Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => General Discussion => Topic started by: Borg on May 18, 2018, 09:42:12 AM
-
There have been multiple arguments made on the current state of MW before. Some claiming the game was ( as good as ) dead, others claiming the contrary.
I don't know the exact figure either of how many people are still playing the game but I figured there might be some "objective" numbers available somewhere who could give a good indication.
I took a look at Boardgamegeek. More specifically at the number of players who actually gave a rating to the game and its expansions.
This is what I found :
Dominion : 63.000 ratings
Mage Knight Board Game : 21.000 ratings
The Core Arena game : 6500 ratings.
Forged in Fire : 356 ratings
Domination : 140 ratings
Paladin vs Siren : 95 ratings
Forcemaster expansion : 14 ratings
Warlord expansion : 12 ratings
Obviously, the amount of players giving a rating to a certain expansion does not tell us exactly how many players are actually playing that expansion but I think it is safe to assume there is a good correlation between "number of people taking the time to give a rating on BGG" vs "people effectively still playing the game".
What do the numbers above indicate ?
MW core gets only about 10% of the ratings total of Dominion, indicating that the number of people getting into MW core is/was also roughly 10% of the number of people playing Dominion ( just to get an idea of the volume )
A game launched at approximately the same time as MW (2012) MageKnight (2011) has 21000 ratings which is more than three times the number MW got and I never got the impression Mage Knight was a hugely popular game. That number was a surprise to me. This indicates to me that the number of players actually playing MW was NEVER very high to begin with. Or at least not as high as people thought they were.
The most telling numbers however are those of the MW expansions.
Look at those numbers falling.
While FiF still gets 356 ratings, PvS only has 95 ratings and the latest ( small ) expansions can't even get to 20 ratings anymore.
This clearly seems to indicate imo that sales ( = players ) have dramatically dropped and are probably no longer enough to make a profit.
Chances are very high imo, we've seen the last of MW.
-
Ok Borg. We get it. You don't like MW anymore. Ya know what dude? Just peel off then. Stop playing and leave us alone. Go back to MtG like you said you had and stop visiting OUR forum to hack up your bileous nay saying all over the place that's built for the active players to come and share info and enjoy ourselves.
Its bad enough that we have to deal with our own quibbles about game state and release dates without having folks like you, who don't even play, coming by here to tell us how happy you are by NOT hanging out with us, and how stupid we all are for playing a game we love. That's like me going to a Friday night magic or someones dnd game and telling them they suck and so does the game they are playing. And oh btw they should be playing gurps or netrunner because they ate much more fun! After all that's what YOU play so it must be superior.
Get over yourself! If you really think we are all stupid for playing MW and you don't wanna, then go away and leave us alone while you giggle to yourself about all us saps I the corner having fun with it our "dying" game and be done wirh it.
I personally will be much happier not having to see your specific brand of holier-than-thou bull shit.
Peace.
-
I won´t let MW die ;D
-
While I don’t quite agree with the interpretation of the numbers here are my thoughts:
The game is dead in the sense that we won’t see more content than a maximum of 2 academy releases - and I’m starting to doubt that we will even see that.
Unfortunately the whole rule frame for this game is too clumsy to ever survive in the long run.
It’s fun and easy enough for those of us who have been around since the rerelease or a year or so in.
But very very few new players will bother learning all the rule details that this game requires to fully playable.
It’s not that it’s not worth it in the sense that you will get (IMO) the best 1vs1 game out there. But it’s so much to learn and it’s so much to memorize that doesn’t make sense.
AW has steadily or even increasingly done the same mistake over and over... releasing content that has interaction conflicts with already released cards, thus increasing complexity, without even being able to answer how the rule applies for these cases.
Back in the days a fairly standard reply would be: “I’m waiting for Bryan to get back on this one”. And we would see no update for months, sometimes for more than a year(s).
An example of this is how do you deal with Akiro’s favor (both revealed and in revealed) vs temple of the dawnbreaker temple.... it was never answered prior to release of PvsS. Yet they released the PvsS expansion with the Paladins basic ability interacting with both these cards.
There are many many more examples of rule clarifications which came months or even years later, and there are probably still unanswered conflicts of how to resolve various interactions.
With release of academy which has different wordings on the cards this has (imo) grown from a significant issue to a death threatening issue (for this game).
Sometimes I wish they could make a reboot of the whole backbone of the game so to speak without adjusting the cards :)
The game is simply to messy, clumksy and complex in some situations as it is.
-
Alright Borg I’m about to throw some tomatoes your way. I just checked board game geek and your ratings and numbers are crap. Now those numbers maybe accurate the real comparison is the magic the gathering numbers of ratings from expansions. Since mage wars is a similar duel card. magic expansions most range from below 10 ratings. There are some high ones in 90s and 50s ect but we all know the popularity of mtg. But what is so surprising the mtg has so many in the single digits. Is magic going to die? no I don’t think so and neither is mage wars. Get your statistics and get out of here. Stop bashing mage wars. Let us enjoy the game. No need to continually come on the forum and bash unless it is constructive.
Tomatoes thrown :D
-
That said I hear your concerns jacksmack. I don’t agree on everything you have said but I agree a new edition chiseled down and less bloated will help this game a great deal. I don’t have a crystal ball but if a game is good enough it will get a new edition. And hopefully AW does not wait too long to make it happen. :D
-
Well said fark! Here here!
-
@Borg Also your statistics neglects the fact that many of the sets have been replaced by newer editions. Did you look at ratings for both editions of each set? Particularly including the ones before the "Arena" rebranding?
Mage Wars was never as popular as other similar games because it's made by a SMALL COMPANY.
Arcane wonders has never had more than 5 total employees and right now it only has 3. It does not have the ridiculous amount of money to throw around on advertising like wizards of the coast does. Nearly all other customizable strategy games are tcgs, and those are usually produced by bigger companies. Mage Wars was probably more popular when it was new BECAUSE it was new. Now it's no longer a shiny new toy to add to a casual gamer's board game collection and the current popularity probably reflects that.
Mage Wars likely has a low popularity in large part because there are a low number of people who even know about it. That doesn't mean its popularity is consistently going down over time. It could be about stable, neither going up or down much. And even if it is decreasing in popularity, if the rate at which the popularity goes down is also decreasing then you should expect the size of the playerbase to stabilize at some point. Based on what I've seen and heard of OCTGN as well as the German and North Carolina MW communities the game is still thriving in some places.
