Welcome back to Glenn Jones' Diary our weekly look at the developer questions and answers from the official Marvel Snap discord. This week, there were a lot of questions about game design philosophy. What Marvel term could we use for Guilds? Also, what would we call them if we had to rename rocks?
Q: Most cards with self-discarding effects have above curve Power, especially so for random discarders. Cards like Lady Sif (3/5) and Sword Master (3/6) are above curve in terms of Power from other 3-Cost cards, to balance out their "negative" effect of discarding.
From other questions, it seems like the devs feel that 3/4 is underpowered as a statline, and 3/5 *may* be taking its place for some cards. If that does become the case, do you feel like Lady Sif and Sword Master may also be due for Power increases to stay above the curve? Or do you feel like they are in a fine spot play-stat wise, that these cards were/are accurately balanced, and it's *other* 3-Cost cards that need to be brought to their level? Thanks!
A: It's all highly contextual. If decks were made of random cards, we would cost them very differently. They're not, so these decisions revolve as much around the strengths of surrounding content as the card itself.
-Glenn
**Avoiding any kind of ‘automatic’ logic like this would be a bad idea. Especially since Snap is relatively young and different from other card games, avoiding these ‘logic traps’ is particularly important. Sure, discarding is a downside in the same way sacrificing a creature is a downside in Magic: the Gathering. But because decks are so small in Snap, synergy is super-charged to the point that, in practice, discarding in Snap is never really a downside. I agree that these types of things are better reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The notion that every system and concept like this was correctly assessed and balanced upon global launch and that the balance team's job is to maintain that feels pretty unlikely.
Q: Is whatever "make a team of people" feature planned to actually be named clans or guilds, or are those just temporary/industry standard stand-ins?
A: Those are temporary names to share! We have a couple other names in mind but haven’t made a final decision yet.
-Stephen
**Hmmm… what is a more Marvel-y or Snappy name for these terms? Teams? Corps? Divisions (like the D in S.H.I.E.L.D.)? Let me know your ideas in the comments!
Q: My group of friends and I are honestly the most excited about the upcoming clan/guild feature, and we were just wondering, is there any new ETA on its release?
I’m sure you guys are putting in the effort to make it properly and so there’s a smooth integration, we are just unbelievably excited for it and are wondering if you could give us ANY insight on how close we are to getting it?
A: We are actively making it right now! It is a super large feature so it will take a little bit. We try to avoid committing to dates but it is actively in development with an entire pod of ultra talented developers making it real.
-Stephen
Q: Can you share any information on how satisfied with the first unbalanced event have you been?
Can we get any info on how these events may evolve in the future based on current feedback.
A: Our goals were to introduce something interesting that players could enjoy opting into without necessarily feeling required to do so. First and foremost, we wanted to know if events like this were something exciting to players. We think it hit the mark pretty well in that regard.
We're still evaluating next steps, but you can expect us to try some future events testing the space differently.
-Glenn
**Given how many players dislike Hot and Featured locations, I think making future “imbalance patches” that have a much more substantial impact feels risky. I think it would be cool to have a total shake-up for a week. Even if mine is the minority opinion, I'm hoping for more impactful events in the future.
Q: Even before Corvus Glaive came out, it felt like there was a lot more Hela on post-infinite ladder than usual. Moreover, Hela felt much more consistent than ever before. It felt like 9 times out of ten, the Hela deck would get their Hela to go off, usually for the win. I've heard several content creators comment on how they can't pin down exactly what changed to make Hela so much more consistent.
Do you have an explanation for what exactly has transformed Hela from a casino deck staple to a consistent reliable performer? In addition, do you think it's problematic for Hela to be so consistent? Routinely losing to Hela feels particularly bad for some, including myself, I think because it feels like it should be a heavily luck-dependent card, and it's currently not seeming to function as such.
A: I think the weakening of Professor X, combined with strong decks either being linear with no counters or being excessively reliant on counters Hela can ignore, has given Hela a window. Internally, our data doesn't suggest Hela wins a lot more often (small increase recently) but its higher cube rate does imply it's a deck players don't like retreating against.
