Hi folks, I wanted to know the communities opinion of the following idea: An In-alliance trading card feature. Lets face it, cards get re-realeased very rarely, odds have it some will never be re-releasased and for a new-guy like me, that means some cards are forever beyond my reach. And if a person goes afk ofra while, they miss out on opertunites to get cards that they would like. So, what about a card trading system that enables players to exchange cards with one-another? there would have to be some restrictions, for example you can't trade a common level card for a vindicator, as that would break the balance of such a feature. I'm thinking the following guidelines would make it fair for players, without depriving the devs of sales. 1.) Players may trade cards of equal class. 2.) If needed, a player can trade for a card or card(s) that is/are 1 Tier below theirs, however the salvage value of the trades must be equal. for example: Person A trades 1 un-upgraded legendary card (salvage value 40), for person B's 2 un-upgraded epic cards ( salvage value 40) 3.) players can trade up to a maxium of 4 cards (each) at a time. The process would be initated in the chat and look somthing like this : PersonA: hey, i've got such and such card. PersonB: hey, i want that card, i have so in so card. PersonA: really?I want that card! we should totally trade! Person B: ok! I'll initate a listing for my card, it will appear on your homepage! Person A: great! after you initate it, I'll offer my card to you! after i do, remeber to accept the trade!!! PersonB: sure thing! Remember, after i accept it will be an hour or so after the transaction before you get the card! Just like reward distribution after an Event! Person A: great, Talk to you later PersonB: o7 Person A:0/ wat do u thinK?

The problems are obvious when you consider that alternate accounts are common. "Both of my accounts got two Vindis from the Raid? Let's have one of them trade the two Vindis for... two Infantry from the other account! Now one of my accounts gets a quad." (And usually having one quad is better than having two duals.) In effect you'd be creating a single shared card pool for guilds (and for multiple allied guilds, with a little leaving and joining in between). Things don't get much better if you require the traded cards to be of the same rarity and level of fusing.

Yes, the goal is reasonable and was proposed several times. It could make buying boxes less painfull since high tier players do not need epics, and even legendaries from boxes, but could be usefful for other players, but other players most likely will have nothing to offer them. On the other hand: There is Guild war in process. What if Player A buys out a box with OP cards, then after successful attack "trades" them with Player B from his guild, Player B performs his attacks and "trades" cards to Player C from his guild, etc. Ok we could restrict "trading" only to some specific short time once in an event cycle to resolve this, but people I believe can find other ways to abbuse this system). Also it will make reasonable account highjacking. It will make some top PvE rewads much obtainable and ppl will create more alts to get them. And the main point...who will implement this? Dev I am sure entirely discussed this thing and have not implemented by some reasons for 6 years of running the game. Now when they are not operating this game and not going to fix even existing bugs, there are unfortunately no chanse to make it happen. If only your idea could turn the bussiness model so that players will buy more stuff.

Well you do have a point. however I have a solution. while there would be no restrictions for common, rare, and epic, cards with both legendary and vindi ranking would have have the following restriction to prevent abuse; dpending on fusion level, you can only trade for enough to get ONE fully upgraded card, should u choose to merge them. The system already tracks what cards a person gets, it can count how many you have in your inventory, and in your restore page to ensure that you can get just enough of a lower evolution of a card to make 1 maxium evloution of it. This way, the system can be used as it is intened, to let players get the cards they want, and it will prevent abuse. i don't have a solution about the afk devs though XD

But trading is not the only way to solve the problem you mentioned. For example if there will be some kind of **Wild cards** as in other online ccg which could be fused into any card of the same rarity or at least a way to gain them with hard grinding it will make possible to get them in some time. I would love to grind to get all the cards (even weak and absolete ones) into my collection but there are no other way then just wait when they will be buffed and put into rewars again) Another problem is that you are not able to keep big amount of cards with limited cap, which sounds even more absurd for ccg, but it was a part of the bussines model to make it that way.

Trading has been discussed extensively over the past ~10 years of Tyrant, both WMT and TU, and I am confident in saying that even if we had all the development time in the world we would never want to implement it. I understand why you would want trading, it makes a lot of sense. You have all these extra cards you don't need, and another player could use them. Trading would be a great solution for both players. However, it would completely break the game's economy, even with restrictions like you propose. Basically, traded cards would compete with cards we hand out ourselves, and since there is no real way for cards to be consumed and exit the economy, players would easily be able to access far more cards than before. This would force us to massively restrict which and how many cards we can give out for free, and that would refocus the means of acquiring cards to just buying and trading. It would also enable a grey market based around real-money trades. While most players would appreciate a way to trade cards with their friends or guildmates, I don't think that many of them would like a game whose main focus is a real-money based card economy (See Artifact for an example of that). Adding in a few restrictions will just make it harder for normal players to enjoy the trading system, they won't stop those who are serious about setting up farming bots and real-money trades. I don't think most players would appreciate the changes that would have to be made to accomodate such a model, and certainly it would not benefit us financially, so why should we spend a large amount of development time creating such a feature, especially considering we aren't spending any development time on TU at all these days?

