GeekStack is recruiting playtesters for our online trading card game with a science and technology theme. If you're interested, sign up here. Thanks!
Design Issue: Judging the Relative Value of CompSci Figures
Posted on | November 20, 2008 | 1 Comment
One of the big pieces of work ahead of me is obviously to make the cards: write the test, design the border, do the graphics for each card, etc. But once that’s all done, there’s another question: how many of each do I make?
I don’t mean how many cards to print; I’ll obviously print millions because so many people will be foaming at the mouth to get these cards that there will be a stampede at participating retail outlets. The question is how many of each card do I print relative to other card, or what should the distribution of different cards be? There are a couple of ideas I’ve come up with. In each of these assumptions, “high” cards are the most famous, influential people (Alan Turing, Steve Jobs, etc), while “low” cards are less well known (Adrian Holovaty, Jeannette Wing). This isn’t a value judgment about which are better, just more well known.
- Print equal numbers of each card.
- PROS:
- simpler logistics
- easier to complete a set
- even exposure to the ideas in each set
- CONS:
- easier to complete a set (meaning fewer packs/boxes sold)
- less incentive to trade
- no indication of relative value
- PROS:
- Print “high” cards more frequently
- PROS:
- kids more likely to recognize someone when they open a pack
- places a value on curiosity, since finding the rare cards also is a hunt for less common knowledge (everyone loves to be an insider)
- CONS:
- contrary to other trading cards where the “stars” are rare and valuable
- PROS:
- Print “low” cards more frequently
- PROS:
- matches common expectation that “stars” are rare
- information about “high” card people is easier to find online
- awareness of “low” card people is spread wider
- CONS:
- ?
- PROS:
I’m leaning towards #3 right now. I’ve got to pick my battles about where I go with the grain and where I go against it and I think this is one case where going with the grain make my job easier without marginalizing my product.
Once that decision is made, there’s the question of how rare to make the rare cards. Part of that equation is how excited I can make people about the cards – if it means a lot to you, it’s worth buying more and trading actively to finish a set. On the other hand, if the rare cards are too rare that it looks like you can’t finish (I’m looking at you, hologram cards), you just quit collecting. That’s a decision that I can make later and change from set to set (even from print run to print run) so I’m not too worried about that.
Does anyone have input into these three distribution methods? Did I miss any? Are there any additional pros or cons that I should consider when I make the decision?
Comments
One Response to “Design Issue: Judging the Relative Value of CompSci Figures”
Leave a Reply
November 21st, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
[...] Given my limited resources for marketing and advertising, “acceptable” will get me a big fat diddly squat, I need to shoot for “ridiculously exceeds expectations.” Trading cards would be cute, but a game would be enticing. It would be better for customers, better for business, and it gives a much more dynamic feature for the website (online tournaments, anyone?). It has created a lot more work, but if that twice as much work makes me 10x more likely to succeed, then it’s worth the time. I don’t know how this affects my “early 2009″ release time line (I’m guessing … postponing it), but I like the direction it points the product. It does answer my question about which cards to make rare. [...]