Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Open Forum => Off-Topic => Topic started by: New Raven BR on December 03, 2013, 07:18:08 PM
-
ok everyone, I just thought i'd create this thread to continue the discussion on kickstarter
-
So forget the third-party sites and hit up the people you know will be interested. You could tailor Kickstarter-type reward levels (e.g., pay $X now and get a complete playset of the cards when they are printed) for the existing players and see what funding you can get via that means.
My understanding though is that if you go through Kickstarter/Indiegogo that when people commit to something that the funds are automatically locked away to be used if the project is fully funded.
If we tried to do something like that here on the forum, there could be a lot of people who say that they will support the new set by buying a box of packs, but then when the time comes they don't have $150, and so they drop out. Do you know of a way to prevent that sort of problem?
I think you could do it the same way that Kickstarter does. Cactus could announce that they are soliciting donations for the next set with a financial goal and a deadline. People donate now and if the financial goal is met, Cactus could collect the money (i.e., charge credit cards) immediately.
The only real magic to Kickstarter is that it is a central site which aids in discovery and the proposals are curated with some surrounding legal framework. I'm not sure either of these benefits would accrue to a Redemption project. It is not clear that there is a large untapped market of players who would find the game via Kickstarter, and pretty much everyone that plays Redemption knows the good character of Cactus.
-
I think you could do it the same way that Kickstarter does. Cactus could announce that they are soliciting donations for the next set with a financial goal and a deadline. People donate now and if the financial goal is met, Cactus could collect the money (i.e., charge credit cards) immediately.
OK, so just to get a basic feeler at this point. How many people would be willing to pre-purchase a box or more of new packs (10 random new cards in a foil wrapper - like the Priests set) if the cost was approximately $150?
THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL OR BINDING CONTRACT!!!
However please start spreading the news around to the people you know who buy cards, and let's at least get a ballpark figure of whether we're talking about preorders of $1000 or $10,000 or $100,000.
Hypothetical Kickstarter Rewards listed here. (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/off-topic/kickstarter/msg518793/#msg518793)
Preliminary total = $3,125
Prof Underwood = $300
Red = $200
Crashfach2002 = $500
TechnoEthicist = $500
Browarod = $200
Galadgawyn = $200
Jmhartz = $200
Uthminister = $500
YourMathTeacher = $200
Redoubter = $100
Jbeers285 = $200
AJ = $25
-
2 boxes
-
Many more details would need to be known before I could even give a number.
-Are we assuming 45 packs at retail $3.00 per pack?
-Size of set (100, 150, 200)?
Part of the reason I like Kickstarter is because of the promotional bonuses both for packages as well as target goals. Do you have any of these in mind or is this just pure donation?
-
I agree with Brad. There would have to be rewards at the different levels of sponsorship for it to be a true kickstarter.
-
I cannot find anything on the Kickstarter website that suggests a project has to be a brand new IP. Marti may know something I don't, but as far as I can tell, there's no reason Cactus couldn't use it. With that in mind, I would very much prefer that Cactus use Kickstarter over other crowdsourcing options, or doing it independently. The main reason for this is because Kickstarter is an established brand. It's much easier to convince people to contribute to a project like this when using Kickstarter, because it's a known and trusted name. There are other crowdsourcing options that are legitimate, and everyone who knows Rob knows that he would never run a scam, but when it comes down to it, the less wariness and distrust, the better. I also like the transparency and structure that Kickstarter demands. I'm willing to back a project like this, but I want to know exactly what I'm investing in and when it's going to be released. If delays happen, I want to know exactly why and when the new release date might be. That's not a distrust of Rob specifically, but if I'm putting up my own money in advance, I like to know where things are. Plus, it will be much easier to convince people to get on board with this kind of structure. It's also binding: If you pledge, you have to pay if the fundraising goal is met. It's extremely hard to back out for no reason, meaning there's less risk for everyone involved. I recognize that there is an 8-10% processing fee between Kickstarter and Amazon, but I think it will be more than worth it.
Even if Rob chose not to use Kickstarter, but still wanted to crowdsource, there should definitely be different levels of donations. If you donate $5, congratulations, you get two packs. Donate $10? Have five. Donate $100? Have a full set. You can even include old packs/cards/sets to mix it up and give people with small collections or even people who have never played the game incentive to donate more. I know that I would consider at least a $200-300 donation if I knew I was going to be receiving a lot of competitive cards in return. I think if an intelligent strategy was used, Rob could easily raise a few thousand dollars. Plus, using Kickstarter, if he doesn't, then there's no harm done.
-
The main issue with Kickstarter is the bulk of the people who buy in bulk get it wholesale and Kickstarter wouldn't be able to do that. I would definitely talk to Chris Bany though, as I'm pretty sure we still get all of our stuff from him.
-
The point of using Kickstarter wouldn't be to completely fund the project, nor would it be for those who will buy wholesale. It's for people who want a new set faster, and are willing to pay earlier to see that happen.
-
I cannot find anything on the Kickstarter website that suggests a project has to be a brand new IP. Marti may know something I don't, but as far as I can tell, there's no reason Cactus couldn't use it.
My point is that you probably don't want to use KickStarter because it will provide little to no benefit to this project and will cost 5% or the proceeds.
With that in mind, I would very much prefer that Cactus use Kickstarter over other crowdsourcing options, or doing it independently. The main reason for this is because Kickstarter is an established brand. It's much easier to convince people to contribute to a project like this when using Kickstarter, because it's a known and trusted name. There are other crowdsourcing options that are legitimate, and everyone who knows Rob knows that he would never run a scam, but when it comes down to it, the less wariness and distrust, the better.
I was going to respond that for the people playing Redemption, Cactus Game Design was at least as well known and as trusted a name as KickStarter is. Reading further, however, I see that this isn't the case for you. So one of the things folks making the decision would want to take into account is whether there is a large enough proportion of the player base who would contribute but only if the donations were monitored by a third party (such as KickStarter) to make up for the 5-10% vig that the third-party is going to require.
I agree that there should be tiered rewards as a means of encouraging further contributions. I would even extend it beyond product. Pay $Y and get your likeness on a card--that kind of thing.
-
I also would be more motivated to donate in exchange for unique tiered awards beyond just the actual product itself.
-
Many more details would need to be known before I could even give a number.
-Are we assuming 45 packs at retail $3.00 per pack?
-Size of set (100, 150, 200)?
Let's assume the normal 45 packs, and let's assume that they will retail at $4.00 per pack (totally making this up off the top of my head, but since this is really just to feel people out it should do for now). As for the size of set, let's say that depends on how high the crowdsourcing gets. Again, totally guessing numbers, let's say:
10,000 = 100 card set
20,000 = 150 card set
30,000 = 200 card set
40,000 = 250 card set
50,000 = 300 card set
The main issue with Kickstarter is the bulk of the people who buy in bulk get it wholesale and Kickstarter wouldn't be able to do that.
That's a good point. What if the Kickstarter rewards were more in line with wholesale pricing so that these people would be willing to jump in as well?
there should definitely be different levels of donations...You can even include old packs/cards/sets to mix it up and give people with small collections or even people who have never played the game incentive to donate more.
There would certainly be tiers, but again I'm speaking unofficially here to just feel things out, so I have no way to really know what those would be at this point. Let's pretend that we it looks something like below:
$3 - 1 pack (valued at $4)
$10 - 4 packs (valued at $16)
$25 - 10 packs (valued at $40) + 5 packs of Original (valued at $5)
$50 - 20 packs (valued at $80) + 5 packs of Prophets (valued at $10)
$75 - 30 packs (valued at $120) + 5 packs of any other foil pack of your choice (valued at $15)
$100 - 1 box (45 packs valued at $180)
$200 - 2 boxes (valued at $360) + 5 packs of either TxP or Disciples (valued at $25)
$300 - 3 boxes (valued at $540) + 3 tins of either FooF or RoA (valued at $45)
$400 - 4 boxes (valued at $720) + 3 tins ($45) + a Buckler signed by an Elder
$500 - 5 boxes (valued at $900) + 3 tins + Elder Buckler + Redemption T-shirt (value at $16)
$1000 - 10 boxes (value at $1,800) + 3 tins + Elder Buckler + T-shirt + Cactus Grab Bag ($30)
$2000 - 20 boxes (value at $3,600) + 3 tins + ROB Buckler + T-shirt + Cactus Factory Set ($150)
$3000 - 30 boxes (value at $5,400) + 3 tins + ROB Buckler + T-shirt + Deluxe Factory Set ($275)
$5000 - 50 boxes (value at $9,000) + 3 tins + ROB Buckler + T-shirt + Deluxe Factory Set + Set of URs
-
First, apparently I missed a big conversation about kickstarter in Redemption...but I'd certainly be in as much as I could be without sleeping on the couch. However,
$5000 - 50 boxes (value at $9,000) + 3 tins + ROB Buckler + T-shirt + Deluxe Factory Set + Playtesting Access
I'm not sure I like that idea as much. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think playtesting access should be able to be bought; it is already something everybody wants, and being able to buy access to something like that just because you have more money than others will just lead to...well...you know (http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/Strife_(I))...
But I do like tiered rewards of some kind ;)
-
interesting idea, but the awards that are unlocked based on goals met usually mean free swag that go to all supporters, not an increased size of set. I also agree that playtesting should not be bought, that has the potential to do more harm than good, even if no one even raises that much...
-
interesting idea, but the awards that are unlocked based on goals met usually mean free swag that go to all supporters, not an increased size of set.
Personally, I would view an increased set size as a swag that benefits everybody. Another way to bump that up is to make a couple of tiers like...
