RE: Which name best represents our new 100% free-to-play format?
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Format names need to be instantly clear. Most new players will only see the word Frontier in a menu. They won’t read the backstory or the metaphor. And at a glance, Frontier suggests a sci-fi or wild west theme, a dangerous or high-stakes mode, or something experimental... not onboarding.
The actual format is the opposite of a “frontier.” It’s safe, guided, and curated. It’s designed to help new players learn the game and compete without pressure. It’s about building a foundation, not pushing limits.
New players need immediate understanding. A good format name should make sense in one glance—and unfortunately, Frontier creates more confusion than clarity.
I like Foundation Format myself. If we introduce new card sets, we'd just call them Foundations II, Foundations III, etc. But we probably shouldn't ever do that, because we'd end up with Foundations Wild and Foundations Modern. Better to just add new cards to the Foundations set, similar to how Clash Royale does it. Alas, Foundation Format is just so long and would require edits to the UI to make it fit.
I also like Foundry Format. Definition: an establishment where founding is carried on. Founding is to take the first steps in building or to set or ground something... perfectly matches the fact that we are taking the first steps in building new players' experiences and grounding them in our game.
I also like Core Format. Definition: a central and often foundational part usually distinct from the enveloping part by a difference in nature.... and Foundations is the foundational part of Splinterlands for onboarding new players and different (free-to-play) in nature. Definition 2 (that fits): a basic, essential, or enduring part... It's basic (without calling it basic), essential for new players, and will be an enduring part of our onboarding process.
Edit: I also like Academy, which is what I voted for. Works well with our Waur Medge Academy of Battle Magic, with players battling in the safe-space of a magical institution, a place of learning the basics before venturing out into the wild frontier of Modern, Wild, and Survival.
I think the campaign leading into the academy where you can stay and battle in safety seems like its meant to be to me
Frontier isn’t just a name. It’s a statement. A call to a new kind of player, a new kind of energy. Yes, it carries themes of exploration and unknowns—but that’s the point. We’re not just handing players a rulebook; we’re inviting them into a living, evolving game world. One where their choices matter. Where they can belong before they even believe in crypto.
The concern about “Frontier” sounding too rugged or high-stakes is valid—if we let the word sit alone, unexplained. But that’s where UI, onboarding flows and in-game prompts do their job. Let the Creative and UX teams frame it right: intro text, guided tutorials, smart copy.
This isn’t a naming problem—it’s a presentation opportunity.
Compare it to names like Basic, Gateway or Academy. They might be “safe,” but they’re also flat. Forgettable. Passive.
If we want to spark curiosity, build momentum, and create something players talk about, we need a name that has flavor. That evokes a feeling.
Frontier is memorable. It’s metaphor-rich. And most importantly, it scales. It’s not just about the starting line—it can grow with the format, with the players, with the game itself.
This isn’t just onboarding.
It’s an invitation to something bigger.
Let’s call it what it is.
Let’s call it Frontier.
And hey — at the end of the day, any of these suggested names are a win for the community. The fact that we’re even having this conversation is massive. It means we’re listening, evolving and pushing for better.
That’s the real W.
The exploration and starter side of things is where I was going with Pioneer for the name instead. First ranked mode to play as you explore the game of Splinterlands.
Another concern: let's say the most new-battle-mage-friendly format is called Frontier.
Meanwhile, the "the farthest most limits of knowledge and achievement" is Champion League Modern or Wild format (depending on your perspective).
So you might start in Frontier format and then move to the frontier formats.
Because the primary definition of frontier here is "the farthest most limits of knowledge and achievement."
Other definitions?
"a border between two countries" or "a line of division between different or opposed things" -- lorewise, we can't say it's a border/line/division between traditional TCG and Web3 TCGs, because those don't exist in-world, and the Order of the Scale, which runs the Arena Games, wouldn't use this as a reason to name their latest format.
"a new field for exploitative or developmental activity" -- obviously this isn't a format where fledgling battle mages are exploited. But it could be a format for developmental activity. As long as that happened IRL (i.e. introducing achievements, glamours, missions, quests, etc. here first), we would have an in-world justification for the name, as the Order of the Scale experimented with new concepts to spice up the Arena Games, and that's what we'd focus the format's lore on.
I like both Frontier and Foundation. Why isn't Foundation on the poll??? I got the sense that a LOT of people liked that name.
And I'm a little bit concerned about this push to make this mode too 'safe' - that's not what it needs to be. This is a fast paced, fast thinking one on one head to head TCG battle game, where one player wins and one loses, EVERY TIME. There is nothing 'safe' about that, and people don't play games like this to be 'safe'.
They play for fun, excitement, strategy, wits, fast thinking, adrenaline, dopamine. It's only 'safe' because it's free to play. I'd think the goal better be for creative to make it seem fast, fun, and exciting!! Marketing it as 'safe' is... not a great idea imho... kind of handicapping it before it even gets started. But then it makes sense why 'basic' was the original choice if that's the goal...
By the way I'd also be down to call it 'KICK ASS!!' mode, but don't think that would fly... 🤣
@fatjimmy not safe in gameplay; safe in the sense that:
• Many traditional gamers view NFTs and cryptocurrencies as speculative, unnecessary, or even predatory additions to games.
• There’s worry that web3 games prioritize profit over fun, pushing pay-to-win mechanics.
• Concerns about hacks, scams, and the volatility of crypto assets make traditional gamers wary.
• Skepticism exists about the real value and utility of digital ownership in games.