Hey @yabapmatt - apologies in advance for the massive wall of text incoming, but we've been gathering questions / thoughts / etc... from the community and we are posting here on behalf of all contributors:

Thank you!

1.

The Starter Pack proposal, as it currently stands, offers 25 cards for 5,000 DEC. While this is an excellent value and excellent offering, it still feels like a high price point for many players, particularly new ones. We also do not offer ANY low cost pack option with this proposal as it stands. Adding a pack of 5 cards for 1,000 DEC (keeping the same value/rarity proposition as the 25 card starter pack) offers many benefits. It presents an affordable ‘impulse buy’ price point. Many players have said they would buy packs daily if the cost permits it, and considering the psychology of pricing, a $1 pack offers an excellent opportunity for the ‘impulse buyer’. We would be willing to bet that we generate more revenue with $1 vs $5 packs (with the same rarity value). Why not offer both?

Also, both scaling down to 5 cards for 1k DEC and including 5 packs with the Spellbook purchase could be a strategic adjustment that leads to several key benefits:

• Accessibility for New Players: A reduced price point of 1,000 DEC for 5 cards provides an affordable entry point into the game. It ensures that new players can start their collection without the feeling of a large financial commitment right from the beginning. A smaller pack size feels more manageable, making the game more approachable.
• Encourages Incremental Investment: Many players may prefer purchasing smaller packs over time rather than committing to a large sum upfront. By offering the Starter packs in a smaller, more digestible size, you tap into the psychology of incremental purchases, promoting longer-term engagement.
• Aligns with Familiar Pack Sizes: Splinterlands has traditionally used 5-card packs, and scaling the Starter Pack to match this size makes it consistent and familiar for both new and returning players. This familiarity helps create a smoother transition into the game's economy.
• Simplifies Value Perception: Offering smaller packs at a reduced price allows new players to easily gauge the value of their purchases. The 5-card pack gives a clear, straightforward value, whereas 25 cards at once may dilute the perceived worth of individual cards.
• Promotes Continued Engagement: Instead of one large, bulk purchase, smaller packs encourage players to come back for more over time. This consistent, ongoing interaction helps foster a dynamic in-game economy and cultivates regular player engagement. Including 5 packs with a Spellbook purchase further incentivizes new players to explore the game and feel rewarded for their initial investment.
• It may also be beneficial to allow a ‘jackpot’ possibility even in the starter packs, ie a VERY low chance of pulling an Epic or Legendary. The impact of experiencing such an event cannot be understated, especially for new players. If Epics have a 4% drop chance in a ‘regular’ pack, maybe allow a .4% chance in the starter packs, along with .1% for Legendary drops). An extremely low GF chance can also provide significant impact/benefit here (ie .1% chance)

2.

Please explain the reasoning for making ANY pack purchased with real money non-transferrable.
$1 packs, if transferable, would also encourage and facilitate ‘gifting’ packs to other players, offer excellent giveaway prizes for streamers, etc. Making them non-transferrable completely eliminates this opportunity.

3.

The introduction of repair costs for Mage Wagons in the Conflict segment presents significant concerns for many players, especially since these wagons were originally sold with the understanding of ongoing value. While token sinks are important for the game’s economy, adding repair costs feels like a shift in the player experience that could result in unintended consequences.

• Optics and Player Sentiment: The optics here are key. Many players will feel as though they are being nickel-and-dimed with repair costs, which may lead them to opt out of participating altogether. Instead of paying a nominal fee to upgrade or maintain their wagons, players could decide to leave thousands of dollars on the table, missing out on what could be a fun and lucrative part of the game. The introduction of these fees may do more harm than good, creating resistance where there should be excitement.
• Introducing Fees on Previously Purchased Assets: The introduction of repair costs for Mage Wagons raises concerns about the potential for fees to be imposed on other in-game assets players have already purchased. If this approach is applied to Mage Wagons, what’s to stop similar fees from being introduced for assets like Power Cores in v2.0 or even on totems and titles? This opens up a slippery slope that undermines player trust in the long-term value of their purchases. Imposing fees after the fact can make players hesitant to invest in future assets, fearing that unexpected costs will continue to arise. To preserve player confidence, it’s crucial to avoid retroactively introducing financial commitments on previously acquired assets.
• Additional Wagons Will Still Be Needed: It’s important to note that even without repair costs, players would need to purchase additional Mage Wagons as the game grows. For example, as more cards from older sets like Alpha, Beta, Untamed, etc., become available for staking, players will require more wagons to maximize their participation. There’s already a built-in demand for additional wagons, so repair costs are an unnecessary complication.
• Unanticipated Financial Burden: Players who purchased wagons did so expecting a one-time investment. Adding repair costs after the fact creates an unforeseen ongoing expense. This could deter players, especially those who budgeted around the original cost of the wagons.
• Maintaining Trust with the Community: For Splinterlands to foster long-term trust with its players, it’s essential to respect the expectations set when Mage Wagons were sold. Unexpected changes in the value of purchased assets can lead to disappointment and a breakdown in the relationship between the game and its dedicated player base.
• Deterring Engagement: With additional costs to maintain Mage Wagons, some players may feel discouraged from participating in Conclave Arcana Conflicts. The complexity and financial upkeep could reduce overall engagement in a key feature of the game.