Mage wars isn't dying, you're just using the wrong standard to measure arcane wonder's and MW's success.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk
-
@Borg Also your statistics neglects the fact that many of the sets have been replaced by newer editions. Did you look at ratings for both editions of each set? Particularly including the ones before the "Arena" rebranding?
Sailor, BGG doesn't make a distinction between MW versions. The old page just gets updated and keeps all it votes and all I'm doing is looking at the number of voters on these pages.
I can only conclude that the number of voters go down with every new expansion.
Here, see for yourself
https://boardgamegeek.com/geeksearch.php?action=search&objecttype=boardgame&q=mage%20wars
Academy got a decent amount of votes at the start, suggesting a good number of people picked it up, but it goes down quickly afterwards too.
Domination did not get a lot of votes giving me the impression it was not very successful.
Those votes are not "exact science" but I think they do "mirror" sales and success somewhat.
Also, this has nothing to do with AW having only 3 or 5 employees.
They could have 1000 employees. If the game doesn't sell enough, or make enough profit, eventually it'll stop.
I also never compared with Magic. I compared with Dominion and Mage Knight which also have a CORE box.
I found it interesting to see how many votes those games had received so far, just to get an idea and to give me/us some kind of comparison.
Mage wars isn't dying, you're just using the wrong standard to measure arcane wonder's and MW's success.
Maybe.
What would be the right standard to measure arcane wonder's and MW's success then ?
-
Actual Mage Wars players hang out on this forum. Both perhaps you'd be happier on another forum? Sucks you can't get a game. I average a fair number each month and teach new players fairly often. In your case it must suck to suck huh?
-
Get over yourself! If you really think we are all stupid for playing MW and you don't wanna, then go away and leave us alone while you giggle to yourself about all us saps I the corner having fun with it our "dying" game and be done wirh it.
I personally will be much happier not having to see your specific brand of holier-than-thou bull shit.
Peace.
Actual Mage Wars players hang out on this forum. Both perhaps you'd be happier on another forum? Sucks you can't get a game. I average a fair number each month and teach new players fairly often. In your case it must suck to suck huh?
Gentlemen,
Regardless of agreement with the original post's point, this is not how you get new players to want to join/old players to want to return. Take a look below for examples on how to disagree and still contribute to the discussion
That said I hear your concerns jacksmack. I don’t agree on everything you have said but I agree a new edition chiseled down and less bloated will help this game a great deal. I don’t have a crystal ball but if a game is good enough it will get a new edition. And hopefully AW does not wait too long to make it happen. :D
While I don’t quite agree with the interpretation of the numbers here are my thoughts:
...
Sometimes I wish they could make a reboot of the whole backbone of the game so to speak without adjusting the cards :)
The game is simply to messy, clumksy and complex in some situations as it is.
Banana God, serve a couple up here for Farkas and jacksmack for a good display.
I don't have a problem with disagreements, but I would prefer if we could do this in a bit more of a civil manner please. 8)
-
Another thing and I don’t want to gang up on you Borg here but you cannot compare mage wars to mage knight or dominion. Mage Knight was popular during its realease. And dominion is an evergreen title and has spawned so many copies of the deck building genre.
Again if you want to compare votes it has to be towards a similar genre. Mtg is similar and has similar statistics in number of ratings for expansions.
Thus your argument is bogus. I am a board gamer too and understand the rating formats and not many people rate expansions especially for a card dueling games.
Please keep coming back to the forums because like Captain America I can do this all day! :D
-
Farkas,
I'm not comparing MW with Mage Knight or Dominion as a game, I'm only looking at the number of votes those games have gotten to get an IDEA about the popularity/success these games have had in terms of sales and how they rank with regards to each other.
Again, no hard science but I do think that votes and sales somewhat correlate.
Those numbers hint at Dominion selling about 10 times more than MW and MK about 3 times more.
Mage Knight was popular during its release ( I went to pick up an early copy of it at Essen Spiel that year ) but so was Mage Wars.
I also chose these games because they have a CORE box + expansions. ( Unlike magic )
Magic may be similar to MW as a game but that is not what I'm looking at. I'm trying to get an idea about how much MW sold and how those votes clearly indicate ( at least imo ) how the interest in MW went down.
Comparing MW with Magic expansions is flawed imo because Magic has an expansion every few months like clockwork and has been having that for 25 years.
MW expansions are few and far between and are like an EVENT when there actually is a new release. People are much more likely to comment on their purchase in MW's case imo because they are so rare.
Thus your argument is bogus. I am a board gamer too and understand the rating formats and not many people rate expansions especially for a card dueling games.
So, are you saying then these ratings indicate nothing and those MW expansions sold incredibly well ( = made a lot of profit ? )
My question in general would be then: If Arena was actually such a profitable game, why haven't we had an Arena expansion in more than a year then, with nothing on the horizon either?
If you had a say in this, would you stop releasing expansions for it while it's succesful (in terms of sales) or would you make sure your fans stay interested/happy and provide them with new content ?
There's abolutely no reason to wait so long with a new Arena expansion if the game is healthy. So ... does that make sense to you ?
-
I have one question for you Borg: why do you care about showing that Mage Wars is dying?
You aren't an active member of the community any more and that is totally fine. You've found a new passion/rekindled an old one (Magic) and I'm glad for you.
I just don't understand why you made an effort to come back and tell us the numbers if you don't really have much of a taste for arena anymore. My first assumption would be that someone who left would not want to deal with the left community, especially if they think the game is dead. I would not expect them to look at the numbers of why the game "died" and relate these numbers to the still playing community.
-
It’s not that it’s not worth it in the sense that you will get (IMO) the best 1vs1 game out there.
I think this is what we should focus on.
And then how to make the game better and how to get new players in to it and how to get old players back :)
-
wow ???
out for the w-e (a few MW with a friend in south france)... it wasn't as hot as here!
do realy Borg's words make the reality? i'm affraid he is right in his conclusions (even if i'm not sure that BBG's numbers are the best argument), but it isn't his fault!
Jacksmack, you say the rules are to intricate and that AW doesn't give answer about rules problems fast enough, i agree with that.
but what i can't answer is: which rules to simplifie without loosing the perfect MW taste? i'm sure a lighter reboot would bring more player but i would probably not follow (wasn't academy an attempt to do this?).
