从表面看来，人们期待着《精英战斗小组》能够在iOS平台上创造出巨大的火花。这是众所周知的开发商Crytek与手机巨头DeNA合作创造的一款具有高端视觉效果的游戏。这是一款针对于硬核玩家的RTS，并伴随着可收集的纸牌结构。它一经发行便获得了来自苹果的推荐。所有的这一切似乎都预示着这款游戏的成功。然而在我写这篇文章时，该游戏却并未出现在美国的iPhone或iPad前200名畅销游戏榜单内。所以本文将通过分析《精英战斗小组》的设计问题去识别其糟糕盈利的原因并提出一些可行的解决方法。

这一分析是基于2天，4小时玩《精英战斗小组》的体验所获得的。因为游戏使用了给予重复在一个关卡获胜的玩家奖励的结构，所以我在每个关卡都玩了5次，只是为了能在移向下一个关卡前获得最大奖励。在4个小时的游戏后我花掉了自己的所有付费货币，只是为了能够看清楚游戏体验。作为一名玩家，在这一期间我并未感到任何冲动或需要去购买额外的纸牌包。

在深入分析前一些关于我的游戏过程的概要：

比赛—-在54次比赛中50次赢了，4次输了

最远的任务—-10（同时也玩到了Easter Event关卡的任务2）

关卡7

燃料消耗—-挣得的1845或1865

挣得的金币—-290

最后的人员：Reload 1（很少），Lord Anvil 4（很常见），Killer Yuriy 5（很常见），Double 5（很常见）

因为其高端的图像和独特的RTS游戏玩法非常适合手机，《精英战斗小组》拥有一些很棒的架构。但是仍存在许多问题阻碍着这款游戏去获取盈利。

1.即时的错误

识别问题

阻碍《精英战斗小组》盈利的关键问题便是即时的游戏玩法并不能最大化其潜能。整体游戏并不像它所呈现的基础那么有趣。完善这一基础将提高游戏的质量并提升玩家的留存率。我的主要问题是关于这一遮盖系统以及行动纸牌系统。

2mWOMoM(from famousaspect)

游戏的标准输入内容是点击地面以移动你的4个士兵到目标位置。他们将巧妙地进行探险并瞄准目标，但除非接到特定指示，否则他们不会进入遮盖物中。为了将一个单位置于遮盖物中，玩家必须在特定单位与特定遮盖物热点之间画一条线。

考虑到游戏的快节奏行动以及有效遮盖位置的苛求，我发现这一系统在某种程度上是无用的。当我因为遮盖物而烦恼时，出现了导致僵局且让人惊讶的短程火焰（就像上图所示）。对立双方都隐藏在遮盖物中不能朝彼此开火。我忽视了遮盖系统，而是引导着我的小组不断地移动以避开Fragmaster的炸药，同时也继续消灭着敌人。即使未使用遮盖物并忽视了行动纸牌，我仍可以确保最低的损失而轻松前进。

我所遇到的第二个问题是关于行动纸牌系统。我的问题部分是关于游戏交流以及我自己部分的期待。我的位体是将每张行动纸牌理解为一次性消费品；我认为只要在一次战斗中使用一张纸牌它就失去功效了。结果便是，我不敢轻易使用任何一张纸牌，并且根据我的记录，我并不需要依靠他们便能够获得成功。在接近4个小时游戏的尾声，我猜意识到即使在战斗中使用行动纸牌，它也不会因此被耗尽。

一个推论问题便是，我的小组成员几乎没有什么差别。尽管每个角色都有自己的类型，但是我却发现其实他们之间并没有什么差别。我发现在4个小时的游戏后，我的桥牌中找不到任何标识能够区分每一个类别，指出屏幕上的角色，并告诉你他们的名字。