$X get a complete set of commons/uncommons
$Y get a complete set of rares and commons/uncommons
$Z get a complete set of the ultra-rares, rares, and commons (not counting promos)
Then the larger the set the more cards you would get automatically.
-
Good suggestions guys. I replaced the playtesting with a set of URs. Again, this is all completely unofficial and hypothetical, so don't get set on anything here. But based on these ideas, what kind of levels do people think they might participate in?
-
Prof, I forgot to note earlier how I liked mixing in the grab bag and the various factory sets in the tiers. By adding in these kinds of rewards Cactus could use the crowd-funding effort as a means of player recruitment. Two things on this:
- If there is going to be a concerted push to use this crowd-funding effort to try to bring in new players, then KickStarter would be a better location.
- I would also consider moving the grab bag/factory sets way down the tier--maybe even offering something karazy like a copy of the I&J Starters, a Deluxe Factory set plus 10 packs for $250--just as part of the KickStarter.
.
-
We could work out details of course, but let's get some ballpark numbers here. Because if this isn't going to be pulling in anywhere close to $10,000 then none of it really matters. So spread the word around and let's see what people think they would contribute :)
-
interesting idea, but the awards that are unlocked based on goals met usually mean free swag that go to all supporters, not an increased size of set. I also agree that playtesting should not be bought, that has the potential to do more harm than good, even if no one even raises that much...
Actually, some kickstarters will do items for all supporters + something extra for the game at release. For example, Flight Rising (it's a breeding sim) did a kickstarter and at a certain dollar amount they added more colors to the color wheel at launch.
Granted, that's a browser-based game and would act differently. Could there be special promos for the Kickstarter? If there was a promo or two that you could only get from the KS, people would be more likely to donate to it if the promo(s) were made well and worthwhile.
But, with the KS promo, it could ONLY be distributed once. No reprints, no redistribution like we do with the NJ promo and other promos now. Otherwise you could end up with angry people who felt like they were ripped off by the KS.
Just my thoughts.
-
Part of the reason I invest so much in a game is because I know that I am going to get items that are exclusive. Rehashing old stock or current items that are on the website is not that enticing IMO. What about a 10 card Kickstarter only (or whatever phrase we call it) set, where everyone who pledges is guaranteed to get.
Such as:
1000-1st milestone- 1 KS only card
3000-2nd milestone-2 KS only cards
5000-3rd milestone-3 KS only cards
7000-4th milestrone-4 KS only cards
8000-5th milestone-5 KS only cards
9000-6th milestone-6 KS only cards
10000-7th milestone-7 KS only cards
12000-8th milestone-8 KS only cards
15000-9th milestone-9 KS only cards
20000-10th milestone-full set of KS promos to every backer
25000-all of the KS promos are foil
something like that?
-
Could there be special promos for the Kickstarter? If there was a promo or two that you could only get from the KS, people would be more likely to donate to it if the promo(s) were made well and worthwhile.
But, with the KS promo, it could ONLY be distributed once. No reprints, no redistribution like we do with the NJ promo and other promos now. Otherwise you could end up with angry people who felt like they were ripped off by the KS.
This is an interesting idea, but part of Rob's philosophy over the years is to purposefully make Redemption more accessible than most CCGs. I understand the desire for a reseller like 3LG or Techno to have something more collectible, but I doubt that Redemption would go that direction. I'm not saying it's impossible. There have been a few cards over the years that were only available through an unconventional means (Salvation Army journal subscriptions, World Vision child sponsorship, etc.) that are no longer available. But these have certainly been exceptions. So for purposes of this completely unofficial feeler, let's say there are NOT any Kickstarter specific promos. Based on that what would level would people be willing to support?
-
KS promos are the way to go. That would give me enough incentive to invest. The other exclusives are terrible.
-
KS promos are the way to go. That would give me enough incentive to invest. The other exclusives are terrible.
I can only hope that others feel differently. Otherwise I have serious doubts about us getting a large foil set (like Priests) anytime soon. The rewards are there for gravy. The real reason to invest is simply because people actually want to get a new large foil set.
-
If the KS promos were not "top tier" cards but rather had other cool qualities (borderless art, some sort of redesign, etc.) then I could see some potential. Collectors would be happy, because it would be a cool collectible, but new/up-and-coming players wouldn't be hurt from a deck-building standpoint for having missed out.
-
Here's a great idea for a KS promo!
Artifact
Upon activation, you may draw cards until you have 7 cards in your hand. If do, your turn ends.
Surely this won't backfire and become super expensive!
This is an attempt at a joke that ~2% of the forums will understand.
-
Could there be special promos for the Kickstarter? If there was a promo or two that you could only get from the KS, people would be more likely to donate to it if the promo(s) were made well and worthwhile.
But, with the KS promo, it could ONLY be distributed once. No reprints, no redistribution like we do with the NJ promo and other promos now. Otherwise you could end up with angry people who felt like they were ripped off by the KS.
This is an interesting idea, but part of Rob's philosophy over the years is to purposefully make Redemption more accessible than most CCGs. I understand the desire for a reseller like 3LG or Techno to have something more collectible, but I doubt that Redemption would go that direction. I'm not saying it's impossible. There have been a few cards over the years that were only available through an unconventional means (Salvation Army journal subscriptions, World Vision child sponsorship, etc.) that are no longer available. But these have certainly been exceptions. So for purposes of this completely unofficial feeler, let's say there are NOT any Kickstarter specific promos. Based on that what would level would people be willing to support?
I'm not speaking from a reseller perspective, I am speaking from a "I've been involved in kickstarters and fundraisers for other games and such" perspective. I don't care about collectiblility; I would likely donate a bit and give away what I got because I don't collect or play at all anymore. I am saying this from a realistic, no one is going to pay you for things that they likely already have. You are going to have to do something exclusive or a kickstarter simply will not work. It defeats the purpose.
-
Could there be special promos for the Kickstarter? If there was a promo or two that you could only get from the KS, people would be more likely to donate to it if the promo(s) were made well and worthwhile.
But, with the KS promo, it could ONLY be distributed once. No reprints, no redistribution like we do with the NJ promo and other promos now. Otherwise you could end up with angry people who felt like they were ripped off by the KS.
This is an interesting idea, but part of Rob's philosophy over the years is to purposefully make Redemption more accessible than most CCGs. I understand the desire for a reseller like 3LG or Techno to have something more collectible, but I doubt that Redemption would go that direction. I'm not saying it's impossible. There have been a few cards over the years that were only available through an unconventional means (Salvation Army journal subscriptions, World Vision child sponsorship, etc.) that are no longer available. But these have certainly been exceptions. So for purposes of this completely unofficial feeler, let's say there are NOT any Kickstarter specific promos. Based on that what would level would people be willing to support?
Honestly, all of my comments are from a collector perspective. None of what I have been saying has been thinking about reselling, except maybe to take a few cards to try and bundle and sell out the rest of my stock. I'll be very frank, without knowing what Rob's plans are for Redemption over the next five years, I'd hesitate to invest any more in this game. The starters and tin 26 were interesting, but I have not seen a huge renewed interest despite attempts to make this game more friendly for beginners. Maybe others have different results. Also, the set would need to be solid like FooF/RoA II, I believe that the days of the cards that have little use (a great deal of the Priest cards for example) are over. We don't just want large sets, we want large sets that are viable and create multiple ideas for decks. As if this point, I am not sure I would invest. Normally I get enough boxes for 2-4 sets, so it could be as high as 5-8 or as low as 1-2, if I'd support at all.. I want to keep the game going, sure, cause it's a great thing in concept, but not without knowing the direction/future of the game...
-
Here's a great idea for a KS promo!
Artifact
Upon activation, you may draw cards until you have 7 cards in your hand. If do, your turn ends.
Surely this won't backfire and become super expensive!
This is an attempt at a joke that ~2% of the forums will understand.
Epic.
-
I am saying this from a realistic, no one is going to pay you for things that they likely already have. You are going to have to do something exclusive or a kickstarter simply will not work.
What you don't already have is a new large foil set. And no one has had one for 6 years. The whole point of the Kickstarter is to raise the funds to be able to pull something like that off. If people are not willing to contribute to having a large foil set, then perhaps that just isn't the way to go at this time. Personally I'm still hoping that we can at least have enough people express support here to keep the idea alive.
Red and I have already expressed how we would likely support. MKC isn't planning on supporting at all. Techno isn't willing to without getting a 5 yr business plan. How about everyone else?
-
I dont think a Kickstarter is a good method for a TCG. If the game were rebooted as a LCG then I would support but im not willing to pledge for a "randomized" product.
Oh and I HATE tiered products in a competitive game! Do you guys really want a repeat of the Soldier of God, Seeker of the Lost and Faith Servant cards?
-
I am saying this from a realistic, no one is going to pay you for things that they likely already have. You are going to have to do something exclusive or a kickstarter simply will not work.
What you don't already have is a new large foil set. And no one has had one for 6 years. The whole point of the Kickstarter is to raise the funds to be able to pull something like that off. If people are not willing to contribute to having a large foil set, then perhaps that just isn't the way to go at this time. Personally I'm still hoping that we can at least have enough people express support here to keep the idea alive.
Red and I have already expressed how we would likely support. MKC isn't planning on supporting at all. Techno isn't willing to without getting a 5 yr business plan. How about everyone else?
Then you are looking for donations, not crowdfunding like you would with Kickstarter. Or, you're just looking for people who would do preorders for a future product.