-
I rarely write anything in here anymore. But this time I have to.
I will try to not point my finger at anyone, but don't you guys see how you reacts to Borgs well formulated analysis? He (she?) presents a theory based on objective numbers where he asks about the community opinion. No where I can't see he throwing any bad words about the game I'm sure he would love to see flourish. And in return you give him over exaggerated feelings as a reply, instead of constructive feedback. That is not a welcoming community. Improve! You don't have many more in here to loose.
The question Borg has is very valid, and where to discuss it if not here?
-
I rarely write anything in here anymore. But this time I have to.
I will try to not point my finger at anyone, but don't you guys see how you reacts to Borgs well formulated analysis? He (she?) presents a theory based on objective numbers where he asks about the community opinion. No where I can't see he throwing any bad words about the game I'm sure he would love to see flourish. And in return you give him over exaggerated feelings as a reply, instead of constructive feedback. That is not a welcoming community. Improve! You don't have many more in here to loose.
The question Borg has is very valid, and where to discuss it if not here?
I think the reason so many of us reacted negatively is because we don't care for an analysis. We don't want to know/particularly care about the numbers Borg presents because they don't change anything we already know. We know the community is not as active as we would like. We know players (including) him have left the game. What we don't care for is an analysis of the game which presents us with facts we have known for a while.
-
And when it comes on the heels of a post that basically says; i left and don't play anymore, cuz this game is dead, but look how happy i am with magic the gathering, the sentiment behind it gets lost. If he was attempting to "save" the game, improve it, draw more members to it, or ask about ways to house rule or modify the game to make it better that would be one thing. But we don't particularly want or need the detraction from someone who admittedly has left us for good. Because he doesn't like it anymore. That's fine. But if you leave my dnd campaign cuz you don't like how the game is running, im not gonna let you hang out in my living room talking smack about my dm style. That's what it felt like and that's why he got the response he got.
-
Meanwhile in Charlotte.....5 new players since last August...
-
And Octgn has gotten similar numbers as well!
-
Good questions by Borg, I’m gonna take the mic and answer some of these questions.
I don’t agree with the statistics you brought here just because they are core sets does not mean they are very similar. Dominion again is a very popular game, it has spun countless offspring and similar style games. It is not a dueling card game which in general sells less unless your MTG. Mage Knight had a following I believe, as well there was a similar game that used the same IP or was very Similar maybe a 2.0 version. Honestly it does not matter again a different game. Maybe more on the same complexity but it is a board game none the less.
Like others have said the stats you presented are just being redundant in what we know is true. Mage wars is a game that has served a niche of players and due to lack of support from arcane wonders and an output model for expansions to be slower than some fans expectations made it hard to get this game to make the sales numbers of the likes of dominion or MTG.
I will say it is a better game than you have given credit and it has more content and deck building potential than many games including MTG. MTG basically recycles out cards and renames cards every few cycles of releases. I would even consider it a drug and has latched onto people’s most basic psyche/obsession to find the most of rare “treasure”.
To me it is a trap and a money grab and nothing more. The skill is in who has the biggest wallet.
Alright enough of MTG. Let’s talk more Mage Wars. I do believe with proper support this game deserves and will be big. I do think with the hotness and many games especially card dueling games they get rebooted to stay relevant because everyone likes the new shiney thing. If mages Wars Arena was to make a 2.0 it will be successful as long as it has a strong support from the company. That said I love the game and love the current content and I’m not bored and feel this game still has legs for the rest of my life. It is that good and the community like others have pointed out is still growing. And it is awesome and I’m glad I am part of the community!
Mic drop!
-
i don't know Borg, i don't know if he just wrote to anger some of us from his new mtg comunity... it isn't very important for me...
what is, is to know where we go.
nobody here seems to know (or to be autorized to speak) and the AW bosses are silent. we open topics about "what news?", "what state?", "what could we do to help?", bring comments, ideas, insults, but we don't go anywhere!
the end of edition isn't the end of a game, people play chess and i'm quite sure it's creator is dead for a few years!
i stil have a lot of ideas for new books with the current cards, but i like some new opening from time to time to boost my imagination, and not to know if lost grimoir was the last expension or if we should hav a beautifull surprise in one more year or two is bad for my spirit.
-
I agree that advertising and development are a problem, but that will only change if AW gets more money. Since they only make around 10% of retail on each copy of the board game after production costs, distribution costs, and retail markup, they have to sell around $2 million of product to break even on expenses, so they are going to go for games with more bang for the buck. If you want more Mage Wars, convince other people to buy more Mage Wars products, it will give AW an incentive to spend more on advertising and development because Mage Wars will be more profitable than it currently is. Otherwise, we will continue as we have for the last few years.
-
If you want more Mage Wars, convince other people to buy more Mage Wars products, it will give AW an incentive to spend more on advertising and development because Mage Wars will be more profitable than it currently is. Otherwise, we will continue as we have for the last few years.
That's exactly my point.
MW is NOT profitable anymore at this point in time. That's exactly what those declining votes indicate imo.
That's the simple and basic reason why we haven't gotten an Arena expansion in over a year and why there is nothing in the plans for the near future either.
Even the planned 4 academy expansions are looking like a real longshot now.
... about the game I'm sure he would love to see flourish.
Thanks fas723.
You nailed every point right on the head and especially the quote above.
-
If you want more Mage Wars, convince other people to buy more Mage Wars products, it will give AW an incentive to spend more on advertising and development because Mage Wars will be more profitable than it currently is. Otherwise, we will continue as we have for the last few years.
That's exactly my point.
MW is NOT profitable anymore at this point in time. That's exactly what those declining votes indicate imo.
That's the simple and basic reason why we haven't gotten an Arena expansion in over a year and why there is nothing in the plans for the near future either.
Even the planned 4 academy expansions are looking like a real longshot now.
... about the game I'm sure he would love to see flourish.
Thanks fas723.
You nailed every point right on the head and especially the quote above.
Why didn't you specify that point in the initial post? It would make it a lot clearer as to what you think the issues are.
Also, I'd really like to see your solution (s) to this problem since without any provided, the entire post doesn't really serve the general public anything. At least ask us what we would do, that facilitates discussion.