4.

When examining the Alchemist and Legendary packs for Conclave Arcana, it’s worth considering why these packs should contain a few more cards to enhance both their value and appeal. Below are key reasons for this suggestion:

• Increased Perceived Value: Both the Alchemist (12,000 DEC) and Legendary (24,000 DEC) packs come with high price points relative to the standard booster packs. However, offering just 5 cards — the same number as the much cheaper packs — can make them feel less rewarding, even with the guarantee of special cards like a Gold Foil or a Legendary. By adding just a few more cards, players would feel like they’re getting significantly more for their investment, enhancing the perceived value of the pack and making the higher cost feel justified.

• Encouraging Larger Purchases: For the players willing to invest in Alchemist or Legendary packs, they are already showing a willingness to spend larger amounts of DEC or Credits. By adding more cards, you increase the sense of reward for these larger purchases, making it easier for players to justify buying multiple packs at once. More cards per pack would serve as an extra incentive to participate in the bulk buying of high-tier packs.

• Compensating for Unused Potions: Given that potions like Alchemy and Legendary Potions are still in play for these packs, having more cards per pack would give players more chances to leverage their potions effectively. With more cards, there’s a higher chance of activating the bonus effects from these potions, which increases the overall excitement and satisfaction when opening the packs.

• Rewarding Player Engagement: Players who invest in the higher-tier packs are generally more engaged in the game. Offering additional cards within these packs would be a direct reward for that engagement, keeping high-spending players more satisfied. This also encourages repeat purchases over time, as players feel that they are receiving more tangible rewards for their continued participation and financial support of the game.

• Avoiding Buyer Fatigue: With the high cost of Alchemist and Legendary packs, players may feel “pack fatigue” after purchasing only a few if they don’t perceive enough value. By including a few extra cards in each of these packs, you mitigate this risk. Players will feel like they are getting a richer experience from each purchase, reducing the chance that they will burn out after only a few packs.

• Enhanced Collection Building: For collectors and competitive players, having more cards in these premium packs will help speed up their collection-building process, ensuring they have more of the powerful cards they seek. This will encourage players to dive deeper into the meta of the game and experiment with more strategies, since they’ll have a wider selection of cards available after each purchase.

Suggested Increase:

• Alchemist Packs: Increase from 5 cards to 7 or 8 cards (one guaranteed Gold Foil still included).
• Legendary Packs: Increase from 5 cards to 7 or 8 cards (one guaranteed Legendary still included).

5.

What about offering a 2,500 DEC Pack with 3 cards in it, which, based on the math, would be only slightly worse than the 5-card pack. 1 guaranteed rare won't work so something like a 75% chance for at least a rare or whatever the proper percentage would be so they are not statistically better than the 5-card pack.
Benefits

• This is good for new players and current players since the price is cheaper and they still get the rush of opening a pack and have a chance at pulling a Gold Foil Legendary, which could be good cheap marketing when they post on social media about their pulls.

6.

Will Conclave Arcana be subjected to rigorous testing to ensure proper power curves are established, particularly for epics and legendaries, to provide enough incentive at higher levels for players to max out these rarities? Given the unlimited availability of Starter Packs, how do we plan to avoid overprinting powerful cards that are accidentally put as commons or rares, and weaker epic and legendary which will reduce the value, impact, appeal of higher-rarity cards?