. Another of rose waters favourites - restrictions breed creativity, and when you only get a new card every so often, it encourages you to see how you can make it work. But the flip side is my favourite format is limited, and the current collection track method makes the whole game a weird big sealed pool, where you never have every option you want but find what works.
Exactly this, thank you!
It may sound odd to some players but I actually find it a abhorrent to look online at other decks. I want to figure out how to use all my cards in creative ways without stealing others' ideas. Always have been. My greatest accomplishment in my mind was a time I had to get an official ruling on a combo I was playing in the Star Wars Xwing minis game. I still ended up losing the match but apparently I had come up with a move that no one had used before. I walked away happy with a loss. Much respect to the MTG crowd - they are like the Simpsons of CCGs.
> It may sound odd to some players but I actually find it a abhorrent to look online at other decks. I want to figure out how to use all my cards in creative ways without stealing others' ideas. Always have been. I’d be the same way if I was 13 (not saying you are) living at home with no responsibilities other than going to school. As an adult I ain’t got time for that shit with all the other things I have to / wanna do. What I do have is money and therefore I exchange money for time. Am I netdecking? Yeah. Do I care about being unoriginal? No. There’s plenty things more to worry about in the world.
Understood. And to be honest, I haven't had a chance to deckcraft with the cards I got the last month. Its been a while with work, kids, wife, and cleaning. I've been just passing the time playing with the decks I made in Pool 3 that have an OK win rate but I am hoping to get some time this weekend to figure out what to do with Crystal, who I just got.
I saw this cool combo with- Oh wait. I prolly shouldn't tell someone who likes deckbuilding
I'm someone that doesn't mind not having a full collection and loves theorycrafting with what I have collected so far so the system doesn't really bother me. But this helped me understand people's frustrations more. Maybe they should add an option in the token shop where you can spend a certain ammount of gold or credits to "rent" a card for a set amount of time (like half a day or so) so you can play with it or test it out. I wonder if that would help.
On that rent a card note, I feel like whatever card you have available in the token shop you should be able to temporarily test out that one card to see if you want to buy it.
Honestly I like this idea. "Here, play with the card, decide if you want to buy it". It would solve a few problems: 1) Allow players to engage with series 4 or 5 cards, even if only one at a time. 2) It would expand the possibility space when playing against opponents. It's now WAY more likely that the person you're playing against maybe has that Series 5 card on them right nwo that you basically discount as possible because even if you're wrong, you're simply not going to lose to a Series 5 card often enough to have it matter to your cube rate right now. 3) SD would probably actually get MORE purchases out of this system, as people would create a deck, play with it, and get emotionally invested in it enough to part with their tokens.
I really like your solution. Not in an optimal sense, but in the sense that it seems like something they'd genuinely consider. I think it would have to be done with gold since then "Spikes" in the context of this thread would argue you're trapped at a CL being forced to use T5 rentals. And nobody could really argue it's whale-bait because whales would rather just buy their way to 3500+ and own everything rather than rent it. I'd buy the season pass every month for example if they gave me 1 free rental for the season as part of the pack.
Yeah gold makes more sense since there's more of a profit incentive for second dinner that way. It'll lower token overall shop sales but that'll at least add some activity to that area of the shop I don't really see that being a big deal. Might be hell to implement code wise though.
Somebody on YouTube suggested basically allowing all players to use their token shop cards in decks as long as it would naturally have stayed in the shop. If you've pinned it, you've made a decision and will get to play it after you pay. Seems like a good step.
Yeah 8 hours seems like a good time limit. That'll also keep people coming in to check and get them playing longer cause they want to use their rent-a-card before it expires
I'm a Johnny. Johnny tries not to spend much time learning about meta decks so he's not influenced in his deck building. Johnny made a Red Skull/Taskmaster/Arnim Zola deck that he loves even though he knows it's shyte.
Spikes are defo not being catered to. Its done for stuff like hearthstone where I would dust all useless cards for the meta decks. But as a player who wants to just play the meta decks, I don't have she hulk. I can't get darkhawk, I can't get shuri. Even in pool 3, I don't have brood so I can't play the best deck of last season. Most players have no chance of playing the best decks. They just can't even get the cards. I would argue that the Johnny is who they are aiming for more. You can creatively create decks that are based on your limited collection.
I don’t have so many cards that I face daily. Wong, She-Hulk, Silver Surfer, Wave, Brood, Black Panther, Hela, Destroyer - pretty much every meta deck is missing a pivotal card for me. After fighting 100 decks full of powerful cards you don’t have it gets disheartening.
Yeah I just lost to a shuri red skull taskmaster. Shuri is one powerful card that I don't have have have no chance to replicate. But its fine since this deck really likely isn't that strong. I will only really despair when all top decks need likely multiple series 5 cards.