-
I rarely write anything in here anymore. But this time I have to.
I will try to not point my finger at anyone, but don't you guys see how you reacts to Borgs well formulated analysis? He (she?) presents a theory based on objective numbers where he asks about the community opinion. No where I can't see he throwing any bad words about the game I'm sure he would love to see flourish. And in return you give him over exaggerated feelings as a reply, instead of constructive feedback. That is not a welcoming community. Improve! You don't have many more in here to loose.
The question Borg has is very valid, and where to discuss it if not here?
How are we supposed to give feedback if all he provides are numbers and no real solutions to the problem at hand?
-
I don’t agree with the statistics you brought here just because they are core sets does not mean they are very similar.
I'll just repeat again, I'm not looking for similar games, I'm comparing votes on games.
I'm just looking at Dominion and Mage Knight to get an IDEA of how many votes those core games got.
So, it doesn't matter what type of games those are.
... MW has more content and deck building potential than many games including MTG.
That's just 100% untrue.
Magic has over 15000 cards.
MTG basically recycles out cards and renames cards every few cycles of releases.
MTG does recycle some cards but that is mostly a cliché negative comment for people who don't like MTG.
The variety and different mechanics that have been included the last 15 years are unrivalled.
I do believe with proper support this game deserves and will be big. I do think with the hotness and many games especially card dueling games they get rebooted to stay relevant because everyone likes the new shiney thing. If mages Wars Arena was to make a 2.0 it will be successful as long as it has a strong support from the company.
I wouldn't mind if you were right, Farkas but imo you're being totally unrealistic here.
1. If there are no funds left to continue MW 1.0 how are they going to finance MW 2.0 ?
2. How would the casual MW player feel about all his MW 1.0 cards suddenly becoming obsolete and kind of being forced into buying MW 2.0. ?
I experienced this exact scenario when MageKnight 1.0 ( the miniature game ) was terminated by WhizKids and replaced by MK 2.0
The backlash was enormous and MK 2.0 and MK 1.0 were finished a couple of years later.
-
I rarely write anything in here anymore. But this time I have to.
I will try to not point my finger at anyone, but don't you guys see how you reacts to Borgs well formulated analysis? He (she?) presents a theory based on objective numbers where he asks about the community opinion. No where I can't see he throwing any bad words about the game I'm sure he would love to see flourish. And in return you give him over exaggerated feelings as a reply, instead of constructive feedback. That is not a welcoming community. Improve! You don't have many more in here to loose.
The question Borg has is very valid, and where to discuss it if not here?
How are we supposed to give feedback if all he provides are numbers and no real solutions to the problem at hand?
My opening post was an OBSERVATION.
You can react to it or not , give your opinion, view or not.
Also, I'd really like to see your solution (s) to this problem since without any provided, the entire post doesn't really serve the general public anything.
I didn't realise I was able to solve MW's problems ...
So, unless anybody has the solution to make MW successful he's not allowed to post about it anymore ?
At least ask us what we would do, that facilitates discussion.
I've always thought that a forum was a place to have .... discussions.
-
My point is if you don't have a solution and don't pose a question in your initial post, what is the point of it? It's like saying the murderer is going to strike again and not trying to stop him, without a solution to the stated problem, stating the problem isn't useful.
-
My point is if you don't have a solution and don't pose a question in your initial post, what is the point of it? It's like saying the murderer is going to strike again and not trying to stop him, without a solution to the stated problem, stating the problem isn't useful.
So any opening post without a solution or question should not be posted ?
I'm sorry my post doesn't fit your requirements.
I suggest you just further ignore it.
At this point I'd say you're just trolling.
-
Last thing Borg and then I’m done with this post because we will just continue to differ on opinions here. It’s real easy to frustrate players who enjoy a game and go on forums for the fans of the game to talk crap. Your observation of numbers is just numbers and I don’t agree your assessment of those games lead to anything except for rattling the cage of MW fandom.
We know the issues and this has been repeated over years of mage wars fans and critics.
There are solutions to solve the “problem”. Change in company commitment and rejuvenatation of a product is enevitable if the company wants to grow the product. magic has done this, tons of CCGs and LCGs games do this. Even board games do this. You can not change my optimism about MW and you can not change my feelings about MTG.
I don’t think everyone is committed to rate or give a rating to suggest the actual numbers. It maybe a decent option to see popularity. Not everyone knows about BGG and not everyone rates games on the site. to say it’s not profitable then I think AW would have stopped releasing expansions long ago.
Again last thing this is my math and I know we disagree here.
Mage Wars > MTG
Also I don’t think reddice has been trolling. the only one trolling here is you Borg. Wish you the best maybe your heart will change about the game, but if not that is fine you are entitled to your opinions. 😀
-
It’s real easy to frustrate players who enjoy a game and go on forums for the fans of the game to talk crap.
I'm sorry ?
Where do I talk crap ?
I'm trying to present objective data, for Christ's sake.
You may not like the data but I didn't invent them nor did I talk crap, I just posted what I thought they meant.
to say it’s not profitable then I think AW would have stopped releasing expansions long ago.
You realise you just agreed with me here with Arena no longer being profitable, don't you, because AW actually "stopped releasing (Arena) expansions long ago" ?
Look fellows,
I don't expect you to agree with me nor even like me for that matter.
Just don't put words in my mouth or accuse me of things that weren't there ok ?
I tried to have a data based thread going.
It doesn't work here.
That's OK.
-
Sorry Borg if I am putting words in your mouth and I really mean that. My words may come out harsh but in no way do I dislike you. I just don’t agree with your posts.
Your other posts about MTG and saying it is a better game is more annoying to hear on MW forums. You have the right to your opinion and that is fine but I feel your observation and the love of MTG and dismay for MW is basically the “crap” I refer to. If you don’t see it that is fine.
I did not say it was not profitable you misunderstood me. We have had two academy releases last year. And PVS two years with lost grimore ect. There is four academy sets in the pipeline. I do not have answers when and where they will be released. The years I refer to means many years ago. I’m talking pre domination or academy. For 6-7 year old game with support and current support I would not say it’s not profitable. AW are a smaller company with less overhead so the profit margin maybe better. I honestly don’t know.
