RE: Which name best represents our new 100% free-to-play format?
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
The name depends on what this mode is for. If it's for beginners then academy is fine, but if this is to be a F2P mode for all players of all abilities and stages of gameplay then Academy isn't a good fit.
In 2021 we sold stuff though FOMO, those extreme days are behind us. I'm assuming that sales in future will be based on perceived need. People will have a greater perceived need if they know they enjoy playing the game and they get fairly competent at it. Players also need to develop a playing habit, which will be made easier when the new iOS app arrives. So the aim should be spreading the enjoyment of the game as far and wide as possible. People that play for free will tell their friends and some of them after mastering the game may start buying cards and packs.
This way of growing the game organically could be very powerful and because the entry is a web2 approach it's attracting gamers not P2E types too.
Who are the target groups of players:
- New players after completing the beginner Campaigns
- Existing players who have spent all their energy for the day in normal ranked.
- Existing players who have no time to play right now and have rented out their collection, but they can still play once or twice a week.
- Existing players who due to personal reasons had to sell their battle cards, but still want to play.
- Historic players, who sold a while ago but still enjoy the game.
- Friends of existing players who want a way of sharing the game with them.
All groups could end up eventually spending money on cards and packs because they realise how much they enjoy playing. Playing itself instils a need in people if they enjoy it.
Therefore any name that sounds too beginnery could be missing the mark. At the moment I'm seeing Frontier as the best choice from those listed above
I think it's important to understand that:
This is not a new game mode. This is a format for Ranked Play. Ranked Play is the game mode.
The primary goal and purpose for the new format is absolutely without a doubt the onboarding of new players. Yes, the new format can be enjoyed by others for a wide variety of purposes, but the top priority and function of its design is to give new players a simple, easy, and intuitive entry point into Ranked Play.
The new format is intentionally limited in gameplay for the reason stated above.
The new format is a stepping stone--not the final destination. It is not intended for anyone to stay in the new format indefinitely. They are welcome to stay if they want, but the point of the format is to eventually advance to new formats or game modes.
Having said all that, it is clear to me that players really want what "Frontier" represents. I'm just not certain that this format is that "thing". But it does have me pondering what WOULD be worthy of the name "Frontier". Dave has these ideas which he has code named "Launchpad". And given some time and further collaboration with the community, I bet we could come up with something pretty cool to dub "Frontier", which truly embodies the concepts that players want to champion.
I guess what I'm saying is that even if Frontier loses the vote, I still see value in getting it into the game somehow. I do think it's a cool idea.
I hope the real point/goal is not getting lost here... in the ftp format, we DO want a TON of players playing here indefinitely. THEN, a PERCENTAGE of them advance voluntarily to the 'premium mode' which is our regular game.
If we try to make this mode only a temporary and mediocre, lackluster 'beginner's arena' we are handicapping the format before it even gets started. We want this new format to be fun, exciting, and offer gamers a very real taste of what Splinterlands is all about.
If we approach this like we're trying to push every single player of this new format into the premium game, it will fail. If new players get that feeling, the suspicion that they will be forced to pay (and pay a LOT) to get the good stuff once hooked with a little taste, they will likely leave.
We can't FORCE them to move into the real game by offering a subpar or excessively limited experience in the ftp format... that angle is counterproductive, and it literally frightens me when I hear both you and Matt say this is the direction you're leaning towards.
We want to ENTICE players to WANT to VOLUNTARILY move over to the premium version because they got a taste of not only how much fun the game is but also a taste of the other things we have to offer beyond just ranked battle. We want to offer new players an absolutely incredible experience in this new format, and then, once they are hooked, point out to them that the premium format is EVEN BETTER if they should choose to engage. And if you, the ftp player don't WANT to take the leap to premium? No problem, you are still welcome here in the ftp version. :)
@fatjimmy I think there is definitely a disconnect in what the purpose of the format is and what players are trying to force it to be.
This very specific format is intended to be an extension of the onboarding. That does not mean all sorts of players can't enjoy the format forever in whatever way suits them. That's totally cool.
But there seems to be this strong push to force this format to be the FTP version of Splinterlands. Yes, it is free-to-play. But it's free-to-play for very specific reasons, and those reasons revolve around the new player experience. And OF COURSE we want that experience to be fun and engaging and awesome. Nobody wants it to be a bland or stupid experience. That would be silly and counterproductive.
If we were asking for a name for a Modern or Wild type FTP experience, I would be all over the name Frontier. After learning the fundamentals, a new player is then encouraged to seek a web2 or web3 path...choosing a name for one of those paths also makes sense for the name Frontier.
I'm pretty sure we all want the same things, man. It's all semantics to a certain degree.
My job is to ensure that we don't force one thing to encompass too many purposes. My job is also to ensure that the primary purpose for any particular thing is embraced and fulfilled to the fullest extent possible.
My commitment to you is that regardless of the results of the survey, I will try to make sure the name, concept, passion, and purpose behind "Frontier" is fully realized in the manner in which you guys were hoping. There's lots of ways to push the bridge between web2 and web3 in ways that aren't hampered by the restrictions necessary for this new format. In my head, I see how Frontier can be everything it's meant to be.
But I'm also open to the possibility of making Frontier the name for this particular format. Do I think Frontier is the way to go? Nope. Does it follow the rules/parameters I set forth before the poll was created? Nope. But the name is on the candidate list, because we knew it was important to you guys. We want to make sure you're heard. Despite my reservations, I do honestly and sincerely promise to give the name every chance as the other names. In case you were wondering, it stands just as strong a chance to be the new format name as the other names.
Sounds like some discussions are in order lol! This is certainly A (note "A", not "THE") FTP version of Splinterlands. And the only one we will have in the very near future. So yeah, for now, I guess it is "THE" FTP mode/format until we see more options. And definitely, yes, it is meant as an onboarding tool. But we DO want a ton of players to play it, enjoy it, and yes, hang out there. It serves many purposes!
I personally don't really care WHAT the name is, as long as it's cool, sounds fun and exciting and enticing. 'Basic' was not that. I don't want to fight about a name, because that's not the point. Out of all the names on the list, I like Frontier best by far. Personal preference. But most of the choices on the list are almost as bland as 'basic' lol... which surprises me because I saw a LOT of very cool suggestions from the community! Bummed we don't have more options honestly, many great choices were presented by community members in the UI channel.
What was the criteria for 'making the list' if I may ask? The 'final cut' seems to include several... remarkably subpar... options. Foundation was another community favorite I'm surprised not to see on there. Again, I care a lot less about any one specific name, as long as it's GOOD.
@fatjimmy Dave wanted a manageable (short) list so that the survey wasn't spread out all over the place. Lilyfire compiled the suggestions from Discord, then the names were filtered down first by how well they fulfilled the guidelines I had outlined in the ux channel. After that, they were whittled down further based on practical outside reasons (ie, "Foundations" is the name of a rotating set, "Genesis" may cause confusion with GLS, etc).
"Frontier" was kept on the list despite not meeting the UX guidelines, because...well...you guys were quite passionate about it, haha. Whether I agree with the name or not, that level of passion's gotta be respected, right?
Thanks for the reply Nate. I understand your points and I understand this is supposed to be just a new format. But the fact that it's a sectioned off F2P mode with it's own energy means this has the potential to eclipse everything else in Splinterlands if people enjoy it and word spreads. If people play enough, join Discord & guilds many, will end up buying cards and packs, especially if they are good at playing. This could be the cornerstone of some Marketing campaigns. This mode could go viral in a way the paid aspects of the game just can't, and you can promote it squarely to Web2 audiences removing the financial fear or inexperience of crypto blockers. For these reasons I'm viewing it as a new Mode, not a new format.
Why specifically can't this mode be the destination for many players? They could be ambassadors for the game and help spread the word. You could even try to encourage that behaviour for F2P players. This game is very complex, for some players that just want to play a few battles once or twice a week this is perfect and they could still contribute in different ways.
I think the point I'm trying to make is that if we want a FTP mode where free-to-play is the primary objective (and making that FTP experience as fulfilling as possible)...then great. We should add that mode properly and call it Frontier.
But it seems to me that we're hijacking what is supposed to be an onboarding tool and trying to use the name to make it into something else. The end result may end up being a format with identity crisis that doesn't quite fulfill either objective very well.