-Glenn
**So, how exactly did we end up with a meta dominated by Hela? Professor X's reduced play rate is probably an underrated factor. I think the slow dismantling of mid-range strategies like Elsa with the simultaneous addition of giant stat sticks is also a factor. It's a bit concerning that Glenn says their data doesn't show much reason for concern with Hela. Many of the top decks are so linear that it doesn't seem like the ideal state for the game. While I agree Hela herself probably shouldn't be touched in a balance change, Hela decks being so successful and widespread is a symptom of more significant issues. Though Lockjaw probably could be adjusted again. Bad dog.
Q: Will we ever be able to buy Titles and Avatars. If so,what would they cost?
A: Yes we are working on adding a section in the shop for them. Price is still being iterated on
-Stephen
**I've been wondering what Second Dinner could do to make Titles more exciting. Maybe expensive and exclusive titles can move the needle?
Q: Kudos to the team for standing ground pre-release that 3/5 Black Swan isn’t over powered, despite it being over-statted with a positive ability for 3 cost
Does the fact that a 3/5 with a positive ability is holding a good, but not great, place in Snap make you reconsider the power arc of 3 costs? Based on this learning it would seem that the 3 cost cohort in general could stand a power increase.
A: Technically, I think Black Swan herself says more about 1-Cost cards than 3-Cost cards, but we're exploring ideas about both.
-Glenn
**Eventually, people will have to move on from the concept of “over/under statted” with “upside/downside” in Snap. It seems reasonably clear that Glenn, at least, has evolved beyond this simplistic dichotomy. It's becoming clear that Snap, with its highly consistent and synergistic 12-card decks, functions fundamentally differently than traditional card games.
Q: Hello,
It's not uncommon for me to want to "stay in" on turn 6 just to see how the game plays out, even if it means risking my rank. Many content creators do a similar thing to make games more interesting to view. In these situations I'm often really excited to "show" my opponent the play I made and learn what they were going to do, so it really sucks when I feel like I need to retreat or my opponent retreats, ruining the moment.
At times it feels like being successful and climbing ranks (because you know when to snap/retreat) are at ends in some ways with having fun.
- Do you think this is an actual problem?
- If you do, are you allowed to share any solutions that have been looked at?
- Does this hurt the net-positive that retreating normally would provide? (as Ben Brode discusses in his GDC talk)
A: It’s a complex topic; different player cohorts do enjoy different things, of course. However, we don’t consider this a problem—the tension of the snap and its stakes is core to our fun.
-Glenn
**I have heard that Snap would be better without the Snapping mechanic. It's an intriguing concept. I think many current players would prefer to play that way. You get to build towards your big combo and see the results. Similarly, I've seen it suggested that Snap might be more fun without any locations. However, I think people underestimate how simple the game would become without those features. Personally, I think a lot of the skill in Snap resides in the Snap mechanic, and a lot of that would be lost if the game didn't have it.
Q: Marvel Snap, currently, does not seem to have any intention of adding the concept of card rotations to the game, where certain cards are allowed (or not) for a set amount of time. This is a staple in almost all traditional, physical TCGs (and some other games, such as Pokemon VGC), and in my opinion, is an important part of how those metagames can evolve in a healthy, interesting way; by encouraging new experimentation depending on what is or isn't available to be played.
How has the lack of card rotations impacted the way you design cards/game modes?
Do you see temporary events like the current Valentine's day event as a replacement for rotations, or would a better analogue be the ability to make certain cards more and less powerful (thereby making them see more/less play)
Although you can't predict the future, as the number of cards keeps increasing, do you see this ever being added to the game in order to maintain some kind of order in people's collections/deckbuilding (or a specific gamemode that does the same)?
A: I do think OTAs, events, and other innovations are all ways we can mitigate or eliminate our need for rotation. However, we're not really evaluating rotation right now, just how we can make the game even better.
-Glenn
**Traditional card games require rotation for a few reasons. To sell new cards, they need to be impactful and exciting. Rotation counteracts the need for power creep by keeping the new cards from competing directly from deck slots with old cards. Rotation is also a way for a game company to ensure its game feels fresh and new. I think a digital card game like Snap has a unique opportunity to try alternatives to rotation, like OTAs, and special events.
Q: In a previous answer, Stephen mentioned a specific point that caught my attention: "In general we are hoping to avoid major economy redesigns because the response to those so far have been quite negative even if they provide access to more cards faster and cheaper."
Was he referring to something that had been implemented before and didn't work out as intended? What exactly?
I really don't get why people would complain about getting more cards faster and cheaper in a card game and would love if the team could elaborate further.
A: Spotlight caches are substantially more generous than the token shop but have largely been met with negativity since its release. Spotlight caches hit a rough spot where they are more generous, it is harder for us to create enough content to sustain (Spotlight variants), and they are seen more negatively. It is challenging to make significant changes to the system or give out more free rewards because of the generosity of spotlight caches. They somewhat limit our economic design space. Our hope is to try to iron out the edges that feel bad and consider options to make it easier for us to create enough content to sustain it while finding other ways to open economic design space.
-Stephen
**Stephen suggests here that the Spotlight Caches system is so generous that it's taxing the economy. We can't know the revenue and profits that Second Dinner makes to evaluate this claim. However, the Spotlight Cache system is more generous than the previous system and significantly better than the old system at getting the newest cards to players. Under the old system, Series 5 cards felt inaccessible.
Did Second Dinner roll out an economy that proved too generous? Since this new system launched, we've seen a slow reduction of weekend mission rewards and only one series drop. It's entirely possible that revenue dipped too low for comfort.
I appreciate that the economy is more generous now, but I think it still has the same flaws as the old system. The first hundred cards you get from the game are essentially free. That means later cards are necessarily quite expensive. Combine that with the fact that they've made a card game grafted onto a card-collecting sim as the primary way to get new cards. You've got a system that will feel frustrating to free-to-play players and seasoned card gamers who are used to (and happy) paying a premium to get all of the meta-relevant cards immediately upon release. It feels a bit like a no-win situation for the monetization team at Second Dinner.
Q: Most card games have that one card that is well… to put it lightly… useless. It’s used to create strategy and is well done in this game as well with the Rock token. So my question is: Why the Rock? What other things were discussed before Rock was chosen to be the useless token card and why did you settle on the Rock?
A: I don't know, since I wasn't here. I thought it was weird, but rocks are everywhere, so it kind of makes sense given the range of locations we have. Vormir has rocks, Knowhere has Rocks, everywhere's got some rocks.
-Glenn
**Rock is a reasonably good choice here. I can't think of anything more Marvel-related. Maybe ‘scraps,’ as in “Tony Stark was able to build this in a cave! With a box of scraps!”
Q: Which card do you think is underappreciated and wish players experimented more with? The last time someone asked this question the answer was Yellowjacket, but I think he's found his place in several decks playing Bill and Lockjaw.
A: The answer right now is probably Spider-Man 2099, who has the lowest games played among cards with a positive winrate. Another one like that is Attuma, but he's played about *5 times as much* as 2099.
-Glenn
**I talked a bit about how 2099 can be much better than before and still not good enough in this week's Burning Questions article. Attuma is intriguing, and I've played him quite recently in a deck with Zero, Armor, Black Swan, and Destroyer.
Q: - Were there any previous designs for cards currently in the game that were found to be too complex?
- Did any designs move from one card originally to a different card that is now in the game?
- You have mentioned that Nico/Phoenix Force are some of your favorite cards, would you be comfortable saying what some of your least favorite are (from any perspective like design/most frustrating/etc)?
A: 1. Definitely, we spend a lot of time exploring that line. We tried a variety of "reflective" Echo designs before giving up, as the space was mostly weak but making it strong enough got weird.
- I know this happened a fair bit before the game went live--for example, Captain America, Patriot, and Blue Marvel could've all been swapped around.
- Hm... my least favorite cards tend to be the ones that challenge SNAP's fundamental fun, since making these cards weak is typically correct, but if they're too weak you lose a lot of the excitement value gained from being transgressive in the first place. Adam Warlock, original Crystal, and Rhino are all in that space. Compare them to something like Agatha or Morph, who are weak but novel enough to make the trade.
**I love Echo as a card, but it would be great if such an excellent character had an ability that matched her ability in the comics. In the comics, she can perfectly mimic any movement she sees.
Unexpected terror returning from the groomer today: Loha figured out how to roll down car windows pic.twitter.com/tXBUwoq1bQ
— Glenn Jones (@Glenn_Jones_) February 21, 2024
That's it for this week! Join in on the conversation by leaving a comment below! Or head to the official Marvel Snap discord and submit a question in the ask-the-team channel to try to get your question featured here.