Again if I misinterpreted your bias and I am reflecting these things differently then you I am officially sorry. We can agree to disagree and that is fine. I will try and phrase my words in a less Aggro matter. Again I do wish you the best. :)
-
I think everyone is taking everything here a bit too personally. Borg's trying to present data that indicates something. Whether you agree with what the data points to, or not, IS the discussion here. I think the data brings up a good point and a good chance to reflect on how we, as a community, act from here out.
So that is what it comes down to. Are we going to sit around and let the game die out because AW isn't/hasn't/can't/didn't release some new content? Is this really how we want to be remembered, as a bunch of bitter people clinging to (what I consider to be) one of the best games I've played but claiming we couldn't do anything about it?
Or, perhaps there's another way.
Perhaps we could address the issues (inconsistency of the rules interactions, irregular live play, falling popularity on high profile websites, etc) with honest discussions and ideas about what we can do. I'm not personally opposed to making a new, community built/tested rule set that simplifies some of the abnormalities. As Arcane Duels, we tinker with the rules for tournaments all the time! I'm also thinking it's going to take a massive effort on the community at large's part to make it worth AW's time again to invest in this game. Borg's right, the numbers are AN indicator of a larger popularity/income problem. So what are we going to do about it?
-
Ok Shark I do love the idea of getting some things right rules wise or card recorrection to allow those cards that never see the light of day some new polish or errata. Ar least for tourny play or an unofficial errata. I Love what you guys (Arcane duels) have done for the community and greatly appreciate what you guys have done for the community.
If at all possible I would like to be a part of that development or idea generation for cards that need some tweaks. I could start working on a list. Anyways I am super pumped for this idea Shark. Good job!
That being said our community in Champaign IL will be getting a new addition very soon one my buddies just moved back into town. He is eager to start training. :D
-
As a life long boardgamer, I look at the expansion numbers for Arena and see a very well supported game. It has been 6 years since the 2012 release and we have 6 expansions for the Core Set along with a 4th edition of rules. On average this is one expansion per year. This is incredible support for a boardgame, especially from a small publishing company.
I never 'bought into' CCG or LCG business models that delivered multiple expansion packs within a year. For players who enjoy this pace of new content along with the associated marketing buzz and store-driven tournament system I can see why Arena might feel like it is not a competitive product. However, I find incredible depth of game play and strategy across the various game play modes, mages, and spell card pool we currently have.
I am all in with helping create a streamlined, community ruleset. I think a clean set of clear player aids would help in this area as well.
-
It has been 6 years since the 2012 release and we have 6 expansions for the Core Set along with a 4th edition of rules. On average this is one expansion per year. This is incredible support for a boardgame, especially from a small publishing company.
It sounds great if you put it that way but you have to take a somewhat closer look imo :
2012 core game
2013 kumanjaro, FvW, DvN that's the base game with three expansions within the first 1-2 years.
2014 FiF
2016 SvP
Since 2014 we've only had one real Arena expansion ( not counting the promo's release as a real expansion )
That's 1 real expansion in 4 years.
I agree that the average looks ok. I'd settle for 1 expansion per year.
But the last 4 years paint another picture imo.
Of course I'm also for more streamlined and intuitive rules.
Not being able to even target a creature with protection from fire with a fire attack never made sense imo.
The protection should minimize effect or damage, not prevent targeting.
Making currently unplayable cards playable could also be within the realms of the possible.
-
The targeting thing makes sense to me though. Protection and immunity are long standing concepts across many games. A la MtG, if a creature has protection from white, a white creature cannot block it or target it, and a white spell can't target it, enchant it, or damage it in any way. Flame immune creatures are completely immune to fire. Why should the rule be different here?
Im honestly asking for the issue you have here. I am not trolling in any way.
-
Replying in honesty as well :)
The examples you're giving are correct.
It's also possible in mtg however for a creature with pro white to block a white creature, deal damage and take no damage in response.
In MW you cannot use a pro fire creature to block an opposing fire creature. That's a real miss imo.
I think this could easily be solved by making "protection from" an OPTIONAL ability.
This way you could play spells that are beneficial ( like friendly fire enchantments )
It would also make it possible to target pro fire creatures with fire attack spells for example but if the target decides to turn on its protection the spell would have no effect.
So the game as it is would lose nothing but only gain from it.
Open for discussion of course.
-
Replying in honesty as well :)
The examples you're giving are correct.
It's also possible in mtg however for a creature with pro white to block a white creature, deal damage and take no damage in response.
In MW you cannot use a pro fire creature to block an opposing fire creature. That's a real miss imo.
By Guarding with a Fire Immune creature in Mage Wars you have basically 'blocked' the entire zone from a fire creature. Seems pretty similar. The difference being in Magic you'd also get to deal your damage to the fire creature. The system of guarding vs blocking is what's causing the mismatch, I think.
Immunity is an interesting puzzle to solve in current Mage Wars. Other simplifications I'd be in favor of are conditions and targeting.
-
imunity is a heavy file... i think at a fire imune creature that can't intercept a fire attack.
but it seems normal that a fire imune creature can't get fire spells! (a poison imune creature with a poison curse would be too powerfull!).
I think that making the imunity otpionnal would make the game more complex, it's the wrong direction.
another file I see is the conditions: too many conditions to have a bad injury (bleed, rot, burn,...), too many conditions to lose capacities (daze, stun, sleep, slam,...)
-
By Guarding with a Fire Immune creature in Mage Wars you have basically 'blocked' the entire zone from a fire creature. Seems pretty similar. The difference being in Magic you'd also get to deal your damage to the fire creature. The system of guarding vs blocking is what's causing the mismatch, I think.
Correct, 1 pro fire guard in MW can technically block 1000 potential fire attackers.
That's also why I think it should be possible to attack a pro fire creature with a fire creature. It will deal no damage but it might trigger an effect and can take away a guard marker.
That would be different than mtg alright but there's a significant difference here between MW and mtg :
In mtg you always attack your opponent ( or a planeswalker ) . Creatures can block.
In MW you cannot melee attack your opponent if he has guards.
-
Well, you can if you restrain the guards or have an elusive creature. Alternatively, you can have a creature that does not deal fire damage attack. This is the weakness of theme decks. A fire themed warlock is going to have problems against another fire themed warlock, since you can actually make a deck that deals only fire damage and every creature with flame immunity. A hydro themed siren is going to have problem against a druid, since plants are hydro immune. The key is to keep some diversity in a spellbook to deal with any such unpleasantness.