解决方法

我们可以从《战锤40K：战争黎明》中获得关于这三个问题的灵感。同样是基于小组的近距离RTS，这款游戏进行了显著的完善，从而让它变得更具策略性和奖励。

我们可以通过参考《战锤40K》获得灵感去完善遮盖系统，并且无需对当前的输入系统做出任何改变。在《战锤40K》中，小组成员将基于你的输入移向遮盖物。同样地在《精英战斗小组》中，静态遮盖物区域也会呈现在地图上。当玩家提出了一个移动命令时，个体单位将要移动到靠近点击位置的遮盖物中。这一系统将直接执行，同时让玩家能够通过画线而沿着该路径移动特定的单位。

同样地，如果行动将基于类型分配给特定的单位，并且玩家将在战斗中驱动该单位去驱动其能力，行动和角色系统将变得更有趣。也许只有一个Rifleman能够装备并激活像Nano Cloak和Flashbang等行动，同时一个Heavy也能够装备并激活Explosives等等。这将让桥牌建造元素变得更让人满足，同时也能够在单位于战斗中阵亡时创造出较强的紧张感。

所有的这些改变都是致力于完善时刻游戏玩法，并因此创造出更有趣且更具有保持力的游戏。

2.不断循环的消费

识别问题

F2P游戏可收集的纸牌类型是受到不断循环的消费所驱动。在经典的游戏回合中，玩家将消费他们的货币，不管是挣得的还是需要额外购买，并以此去换取道具。每个道具都带有某种形式的价值，因为即使它是动力不足的或者加倍的，它都能够与基础道具相融合而获得升级。在像《勇者前线》或《龙腾世纪》等游戏中，玩家将会每隔几次战斗就能进行融合，即使他们只是免费玩家。玩家将体验基于特定基础而进行盈利的系统。

79FIEyy(from famousaspect)

在《精英战斗小组》中我们感受不到消费循环。不像在《龙腾世纪》中那样，即玩家能够不断获得新的单位，并通过融合获得某些价值，即使他并未将它们添加到自己的桥牌，在《精英战斗小组》中，我很少能够改变自己的桥牌。在4个小时的游戏中我获得的英雄数非常有限，他们中的一些只是复制了我所拥有的纸牌，只有一个是属于稀有英雄。通过游戏我获得了8个免费的纸牌包，但几乎每一张都让我很失望。我购买的一个付费包也非常让人失望，那只是关于我从一开始所获得的英雄的复刻版。就是这样的体验阻止着我用真钱去购买金币以换取补充包。

更让人受挫的是我所挣的的相对较小的纸牌的燃料循环价值。我觉得自己被骗了，这不只是因为英雄重新利用的燃料较少，而且基于我投资在英雄身上的燃料数来看，英雄重新利用的成本并未获得提高。如果我花了250的燃料将英雄升级到第5级，它的循环价值停留在15燃料，那么我将只能从第1级开始重新利用他。

《精英战斗小组》并未利用纸牌收集机制所建议的收集和消费循环。这一循环将有效推动游戏的乐趣元素和盈利。

解决方法

这一问题的解决方法非常简单。《精英战斗小组》如果能够接受像《龙腾世纪》和《勇者前线》中的融合和进化系统便能够获得巨大的利益。玩家应该挣得更多纸牌，不管是在游戏中（通过获取战利品）还是通过购买力（游戏邦注：通过奖励付费纸牌包的成本并让付费货币变得更可行）。关于纸牌的稀有性，玩家应该接受更广泛的结果（就好像缺少特别的层面一样）以通过寻找更特别的结果去获得更多乐趣。玩家应该不断将垃圾纸牌与自己所装备的英雄和行动融合在一起去获得升级，并使用付费货币装备他们。甚至作为硬核玩家的我也发现这些系统非常吸引人且有趣；升级你的小组很有趣，即使你这么做只是为了获得更强大的全新稀有道具而再次进行巡回。这样的消费循环不仅能够创造更具奖励性的元游戏，同时也能够推动盈利。

3.能量条

问题识别

为了吸引硬核玩家专注于Crytec的《精英战斗小组》，能量条便成为了关键。“这只是另外一款尝试着骗我花钱的糟糕的免费游戏。”我并不知道它在参数层面上的表现怎样；我所知道的所有额外能力便是《精英战斗小组》的一台巨大的赚钱机器。但考虑到我在4个小时的游戏过程中未花任何钱于能力上，我的直觉便是，比起在能量销售方面所创造的利益，能量条带给玩家的伤害更大。

解决方法

除非能量系统现在能够创造大量的收益，否则我会建议你删除它。为了线性故事进程，我认为比起创造收益，这对于玩家留存的危害更大。我建议遵循《永恒战士3》的方法。在这款游戏中不存在以线性任务为基础的能量机制。然而却有一个较高的奖励生存模式能够使用能量系统去开设通道。在这样的环境下，浇注控制更让人满意，因为该模式将提供给玩家比在主线游戏中更多的战利品。《精英战斗小组》能够使用类似的模式获益。即使未使用能量条，当前的游戏玩法也能够有效运行。然而游戏将从一个较早的机制中收益，即该机制结合了浇注机制与更具挑战性的体验和更高的奖励。这也引出了我们最后的问题。

4.早前的游戏

问题识别

在成功的硬核免费手机游戏中的一个显著模式便是大部分收益是来自早前的机制。它们是瞄准那些厌倦了基于线性故事的内容的玩家的系统。通常情况下它们是具有社交性的，包含某种类型的有限时间，基于排行榜的挑战以及对于最高表现者的额外奖励。这些是对于那些喜欢你的游戏的玩家的留存和盈利的核心推动力量。尽管面对着当前的Easter Eggmayhem关卡，我觉得《精英战斗小组》缺少真正的早前机制。考虑到Mobage，这真的特别让人惊讶。这是一款需要包含网络上的其他玩家，独有的奖励以及一些在玩家厌倦了任务后还能不断执行的任务的系统的游戏。

解决方法

这些都是关于创造的建议，但却很难去执行。存在许多能够加强《精英战斗小组》挽留并从用户身上赚取的能力的早前功能。我的第一个建议便是一个异步的PvP系统。《火线指令2》是关于一个PvP系统如何在离线的时候挑战其他玩家的小组而创建起来的优秀例子。我的第二个建议是创建一个小组系统和基于小组的每周比赛。《永恒战士3》是如何基于现有的游戏机制通过添加排行榜到玩家所参与的活动中，并将其与额外的奖励组合在一起去推动事件的发展而创造一个事件系统的典型例子。我的第三个建议便是拥有较高的奖励和基于排行榜的生存模式。与之前的部分不同的是，这些都是带有浇注系统（如能量）能够提升事件的紧张感的机制。如果玩家到达了这些机制，那便是因为他已经克服了对于免费游戏机制最初的厌恶感了。

（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转功，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

The Collectables monetization analysis

On the face of it, one would expect The Collectables to make a big splash on the iOS marketplace. A high-end visual treat from proven developers Crytek built in partnership with mobile powerhouse DeNA. A core-gamer targeting, squad based RTS with a collectable card meta-structure. A feature by Apple upon release. These all sound like the ingredients for success. Yet at the time of writing, the game has failed to crack the top 200 grossing for iPhone or iPad in the US. This analysis seeks to identify issues with the design of The Collectables that contribute to its weak monetization and propose solutions to issues identified.

This analysis is based on 4 hours of play of The Collectables on iPad, spread out over two days. As the game uses a structure of rewarding the player for repeat wins on a level with progressive rewards, I played each level 5 times to get the maximum reward before moving on to the next. I spent my gold bar premium currency only at the very end of my 4 hour session, and only to see what the experience was like. As a player, I did not feel compulsion or need to buy additional card packs during my session.

Some quick stats on my gameplay before diving into the analysis:

Matches played – 54 with 50 wins and 4 losses

Furthest mission played – 10 (Also played to mission 2 of the Easter Event levels)

Level 7

Fuel spent – 1,845 of 1,865 earned

Gold earned – 290

Final Crew: Reload 1 (rare), Lord Anvil 4 (common), Killer Yuriy 5 (common), Double 5 (common)

With its high end graphics and unique, bite sized RTS gameplay well suited for mobile, The Collectables has the bones of something great. Yet a number of issues impede the game’s ability to monetize.

1. Moment to moment stumbles

Issue identified

A critical issue impeding Collectables monetization is that the moment-to-moment gameplay is not maximizing its potential. The game is not as fun as it can be given the foundation. Improving this foundation will increase game quality and lift player retention. My primary issue is with the cover system, and secondarily the action card system.

The standard input of the game is to click on the ground to move your squad of 4 soldiers to a location. They behave intelligently in regards to pathfinding and targeting, but will not drop into cover unless specifically instructed. To place a unit into cover, the player must draw a line from that specific unit to a specific cover hotspot and release.

Given the fast paced action of the game, and the finickyness of valid cover locations, I found this system slow and cumbersome to use to the point of uselessness. When I did bother getting into cover, the surprisingly short range of fire led to standoffs like the one pictured above. Two opposing sides, both stuck in cover and unable to fire on each other. I largely ignored the cover system, instead keeping my squad constantly moving to avoid Fragmaster explosives while mowing down enemies. Without using cover and largely ignoring my action cards, I was able to easily progress with minimal losses.

The second issue I had was with the action cards system. My issue was partially one of game communication and partially of my own expectations. My mistake was interpreting that each action card was a one-time use consumable; once used in combat I believed a card was gone forever. As a result, I horded my action cards because I viewed them as precious, and as shown by my record did not require them to win. Only near the tail end of my 4 hours did I realize that an action card was not trashed after use in battle.

A corollary issue is that my squad mates presented themselves as completely undifferentiated. Though each character has a class-type, at the level of zoom and method of control, I experienced no differentiation between the characters. I saw no upside to having each class represented in my deck, and could not point to a character on screen and tell you what his name was after my 4 hours of play.

Proposed solution

All three of these issues could be improved by taking inspiration from Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War II (DoW). A similarly close quarters, squad-based RTS, this game enjoys noticeable improvements that make the game more strategic and rewarding to play on a moment-to-moment basis.

Cover could be improved by taking inspiration directly from DoW and does not require any change to the current input system. In DoW, the squad members intelligently move into cover based on your inputs. Similar to Collectables, static cover hotspots populate the map. When the player issues an order to move, individual units intelligently move into cover if it is available near the click. A colored indicator shows where each character will move and the quality of the cover. This system could be directly implemented while still allowing the player to draw a line to move a specific unit along a path.

Similarly, the action and character systems would be more fun if the actions were assigned to specific units based on type, and the player triggered that unit in battle to trigger his ability. Perhaps only a Rifleman can equip and activate actions like Nano Cloak and Flashbang, while a Heavy can equip and activate Explosives, etc. This would have the benefit of making the deck building aspect of the game more gratifying while simultaneously raising the oft missing tension when a unit falls in battle.

All of these proposed changes are aimed at improving moment-to-moment gameplay, resulting in a more fun and retentive game.

2. Constant consumption loop

Issue identified

The collectable card genre of F2P games are driven by a constant consumption loop. In a typical game session players are spending their currency, both earned and premium, to buy packs of items. Each item holds some form of value because even if it is underpowered or duplicative, it can be fused into a base item to level it up. In games including Brave Frontier or Heroes of Dragon Age, the player is fusing between every few battles even as a free player. The player experiences the systems that allow for monetization on a regular basis.

The consumption loop in The Collectables feels off. Unlike a Heroes of Dragon Age where the player is constantly acquiring new units, bringing some value via fusion even if he does not add them to his deck, I rarely required to change up my deck in The Collectables. I earned very few new heroes over 4 hours of play, a number of them being duplicates of cards I already owned, and only one of them being a rare hero. I earned 8 free card packs through play and all of them were disappointing (partially driven by the previously mentioned way I avoided action card use). The one premium pack I bought (a 199 gold booster – the equivalent of $1.34 when purchasing the $4.99 currency pack) was extremely disappointing, as the hero I earned was a duplicate common from my starting set. This experience alone would deter me from ever buying gold for real money to purchase a booster pack.