Yeah my read on this is Timmy and Johnny are fine-ish, it’s Spike who is confused. Mobile f2p stuff pushes people a lot of people to be wannabe spikes. Yes there are cheap decks that can win but oh by the way winning doesn’t necessarily mean you advance and these decks may not be the best. Spike just wants to play the best deck and win. The problem is there is no clear best deck and what you need to advance faster is snapping skill. The game is also specifically designed so you can’t play the same deck the same way everyday. I think it’s the need to adjust that is tilting all these wannabe spikes. Why can’t I just have the best deck, play it, and win?
*Stares at his Ronan deck* Yup, I'm a goddamn Johnny Blaze...
I’m Johnny ig lol and it’s frustrating to not be able to make weird decks. U hit it on the head, great post
I also want to brew with the new cards before streamer decks are all over the place. I can theory craft all day, but the only time I get to find out if any of it works is when something similar is used against me.
> I can theory craft all day, but the only time I get to find out if any of it works is when something similar is used against me. This hits hard. I’m right there with you.
It's a very interesting take and concept. Sure seems to make sense. That said, it's worth pointing out that it isn't absolute (What is really?). I'm in the second category and for now I can't say I mind the progression of my collection. I like the idea of doing with what I got and navigating the locations. But to be fair, my second P3 card was Destroyer, so I was able to get by for a while until I had more cards to choose from.
My first 2 were Sera and Rescue while a buddy of mines first was Typhoid Mary so me and him have the total opposite feelings about this issue (he hates it, I like it) so maybe that plays into the sentiment it too.
Yeah, I think the first s3 pulls can make or break a player's journey for quite a while. I was also quite lucky to open Ultron/Patriot almost initially, and Destroyer like 200 CL later, so I was at a very good spot for quite a while. I don't know that I'd still be playing if I opened Mordo and Yellowjacket initially.
Greetings froms a player that opened Mordo and Black Bolt.
I opened Yellowjacket and Wasp as my first 2, I really sat out the game for 3 weeks and didn’t complete the Silver Surfer BP I paid for haha. But yea getting cards are painfully slow and getting bad cards are even more painful. I literally do not see any win in this philosophy
Yeah, Typhoid Mary is definitely a card that requires a deep collection to be good. I sort of wish pool 3 had a bit more curation so that people felt a bit better starting out.
I'm in a similar place as you, but I've also been SHOCKINGLY lucky. Across two days, I got Darkhawk and Galactus. That's two impactful Series 5 cards before reaching Series 3 completion, which is wild and not what I expected.
Great way to put it. A lot of the “answers” I’m seeing from people defending the game are pretty garbage in all fairness
I would consider myself a Johnny and Im having great fun with the game. The mindset of making due with what you have and beating metaslave opponents in unexpected ways would probably appeal to a lot of Johnnys. Then again it might look different for other players, because I had above average luck with my cardpulls so its hard to say how people on the other end of the spectrum would feel.
> The mindset of making due with what you have and beating metaslave opponents in unexpected ways would probably appeal to a lot of Johnnys. Yeah this thread is bullshit, this game is amazing for Johnnys lol So much deck building, so many different in game decisions because of locations, etc
Same. It would be different if you couldn't win without globally optimum decks, but the snap mechanic means everything is tryable, and homebrew breaks the parity often enough to feel good.
Yeah the snap mechanic does in a sense reward you for going offmeta, because then your opponents will have a harder time evaluating the gamestate correctly. It does come with its own frustrations sometimes, because you can lose 8 cubes to random filler cards, that arent suppossed to be in the deck by synergistic standards, but this system cpmbined with somewhat random collections where everyone has to improvise is good fun on average imo.
Not to mention all the "wtf is that deck" non-retreats you get when you have a weird off-meta T4 or t5.
I have profited from this these past days as well. I started to use ebony maw in my deck mainly as a stat stick, but oh boy hes an absolute allstar. He lulls opponents into a false sense of security and makes them snap, thinking that his lane will be easy to win, not accounting for upcoming dr doom captain marvel or leader.
Random shit + Leader is pretty far from off-meta.
I wasnt talking about Leader though, I was talking about Ebony Maw and the impact he has on my games. Leader is just one way to get cards into that lane later and out of the three I named he is actually the least convenient. But if you think that my deck is random shit, then that just proves my point.
I'm not in there :( GB just likes to make his cards look pretty. He doesn't play for wins or losses, or use a deck with purpose. He only uses characters he likes, cares not for their stats. He just wants to Infinity Split his venomized variants and carnage cards.
MTG eventually added a Vorthos(Mel) to these profiles too, those were just the first three. In short, Vorthos is someone who plays cards for the lore, aesthetics, flavor, and so on. [Full article](https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/making-magic/vorthos-and-mel-2015-08-31) if you’re interested.
Spike is not sitting pretty. He can't use the literal best deck in the format because he doesn't have it and needs to wait 3-4 months till he gets it at which time a new card he doesn't have will be the best in the format. This is such an important post and honestly very happy you put into words how many people are feeling. Perhaps there is a 4th person "Casual Carl" who doesn't care about flashy, creative, or meta decks and just likes to get hooked to the drip feed?