-
Well, you can if you restrain the guards or have an elusive creature. Alternatively, you can have a creature that does not deal fire damage attack. This is the weakness of theme decks. A fire themed warlock is going to have problems against another fire themed warlock, since you can actually make a deck that deals only fire damage and every creature with flame immunity. A hydro themed siren is going to have problem against a druid, since plants are hydro immune. The key is to keep some diversity in a spellbook to deal with any such unpleasantness.
This is why Mage Wars is so fun to me. Even if you've got a horde of fire damage creatures in your book, all you have to do is displace or restrain a guarding creature and your problem is solved. Another reason why I like Forcemaster so much...displacement is her game! The opponent also has a lot of counter measures to your plan as well so it's a back and forth, guess and figure until someone comes out on top.
-
Yea I agree with puddnhead it is really fun to have a counter to a creature in your opponents book. Casting wall of earth to block of an alandell or adramelech warlock is highly thematic. Once learned you will place counter measures in book or know how to properly position mage and creatures. .
I do know frustrations with siren tho. The biggest problem she does not have many good ways to deal alternate damage. Aquatic Animals or creatures without water attacks maybe needed in every competitive book. Unfortunately it makes book building for the siren super tight in SBP.
-
THe other thing I think someone mentioned here on forums is make all plants not water immune but maybe have water resistance -2 or -3. I think that may help a little. Thematically trees and plants can be uprooted with enough water pressure and too much water can kill or damage plants. Even allowing them to maybe have a chance like 1/12 chance to uproot and die from certain water spells. :D
-
I really like where this discussion is going! In tournaments we have altered rules, and we could come up with community "house rules." For Instance for the longest time ballista was warlord only and unique way before the official card of warmage only and unique was released from AW. So it seems like we got pretty close to accurate as a community.
Here's what i would like to start doing to help. We can make a stickied topic on alternative play that helps tackle a lot of the discrepancies on the forum. I already know the German nationals wants as comprehensive of a list as possible for their tournament. I would love a list as well for casual play. Maybe there are more tournaments we dont hear about that would want to draw on a resource like that.
I am not sure how we would determine good or bad ideas yet, but I'd like to start the conversation. A big thing is I would want to avoid nerfing/buffing based on current meta (such as druid on octgn right now).
-
Sharkbait's point is well taken. Okay so on to my analysis.
This game is so complicated that I suspect it's basically unapproachable to most new players. Some of us have the advantage of having been able to learn the game gradually over time as new sets came out. Newer players end up having to deal with everything all at once, unlike us older players. The amount of complexity in current mage wars is staggering relative to the number of cards, and there has been no rotation. Not to mention that for most of the game's history the meta was broken because wizard before his nerf. Mtg has a standard format with only a few sets being legal at a time. We might want to work out something like that? Problem is we don't have a large enough player base to support both a "standard style" meta and a "legacy" style meta.
One possible way to resolve this is to reboot the metagame. Go back to core set only and reintroduce already existing sets back into the competitive meta one at a time, but more quickly than the actual release schedule was originally.
Another thing I would point out is that domination as well as team play died out almost completely because our playerbase isn't big enough to support them on top of vanilla arena. And lately the amount of new innovative spellbook strategies on OCTGN has been going down a bit. The octgn meta is just starting to become stale as players stick to tried and tested tactics and are less likely to try to do something new and surprising.
I think if we really want to see this game thrive and not just survive, we need to find a way to drastically increase this game's playerbase. Since we can't expect arcane wonders to be able to do that since they are a VERY small company and have other games besides this one, we need to do this ourselves.
In other words, our community needs to play a more active role in marketing the game to new players. Arcane Wonders has already had Arcane Duels doing promotional video on their behalf. You remember how a lot of sets have had their cards spoiled on arcane duels? More of us should do videos like that.
I think it's also a safe bet at this point to assume that the mage wars official storyline is dead. We probably want to make our own "official" fan stories and lore to help promote the game. If we could get arcane wonders permission to write mage wars fanfic and publish it in physical books where new players might actually see it rather than just on these forums, that might help. Ideally we will want the storyline to coincide with the organized play scene, with new story material being associated with newly reintroduced sets. Hint hint, this is another reason we should reboot the metagame as I stated earlier.
Some of us might also want to consider getting over their aversion to Academy and giving it another chance. It's easier to get newer players to try academy first rather than putting them in Arena right off the bat. Academy may not have the tactical depth of arena but it sure has more tactical depth than most tcgs, despite having less strategic depth from having a smaller card pool.
Any other ideas for how we can increase the size of the playerbase more?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk
-
I would suggest that it would be a mistake to reboot the game. First off, it would be a real good way to alienate existing players, who are the people who are the only ambassadors for the game right now. Second off, it is unnecessary because it is not that difficult of a game to teach.
When you are introducing the game, you only need to have a couple of straightforward books (the game is quite simple compared to MtG). During the first game, you play open hand, and explain every card as you play it. After the first game, the majority of the people that you teach are capable of playing the game without major trouble. It is a system that seems to work.
-
First off, it would be a real good way to alienate existing players
All twelve of them?
I don't think anybody has to worry about a reboot. Academy/Arena was as close to a reboot as they were going to get, and it didn't 'save' the game.
I think this game will go the way of Heroscape, with a loyal cult following that continues to play it, but no new product or support coming out in the future. Which is a shame, because I think there's still room for expansion and growth, but if the game's not selling well.... I base the assumption that the game's not selling well on my own anecdotal evidence of seeing all gaming stores go from carrying the game to not even being able to order many of the expansions on request.
I would've liked to see the Barbarian and the Illusionist. I would have backed any Kickstarter they decided to come out with. But it doesn't seem to be meant to be.
-
Any other ideas for how we can increase the size of the playerbase more?
The strategy I use is to offer an entry level tournament event at a boardgamer's convention (WBC) each year. Generally, I reach about 10 to 30 new players each year using demos. Some of those decide to enter the tournament and a few of those actually go on to place in the Top 6 beating out some of the regulars who play each year. I imagine other ambassadors use similar approaches, but deliver their events/demos throughout the year rather than just annually. So, expanding the number of ambassadors who do this each year is one method to increase the size of the player base. See my offer below for new 'ambassadors' who might be interested in using this method.