Ok, let then just use this thread to discuss possible ways of implementation) maybe it will help SG to launch Tyrant: Resurrection or whatever. What do you think about non-direct trading though some sort of Restore Market where the price is defined by the amount of specific cards got to this market. So it should be a replacement of the current Restore feature where instead of personal restore list we have a united list from the whole playerbase. How it work: 1. When a player salvages some card for X salvage points, it is added to the Restore Market. 2. Card is downgraded to 1 level for simplicity. So it makes it even more non-profitable to buy it back without strong need. 3. Any player then can buy this card out there but the price will be so big that it will make no sense to do it. Let's say it will be 10x. Coefficient may depend on rarity. Some high rarities (Vindi+ for example) may be bought only for wb. 4. Buyback price for the card will go down if there a lot of that cards salvaged by players. So for example if there are 1 card in the market then it will cost 10 x Salvage Cost. If there are 100+ of the same cards then each one will cost 1 x Salvage Cost. So price will be recalulated with every single buy. Coefficients and caps may depend on rarity. It will make economy more relevant to cards playability. With this way new players will be able to buy cards which they are not able to get playing and collectors will have a chance to fulfil their collection. Problem here might be with buffs insides) but it is another topic. What do you think about this system?

that's acctually not a bad idea...... if acomplishes the goal of letting true collectors collect, while frustrating would be manipulators of the system. cards that we can't get anymore would be prolific, because they have no use and there fore easy to aquire, but useful cards that are either distributed or sold would still be rare and much easier to aquire through events and purchase.

Intruiging idea and I would like it. As a side thought I wonder if making a game like WMT or even TU is considered profitable enough to start such a venture. If a new game was made I think there would be interest in the old player base but they would not want a system stacked against them or set to be even more costly than TU.

paying wbs to Kong to buy someone elses vindi or mythic seems like a win-win to me

> *Originally posted by **[Demonurg](/forums/2468/topics/1918560?page=1#13430912)**:* > What do you think about this system? Indirect trading is less exploitable than direct trading but I don't think it is the best way to fix the problem of access to old cards. The proposed method is not very effective for determining appropriate prices for cards, and will lead to valuable cards being always sold out while lower value cards are rarely ever worth buying. If we wanted to keep the market concept, a blind resource market would be a better option, where players would bid or offer cards at specific prices, without the ability to choose who they are buying from. However, there's no need to have an actual card market, with all of its additional implementation costs, complexity, and room for exploits. We could just use a system similar to Hearthstone's Arcane Dust that allows players to directly craft the cards they want. That is simpler for players to understand, easier to control, and easier to implement. Even if we needed to specially gate rarer cards behind secondary currencies or add restrictions of other types, it would still be easier. > *Originally posted by **[Bluemax06](/forums/2468/topics/1918560?page=1#13431277)**:* > As a side thought I wonder if making a game like WMT or even TU is considered profitable enough to start such a venture. If a new game was made I think there would be interest in the old player base but they would not want a system stacked against them or set to be even more costly than TU. At the moment it's not really possible to create a new Tyrant game due to how low the return on marketing investment is for an original game with an artstyle like this on mobile. If a new Tyrant game was made at some point, it would definitely have a different business model than TU, but its hard to predict anything further than that at the moment. > *Originally posted by **[Monkey_k](/forums/2468/topics/1918560?page=1#13431292)**:* > paying wbs to Kong to buy someone elses vindi or mythic seems like a win-win to me It isn't a win-win, because now, instead of being able to drain the full price of that card from the economy, we can only drain a fraction of the price, and now the player who bought the card doesn't need to buy it from a box at full price. We would need to significantly increase the number of cards "sold" total in order to make such a tradeoff worth it. Generally, this is not an effective strategy, and even in cases where it is, we can achieve it via sales or other mechanics, rather than having a system which forces us to always have it on. You could argue that the secondary benefits would make it worth accepting this tradeoff (although they probably wouldn't), but its far from an easy win from a business perspective.

Do you really want to trade cards in a game developed by people that allow cheaters to moderate their forums, and steals ideas from people? Just askin'!