Know that I'm saying this from a marketing angle. I'm not trying to discourage anything or trying to get something exclusive because I think I'm special. I am speaking from what I know about marketing and crowdfunding. Yes, kickstarters are to bring out a new product, but you will have to either A) do it in an LCG format or B) offer something exclusive to the kickstarter. I would give money to it. I believe in what Rob is doing through Redemption. But I'm looking at it from the angle that everyone else would look at it from.
-
Then you are looking for donations, not crowdfunding like you would with Kickstarter. Or, you're just looking for people who would do preorders for a future product.
OK, well then looking at it from that perspective, what would you be willing to "donate" or "preorder"?
-
I dont think a Kickstarter is a good method for a TCG. If the game were rebooted as a LCG then I would support but im not willing to pledge for a "randomized" product.
Oh and I HATE tiered products in a competitive game! Do you guys really want a repeat of the Soldier of God, Seeker of the Lost and Faith Servant cards?
This is why I said the promos would go to all who participate in the KS. That's the point of the group (stretch) goals, they give gifts to everyone, whether you buy 1 pack or 10+ boxes...I did not want promos to go to those who could afford to donate more vs. less :).
-
Then you are looking for donations, not crowdfunding like you would with Kickstarter. Or, you're just looking for people who would do preorders for a future product.
OK, well then looking at it from that perspective, what would you be willing to "donate" or "preorder"?
It would depend on a lot of things in my case. I freelance for a living, so it would depend on what time of year it was, etc as to how much I would donate. All I can guarantee is that I would put money toward it in some way, shape, or form.
-
If it helps I would probably buy 3-5 boxes regardless of what incentive there is. Obviously the perks, extras, incentive, what ever we come up with might prompt me to get more.
-
Having talked with Gretel, we decided that we would be in for enough to complete two sets (the collector in us won't allow incompleteness :P). So again, this is why set distribution is important to know from the beginning. Given that it took 5 boxes of TeP and 5 of Disciples to make two complete sets last time, I would probably feel comfortable going with 5 boxes again for this new set.
-
2 boxes
3-5 boxes regardless of what incentive...perks, extras, incentive...might prompt me to get more.
5 boxes again for this new set.
This is a GREAT start guys. That puts us at 1,500 already with only 4 people (counting myself) included. Let's see if we can get some more people to jump on board as well.
-
we're already on page 2 and im already lost on what we're talking about lol
-
we're already on page 2 and im already lost on what we're talking about lol
Basically if we are going to have a new booster pack come out there is a chance that Rob would possibly ask us to pay it forward to help offset the cost of the new set. If you would be willing to buy x amount of boxes, how many would you buy?
-
we're already on page 2 and im already lost on what we're talking about lol
Basically if we are going to have a new booster pack come out there is a chance that Rob would possibly ask us to pay it forward to help offset the cost of the new set. If you would be willing to buy x amount of boxes, how many would you buy?
oh but this might be a dumb question but what would contain in said boxes? im sorry my mind is just blown so many times that im just completely clueless
-
what would contain in said boxes?
A "box" in this case would include 45 foil packs, each containing 10 random cards (including 1 Rare or UR) from the new set that we are currently developing. For comparison, it would be like a box of Angel Wars packs (except even more awesome cards of course).
-
I may have missed this but what was the cost you were assigning for each box of the set? I would be willing to chip in for a couple depending on what that is.
-
100.00 per box, 4.00 per pack, 45 packs per set
-
At that price, I could probably commit to 2 boxes, depending on when they'd need it (after Christmas would yield more funds, for example, lol).
-
what would contain in said boxes?
A "box" in this case would include 45 foil packs, each containing 10 random cards (including 1 Rare or UR) from the new set that we are currently developing. For comparison, it would be like a box of Angel Wars packs (except even more awesome cards of course).
:o
I dont want to be spoiler tastic or anything... but I thought the current set in development wasnt supposed to be a "booster" set... Reason being the costs for making a "booster pack" is far more expensive in comparison to making a TexP style set where Rob can package the product on his own...
-
I could probably commit to 2 boxes
Excellent, I'll add you to the list :)
I thought the current set in development wasnt supposed to be a "booster" set... Reason being the costs for making a "booster pack" is far more expensive
That's the whole point. It is too expensive to do a traditional "booster" set... UNLESS we can get some support from the Redemption community to help fund the set. That is why we have this thread to gauge what kind of support we could likely expect :)
-
100.00 per box, 4.00 per pack, 45 packs per set
:o
For those of us for whom $100 is still a lot of money, would there be an option to buy in by packs instead of by box? I'm not sure I can fork over a hundred bucks, but I'd be more than willing to put in twenty for five packs.
-
I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that I have no idea what kind of support I would be willing to give until I know if there are any incentives to help fund the project. I also know that I couldn't care less if the next set is a booster or not, and I wouldn't be willing to give anything in advance without a ton of information: How many cards the set would be (with options for larger sets if certain fundraising goals are met), what the approximate dates of completion and shipping would be, what kind of incentives might be available, etc. I would love to support this project, but there needs to be a heavy level of transparency for me to justify it. The better incentives that can be provided, the more I'm likely to contribute.
-
I wouldn't advance anything under almost any circumstances
-
would there be an option to buy in by packs instead of by box? I'm not sure I can fork over a hundred bucks, but I'd be more than willing to put in twenty for five packs.
I posted some hypothetical options for packs in this post:
$3 - 1 pack (valued at $4)
$10 - 4 packs (valued at $16)
$25 - 10 packs (valued at $40) + 5 packs of Original (valued at $5)
$50 - 20 packs (valued at $80) + 5 packs of Prophets (valued at $10)
$75 - 30 packs (valued at $120) + 5 packs of any other foil pack of your choice (valued at $15)
I couldn't care less if the next set is a booster or not
No offense Chris, but it sounds like you aren't really the target audience for this project. Some people really would prefer for the next set to be a regular booster pack, since we haven't had one for 6 years. But if you're fine with another smaller set like we've seen in recent years, then don't feel any need to contribute.
I wouldn't advance anything under almost any circumstances
That's no problem. There's no pressure here, we're just looking for people who WANT this to happen. Of course I would appreciate it if people who aren't willing to contribute also don't complain if the next set happens to be another small one :)
-
No offense Chris, but it sounds like you aren't really the target audience for this project. Some people really would prefer for the next set to be a regular booster pack, since we haven't had one for 6 years. But if you're fine with another smaller set like we've seen in recent years, then don't feel any need to contribute.
I may not be the target audience for the project, but trying to raise funds and not incentivizing everyone you possibly can is bad business.
-
I may not be the target audience for the project, but trying to raise funds and not incentivizing everyone you possibly can is bad business.
Incentivizing everyone is not possible. And some of the incentives that have been requested in this thread (exclusive cards just for kickstarter people) by some people would alienate other people. So I think that the best course of action at this stage is to keep things simple and just focus on trying to get out a new "booster" pack simply for the sake of getting a new "booster" pack. That way if there ends up being more incentives later, people will be pleasantly surprised :)
-
No offense Chris, but it sounds like you aren't really the target audience for this project. Some people really would prefer for the next set to be a regular booster pack, since we haven't had one for 6 years. But if you're fine with another smaller set like we've seen in recent years, then don't feel any need to contribute.
I may not be the target audience for the project, but trying to raise funds and not incentivizing everyone you possibly can is bad business.
This is what I was trying to say, which is why I think a "kickstarter" model is not the right way to go with it.
-
I dont want to be spoiler tastic or anything... but I thought the current set in development wasnt supposed to be a "booster" set... Reason being the costs for making a "booster pack" is far more expensive in comparison to making a TexP style set where Rob can package the product on his own...
I thought the difference in cost was because he was repacking already printed cards vs printing a completely new set? I really don't care what the packaging is like, I just want an all new booster set. So if it really would save money to print an all new set that came in paper boxes instead of foil wrappers then I think we should do that.
There are a lot of factors as mentioned that affect how much I'd want to get. I'd probably go for 2 boxes but this could vary a lot. Depending on timing and funds I might only be able to do 1/2 box but if like this last year.... I got 4 of the new starters and tin + disciples/texp boxes + RoA set so that would be more like 8 boxes. I do like to get to 4 sets worth.
Even though I couldn't get them for the longest time, I always liked the special promo cards like Soldier, King David, FS, etc. I bought Solomon's Temple just so I could get those promos. For me it was something to aim for like finally completing the harder quests or challenges in a video game but apparently I'm weird. Maybe people didn't like having competitive cards be exclusive but what about stuff that just looks cool?
I would not want incentives to be packs or cards from already released product. Special incentives (like maybe special foil versions of cards that come in the set) or more of the new set would be ok. I also like the goals of increasing the set size.
I personally think designing the new set so that it is possible (fun!) to draft with just that set and is also possible for new player to get in the game with buying that set plus a starter deck would be helpful. I don't mean that they would have equally good decks from just that set as someone that has the whole collection because of course the full collection gives you deck building advantages. I mean that they could come up with fun playable decks out of that set (without crazy power creep and making all old stuff irrelevant). While difficult I think that is possible and the new starter set is a pretty good example.
-
How much do we need to pledge for equity in CGD?
-
Based on the hypotheticals being thrown around, I'd be willing to buy a couple boxes.
*****
Also, while I love the idea of a Priests-like expansion where the cards are randomized, I don't think like the idea of unplayable cards being printed just to make the expansion work. It's hard to imagine a set where you have to buy hundreds of packs (just to get a complete set) while all 10 cards in each pack are still playable. I'd like to see something similar to this:
Booster size: 6 cards (still retail at 3.00)
Rarity: 5 uncommon, 1 rare/UR
Ratio of rare/UR: 9/1 (you are expected to get a UR once every 10 packs)
Distribution of UC/R/UR: 100 UC/30 R/10 UR - 140 cards total
Based on these numbers, you are projected to receive in each pack: 5 UC, 0.9 R, and 0.1 UR. If your packs yield the minimum amount of repeats, and are exactly distributed based on these ratios, you will complete your set by buying 100 packs (to get all 10 URs). In buying 100 packs, you will also have: 500 UC (so 5 copies of each) and 90 R (so 3 copies of each). Considering you also have 1 copy of each UR, I think that seems appropriate, based on their rarities.
Obviously this is just an idea to illustrate what I am looking at. But I think this, or something similar, can have the best of all worlds: a booster pack expansion, a minimum of unplayable cards, a justifiable higher retail price per card (compared with past booster sets), a proper ratio of UC/R/UR, etc.
-
All I'm hearing is, "Kickstarter blah blah blah what's in it for me? blah blah blah no, really, what's in it for me blah blah blah..."
You want to help Rob raise money for a new set? Go to www.cactusgamedesign.com, order a bunch of old stock, pay retail.
What's in it for you? Rob makes money...hopefully enough to print a new set.
-
All I'm hearing is, "Kickstarter blah blah blah what's in it for me? blah blah blah no, really, what's in it for me blah blah blah..."
You want to help Rob raise money for a new set? Go to www.cactusgamedesign.com, order a bunch of old stock, pay retail.
What's in it for you? Rob makes money...hopefully enough to print a new set.
With respect Stamp, that is almost exactly what I am saying. As a consumer, I should have the right to say if I support a business initiative before product is even released that I get some form of incentive. How is that different than any other business venture? Venture capitalists invest in a company when they know they can get something out of it, not usually out of the goodness of their hearts. I have been a supporter of CGD since almost the time it began, and I have gained some great friends as a result. That said, it is not unreasonable to get some form of idea of where the game is going, and that if there is an initiative to generate money beforehand to expect some kind of incentive. This is not a non-profit ministry, it's a Christian based business, and there is a large difference between the two...
-
All I'm hearing is, "Kickstarter blah blah blah what's in it for me? blah blah blah no, really, what's in it for me blah blah blah..."
Someone doesn't understand how crowdfunding works.
-
I dont want to be spoiler tastic or anything... but I thought the current set in development wasnt supposed to be a "booster" set... Reason being the costs for making a "booster pack" is far more expensive in comparison to making a TexP style set where Rob can package the product on his own...
I thought the difference in cost was because he was repacking already printed cards vs printing a completely new set? I really don't care what the packaging is like, I just want an all new booster set. So if it really would save money to print an all new set that came in paper boxes instead of foil wrappers then I think we should do that.
Well there are even more production costs you need to remember. First off printing a Disciples sized set would cost EVEN more since you need to print multiple Common and Uncommon sheets in relation to the number of Rare/UR/Promo sheets. If KS promos would become a thing (which I seriously hope they dont) then additional sheets would have to be printed.
If Rob printed the set in the US the card sheet size is smaller (50 to a sheet?) then the ones of old so EVEN more card sheets would have to be printed on top of the fact Rob would need to order larger and thicker card stock for the cards.... the 4th edition cards were too small and too thin.
On top of that you have to pay for the printing company to make "foil" wrappers, randomize the cards, package the cards into the "foil" wrappers, package them into the boxes ect. ect. you can see it gets out of hand very fast.
Its just not worth it in the end. If we ever get another "foil" booster it would have to be in a Womens type format to make any financial sense.
-
... it's a Christian based business,...
Good point, Brad. What IS a Christian based business? What defines it?
All I'm hearing is, "Kickstarter blah blah blah what's in it for me? blah blah blah no, really, what's in it for me blah blah blah..."
Someone doesn't understand how crowdfunding works.
Political references, Bernie Madoff
And to everyone, don't forget with whom Jesus became most angry. ::) This is not to say that everyone here is greedy. Just be careful for what you're waving an "In the Name of"-flag.
Don't mean to ruin your fun, but this was reported for unnecessary political referencing and the second time I read it, I agree. Please try to avoid taking stabs at the government.
- Romans 13
-
Prof, it should probably concern you that Chris and I, both top players who invest money year after year (notably in travel expenses), who are obviously interested in new cards, don't want to support this. To just write him off like that is absurd.
-
And to everyone, don't forget with whom Jesus became most angry. ::) This is not to say that everyone here is greedy. Just be careful for what you're waving an "In the Name of"-flag.
For the record, I am completely willing to take this discussion to PMs if this is irrelevant...Your political satire aside, I am failing to understand how wanting incentives for investing in a future product throws up the flags of "this is the perfect time to warn about greed". If this was any other game (for example a tower defense board game that was newly funded on kickstarter BECAUSE it offered special incentives), would that be the case? If not, why does Redemption have to be treated differently? Because it is biblically based? What about Kings of Israel, another game on Kickstarter that offered incentives and received WAY over its initial funding goal? It is biblically based and people gladly put in money to see it work because they had faith they were getting a solid game full of enjoyment. With Redemption, if the last set is any indication, I have doubts in that enjoyment. As such, from a collector's perspective I want to know what it is in for me. Call that greed if you want, but this is ENTERTAINMENT and most of us have limited funds, so we want to ensure we spend them in the way that gives the most pleasure to us. And there is nothing wrong with doing so...
-
I'd probably go for 2 boxes
Thanks. I'll add you to the list :)
Based on the hypotheticals being thrown around, I'd be willing to buy a couple boxes.
Thanks, I'll add you too :)
Also, while I love the idea of a Priests-like expansion where the cards are randomized, I don't think like the idea of unplayable cards being printed just to make the expansion work.
The Elders have tried hard over the last several years to make sure that a high percentage of the cards that are created are playable regardless of their rarity. And I've read a lot of comments on the forum that indicate that most people feel like we've done a pretty good job of that. So although I understand your concern about many of the "unplayable" Priest set cards, I'm hopeful that won't be a problem this time around.
Prof, it should probably concern you that Chris and I, both top players who invest money year after year (notably in travel expenses), who are obviously interested in new cards, don't want to support this. To just write him off like that is absurd.
First of all, I'm not writing Chris or you off as people. I consider both of you to be friends of mine, and have really enjoyed the times we've had together at Nats over the years.
Second of all, I understand that Chris and you don't happen to be as enthusiastic as a lot of other people seem to be about finally having a larger randomized set. And I completely agree that you both are top players who have invested time and money into this game over the years. But there are a lot of other people who also fit into that category, and my impression is that the majority of them WOULD really like to see this happen. So I'm moving forward with this thread to gauge exactly what that interest is, and whether it is enough to make this a possibility.
So far we have 7 people who are willing to contribute, and we are already over $2000. So it's been a good start. But perhaps in the end we will fall short. Perhaps Chris and you are actually in the majority and the Redemption community at large will be happy with a small set again this year. If that happens, then I'll be a bit sad, but will accept that as the will of the people. Either way this thread should help us have a better picture of how to proceed.
As for people who want to discuss what it means to be a "Christian business"...it is a good questions. But I would appreciate it if you could take that to another thread so we can keep this one focused.
-
Here's the thing, if Rob seriously pursued an option involving crowdsourcing, I would literally be saying, "I have $400! Please give me a good enough reason to give you my money!" and the response that you would give is, "Nah, not worth the effort." I highly doubt I'm the only person that would be put off by an attitude like this, especially given the number of upvotes in Alex's last post. There are a number of great options that would motivate me and others like me to contribute. These can range from the option to have creative control of a card (that still needs to ultimately pass playtesting) to having a sit down dinner with Rob at the next Nats. People running Kickstarter projects come up with all sorts of creative options, and to not even consider the options seems silly to me.
...now that I think about it, why has nobody ever suggested Kickstarting an updated RTS?
-
Prof, it should probably concern you that Chris and I, both top players who invest money year after year (notably in travel expenses), who are obviously interested in new cards, don't want to support this. To just write him off like that is absurd.
Cactus would be running the kickstarter, not Greyhound.
-
So far we have 7 people who are willing to contribute, and we are already over $2000.
These are not contributions. All of these are from players who are telling you how many boxes they would buy normally, and see a possible chance to buy them at a discount. You are not getting contributions, you are gauging market interest. If the only incentives that will be offered are the product at a discount, the incentives are--in essence--simply cannibalizing future sales.
...now that I think about it, why has nobody ever suggested Kickstarting an updated RTS?
Because without Cactus permission you cannot create a commercial version of Redemption online, and Rob has given the go ahead to Redemption Live! for being the updated RTS. You would need to get that decision revisited before it even makes sense to start thinking about KickStarting something like this.
-
you are gauging market interest
That's what I keep saying. I'm glad you agree.
"I have $400! Please give me a good enough reason to give you my money!"
I quite simply have nowhere near the authority or ability to promise you dinner with Rob, or the ability to create a card in the next set, or a new puppy, or probably anything else that you would consider a good enough reason. If Rob decides to actually go this route, then he obviously might add some super incentives to the deal. But I didn't want to even hypothetically commit him to anything that I wasn't at least decently confident that he would be willing to do.
But this thread will help us to learn whether it's even worth Rob trying to think up crazy awesome stuff. If we get $25,000 based simply on people wanting this to happen, then I think we'd be at a place to get him involved. On the other hand, if we get less than $5,000 then I'd consider this idea DOA, and there's no reason to even bother Rob with wasting time coming up with cool incentives.
-
Does anyone else care to make up another 'pretend' kickstarter that can actually be feasible because of practical rewards and incentives?
-
If we get $25,000 based simply on people wanting this to happen, then I think we'd be at a place to get him involved. On the other hand, if we get less than $5,000 then I'd consider this idea DOA, and there's no reason to even bother Rob with wasting time coming up with cool incentives.
And IMO, there-in lies the problem, Mark. You have not stated that any of this is a guarantee, you are just gauging market interest. I get that, I really do. And you tried to create some incentives with current stock as ideas, of which I have yet to see anyone on this thread support. Which to me would mean that different "HYPOTHETICAL" incentives need to be made. Creating ONE card that is fully elder-tested and supported is not that out of the question for someone willing to pledge over $1000.00. How many people will you get on that level of support? 1? 5? 10? If I were a game developer and you showed me 10 people willing to give me 1000.00 for future product and all I had to do was help them design a card of their choice and then ensure it wasn't broken by the PTB? Well, to me that's one less card I have to design for the next set and a whole lot of seed money that came in for minimal effort.
I still think that having population goals for promos (because honestly, how many original promos that have been designed besides AOCP, Daniel, and Goliath have truly stood the test of time across multiple decks) would be a nice incentive to encourage our playgroups to participate. I would be pretty sure that everyone has $5.00 that they can pledge at some point to get the group reward.
But putting money upfront just for the sake of some product without other rewards, as you have seen on these boards, is a tough sell. No one is expecting this to be a contract, and we do appreciate the idea, but you can't stifle creativity either...
-
Alex, sorry if I ruin your downer, but your "Reporting reference" actually filled me with much mirth! :)
Brad, I'm not arguing any points you make. Regarding investing, you mention many truths. Maybe it's just the time of the year, but I feel a little sad when good people are discussing how to get the most entertainment bang for their extra bucks when the woman in Luke 21 had the right idea. Don't get me wrong, I am constantly convicted of being a rich young ruler myself.
Mark, piggybacking on Brad's latest post, I think a more successful venture would be to simply offer pre-sales to raise the money. I'm not opposed to a small added incentive for such an idea.
Personally, I think Rob should randomly include 5 golden tickets in the next booster set. The consumers that buy the packs with the golden tickets would receive a tour of Cactus Game Design personally given by Rob.
(I ask for forgiveness for any unnecessary porcine or novel/movie references.) ;)
-
This isn't a church or a non-profit organization. I am tired of people equating a business endeavor to a non-profit. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with wanting to get the most for your money, unless you are trying to get it out of a non-profit organization. But those are completely different. No one has no right, in any way, to question someone's motives when it comes to purchasing an item or a product.
Furthermore, that is misusing that passage of Scripture. Using that argument also means that you can use that argument for sub-par Christian music (not all Christian music is sub-par, only some of it is) and lame things like "Testamints" in the hope of using it for ministry. And there may be people that argue that, I don't know, but last I checked, God wants our best, not just something that says "Jesus" on it. Cactus does a great job of that; it doesn't just slap "Bible" on something and call it a day. The games that Rob produces are high quality and a lot of fun. But you cannot use the argument of "everything you buy MUST be Christian because otherwise it doesn't glorify God." For example, the friendships I have made through other "secular" games that I can't mention anywhere but Open Discussion that God uses those sorts of things too.
I support what Rob is doing, he's giving a fun game to people that may not feel comfortable with other CCG's, that's great, that's awesome. But he isn't just giving the cards away. He is selling them in order to make some sort of profit from the endeavor, no matter how small it may be. That is how a business works. Even though you can do ministry through a business, it's still, in the end, a business. A livelihood. You cannot apply the whole "rich young ruler" to this sort of situation. Doing so gives the impression that our motives are being questioned, when many of us are people who give to Christian and non-profit organizations on a regular basis.
This conversation should have never gone this direction. We were giving suggestions based on how crowdfunding works. Crowdfunding must offer incentives in order to work, otherwise you are just doing pre-orders, as was mentioned by several other people in this conversation. I'm posting this not only because it needs to be said, but also because people do need to be careful when it comes to what they are saying about the intentions of others. Yes, there are times that we need to call people out for "unChristian" behavior, but I don't believe this is one of those cases.
TL;DR: This is a business, not a nonprofit. Rob is doing great things, but it's still a business. Be kind to each other, and be careful of what you are applying Scripture to.
-
I am in for at least $500 and maybe $1000 depending on when this is going to happen...late to the party as usual.
-
I don't want to quote Marti's post and extend the page length, but I agree with it 100%. It reminds me of an article I read recently about Switchfoot and the topic of "Christian music." Their stance is that the music itself is not "Christian" or "secular", it's the attitude of the artists and their beliefs/what they do WITH the music that presents as Christian. I feel this also applies to what Marti was saying. Just because a business makes Christian products doesn't make the business "Christian", and on the flip-side wanting/needing to make profits from said products doesn't make a business "un-Christian" or people that purchase those things "evil."
I'm willing to support this endeavor as a baseline because I love Redemption and I will do what I can to assist with its longevity. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't be interested in incentives or extra things for said support, and I might even be willing to pledge more support if such incentives were added. I love the game and want to support it, but I also want to get the most out of my money/time/effort. I don't think that's "un-Christian."
-
I would support a Kickstarter effort. My wife is now working FT, so the amount of my support would depend on the date money would be needed. I would be interested in at least 2 boxes. Count me among the Pharisees who would likely pledge more depending on the incentives offered. I like the idea of token incentives, like dinner with Rob at the warehouse for us older folks, and for the younger crowd maybe have a kissing booth with Rob's children. :o
-
But this thread will help us to learn whether it's even worth Rob trying to think up crazy awesome stuff. If we get $25,000 based simply on people wanting this to happen, then I think we'd be at a place to get him involved. On the other hand, if we get less than $5,000 then I'd consider this idea DOA, and there's no reason to even bother Rob with wasting time coming up with cool incentives.
Basing the decision of whether or not to bring this to Rob on one thread that's being held during the least active point the forum has ever seen in the five and a half years I've been here doesn't seem particularly wise. It's been proven that there is solid interest in crowdsourcing, and that's with (I would guess) a relatively small percentage of the active Redemption players even knowing about this thread. Any number coming from this thread is going to be arbitrary and not a good representation of the actual support Rob can get. I'm sure that there are many people willing to put together a crowdsourcing campaign, so that, aside from approving all decisions, very little actual work would have to come from Rob on the project. It seems silly not to at least pitch it to him.
One other thought I had is that getting a new foil set doesn't necessarily has to be the fundamental goal of a crowdsourcing campaign. It can start just as a way to ensure that new cards will be available at Nats this coming Summer, by raising an extra several thousand dollars to make the push. Then, if a higher goal is met, it can be a foil set. Higher goals can include more cards in the set, more tournament promos, etc.
-
Which does everyone prefer?
1) Invest personal money/time/effort anticipating a substantial return on your investment.
2) Buy existing Redemption product at retail prices.
3) Donate personal money/time/effort to Cactus expecting no return.
I seldom post clear and concise messages on purpose. I hope to get you to think about why I made a reference or humorous comment. Allow me to be clear. At no time did I say that any of the options above were Christian or un-Christian. At no time did I say that any business, Cactus included, is Christian or un-Christian. At no time did I say that anyone's salvation was at stake or that anything was evil. I simply observed that the discussions, which were primarily about Option 1), appeared to show more concern for self. I added Option 3) based on my reference to the old woman in Luke 21:1-4 who Jesus considered to have given the most.
Personally, I would like to be able to do Option 3), but God has not called me to do that. He has not called me to do 1) or 2) either, but if I had a choice I would want to do 2) whereas my "rich young ruler" reference was meant to imply that I still choose 1) more often than I'd like.
Remember, God is in complete control. It will happen if, how, and when He wants it to happen. This is not to say the discussion of Option 1) shouldn't continue, but consider where your heart stands in the matter.
-
Which does everyone prefer?
1) Invest personal money/time/effort anticipating a substantial return on your investment.
2) Buy existing Redemption product at retail prices.
3) Donate personal money/time/effort to Cactus expecting no return.
I seldom post clear and concise messages on purpose. I hope to get you to think about why I made a reference or humorous comment. Allow me to be clear. At no time did I say that any of the options above were Christian or un-Christian. At no time did I say that any business, Cactus included, is Christian or un-Christian. At no time did I say that anyone's salvation was at stake or that anything was evil. I simply observed that the discussions, which were primarily about Option 1), appeared to show more concern for self. I added Option 3) based on my reference to the old woman in Luke 21:1-4 who Jesus considered to have given the most.
Personally, I would like to be able to do Option 3), but God has not called me to do that. He has not called me to do 1) or 2) either, but if I had a choice I would want to do 2) whereas my "rich young ruler" reference was meant to imply that I still choose 1) more often than I'd like.
Remember, God is in complete control. It will happen if, how, and when He wants it to happen. This is not to say the discussion of Option 1) shouldn't continue, but consider where your heart stands in the matter.
I havnt read this entire thread but enough to be semi up to speed.
I would say 1 (however what is the definition of substantial?)
I am a redemption player, not a redemption donor or owner. I don't donate to a construction company bc they build nice houses, I buy my house.
I don't see any issue with having redemption offer incentives to people who invest in the game.
Side note if it was 100 a box I would get 2
-
Does anyone else care to make up another 'pretend' kickstarter that can actually be feasible because of practical rewards and incentives?
I'm actually totally fine with that. I just didn't feel comfortable doing that myself since even when I try to be completely unofficial things sometimes come off as semi-official due to being an elder and global mod. If someone else wants to make another thread with different amazing incentives, I'll leave that up to them. And then we could have 2 sets of data to proceed with (the support with smaller incentives and the support with larger incentives). It seems like this thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/off-topic/what-incentives-convinces-you-to-support-a-gaming-project/msg519008/#msg519008) might be a good place to move in that direction.
Creating ONE card that is fully elder-tested and supported is not that out of the question for someone willing to pledge over $1000.00.
I originally included something like this in the rewards but people complained about the idea of being able to "buy into" being a playtester.
I am in for at least $500 and maybe $1000 depending on when this is going to happen.
Thanks, I'll add you to the list.
I would be interested in at least 2 boxes.
Thanks, I'll add you too.
As for the continuing side discussion about Christian business etc. I'll be splitting all those off when I get the time.
-
Just stepping back in here to say that I would be down for one box, going in with the limited information we have, as I have enough faith in the product to know that I'd like to continue playing through the next set for sure.
However, I couldn't see myself putting in more without a lot more details, like others in the thread have asked for. I think we all have a different 'threshold' for this sort of thing; some people start at 0 boxes until they see details, some go 5. I'm a 1 box guy ;)
-
I would be down for one box
Thanks, I'll add you to the list.
Current total = $2900
-
Does anyone know what printing service Rob used for the most recent set and how many total cards Rob commissioned any given non-Womens or Warriors booster set?
-
I would be down for one box
Thanks, I'll add you to the list.
Current total = $2900
Don't forget me prof I said I'd be down for 2 boxes
-
Don't forget me prof I said I'd be down for 2 boxes
Sorry about that. I'll add you in. And that puts us over $3000. Great start guys :)
-
Don't forget me prof I said I'd be down for 2 boxes
Sorry about that. I'll add you in. And that puts us over $3000. Great start guys :)
so far this has been an interesting discussion :)
-
so far this has been an interesting discussion :)
We even had a cameo from SomeKittens! Woo-hoo! ;D
-
so far this has been an interesting discussion :)
We even had a cameo from SomeKittens! Woo-hoo! ;D
where's he been anyway?
-
We even had a cameo from SomeKittens! Woo-hoo! ;D
Yeah, it was good to see him still lurking around :)
-
I mentioned the kick starter discussion to him and he couldn't resist
-
Would be in for 10 packs or more the incentives for me would be a bigger foil set. :2cents:
-
Would be in for 10 packs or more
Thanks, I added you to the running total (currently over $3000).
-
Sorry for the Necro I was just curious if this ever got Robs attention and if we were getting a foil set.
-
No crowdsourcing campaign has surfaced, and as far as I know, there's still zero information about the new set. Unless a new set is released at the coming Nats though, I think it's safe to pack up and assume that Redemption is about finished.
-
As much as I would like to agree, I wouldn't dismiss Redemption just yet. It took them two years for the last batch of cards to come out; maybe they're on a 2 year schedule now.
1 year is my threshold though, and I've since moved on to greener pastures because of it.
-
As much as I would like to agree, I wouldn't dismiss Redemption just yet. It took them two years for the last batch of cards to come out; maybe they're on a 2 year schedule now.
1 year is my threshold though, and I've since moved on to greener pastures because of it.
Two years for the last batch of cards is what has, in my personal opinion, killed the game. Think about it, since Nats, the forums have consistently been at their slowest in the five and a half years I've been a part of the community. The late-fall/winter months are often the slowest time of the year, but never like this. If a new set gets released, I think a lot of people who have lost interest (like myself and Westy) will get back into the game and attempt a trip to Nats and everything. If there's legitimately another year between sets though, there's no question that I'll have moved on entirely by then, and I know a lot of people will say the same thing.
-
I think if Redemption could come out with a foil set it would save the game. Rarity would make card values go up which would help save the market players would have to buy multiple packs to get what they wanted which would mean more money for Cactus and more sets for us.
-
I think if Redemption could come out with a foil set it would save the game. Rarity would make card values go up which would help save the market players would have to buy multiple packs to get what they wanted which would mean more money for Cactus and more sets for us.
No, the only thing that can save the game at this point would be some decent marketing.
-
Well why doesn't CGD team up with Chickfila for promos? Do you know many people would learn about the game and possibly invest in the game? Get TBN to do a commercial and a special TBN promo. Have a tourney at TBN's Holy Lands . Tons of people would learn about the game from the ways mentioned. Make a Redemption tract. There are plenty of ways for Redemption to be better marketed they just haven't been done.
-
Preface: I have only scanned this thread.
A true booster pack set like Priests appears too expensive. I am hoping to find some middle ground by producing a set like Disciples. Rather than including 4 new cards, perhaps we could include 6 new cards with the remaining 9 cards coming from something we have not used yet. For example, I would be willing to pull the 9 backlist cards from Kings, FoOF and/or RoA packs (say 3 random cards from each set). The theme we are developing is The Early Church.
I already have a quote from Carta Mundi on a set of 220 new cards. Cost is about $35K (Carta Mundi produced the last starter deck cards). 210 cards are for new set card boxes and 10 cards for tournament promos / chase cards. I can set aside more cards for kickstarter / prepaid supporters. I can also get a quote from Ricowell who has produced the sets in recent years and their cost will likely be around $25K.
I am willing to keep Redemption supported with a new set if by God's provision it makes sense. At the same time I am willing to move on if 19 years is the life of this game.
At the very least, I think we should put together a viable kick starter offer and see what happens.
If nothing else, I request your prayers that the Lord "Dad" directs me toward the next step. Thank you, no truly THANK YOU! Some of my best friends are because of this game.
Blessings,
Rob
-
Main question: If we can get a set of 220 cards then how is that not enough for a new booster set? I'm pretty sure that is near the size of previous booster sets.
P.S. that theme sounds great. I hope this is not the end. In a few years my kids will be able to play. I'd love to go to tourneys with them.
-
Preface: I have only scanned this thread.
A true booster pack set like Priests appears too expensive. I am hoping to find some middle ground by producing a set like Disciples. Rather than including 4 new cards, perhaps we could include 6 new cards with the remaining 9 cards coming from something we have not used yet. For example, I would be willing to pull the 9 backlist cards from Kings, FoOF and/or RoA packs (say 3 random cards from each set). The theme we are developing is The Early Church.
I already have a quote from Carta Mundi on a set of 220 new cards. Cost is about $35K (Carta Mundi produced the last starter deck cards). 210 cards are for new set card boxes and 10 cards for tournament promos / chase cards. I can set aside more cards for kickstarter / prepaid supporters. I can also get a quote from Ricowell who has produced the sets in recent years and their cost will likely be around $25K.
I am willing to keep Redemption supported with a new set if by God's provision it makes sense. At the same time I am willing to move on if 19 years is the life of this game.
At the very least, I think we should put together a viable kick starter offer and see what happens.
If nothing else, I request your prayers that the Lord "Dad" directs me toward the next step. Thank you, no truly THANK YOU! Some of my best friends are because of this game.
Blessings,
Rob
Thanks Rob I will definitely be buying but I do have the same question as galadgawyn.
-
First, it is GREAT to hear from Rob on this subject at all, and I know I appreciate the detailed look into the thought process/costs there. Also, cards for a theme that is very undeveloped would be great.
I can set aside more cards for kickstarter / prepaid supporters.
If there is any sort of kickstarter/prepaid option, I will get in on it now. Personally, I don't believe that the game's life is over after 19 years, and I would be willing to invest in it moving forward to ensure a new set.
-
First, thank you for the response Rob. It's good to get a bit of a baseline and the encouragement to make a Kickstarter project happen.
You mentioned that Carta Mundi would produce a 220 card set for around $35K. How much would a crowd-sourcing effort need to raise in order to make this happen? In other words, what is the bare minimum a Kickstarter campaign would have to raise in order to see a 220 card foil booster set? Would it need to be the full $35K?
-
I pretty much share exactly Redoubter's sentiments. I commented on this earlier that I'd be willing to contribute, and after getting my tax refund I have even a little more I could pitch in to help.
I love Redemption and I will do everything I can to see it continue and prosper.
-
Main question: If we can get a set of 220 cards then how is that not enough for a new booster set? I'm pretty sure that is near the size of previous booster sets.
The size of the set is not what drives the cost up, but rather doing the randomized foil packs is what makes a set like Priests so much more expensive than a set like Disciples.
-
What aspect of 'randomized foil packs' specifically drives the cost up?
I don't care about foil wrappers, booster cards can be wrapped in bacon for all I care. I just want a return to actual rarities and not continuing this game as a LCG.
-
What aspect of 'randomized foil packs' specifically drives the cost up?
I don't care about foil wrappers, booster cards can be wrapped in bacon for all I care. I just want a return to actual rarities and not continuing this game as a LCG.
So agree.
Bacon wrapped cards do sound good. ;)
-
What aspect of 'randomized foil packs' specifically drives the cost up?
There is a cost to having different rarities, in addition to the packaging cost. (I would guess that packaging costs are the larger chunk.)
I don't care about foil wrappers, booster cards can be wrapped in bacon for all I care. I just want a return to actual rarities and not continuing this game as a LCG.
I guess I don't understand why some folks feel that having different card rarities is so important. Would you be willing to explain?
-
I don't care about foil wrappers, booster cards can be wrapped in bacon for all I care. I just want a return to actual rarities and not continuing this game as a LCG.
I guess I don't understand why some folks feel that having different card rarities is so important. Would you be willing to explain?
The biggest thing to me is that it makes for a better Closed Deck environment. Boosters allow the new set to be used in Sealed (because each pack would not be ridiculously overpowered like TexP or Di), and defined rarity allows for a better, more consistent drafting experience (tins are terrible because you've got ten cards in your pool predefined for you, TexP and Di are fun, but in a silly kind of way).
I know I will be very likely to buy lots of booster packs, especially if they make a really good Closed Deck environment (great way to introduce people to the game, btw). I'd probably buy a decent number of TexP/Di style product, but not at the same level as boosters. As for tins? One or two of the ones that interest me, and that's probably it. I've been playing for almost six years now, and I still don't have a full tin collection, because it's very easy for me to ignore the ones I don't plan on building a deck with.
With Rob's official blessing on a Kickstarter-style campaign, I would definitely throw some support in (hundreds? yeah, hundreds), especially towards a booster style expansion.
-
I would definitely spend more money on a set with rarity I have alw ays enjoyed opening a pack and hoping I get a UR. Plus like I said earlier it drives up the value of cards which helps the market.
-
I would definitely spend more money on a set with rarity I have alw ays enjoyed opening a pack and hoping I get a UR. Plus like I said earlier it drives up the value of cards which helps the market.
This, plus the fact that the random aspect will require additional packs to be bought for people to be able to acquire the rarer cards that they want, or at least Ken will have to buy more packs to have availability for people to buy singles from him lol, which will end up with more money for Cactus from pack purchases.
-
I guess I don't understand why some folks feel that having different card rarities is so important. Would you be willing to explain?
The reasons I personally would want rarities, as already outlined it is better for collectors and the secondary market, and also better in the limited environment (closed deck, draft, etc).
-
I know I have already said this way to much but rarity means more money for Cactus and more money for Cactus means more and bigger sets for us. I don't care if I have to buy 30 packs to get the cards I want I will do it .
-
Obviously I can't promise anything because it's ultimately Rob's final decision but several playtesters (myself included) have expressed a desire to create a set with different rarities even if it's in a Disciples/TexP "box" format. (So if we're able to have 6 new cards per pack, it might be 3 commons, 2 uncommons and 1 rare/ultra-rare for example.)
Think for a moment if Vain Philosophy had been an Ultra-Rare... :o Grapes and Mayhem are two of the most expensive cards in the game even though their rarity is the same as all other TexP cards.
-
I would be perfectly fine with that, though I'm not sure how that's different from a Priests-esque booster as far as price would go (e.g. randomness).
-
Probably because they can package it themselves, instead of having to depend on their packaging.
-
Been away for a while (having two jobs and a wife who was laid up for a while will do that), but I would definitely be buying at least 2 boxes of any new product, and my kids would probably be in for another 2-4. I've pushed for an early church theme for some time, so I'm excited by the prospect. I would like to see a new booster-style pack, but I know how much packaging costs from my work with another game company, so a Disciples-style pack wouldn't bother me much if the extra cards came from a new source.
-
Main question: If we can get a set of 220 cards then how is that not enough for a new booster set? I'm pretty sure that is near the size of previous booster sets.
P.S. that theme sounds great. I hope this is not the end. In a few years my kids will be able to play. I'd love to go to tourneys with them.
It allows him to print fewer cards overall as he can better spread out a smaller set size. Printing 220 cards enough times to fill enough ten card packs with just those cards is a larger order than printing 220 cards enough times to put a few cards in each new pack, along with some older unused stock.
-
I asked the question below, because rarities (printing cards with different frequencies) has a cost, and in general that cost is in reduced set size. For example, using the canonical 5 Common/4 Uncommon/1 Rare or UR at a ratio of 9R:1UR, the simplest printing layout would reduce a 200 card set to around 140 unique cards. These are hand-waving numbers is just to give you a feel for the size of the trade off.
I don't care about foil wrappers, booster cards can be wrapped in bacon for all I care. I just want a return to actual rarities and not continuing this game as a LCG.
I guess I don't understand why some folks feel that having different card rarities is so important. Would you be willing to explain?
Using this as a basis to go through the different responses below.
The biggest thing to me is that it makes for a better Closed Deck environment. Boosters allow the new set to be used in Sealed (because each pack would not be ridiculously overpowered like TexP or Di), and defined rarity allows for a better, more consistent drafting experience (tins are terrible because you've got ten cards in your pool predefined for you, TexP and Di are fun, but in a silly kind of way).
This is simply a request for randomized packs--it has nothing to with rarities. What I mean is that if all of the cards in the set were common and came shipped as randomized packs that would provide the same benefit to Sealed and Booster. Right? If TexP and Disciples didn't have a preference for rare/ultra-rares but mixed in random cards from previous sets that would resolve the issue with them being "ridiculously overpowered." So if the new set had packs comprised of six new cards plus X older cards (picked at random), would that work?
I know I have already said this way to much but rarity means more money for Cactus and more money for Cactus means more and bigger sets for us. I don't care if I have to buy 30 packs to get the cards I want I will do it .
While it may be true that rarity means more income for Cactus, it comes at an additional cost for Cactus. The fact that Rob isn't considering such a set would seem to be evidence that the income gained does not compensate for the additional cost. As an idea, what if for the new set Rob set aside a group of cards (say 10) and instead of redeeming wrappers for additional packs you could redeem wrappers/proofs of purchase/whatever for a randomly selected card from that group?
Think for a moment if Vain Philosophy had been an Ultra-Rare... :o Grapes and Mayhem are two of the most expensive cards in the game even though their rarity is the same as all other TexP cards.
And imagine how much my multiple copies of gold KoT and Three Nails would be worth if Cactus never printed KoT or SSoS in Priests... :o Although the secondary market may have benefited in these cases, I think the question is whether a more expensive KoT or Vain Philosophy for individual players is actually better for the game than its general affordability.
I would definitely spend more money on a set with rarity I have alw ays enjoyed opening a pack and hoping I get a UR.
There is that. The thrill of seeing shiny gold when you open a pack cannot be denied.
-
The biggest thing to me is that it makes for a better Closed Deck environment. Boosters allow the new set to be used in Sealed (because each pack would not be ridiculously overpowered like TexP or Di), and defined rarity allows for a better, more consistent drafting experience (tins are terrible because you've got ten cards in your pool predefined for you, TexP and Di are fun, but in a silly kind of way).
This is simply a request for randomized packs--it has nothing to with rarities. What I mean is that if all of the cards in the set were common and came shipped as randomized packs that would provide the same benefit to Sealed and Booster. Right? If TexP and Disciples didn't have a preference for rare/ultra-rares but mixed in random cards from previous sets that would resolve the issue with them being "ridiculously overpowered." So if the new set had packs comprised of six new cards plus X older cards (picked at random), would that work?
That would be better, but I still would have concerns for sealed and booster. Rarity allows you to hide certain cards so they show up less frequently and don't warp the Closed Deck environment. That's one reason why we don't use TexP for Sealed - leaving aside the old rares/URs, Grapes and Mayhem should be showing up at about the same rate as Leah and Image of Jealousy. That's just too much of a power gap. But put Grapes and Mayhem at UR in a larger set, where URs show up in 1 out of 10 packs or so, AND there's only one of them in there, guaranteed - now you can use NewSet for sealed. No idea what sort of power levels we'll see, and even commons can end up broken, but it's good to hide cards that are guaranteed to strongly warp the Closed Deck environment.
As for booster, like I said, TexP/Di are fun but silly. The power level between packs has some pretty intense variability. That would be helped by opening up the old card section to utilize rarity better. I will say that either direction should allow for some more unique drafting structures. Thin box approach (with/without changing old card selection style): let's do a TexP/Di/NewSet/NewSet booster! Foil/rarity approach: let's draft 4-6 packs of NewSet (and 0-2 of another booster)! You know what, who would be up for trying a straight Priests or Kings draft sometime? Has anyone ever done that?
Rarity also allows you to move complexity out of common. Make commons closer to I/J base complexity (not necessarily power, but complexity), and you reduce the barrier of entry to the game. New players now have a pretty easy to grok starter deck, as well as a new booster set that has accessible cards. Can't do that with a TexP/Di style set where every card has an equal chance at a slot.
As for distribution, I'd love to see 6/3/1, as that makes UC feel a bit more, well, uncommon. No idea how that impacts printing or whatnot. And yeah, I know, precedent and all that. Sigh.
One last thought, regarding new brigade speculation - rarity makes it easier to print no-SA characters and enhancements. I'd be pretty annoyed at opening either in a TexP/Di style box. Put it at common in a pack that has UC and R/UR, however, and it makes sense. No-SA helps reduce barrier to entry (one of the flaws of Priests and Kings, in my opinion, was that there were very few no-SA cards), especially with a new brigade, as there's less information overload and decks based purely on I/J and NewSet would be easier to construct.
Ok, had another last thought while finishing up that paragraph. Rarity lets you do vertical cycles with cards - Shepherd Boy David at common (no SA), Giant-slayer David at UC (small ability, perhaps), Outlaw David at R, and King David at UR. That's a really cool cycle to chase (and I'm sure other characters can be done in a similar manner, not just through time, but adding on pieces of who they were through the progression). It's impossible to really do that in a TexP/Di style set. I mean, you can print those cards, but it's not really a progression of the character when King David shows up as much as Shepherd Boy David does. #FlavorConcerns
-
The biggest thing to me is that it makes for a better Closed Deck environment. Boosters allow the new set to be used in Sealed (because each pack would not be ridiculously overpowered like TexP or Di), and defined rarity allows for a better, more consistent drafting experience (tins are terrible because you've got ten cards in your pool predefined for you, TexP and Di are fun, but in a silly kind of way).
This is simply a request for randomized packs--it has nothing to with rarities. What I mean is that if all of the cards in the set were common and came shipped as randomized packs that would provide the same benefit to Sealed and Booster. Right? If TexP and Disciples didn't have a preference for rare/ultra-rares but mixed in random cards from previous sets that would resolve the issue with them being "ridiculously overpowered." So if the new set had packs comprised of six new cards plus X older cards (picked at random), would that work?
That would be better, but I still would have concerns for sealed and booster. Rarity allows you to hide certain cards so they show up less frequently and don't warp the Closed Deck environment. That's one reason why we don't use TexP for Sealed - leaving aside the old rares/URs, Grapes and Mayhem should be showing up at about the same rate as Leah and Image of Jealousy. That's just too much of a power gap. But put Grapes and Mayhem at UR in a larger set, where URs show up in 1 out of 10 packs or so, AND there's only one of them in there, guaranteed - now you can use NewSet for sealed. No idea what sort of power levels we'll see, and even commons can end up broken, but it's good to hide cards that are guaranteed to strongly warp the Closed Deck environment.
As for booster, like I said, TexP/Di are fun but silly. The power level between packs has some pretty intense variability. That would be helped by opening up the old card section to utilize rarity better. I will say that either direction should allow for some more unique drafting structures. Thin box approach (with/without changing old card selection style): let's do a TexP/Di/NewSet/NewSet booster! Foil/rarity approach: let's draft 4-6 packs of NewSet (and 0-2 of another booster)! You know what, who would be up for trying a straight Priests or Kings draft sometime? Has anyone ever done that?
Rarity also allows you to move complexity out of common. Make commons closer to I/J base complexity (not necessarily power, but complexity), and you reduce the barrier of entry to the game. New players now have a pretty easy to grok starter deck, as well as a new booster set that has accessible cards. Can't do that with a TexP/Di style set where every card has an equal chance at a slot.
As for distribution, I'd love to see 6/3/1, as that makes UC feel a bit more, well, uncommon. No idea how that impacts printing or whatnot. And yeah, I know, precedent and all that. Sigh.
One last thought, regarding new brigade speculation - rarity makes it easier to print no-SA characters and enhancements. I'd be pretty annoyed at opening either in a TexP/Di style box. Put it at common in a pack that has UC and R/UR, however, and it makes sense. No-SA helps reduce barrier to entry (one of the flaws of Priests and Kings, in my opinion, was that there were very few no-SA cards), especially with a new brigade, as there's less information overload and decks based purely on I/J and NewSet would be easier to construct.
Ok, had another last thought while finishing up that paragraph. Rarity lets you do vertical cycles with cards - Shepherd Boy David at common (no SA), Giant-slayer David at UC (small ability, perhaps), Outlaw David at R, and King David at UR. That's a really cool cycle to chase (and I'm sure other characters can be done in a similar manner, not just through time, but adding on pieces of who they were through the progression). It's impossible to really do that in a TexP/Di style set. I mean, you can print those cards, but it's not really a progression of the character when King David shows up as much as Shepherd Boy David does. #FlavorConcerns
So agree.
I would love to see vertical cycles
-
but I know how much packaging costs from my work with another game company, so a Disciples-style pack wouldn't bother me much if the extra cards came from a new source.
Is this the foil wrapper or something else that costs more? As said, wrap it in bacon if its cheaper, I just want the random expansion set of new cards. I really don't want to see another repack of old cards and I really don't want it to make other value cards become like the Apostles and Patriarchs UR which might as well be common now. If we were regularly getting fully new sets then I wouldn't mind much if other product had old cards in it. Like if Redemption started doing a Disciples type release in Jan and the main release at Nats (hey, I can dream).
Pretty much agree with the explanations of why rarity matters and is beneficial. Randomizing packs of equal rarity is not the same.
It allows him to print fewer cards overall as he can better spread out a smaller set size. Printing 220 cards enough times to fill enough ten card packs with just those cards is a larger order than printing 220 cards enough times to put a few cards in each new pack, along with some older unused stock.
What if you split the printing to handle the cost? So the first run you print enough copies for half the packs you want made and when there is enough money you have a 2nd print run to finish the set.
-
I just spent an hour reading all of these posts and all I can say is, PLEASE TAKE MY MONEY! #longliveRedemption
(PS: Count me in for at least $250)
-
Something I've been thinking about lately, what is the feasibility of printing a true booster set in paper wrappers? MtG did this with one of their sets 10 years ago, Unhinged. I recently bought a pack ($20 due to rarity) and the pack itself is surprisingly well made. Is the cost of boosters made out of foil so offsetting that paper boosters would be a possibility? I actually thought the pack was pretty cool in a rustic way.
-
Something I've been thinking about lately, what is the feasibility of printing a true booster set in paper wrappers? MtG did this with one of their sets 10 years ago, Unhinged. I recently bought a pack ($20 due to rarity) and the pack itself is surprisingly well made. Is the cost of boosters made out of foil so offsetting that paper boosters would be a possibility? I actually thought the pack was pretty cool in a rustic way.
This a great compromise MKC! Hopefully Rob will use this.
-
Something I've been thinking about lately, what is the feasibility of printing a true booster set in paper wrappers? MtG did this with one of their sets 10 years ago, Unhinged. I recently bought a pack ($20 due to rarity) and the pack itself is surprisingly well made. Is the cost of boosters made out of foil so offsetting that paper boosters would be a possibility? I actually thought the pack was pretty cool in a rustic way.
I think most of the increased cost with packaging comes from the act of packaging (randomizing, printing rarities, factory plastic wrapping ect.) and not really the "foil" itself...
-
Bumping to see if there's any update on reboot or new set.
-
The reboot is only something players have discussed as far as I know there is nothing in the works for a reboot and I havnt heard of any such discussions reaching Rob (granted I am not the most connected guy)
As far as the new set it's pretty much the same available information we had 3 months ago.
-
The reboot is only something players have discussed as far as I know there is nothing in the works for a reboot and I havnt heard of any such discussions reaching Rob (granted I am not the most connected guy)
As far as the new set it's pretty much the same available information we had 3 months ago.
Mabey someone could send Rob an Email? I mean everyone on the boards realizes that the game is in desperate need of a reboot.
-
Redemption can barely afford a new set, much less a reboot. Even with crowd funding, Redemption doesn't have the support at this juncture to do anything with it.
Unless, of course, they went to an online base.
-
Redemption can barely afford a new set, much less a reboot. Even with crowd funding, Redemption doesn't have the support at this juncture to do anything with it.
Making the decision to do a reboot is basically equivalent to deciding to create a new game. The hope would be that you could find enough people interested in the new game to make it sustainable in the long run. That said, it is a bet the house wager. If it fails, Redemption is dead.
-
Redemption can barely afford a new set, much less a reboot. Even with crowd funding, Redemption doesn't have the support at this juncture to do anything with it.
Making the decision to do a reboot is basically equivalent to deciding to create a new game. The hope would be that you could find enough people interested in the new game to make it sustainable in the long run. That said, it is a bet the house wager. If it fails, Redemption is dead.
If you don't reboot, the game is dead. I don't want to be harsh because I love the game and all the effort Rob has put into it but right now the game stinks. There is hardly any player interaction just " oh look this card draws, throw it in your deck derp" or pre block ignore where you can't do nothing. There has not been a single set since at least before ROA that has not had a card that is teribbly OP. Whole colors right now aren't used because their to weak in the competitive meta. Not just themes but colors. Please don't take this post the wrong way because like I said I love the game but it has some serious issues it has to work out.
-
Redemption can barely afford a new set, much less a reboot. Even with crowd funding, Redemption doesn't have the support at this juncture to do anything with it.
Making the decision to do a reboot is basically equivalent to deciding to create a new game. The hope would be that you could find enough people interested in the new game to make it sustainable in the long run. That said, it is a bet the house wager. If it fails, Redemption is dead.
If you don't reboot, the game is dead. I don't want to be harsh because I love the game and all the effort Rob has put into it but right now the game stinks. There is hardly any player interaction just " oh look this card draws, throw it in your deck derp" or pre block ignore where you can't do nothing. There has not been a single set since at least before ROA that has not had a card that is teribbly OP. Whole colors right now aren't used because their to weak in the competitive meta. Not just themes but colors. Please don't take this post the wrong way because like I said I love the game but it has some serious issues it has to work out.
TEXP. Tell me what is terribly OP. I dare you. Also, objectively prove it using logic and tournament results.
-
I don't agree with AJ but
Mayhem, 1st round edit required
Nuff said
Pretty sure Townsend had like 6 first turn mayhem when he won nats
-
Ack. Of course it totally slips my mind. Yeah I'll concede such point.
-
In some ways, I do agree with AJ. When battles starting disappearing, and the game became "Can't Touch This," most of my players lost interest in Redemption. I would need a way to get battles to return in order to regain momentum.
-
Ack. Of course it totally slips my mind. Yeah I'll concede such point.
There you go.
-
Ack. Of course it totally slips my mind. Yeah I'll concede such point.
There you go.
Repeating and reiterating posts over and over does not add anything the conversation. Please try and ensure you contributing to conversation not just upping your post count.
-
I'm just saying that the game just gets more and more broken every year and that there is going to be a point where the game is to damaged to save. FYI I am not trying to up my post count because I could care less about it.
-
I would invest hundreds in a new set. I don't need foils, but I do like rarity. Doesn't even have to be 200+ cards, just a new solid set with rarities and a way to increase the trading market. A realistic goal that the Redemption family can achieve for 100-150 cards seems appropriate. I'm not sure what KS is, just piecing it together from reading, but if I can invest to get another set and get cards back worth the money I invested, I'm in.
-
I would be willing to drop at least $100 in this just to make sure that the game keeps going. I think Kickstarter is a vary viable place to get the ball rolling. It is constantly picking up more momentum on the number of supporters.
-
This sounds cool.