The convention that I have targeted does not allow CCG or LCG style games so players have a "preference" and appreciation for games that use a board. This helps with new player expectations about length of a game. Card games tend to have faster playing times so it is a better fit with player expectations to introduce the game in a comparative length setting with other tournament events. At WBC, game rounds for tournaments run from 1 hour to 6 hours depending on the game.
The 4th edition Core Set already has a teaching style (Apprentice Mode) and Advanced Rules (Mage abilities and Spellbook Design) so I use both and combine them into one event. i.e. I do not use any of the expansions in the formal tournament to keep it easier to learn. This follows the learning path that I took with the game so it is easier to for me to teach. I do play Battleground: Domination matches in open gaming with some of the tournament players who have bought the expansions. This always draws a crowd of passing players to watch a "new game" being played.
Before the tournament I run Demo Events that feature Apprentice Mode for new players. The first two rounds of the tournament also use Apprentice Mode and feature just the standard books so all players are on a level playing field. I then add Advanced Rule demos before the final day of the tournament. The last 3 rounds feature advanced rules with custom spellbooks so players who own the game can bring their best designs to battle. For new players who don't own a copy, I provide them with a full standard mage Core Set spellbook to use for their matches.
I am happy to share my tournament planning and setup materials with anyone who wants to adapt and use them. Just send me a message on this forum or by email at wtcannonjr@gmail.com
-
Since Wise fool brought it up,
Wouldn't Kickstarter be the ideal way to release any future expansions and thus keep the game alive ?
This way AW can get the funds to release an expansion up front.
All they would have to do is make the cards of the set public to create interest and let the players know what they are getting and set a price.
If so many other game designers do it this way, why can't AW do it too ?
If the new cards and new mages are already designed and all that is missing are the necessary funds then Kickstarter is your answer, yes ? :)
-
Other ideas/opinions on keeping the game alive.
1. I think we need to go back to 1 format. Arena and Arena only. There is no player base for Arena + Academy + Domination. All the energy and resources have to go to 1 product : the best = Arena.
2. MW is actually a pretty simple game with simple base rules. Generate mana, choose 2 cards, play tnem and activate. Nothing difficult at all. What makes the game very hard for beginners though is that they don't know a single card at the outset. Every single card in their spellbook is completely knew to them and that is overwhelming. Since MW uses a lot of 1-offs in its books we're often looking at books that contain 30 to 40 different cards. That's just a gigantic hurdle to take for a non-devoted or casual player. That leads me to my third point.
3. I'd like to know if a MW format of 60 SBP's instead of 120 SBP's would improve the game.
This would make new entries easier imo - less new cards to digest at the outset.
Spellbooks would likely be much more focused on a certain strategy and less cookie cutter.
Games could be finished much faster, allowing you to play more games in the same time span and potentially opening the door to a real (Swiss) tournament format that can be played in 1 day without putting time restrictions on the games.
I have personally always felt that 120 SBP's were too much because nearly every book has counters to almost every possible threat. Make books focus more on their strategy by taking away all those bonus SBP's and hoser cards and you might be surprised how entertaining the format could be with all kinds of different strategies clashing with each other and not with a hoser card.
-
3. I'd like to know if a MW format of 60 SBP's instead of 120 SBP's would improve the game.
This would make new entries easier imo - less new cards to digest at the outset.
Spellbooks would likely be much more focused on a certain strategy and less cookie cutter.
Games could be finished much faster, allowing you to play more games in the same time span and potentially opening the door to a real (Swiss) tournament format that can be played in 1 day without putting time restrictions on the games.
I have personally always felt that 120 SBP's were too much because nearly every book has counters to almost every possible threat. Make books focus more on their strategy by taking away all those bonus SBP's and hoser cards and you might be surprised how entertaining the format could be with all kinds of different strategies clashing with each other and not with a hoser card.
If we were to have a simpler format I think i would prefer pre-built spellbooks rahter than building them with 60 points. This way they could have very simple strategies, be thematic and also we could build them to play well vs eachother. For example the Arraxian crown warlock could have a book with 60 points worth of curses and only the wizard would have any enchantment removal. That could be balanced since nobody would run cards like force crush and against other mages the warlock would also lack good anwsers.
I think this could be good since:
The players don't need to worry about building books.
The books would be straightforward, thematic and easy to play.
Finally there would be no good or bad matchups.
The downside I can see is that it might be hard to build the books in a good way which would meet all the requirements.
-
3. I'd like to know if a MW format of 60 SBP's instead of 120 SBP's would improve the game.
This would make new entries easier imo - less new cards to digest at the outset.
Spellbooks would likely be much more focused on a certain strategy and less cookie cutter.
Games could be finished much faster, allowing you to play more games in the same time span and potentially opening the door to a real (Swiss) tournament format that can be played in 1 day without putting time restrictions on the games.
I have personally always felt that 120 SBP's were too much because nearly every book has counters to almost every possible threat. Make books focus more on their strategy by taking away all those bonus SBP's and hoser cards and you might be surprised how entertaining the format could be with all kinds of different strategies clashing with each other and not with a hoser card.
If we were to have a simpler format I think i would prefer pre-built spellbooks rahter than building them with 60 points. This way they could have very simple strategies, be thematic and also we could build them to play well vs eachother. For example the Arraxian crown warlock could have a book with 60 points worth of curses and only the wizard would have any enchantment removal. That could be balanced since nobody would run cards like force crush and against other mages the warlock would also lack good anwsers.
I think this could be good since:
The players don't need to worry about building books.
The books would be straightforward, thematic and easy to play.
Finally there would be no good or bad matchups.
The downside I can see is that it might be hard to build the books in a good way which would meet all the requirements.
1. Customization is a huge part of the appeal of this game. We need the ability to play custom spellbooks in organized play events
2. I have previously suggested a customizable version of apprentice mode. Problem with this is balance. If we want all arena cards to be legal in this, we would need to figure out how to make it not break the game. For instance, playing on 2x3 arena makes walls ridiculous. You would need to redesign the map with secret passages that only connect in certain directions, like that one custom map I built for standard arena previously. And I'm not sure yet if this would work.
Another possibility is to just play regular arena, but change to a 80 point spellbook with a 40 pt sidebook and play best 2/3. Problem with this is match length. It might take too long.