Even more frustrating was the relatively small fuel recycle value of the cards I did earn. I felt cheated not only by the small amount of fuel the base heroes recycled for, but even more so that a hero’s recycle cost did not increase based on the amount of fuel I had previously invested in him. If I have spent over 250 fuel to upgrade a common to level 5, and his recycle value remains at the 15 fuel I would get for recycling him at level 1.

The Collectables does not capitalize on the collection and consumption loop that its title and card collecting mechanic suggests. This loop is critical to both the fun factor and monetization of the game.

Proposed solution

The solution to this issue is fairly simple. The Collectables would benefit greatly from adopting a fusion and evolution system found in games like Heroes of Dragon Age or Brave Frontier. The player should be earning more cards, both in game (perhaps from the loot chests placed throughout the level) and through purchasing power (by lowering the costs of premium card packs and making premium currency slightly more available). The player should also receive a wider spread of results in the rarity of cards (it feels like an uncommon tier is lacking) to bring more joy of loot through finding better than common results. The player should be constantly fusing junk cards into his equipped heroes and actions to level them up and evolve them using premium currency. Even as a core gamer I find these systems very compelling and fun to play; there is a joy to leveling up your whole squad to max level, only to receive a new, more powerful rare to start the cycle again. This consumption loop will create a more rewarding meta-game experience while also driving monetization.

3. Energy bar blues

Issue identified

For the core gamers attracted to The Collectables by Crytec’s pedigree and high end visuals, the energy bar is an instant signal. “This is just another crappy F2P game trying to rip me off.” I do not know what performance looks like on the metrics level; for all I know additional energy is a big money maker for The Collectables. But given the long length of play sessions I experienced without ever spending premium currency on energy, my intuition is that having an energy bar is doing more harm in the players it turns off than the revenue it is generating on energy sales.

Proposed solution

Unless the energy system is currently generating significant revenue, I advise removing it. For the linear story progression, I believe it is more deterrent to player retention than additive to revenue. I suggest following in the path of Eternity Warriors 3. In this game there is no energy mechanic for the linear, quest based gameplay. However, there is a highly rewarding survival mode that does use an energy system to gate access. In this context, the gating is desirable because the mode rewards the player with significantly more loot than equivalent playtime in the mainline game. The Collectables would benefit from a similar schema. The current gameplay would play well without the use of an energy bar. Yet the game would also benefit from an elder mechanic, or elder mechanics, that combined a gating mechanic with a more challenging experience and higher rewards. Which leads directly into our final topline issue.

4. Elder play

Issue identified

A clear pattern in successful, core, F2P mobile games is that a large portion of the revenue comes from elder mechanics. These are systems aimed at players who have exhausted the linear, story based content faster than you can possibly build it. They are generally social, include some sort of limited time, leaderboard based challenge and exclusive rewards for top performers. These are core drivers of retention and monetization for those players who love your game. Yet despite the current Easter Eggmayhem levels, I feel that The Collectables has no true elder mechanic. Which is especially surprising given the Mobage integration. This game needs a system of play involving other players on the network, exclusive rewards and something to do repetitively even after the player has exhausted the missions.

Proposed solution

These are simple suggestions to make but difficult ones to implement. There are a number of elder features that would greatly enhance The Collectable’s ability to retain and monetize users. My first suggestion is for an asynchronous PvP system. Frontline Commando 2 is an excellent example of how a PvP system can be built from challenging another player’s squad when offline. My second suggestion is to build a guild system and a guild-based, weekly event tournament. Eternity Warriors 3 serves as an prime case of how to build an event system on top of existing game mechanics simply by adding a leaderboard to an action to players are already taking (packs opened, heroes upgraded, actions used, cards recycled, etc.) and pairing it with exclusive rewards to drive an event. My third potential suggestion is for a highly rewarding, leaderboard-based survival mode. Unlike the previous section, these are examples of mechanics where a gating system (such as energy) is appropriate to raise the tension of the event. If a player reaches these mechanics it is because he has already overcome any initial aversion to F2P mechanics.(source:famousaspect)