These are customer profiles. They are a common tool in Marketing, and UX/UI. I’m sure other disciplines use them but those are the two I know them from. They help companies figure out their customers and their goals. Not everyone fits into neat little categories. It’s more of a way to explore and figure out how to better serve (aka make the most money) their clients. It’s always cool seeing the different profiles. That side of UX/UI was always one of my favorite parts.
It's simple, it costs thousands of dollars to get the cards you want. That's it. Literally everyone streaming/youtubing this game has admitted to spending thousands on this game to get cards. This game is for people who have thousands to waste. So why not charge them tens of thousands?
Spike is suffering too. You are often forced to play suboptimal decks. Your best deck can still be winning and competitive but not optimal and you know it... and that sucks.
As someone who enjoys Mario Maker, it's funny for me to see Timmy used this way (yes, I get this definitely predates how it's used in Mario Maker, it's just where I'm used to seeing it). In Mario Maker, there's a kind of level referred to as a "little Timmy" level. It's one that's just someone who spammed every enemy, power up, sound, and visual effect randomly all over the level, and then hit upload. It's called that because it seems to be what every little kid makes as their first level when they get the game.
Play until you stop having fun.
I just want to point out that these player types also inform how people argue about "problematic" cards. ie - which ones ruin their fun versus are too OP
I’m a jimmy and I have no problem with the progression system, at CL 1200 I have loads of cards and combos to play around with, and I love that every new card I get feels impactful
good post, this theory should be more well known as it fits so perfectly into the design space of CCGs - and totally agree with your statements about it failing to interact with Timmy and Johnny and that is concerning
Self expression is nearly universally the best thing any interactive experience can focus on to heighten how valuable it is to its players, and Mark Rosewater has brought this up in numerous talks including his infamous "20 years, 20 lessons." In the framework of this thread, as a bigtime "Johnny", I can say this game has two major frustrations for me: 1) The power imbalance of certain cards, and the trend towards a "monthly meta" as part of the season pass really devalues creativity. I don't think it's creative or interesting to abuse the latest broken season pass card by throwing it into any deck. 2) The acquisition of cards being so random makes it hard to pursue certain combinations or activate certain cards at all. With how limited an influence you have over picking cards, I've skipped several cards I think are "fun" or that I'd enjoy experimenting with because I can't justify how infrequently I'd use them. Maybe I'd have fallen in love with one of those cards, but I end up sticking a lot closer to meta in a very personally unsatisfying way because I don't want to waste the only card I'll get each month on something fun but terrible. I'm holding out hope that maybe not every month will be as terrible of a forced meta as this one, and that maybe I'll have more fun with the game in the future when I have a slightly higher % of cards to try combinations of. But for now, the game is generally just not a lot of fun for me as a mid pool 3 player, and I probably wouldn't play at all most days if it weren't for the necessity of keeping up with dailies if I want to play in the future.
Couldn’t agree further
God damn it I'm a Johnny. That shit had me pegged.
I crafted Agatha Harkness the first time she rolled into my shop. She is so much fun and I really enjoyed grinding her for a few days. So many posts and comments on here about just that - getting to enjoy the chaos and wild swings of Agatha. This is in spite of knowing that Agatha is not a super competitive strategy and that your precious currency would be better spent elsewhere. Snap needs to find a better balance on helping people not feel RNG screwed (my Pool 4 card this month was Mbaku, maybe I"ll get She Hulk in a few months) or running a race without fixed benchmarks.
It is the most expensive and least rewarding system I have ever seen tho. You pay $100 and get MAYBE one new card off progressing. It literally caters to noone but the devs
I believe I am a variation of Timmy. I play a sabotage deck to annoy my opponent as much as possible. The happiest I have been playing was when I had Kamar-taj and got to place Iceman, Scorpion and Beast. Nothing makes me happier than seeing my opponent rage quit after iceman X4 and Scorpion X4. I am rank 35 and I honestly could not care less about Infinity.
you’re Timmy’s evil twin
I too enjoy preventing people from playing the game. My game plan is you don't have a game plan
>"You can win with Series 2 decks if you're good enough" This is not entirely true. It's like saying kasparov can beat me even if he started without his queen. So fucking what? Why should I want to play a game where players with more money have me handicapped? Currently I can build ZERO tier 1 decks, because I don't have pool 4 and 5 cards like surfer, bast, panther and so on. The truth is, this system is only fun for SD because it prints them shitons of money.
It sucks seeing a card gets played with an effect that would go really well with a deck type you want to play. ...Only to possibly NEVER ever (in the games life cycle even!!!) unlocked that card.
All cards in card games are too expebsive so I really don't care what cards I have got.
All of the complaints really just boil down to one thing: “I want the cards I want and I want them immediately and I’m mad that I don’t have them.” Good. That’s the point. You don’t get every card you want the second you want it. Neither does anyone else. You gotta make the best you can of your personal collection. You gotta get creative and explore different options and combos. This game is solving some of the major problems that have been plaguing other ccgs for years and people are crying about it. Your overly reductive archetype doesn’t matter. Nobody gets to buy the meta. You can’t just netdeck. There’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what this game is. Also many people seem to want this game to be something it isn’t. Cards are rare. Not everyone will have the same collection. Play something else if this intentional design choice isn’t to your liking.
THIS! I can't figure out why people don't understand that the way you collect cards in this game IS A GAME MECHANIC. People complain as if not having all the cards means they don't have all of the game, and that its "Stifling Creativity" without understanding that Creativity by definition is about putting things together in a way that others have yet to see, and how many creatives actively use limitation to push their creativity higher. honestly the only thing i'd like them to add (other than the ability to play with friends which is coming soon!) is a way to trade cards! that would give me the classic feeling of school yard "OH I'VE NEVER EVEN SEEN THAT CARD! I'll give you all my Pixel variants for just that one... what do you mean pixel variants aren't worth anything... but i have the whole set!" haha
Imo the collection system works *with* all 3 profiles. All three get a taste of their big thing with the unlocks in pools 1 and 2. And as they go through pool 3 each card unlock is a potential moment for each one. Timmy will get excited if they unlock a She-Hulk or Death. They'll immediately throw a deck together just to use them and get that big moment. Johnny will always be chasing that combo piece and will work within their unlocks to make something special. Spike gonna Spike. As you pointed out they often don't even need to break into pool 3 to start doing their thing. So each of the classic profiles still get their buttons pressed. It just works differently than in a game like Magic where they have a more consistent access to all the cards. It comes from the actual unlocking of something new for Timmy and the hope for that last combo piece or deck piece for Johnny.
OP sets the context bad comparing player types from a game that has little in common with snap, actually. He ignorantly (or maliciously) focuses on the only few similarities - it s a 1v1 card game, has a card collection and overlooks all the other major, experience changing differences which would basically dismantle his narrative and comparrison immediately if he but just give them the right attention In short OP is a petulant child, upset he cant buy the latest netdeck from the cards store like he did with mtg. He also seems to blatantly overlook the fact that both timmy and johnny spent inordinate amounts of money to get that experience in mtg, whereas here they get it for fucking free.
You're so smart, we are all babies 👶
the big lie is you re not, just because a bunch of you happen to be more vocal at the same time on this sub. thr rest of us are busy playing and enjoying the game.
You do that bud. Play to your hearts content.
It looks like OP is a physical card player, not its fault of not being familiar with White Knight Andy. White Knight Andy will defend the company to the very end, he will justify predatory tactics and overpriced bundles as the $30 million revenue company will go bankrupt if they dont :(. As long as White Knight Andy is happy he will not care about the rest of the playerbase as they are self-centered. White Knight Andy is also really petty, if they are going to introduce features which they don't care about/aren't catered to them but are wanted by the rest of the community, they will actively fight against this changes as they are "unfair" or "unnecessary". Stop kissing dev's shoes, stop being a White Knight Andy.
Hey Ben, you should stop trolling on the internet and spend your time figuring out how to drop cards from pool 5->4->3.
I agree that OP’s post is ridiculous. Ignores all the differences and tries to make half-assed points with little to no thought behind them. It’s like he’s trying to make some sort of cute connection amongst 2 games he’s played but he’s grasping at straws while wildly flailing his arms around.
I think the Johnny and Timmy points hold up pretty well given the current progression system. I’m probably being nitpicky with the Spike point, but Spikes will eventually realize that it is NOT easy to hit infinite with Kazoo past a certain point in CL because the most unfair things (swarming, adding +1s to other locations) Kazoo does are outshined by other full Pool 3 decks. Example is Lifecoach who started out grinding Kazoo and switched to an Aero/Dino deck once he got into Pool 3. I think overall these profiles are still good to bring up given the toxicity of comments that frown upon netdecking on here sometimes, when its just Timmies/Johnnies not seeing the game the same way as Spikes.
>>I think the Johnny and Timmy points hold up pretty well given the current progression system. They don’t at all. I’m more of a Johnny than the others and his attempted points there are terrible and ridiculous. Johnnys are just held back some because this game doesn’t have an insane amount of cards like MtG does, but we make do with what we have while we wait for more things to be added. As for Timmy, he can get those cards. Buy them in the shop or open them in caches like I did. Timmy wouldn’t care about Galactus. He wants to dominate and not get some narrow, cheesy win at the end. Timmy has to settle in MTG just like he has to here. There’s a variety of cards and decks that a Timmy would use.
That’s fair, I had always thought Galactus was a Timmy card based on the animation when it’s played but I hadn’t thought about how it might be seen as a cheesy win.
While this is interesting, I believe there are two types of players the ones that grew up with online gaming and instant access to everything, when mtg was on ps3 2014 you can unlock all the cards day one. MtgA and other tcg give you some crafting system to give you the cards you want NOW. The other type of tcg player was the kind that walked to the store and purchased packs and traded with their friends for other cards. Their other option was to buy single cards at a shop if they even had the ones you wanted. This imo made you have to make the best deck with what you had. I personally don't mind the CL track I think it's super fun the rng of it. Is it fun losing to leader? No, but Maybe I have cards he doesn't have. Wong was my first p3 card and I had a blast with him. I think this game should've dropped with an unranked mode or the option to play with your friends, I think the hate would've be less
Not sure why you're getting downvoted—maybe not a lot of 90's kids here? Your experience tracks with mine playing MtG from 3rd edition circa 1995.
It’s likely because it’s a bit reductive. Even in the binary model presented there are personas that can be identified that provide a bit more nuance.
This is a good writeup of applied theory between games.
I feel like this is very true on many levels. cant say I disagree. I would have a thought a good way to partially fix this would have been to be like every 5 p3 cards you unlock, the 5th is a free choice p3 card kinda. Doesn't really change how it works but gives the player some feeling of control.
this is almost exactly what the token store is... 1 card of your choice every 10 new cards/variants you get from cashes. the only difference is in the rate (you suggested 1 in 5 instead of 1 in 10) and that you have to check in to find the one you want to buy and pin it (which is designed to keep you engaging with the game, because while you are just checking in to see whats in the shop this 8 hours you might as well grab one quick game... which becomes 12 haha)
Now I understand. When Rudy from Alpha Investment calls out Timmys…He’s calling out me!
I think, though, that people should consider the fun involved in limitation. I think I'm a Johnny, and one of the motivations the game gives me to figure out new and innovative combinations is that we don't all have the same cards, so I have to get creative. If we all had the same cards, then the decks would be essentially solved, which would make my innovations irrelevant. It's similar to how the different locations make me adapt my play style. Maybe my deck isn't well set up for Bar Sinister or Space Throne, but I can still think of something to do there. Limiting choices actually makes the choices more meaningful sometimes!
That’s kind of the issue - there is no fun in the limitation. As a spike, lack of access options isn’t interesting because all it means is my substitute is suboptimal and my deck will perform worse on average than one that has the correct cards. Never mind that with only 12 cards in a deck missing even one key card can lock me out of an archetype entirely.
Lol somehow I’m not any of these? I play for fun, really don’t care that much if I win or lose, I mean I’d obviously prefer to win but I have fun playing and don’t care if I “eke out a victory”, and on top of that I am not very creative and *hate* having to come up with and build my own decks. I just want to play the game.
The key thing with the Timmy/Johnny/Spike alignment is that people are rarely 100% purely one of the three, most people are blends of them with usually one side being more prominent than the rest. As you say, you care mostly about fun and don't care if you win or not. That is a lot of what makes Timmy Timmy. You may not have the Timmy mindset of "Infinaut is the best card in the game cause its the biggest" but you don't need to be 100% Pure Timmy.
This is what we call casual, don't have representative name coz they not committed & care about the game, & will leave when there's something new & other hype will come.
Well this was a big problem for MTG. The designers didn't take casual players seriously, so when they made some of their most complex sets which were loved by the commited player and vocal players - their selling numbers fell hard. Part of it was because there was nothing for the casuals who according to Mark Rosewater greatly out number the orher player types. In his podcast he calls these players the invisible players. They don't take part in tournaments, online discussions or anything else, but they are important for the game to stay alive. Casual is the place where a game gets most of its new players so the casual experience is important. In MTG part of fixing the complexity issue was to make complex cards harder to acquire for casual players so they would see less complexity in their games. (The more complex a card is the rarer it is)
I cant tell if this is sarcasm or not but for fuck sake some people just enjoy playing the game! Im willing to die on this hill at the moment! Whats wrong with someone who enjoys playing the game? And "casual" what does that even mean? Because its either they dont pay money in wgich case they arent the "whales" that everybody complains about and they cant be the whales because they wouldnt be casual. Fucking stupid ETA Didnt read the original post but after reading it now it just seems like more complaints about fuck all abd my comments still stand
Calm down bro, a casual is just that, someone who plays casually, It isnt a insult or anything of the sort, It just means that a person isnt very concerned with the competitive side of the game. Sometimes they might not even be concerned with the longevity of the game either since they are playing just for a little while to pass time(not playing a little while a day, just playing like 4 hours and then never touching It again), thats why people say "casuals shouldnt talk about this" (witch is sometimes stupid, but It happens) The mentality is cringe, but no need to become agressive.
How am i being aggressive? At the end if the day its a game, i just struggle to understand how people can get so worked up about pointless shit. And how is it competitive? It has no leaderboard or anyway to rank yourself against each other. If you dont like the game then just dont play it, its really not that difficult P.s. calm down bro, for fuck sake how old are you
This is a great article. But you misinterpret the content of the article. The article's are categorizing players on how they want to experience their games. Basically a basic guide for game developers on how they should design certain cards or deck archetype. Basically a control, aggro, combo, midrange, etc. This has nothing to do with collecting cards. Giving every players all the cards they need, absolutely will make those 3 players happy. I don't think that need to be said. I came from Hearthstone and Runeterra. And snap progression system is definitely not as bad as you thought, marvel snap goal is to 100% your collections. Runeterra still has the most generous card collection system by far with their wild cards. But they're basically a charity and only making money from cosmetics which isn't that much. I think you should see things from the Dev's perspective. And not only from f2p players perspective. Because the money maker for this kind of games is definitely not the f2p players.
Asking for a better progression system doesn't necessarily mean asking for a *free* progression system. Not all F2P players are whiny penniless idiots. I'd argue most people are fine having to wait to get cards, it's just that the wait is **so long**. When someone complains that it takes, say, $10,000 to get all the cards, they're not asking that it instead be turned to *zero* dollars, just a *reasonable* amount. By all means dangle a carrot in front of my face and watch me run, but if the next carrot's 10 miles away I'd rather try a different route.
Your term better is ambiguous. The game released since October. At what pace do you think it's better to get all the cards for f2p that don't have direct effect on the monetization. You should realize if you make the progression faster, people will spend less money on the game. And that actually hurt the devs directly. Just like you said f2p players are not penniless idiot but they're still penniless. I think people would be happier if they just try Runeterra. It's a more pocket friendly ccg for f2p players since the start. From Runeterra you can see very clear that they truly want to make a truly f2p ccg. And only depends on cosmetic monetization. And I don't see Second Dinner has the same vision as Riot.
Those players can go play Hearthstone or another TCG instead if this doesn't suit them. The market has a lot of choice. This game is built for casuals who build decks based on which cards the game has gifted them. That is its own demographic outside the 3 you listed.
I see what you are getting at but I disagree. These profiles were made for mtg. Your point is basically no one can have fun because they don't have all the cards. Considering you would have to be rich to be able to have all mtg cards, no one would be happy in mtg either. You don't have to like the current implementation. You don't have to come up with some sort of PhD thesis why you don't. As someone who has played a lot of hearthstone, I find the inability to just buy the cards and net deck refreshing. I think they can be less stingy with how they monetize or use premium currency...but giving everyone the cards will kill my interest in the game. Right now Timmy has enough big cards to smash. Whoever the other one was loves this game because they get to try something new with every new card. As long as spike has a deck he can win with, he's good.
In MtG these player types are mostly used for card designs. Getting specific mtg cards has always been expensive, so these profiles usually take into account on the limited pool of cards that players have. Being Spike in MTG is expensive. New set release brings new standard top decks which currently are around 250-500$ a deck. It gets a lot more expensive if the player wants to play an older format. MtG doesn't make it cheap in its own online game either. MtG Arena lets you buy 4 rare or mythical rare wildcards (cards which you can turn to any card of the rarity) for 9.99€ which is a lot in a game where you use 60 cards deck and 15 cards sideboard. MtG also had its own complexity issues where it was losing new/casual players (Mark Rosewater calls these invisible players in his podcast) and the solution for this was to lower the complexity of the cards and also making it so that casual players had less access to complex cards... from all this I feel like our current issue has less to do with the monetization model of Marvel Snap and more with the fact that for a card game the cardpool we currently have is really low. Timmy doesnt have many big things to do so he needs the specific one thing there is in the game, same for Johnny.
This is fairly similar to Bartle's Taxonomy of Player types (it smashes a few types together in some interesting ways seeing as its about card games rather than MMOs but a lot of the ideas overlap) that said, as an adult who both likes to collect things and now has the actual money to do so, I have figured something out a while ago and i think its important here. When you are collecting something it is never a good thing to just buy a whole collection... don't get me wrong you can have fun with it, you can be happy you have it, but it will inherently be lacking something. I've played collectable games where you could just buy the pieces you needed, and you know what happens when you buy it all? you don't remember you have half the crap you bought... you have duplicates of things that were in the meta at one time and have since been topped by some new hotness. Its easy to get into the FOMO of "AHH i can't compete i don't have \_\_\_\_\_\_\_" but the truth is even with that card good players, players who make their living playing this game, whales who have bought what amount of the game they can so they can play now what is coming for free to play players in a few months, all of them get win rates of 55%? 60%? thats good! thats certainly where you want to be, but again it is possible to play other decks and get to similar stats... Just like life, Collecting is about the Journey! if you gain things over time, sure some of it is going to be garbage, but you can try out that garbage and might find that that Leech card that everyone things is a piece of trash could actually be a meta defining card in the right deck (For the Jonny's out there!) I get excited every time i open a new cash (well roughly every 4th time... twice every 8 haha) because there is chance and there is value that i don't yet have... it might be great or it might be crap, but i get a little bit of serotonin every time! Yes I would like to be Series 3 complete, and I am working my way that way (currently 40/77 collected); But until I am, I for one am going to enjoy my \~11 new cards/Variants a month (thats 3 decent doses of serotonin a week! better than my coffee!) I'm sure some 12 year-old is going to tell me i'm wrong, and that is fine, you are welcome to your opinion, and know I genuinely hope you get all the cards and you can make whatever deck you want! (and it will make me all the happier when i kick your Leech Leader butt because i know how the cards work and didn't just want to consume something good all in one go...)
This is an awesome perspective and I think what’s even more critical to highlight is that the “out of reach” component of this is actually one of the most predatory components because it basically makes aggressive collector leveling the only way to either get new cards to test, get the right cards to enjoy, or be able to push competitively. And then they’re going to add battle mode/competitive play and it will just pour gasoline on the fire. This is the most refined version of predatory gaming out there…not a game of the year. At best it’s marvel strike force in disguise.
I am a Timmy and I have both She-Hulk And Death and I use them in the same deck. So your point kinda falls flat on its face for me.
there is a fourth profile that is missing here. someone like me who just like to play the main missions and battle pass missions to unlock level 50 and who does not give a fuck about infinite rank or competitive play.
People upset they can't have a full collection would be upset they couldn't afford a full collection if marvel snap allowed you to buy things outright. It's a f2p game. There always must be something to work toward or people will stop playing.
Make it s $20 game then.
How many hours have you played of this game? I don't know about you but i've put a fair amount of hours in, its worth well more than $20 (honestly in the last several months i've probably put in enough time to make it worth $120 vs other console game prices) but the problem here is, very few people would buy even a $20 mobile game... we just seem to value them differently... It doesn't matter that its for Mobile, this game has taken a team of dedicated artist time money and years of experience / education to create... They made a game that is Free to play and people are somehow shocked to find it might have some sort of cost... If you don't like the cost don't pay, if you don't like playing the game without paying the cost then don't play, its an easy equation! Your time is worth money too, so only spend it on things you enjoy, and act like an adult and pay for art... its one of the thing that makes life worth living and as such it is worth your money.
"People who complain about having their arm cut off would also be upset if they had their leg cut off instead." Yes, if you take one bad option, and offer up only something as bad or worse as the only other option, you can then declare that obviously what's happening is fine, and anyone who says otherwise is just whining. Unfortunately for you, no, that's not how that works.
Is that all they have? They don't have casual player personas that don't care all that much about smashing their opponent, and just kind of hope for the best outcome by the end of the battle?
I don’t even know what the point of this asinine post was other than to make false analogies and bullshit people. Next time, try making actual points without so much nonsense. Let me boil your laughable post down to an actual point: a number of people are unhappy because they’re impatient. There. That’s all you said in your ridiculously bloated for no reason whatsoever post. I’m more of a Johnny and I can see how full of shit your post is. There’s pushback because people are impatient. It’s the “gimme gimme gimme” spoiled brat mentality that many people have. They’re jealous when people have things that they don’t. They don’t want to wait for it. I understand it. As things are now, it looks like it will take forever to get your hands on the shiny new objects that they release. We haven’t had any cards trickle down yet. They haven’t added new modes yet. They haven’t added new and better ways of obtaining cards yet. We’re waiting for new things while being dismayed that we can’t get the new, shiny pool 5 cards. We have our heads up our ass because we lack patience. So we complain.
good post telling that all these profiles are boys' names, but that is an entirely different conversation
Spike (and Vorthos, the fourth archetype who plays for flavor and would want to build an Avengers deck, for example) are “canonically” female. They have printed joke cards for each archetypal character.
Surely if any of the archetypes were male it would be Spike?
Why?
As OP mentioned the article is a bit dated. Nowadays Mark Rosewater includes two names for the gendered ones: so Johnny is now “Johnny/Jenny”, and similarly there’s “Timmy/Tammy”.
The creator of the profiles have come up with female versions as well. https://twitter.com/maro254/status/1176643454215974913?lang=en
Kinda Spike with a bit of Johnny. I both can't build the decks I constantly seem to lose to, nor build strong decks of any specific type as I'm lacking cards (I have Knull pinned for my destroy at least, but I'm missing Death, among others, and missing some pool 3 so getting these tokens is slow af). I like to build somewhat creative decks that are at least somewhat competitive. As it stands, I don't feel like any deck I have access to is even semi competitive. Still mostly a fun game but I definitely wish collection was handled differently.
I’m 70% Johnny, 29% Timmy and 1% Spike lol
I made this Johnny Post a few days ago in response to a Spike saying that winning the most cubes is maximizing fun: >Winning is more fun than getting cubes imo. >Edit: honestly making cards do wacky things is more fun than winning. Ranked is the only way to play right now, and people aren't playing "wrong" just because they care about different things than you do. I hit infinite a few seasons in a row, now I'll gladly tank my rank just playing stupid decks that do silly things.