How about I work on some way to make a shorter, balanced version of Arena work with all the spells and mage abilities being legal, and see what people think of it? Obviously well want to make as few changes as possible so that it still feels mostly the same.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk
-
I think a simple way to infuse a bit of new life into the game is to come out with a couple new mages that combine different types of magic.
You are always going to have some similarity between decks. Counter cards are counter cards. But if we have some new mages, then some of the amazing players I know are on here will begin to look at cards again and find new and exciting ways to pair things up.
-
I thought about it a while ago,
A Mage who graduated from the academy (level 4), but has not quite got the knowledge of an arena mage (level 6).
Level 5 Mage he uses 40 spellbook points from academy and 20 points from Arena spells.
-
Main issues that prevents a bigger player base are:
- Play time / destructive spells (things that prolong the game in an unnessessary way like high armour/dispel/disolve). Must be half time compared to today still offer long term strategies.
- Complexity. Just get rid of all those traits, conditions and unique abilities that are to complex.
-
Correcting myself. The problem with mage wars isn't that it's too long to play, or that it's too complex.
A typical game of mtg in type 2 format takes about ten min right?
And mtg uses sideboard, ergo they have best 2/3 matches in tournaments. Therefore their matches probably tend to last around 20-30 min or so.
A typical game of warhammer 40k takes about a couple hours I think, and that game probably has a much larger competitive scene than mage wars.
A single game of mage wars arena typically lasts 60-90 min, and we include all our cards in our main deck and don't use sideboards. The game length is much more like warhammer than magic.
One possible reason that Arena never made it big was AW tried to market the game to card game players. They should have marketed it almost exclusively to minis players. Specifically, minis players that got burnt out on expensive games like warhammer and want to try something cheaper for a while which scratches a similar itch until they can afford to get back into warhammer or whatever.
Arcane Wonders did not market Mage Wars Arena this way at ALL. Instead they went with the "Combines the best aspects of both minis and ccgs" line. Which, let's be honest here, just isn't true.
Mage Wars Arena IS a minis game in every way except for the fact that it uses cards instead of minis, which makes it cheaper and means you don't have to look up what your pieces do in the rulebook because it's written directly on them!
In theory, mage wars arena could have been made as a minis game right from the very start. In fact, if we really wanted to, we could turn it into a minis game right now. Just put all the card text in a giant rulebook and replace the cards with minis, terrain features and tokens. If you want to do this cheaply, use cardboard pieces with plastic stands like the kind you would find in candyland or something. Or use the kind of cheap plastic that's sometimes used for checkers or chess pieces.
Maybe if we did that, it would suddenly become a lot easier to get new players into the game. The demographic that this game would most appeal to is and has always been largely neglected by AW, I think. It's possible that might have doomed this game to obscurity from the very beginning.
At this point, if we're being honest with ourselves, the majority if not all of this game's promotion is now done by fans and not by AW. Same thing with playtesting. And IIRC a good chunk of card design is done by volunteers. The only thing that fans don't contribute to which Arcane wonders still does is the production and funding, if I'm understanding right.
And the really sad thing is, Mage Wars is a GREAT game and would probably be WAY more popular than games like warhammer 40k if it had been better marketed and had more money behind it in the first place.
A significant number of experts think we'll get artificial superintelligence within the next few decades or so. Maybe by then copyright law will be reformed, the public domain will be brought back and mage wars will enter it, and a combination of crowd funding and a freer and more open marketing/communication industry will make it possible for mage wars to not be obscure anymore. Assuming any of us live that long anyway, which we probably won't.
I wouldn't get your hopes up. The long and short of it is that this community's future and the future of the game that ties it together are at the mercy of a company that appears to be able to only barely support it with the funds and personnel available to them. The game isn't going to die, but it will never thrive outside of very limited areas where it was lucky enough to have already gotten a large following, like Charlotte NC and OCTGN. Just a small cult following spread out across the world so most of us will only be able to play online or in conventions like gen con and origins.
I'm not sure if there's actually anything we can do except to urge arcane wonders to start more heavily involving their ambassadors in their marketing and product design for this game. You know, since the ambassadors are the ones who actually still have the time to play the game, and probably have played it a lot more than any of their paid employees. At this point we probably understand this game better than AW does, we have a better idea of who this game would appeal to than AW does, and we probably have a clearer and more comprehensive idea of what this game's selling points are than AW does. Seriously.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk
-
The problem is not necessarily Mage Wars itself- we have to realize that a 6 year old game has had it's time on the market, and that with it's time passed it won't attract new players like it used to; encouraging more and more content at this point is overstretching the game's life on the market. I'm not saying that the game is dead: the members on these forums prove that there is still a group of people who are playing this game and who want to attract other people to playing the game; anymore content release will please current players, but won't draw enough new players into the game. Changing rules so that they can become more streamlined and easier can certainly help with current players, but it's no use for a board game that doesn't attract more people in the first place.
I've never played Magic The Gathering: I hear it from people comparing it to Mage Wars on these forums, and it's a generally well known game in the board game community. But comparing these two games all the time isn't accomplishing anything, you're comparing a 6 year old game that has run its course to a behemoth that has been solid since 1993- it's a fight that Mage Wars cannot win, and whether or not the game is better then the other is not a sign of how well the game is doing.
Arcane Wonders has struggled to get a game out that rivals the popularity of it's original Mage Wars release, and the overall company's success represents how Mage Wars and other products of theirs have done. Having been on Kickstarter for the last few months, I've seen a Polish board game company with poor English having gone from an unknown company to being one of the best companies on the market today: they have great complicated games that are unique, and they stand out compared to others on the market. Arcane Wonders shouldn't try to sell expansions to Mage Wars on Kickstarter, simply because that wouldn't attract buyers who don't have the base game in the first place: they should instead focus on getting a great product out there that stands out and should be their best product to date; if they know how to properly run a Kickstarter campaign with stretch-goals and the like, then I have no doubt that they can be doing a lot better then they are doing now.
I've said all of this knowing full well that the company is only comprised of 3 members- that does not mean that they can't turn things around and do better.
-
Well, it looks like I might stand corrected to some extent. There's a lot more people playing on octgn lately then there was when I wrote my last reply here. People are actually playing domination mode now! That almost never happened before. Not since the battlegrounds set was still fairly new.
Maybe there's hope for a larger more active playerbase yet.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk