Suggestion - or 2?

Feature Requests and Game feedback
1

This may have been covered before - and I am very sorry if it has and I am bring it back up - but here is the situation and suggestion…

I have a fair few friends, whom I have gotten into the game, its that good - so kudo’s there - however there is one or two things lacking that we would love to see -

First Suggestion (and the really important one) - a real time pvp match between “Friends” or “Guild-mates” - where you can challenge not just the PVP defense team, run by the AI - but any teams they have or are working on - with them in control - as a real person plays a LOT different then the AI - these matches would be great to see, and offer a lot to the community as a way to “test” teams that may not be “meta” or the best to some but work really well. There need not be any “game” rewards for the match no gold, souls, or trait-stones ect.- however that leads to suggestion 2. -

Suggestion #2 – Betting “cards” or “monsters” on your match - a situation where you can put a monster into the ring as the bet - (much like they do in popular table CCGs) - and i know where your mind is gonna go before you go there - (people will start new account’s and simply “farm” up the monsters then trade em - ) which might be true, however if you put limitations on the entries - it would still work , such as

1) Bet Monsters are dropped to base rarity and level and de-trait stoned -So your not getting a fully traited lvl 20 for a lvl 1, you will get a mob for a mob nothing else.

2) Monsters must be the SAME base rarity to be bet - So your not gonna bet common’s vs Mythics just to “power up” your main account - you want that Doomclaw - your betting that Megavore - not that treasure gnome. (you could enhance this by saying you need at least 2 of the monster to bet, but thats your call)

3) Bet matches are “real time” only. No blaming the AI for getting too many cascades, or “cheating” its you and the opponent - head to head, if you miss that 4 match, its on you.

4) Limited to X “bet” matches per week - (based on something?) This is mainly to prevent people from cycling - they got a ton of Dust Devils so they are attempting to trade em out for that rarity from other “ghost” accounts against themselves (Bet matches might increase with VIP levels- or extra bet matches could be bought with Gems in the Store)

In truth some people who have 2 accounts to huge levels “could” exploit this - but there is no perfect system that can prevent exploitation if someone really wants to - but to punish 100s of people who are doing it right because of a few who would will abuse it - well, its a game after all.

Anywho - those are our ideas - what do you think? Bear in mind these are simply ideas and by no means do i mean to assume they are fully thought out , or perfect, they are in there infancy and please treat them accordingly. Thanks.

2

Sorry to say that but it will never happen

1 Like
3

:thinking: Give this person a chance. Or at least something a little more constructive in terms of feedback.

14 Likes
4

I don’t really understand that why of it - i understand it may not be in the foreseeable future, but something to look toward. I understand that its a lot of work and they have there hands busy elsewhere. But as far as a system - or something that “could” be done. “real time” battles vs guild mates or friends seems semi easy enough , the betting part can be exploited so i can understand reservations. But saying “it will never happen” . I don’t know, the Devs and such are really up on community and if enough people like the idea, might be doable… who knows.

5

Thank you @Cyrup - I do not know a lot about Dev’s and such and if this idea was already submitted or shut down. All possible senarios. But thanks for stepping up and offering a kind word.

1 Like
6

I think it would be cool to have a live battle between friends or guildmates. However, the devs have said several times that live player vs player isn’t coming to the game because of the restructuring that would be needed to support it.

3 Likes
7

And they’ve also said that players wouldn’t be able to trade cards. Safe to assume battling for cards would fall into that category. People would collude and lose on purpose depending on the troop.

2 Likes
8

Cyrup, to be fair. Your feedback was directed at someone’s feedback. Rather than letting the OP know that his ideas are great and appreciated. But not planned at this time for Gems of War. (Assuming that answers on the matter that were previously given are still accurate.)

9

(1) would be nice, and a lot of people want it. I think it will be “a long time” or “never” when we get it because believe it or not, it’s very hard to retrofit netplay into a game. You have to make a lot of decisions with respect to your data structures and architecture to make it go smoothly, and it means a completely different set of assumptions about what’s sane for any given game state. All that aside, it’s a feature I would like and I agree: some kind of “real” PvP would be a great addition to the game.

(2) will be a hard ‘no’. Any form of betting or wager can very quickly turn into a legal mess for the people running a game. Magic: the Gathering used to have a whole subset of rules devoted to “ante matches” and they have to pretend they don’t exist now because it threatened to get the entire game classifed and regulated as gambling in several countries.

We can bicker back and forth about if it could be gambling, that doesn’t change that GoW releases in literally hundreds of different jurisdictions, each with their own nitpicky rules about what constitutes gambling. For example: a New York pinball museum was facing closure a few years back because it turns out pinball machines require individual license fees and must be registered as gambling devices because you can win a free turn. The United States has 50 states, each with dozens of counties, some with multiple cities. Every one of those can have its own rules. Then there is Europe. And China. It is a mess, and it’s a lot cheaper to “not have gambling” than it is to consult with international lawyers and arrive at a design that doesn’t constitute gambling in any one region. And it carries risk: laws can change.

10

You had me at real time player versus player.

You lost me at putting up a troop. Magic the Gathering had an “Ante” card in the very early days but wisely dropped that idea.

I 2nd your idea of real time player versus player for just bragging rights. I wouldn’t want any rewards to change hands but at least a visual record of the results would be nice. At the very least a screenshot of the results would be good enough for me.

See someone in chat and “1v1 me!”

11

True - the putting up a troop or ante battle was just to give higher level players a way to “flesh” out there collections - by being able to battle for the mythic they just cant seem to find while having 20+ of another mythic, which at that point is kinda redundant…

If you look at Tacet on Youtube he has 10+ of mythic troops that just take up space - since the max you need for a team is 4 of the same troop - the consensus would be that it gives people who have that , but are missing say - some other rare drop to have a shot at it …

But he real time PvP was the base suggestion and the one that was most important… however, it seems that he work involved would just be too much, and its not something they are looking at in the near to semi far future, One day you may be able to take on your friends with them being able to pick and team and really face you, 1v1. but till that day, its what ever there PvP defense team is , maned by the AI who likes to ahem, cough cough sorry i have a cold.

12

If you want Player vs Player think of a novel way that they can charge a crapton of gems for it and I bet the Devs would be all over it.

13

That would be easy - by simply going with a # per week idea based on VIP level - where as the higher VIP level, hence more money invest = more ability to attack friends…

HOWEVER - In my time in Gems or War, this game is by far and away the MOST relaxed when it comes to pay to win. - VIP levels add speed and ability but not exactly power - I was quite easily able to get enough gems to buy my Dragon Armor , Celestial Armor, and blow them on things i should not have - and recover in a week or two.

They are very forgiving with mistakes with gems, and give you multiple ways per week to get them - such as Events, Treasure Gnomes, Vault, Treasure Maps ect… yes, minus the events, these are in totals of 2, 5, 3 , ect, but they add up.

Yes, investing gives you a “speed” boost, allowing you to do things that you normally would have to wait month or so far… and give you slightly better bonus overall in the game. BUt its not a requirement to spend millions. Which is one of the reasons i enjoy the game – you wanna be powerful in a week, spend $$, if your willing to wait it out over the span of X - then you can do it free, I fall in the grey area between , ill drop a little here, a little there, but not every month and not 100’s but much like the gems – it adds up. :slight_smile:

1 Like
14

Who would pay 50 gems to be able to 1v1 someone else?

I sure would.

1 Like
15

i wouldnt even pay 1 gem for it tbh xD

4 Likes
16

I’d like the option to pay X amount of gold or pay 5-10 gems for real pvp. Sometimes we all want to fight “that one guy” in our guild that we particularly dislike.

1 Like
17

You will need to pay me for it!

Just thinking about waiting 10-15 sec between each turn is enough for not wanting it

3 Likes
18

Live 1v1 doesn’t have a downside, so I think it’s a good suggestion. The gameplay is far too slow, though, so I think it would quickly be abandoned by most players.

Betting cards would end up in collusion at worst, and duplicate trading at best. Both of those hurt the game’s bottom line, so it won’t be implemented.

3 Likes
19

Live 1v1 has a downside in opportunity cost — time spent there isn’t going into the rest of the game, and for players uninterested in it, this represents a reduction in service. As well, given how much change would have to be done to the core mechanics to prevent runaway looping, it’s easy to imagine there would be significant changes made to existing troops that would also impact the core game. Whether this is a net positive or negative depends on how much you care about live play, but I would certainly expect some downsides to arise.

3 Likes
20

So , the downside your saying is that people who are playing the live 1v1 for no rewards are not playing the rest of the game for the game rewards, and that is a downside? -

How is that a reduction in service, Forgive me I am most likely reading it wrong or not getting the point, but to me it almost sounds like your saying people who do not wanna play 1v1 suffer because people who want to do 1v1.

There is no reason to change any of the troops for 1v1 - cycling, and looping are part of the game using teams that “feed” each other, - everyone knows about that going in. There would be no reason to suspect that they need implement any changes to current troops to prevent that - they already have a PVP, that is vs a AI - that loops and cycles just as much as a real person would -

Also in order to get the troops, and power them up and get the souls, ect, because 1v1 offers no rewards, people would still have to play the “core” game - new troops = new teams= back to soul / traitstone farming.

I do not see the “reduction in service” or the reason for “changes that would impact that core game” - Like i said i might be missing something - but please explain.