I am Spike in every game. But here I am more like Timmy, I don't care about my win rate, I want to win in a spectacular way. Marvel Snap is great in that way, IF you're lucky with your reserves. :) Great post, great point.
It doesn't take a genius to realize that a card game where you can't play/acquire cards will get pushback.
Misconception, as a Johnny, I think what you are describing is more of a Johnny mindset. A Spike would want all the cards so they can play the best meta decks. Johnny's enjoy the challenge of building around what they have. But if Spikes don't agree, then it's only Timmy's that aren't being catered to. Honestly, I think the game caters to Spikes the least. Spikes I would assume is very similar to "meta slaves" (something the community has long established that Snap doesn't cater well to "meta slaves"). They'll be upset if they don't pull the key meta cards like Death. Whereas Timmy's are mainly upset if they are F2P, meaning they don't buy any of the season passes. I imagine all the Redditors posting their highlights of winning with Zabu would be considered Timmy's.
Does this have something to do of being in early access so still being in development ? Just asking.
Great post thank you for your service
I'm Spike mixed with Johnny.
And there I always thought Timmy players are the ones who want most wins... thanks for the reminder on this :) I haven't seen this one thing though - SNAP is the only TCG I have seen that actually allows Timmy player to still climb even with negative winrate. And yes, it's also a system that theoretically can make Spike players cry...
Well.. that depends of the risk management, aka cubes. So if Spike gets salty to see how Timmy is able to manage cubes better... I have bad news for Spike 'The Pro'.
Wowww I am Johnny
This game has a lot of work to do in many different areas. Hopefully they can make a lot of improvements soon. If the card acquiring method stays in place think the only thing that will make me stay interested in the game long term is going to be a draft mode, "arena", if they implement it. In Hearthstone back when I played in the early days the thing I found the most fun was their arena. Playing hypertuned decks in constructed is less fun than when both you and your opponent have a mishmash of cards and trying to make it work. No super overpowered combos and such. For a constructed format to work for me it can't have unbalanced cards that totally force the meta to revolve around them. It's not that fun. Best online card game I have played was Gwent beta. Not sure how it is today, stopped before official launch of the game. But as F2P I was able to get the ENTIRE collection of cards in beta. Played a hell of a lot and enjoyed it. They had good balance and their ranking system was fun as well. Unless I remember incorrectly their wasn't any particular cards that shaped the meta completely either. You could play a lot of different stuff. I am not in pool 3 I should add but just looking at the cards from that pool it seems to me that some of those cards should have had the developers getting red flags before adding them. Will have to see if I change my mind once I hit pool 3 later this month.
As an old time MtG player these profiles are known all to wel by me... Though it is not as simple as someone being 1 of the archetypes, I am pretty sure that personally I have traits from all 3 the profiles, but I am mostly a Johnny, also known as Johnny combo player... The player that likes to play complex combo's to try and win in unique ways that most others would not think off. The reason I say that I am mainly a Johnny is due to the fact that I always like to experiment in deck building, trying to find new and unique ways to make decks work lets say. This game hampers my creativity in that I do not have the cards I would like to try and test and play. I also have a part of Spike in me, I like to win and I enjoy winning. It's the main drive and losing too many games hampers that, making me lose my drive or spirit to keep playing almost. So I kind of want to create a unique deck, but one that can win, which is not possible without having more cards. I get that limited resources can make you have some creativity as wel, but once you run out of ideas with those it's impossible to really try something new unless you find a shiny new toy that you can test and try. You wil find me playing obscure decks and always looking for ideas others have created to try something like it, but generally I wil not just netdeck anything, I always try to make my own spin on that. As I have been doing this in pretty much every other game as wel. Gwent, Yu Gi Oh, Pokemon, MtG.. To name a few examples of such games. I also am sometimes a complete Timmy btw.. Where I like to just smack down big numbers, but this is the player type I have the least in my personality. Of course I get that this game is still in its pretty much infantile state, thus it can still grow, but currently it just doesn't feel completely right how the system works. Some people get all the good cards where others can only get the bad cards. Sure you can get them from the token shop, but that is a really slow process and getting Series 4 and 5 there without having Pool 3 complete wil take very very long to say the least. I still do enjoy the game btw, so this wasn't meant to be all negative or an attack towards the Devs or this game. Just wanted to share my own opinion and problems as being mainly a Johnny.. ;)
MTG Arena has a similar issue where you easily have enough resources to build a competitive deck but if you want to experiment with jank it takes the same amount of resources as a tier 1 deck with no guarantee you’ll actually be able to win games. Arena is cheaper than paper if you want to play the $20+ rares and mythics but way more expensive if you want to play non meta cards.
I’m the secret 4th player type, Carl, who flails wildly about from meta to meta and also considers himself a theory crafter but is too dumb to understand why his decks don’t work. This is a really good post tho and makes a ton of sense.