> *Originally posted by **[MarshalKylen](/forums/2468/topics/1918560?page=1#13431394)**:* > We could just use a system similar to Hearthstone's Arcane Dust that allows players to directly craft the cards they want. That is simpler for players to understand, easier to control, and easier to implement. Even if we needed to specially gate rarer cards behind secondary currencies or add restrictions of other types, it would still be easier. Yes, I agree with that) but HS has another bussiness model. In my proposal players have to buy cards for real money to add them to the system, and it makes it impossible to build more cards than were sold, so it seems to be more safe for bussiness. I see there are still a chance to tranfer cards from one account to another, but it will cost much more for usable cards so at least it will prevent abuses like guild sharing. > *Originally posted by **[MarshalKylen](/forums/2468/topics/1918560?page=1#13431394)**:* > If we wanted to keep the market concept, a blind resource market would be a better option, where players would bid or offer cards at specific prices, without the ability to choose who they are buying from. But it will turn into SP/WB transfer from one account to another via buying, which I wanted to avoid in my proposal. ----- Big minus in market - is that some users will definitely try to catch best deals and will extensively monitor new items, which could create huge load on game servers and will rise costs for maintenance. It can be slightly improved with update periods (once an hour/day/random or so), it will also help to prevent intented transfers of the cards, but servers still have to deal with peak loads. In one browser game there was a separate service provided by game developers to fetch prices from the market which was stronly optimized with caching and prevented users' from creating custom solutions with parsing ingame loacations.

> *Originally posted by **[Demonurg](/forums/2468/topics/1918560?page=1#13431780)**:* In my proposal players have to buy cards for real money to add them to the system, and it makes it impossible to build more cards than were sold, so it seems to be more safe for bussiness. I see there are still a chance to tranfer cards from one account to another, but it will cost much more for usable cards so at least it will prevent abuses like guild sharing. Preventing more cards from being built than have been bought doesn't neccesarily provide any significant business benefit, especially when the cost of creating that limitation is so high. From a strictly sales standpoint, gacha with no trades will always outperform a system with trades, no matter how many limitations you add. Rather than starting with the idea of a trading system and trying to modify it to fit the situation, its better to start with the problem at hand (which is that older cards are inaccessible) and then figure out the best solution to that problem. For example, if a we had a system restricted to otherwise inaccessible cards, it would not have any major impact on sales, and therefore would not need to be designed to avoid decreasing them. That would be cheaper, faster, safer, and more suitable for the people who are actually looking for inaccessible cards. > Big minus in market - is that some users will definitely try to catch best deals and will extensively monitor new items, which could create huge load on game servers and will rise costs for maintenance. It can be slightly improved with update periods (once an hour/day/random or so), it will also help to prevent intented transfers of the cards, but servers still have to deal with peak loads. In one browser game there was a separate service provided by game developers to fetch prices from market which was stronly optimized with caches and so on. Another example of why trading is an incredibly high-cost way to fix this problem.

wow.... i didn't know there was this much ot say on the matter

I think it would be cool to release a physical card set on Amazon. Could have like 6 decks of 50 cards per faction or something, people could make a deck of 20 cards out of those and battle each other in a live arena format like wmt used to have.

Well, we discussed that sort of thing internally a bit in the old days. Putting aside cost of production, audience size etc, the main problem is that Tyrant is designed to be arbitrated by a computer, not played physically and arbitrated by players. There's too much to remember, too many random targeting decisions, too much math, and too little choice to make it a good physical game with its current design.

Imagine you play the TU boardgame while you watch on your computer - runningt flexsims to see what TUO says which card you should play next.

> _Originally posted by **[Monkey_k](/forums/338/topics/1918560?page=1#13431292):**_ > paying wbs to Kong to buy someone elses vindi or mythic seems like a win-win to me Hmmm... I've got about 50 mythics in my Restore vault.

> *Originally posted by **[AwfulMatt](/forums/2468/topics/1918560?page=1#13520136)**:* > > _Originally posted by **[Monkey_k](/forums/338/topics/1918560?page=1#13431292):**_ > > paying wbs to Kong to buy someone elses vindi or mythic seems like a win-win to me > > Hmmm... I've got about 50 mythics in my Restore vault. Seems to me it's only a matter of how many WBS before it would be worthwhile for Kong. what do you think an appropriate trading fee would be? Are you thinking that you'd sell your cards? What if for someone to get your old mythic quad, they'd have to pay Kong 1500wbs? I could see myself willing to dump 750+wbs to complete the other half of a mythic quad. What would make it worthwhile for the person already holding the card?

Its not as simple as just charging a high enough price. The system has a very large implementation cost so if we couldn't make a large number of transactions it would lose us money overall, even if each trade wasn't losing us money individually.