Every week, I throw down a gaming challenge in my Discord. We pick a game, dive in, and players submit screenshots proving they hit a milestone or scored big. Prizes? Either a random raffle for those who complete the challenge or a leaderboard showdown for top scores. To wrap it up, everyone fills out a quick Google Form for feedback—sweetened by another raffle.
This week, we played WAGMI Defense, a mobile strategy game that blends auto-battler, card collection, and tower defense mechanics. If you’ve played Clash Royale, you’ll recognize the core mechanics, but WAGMI Defense adds a deeper card system inspired by Marvel Snap and Genshin Impact. Players choose between two factions—Humans or Aliens—to build decks and battle in real-time, trying to take down enemy towers before their own fall.
The game also integrates Web3 elements via the Immutable blockchain, allowing players to trade cards. However, its core gameplay is traditional—focused on strategy and deck-building.
Let’s break down how the community felt about it.
How Long Did You Play?
Time invested is a solid indicator of engagement. Most players fell into two camps:
4+ hours club (6 players)
1-4 hours range (7 players)
Barely played due to tech issues or general disinterest (4 players)
That’s a decent retention rate, though it’s clear some people bounced hard, either due to issues or lack of appeal.
Did You Suggest the Game to Friends?
Recommending a game to a friend is like vouching for a restaurant—you don’t do it unless you’re confident it won’t poison them.
8 players gave it the thumbs-up.
9 players were like, nah, I’ll keep this experience to myself.
That’s not bad, but ideally, you want more organic word-of-mouth spreading.
Was Questing and Rewards a Strong Motivator?
11 players said yes—the reward system kept them engaged.
6 players said no, meaning progression might not have been compelling enough for everyone.
This suggests that while some people were hooked, others felt the grind wasn’t worth it.
Ease of Access: How Smooth Was It to Get Started?
Scores ranged from 1 to 10, which is a pretty huge spread.
Most people landed around 8-10, meaning the game was generally easy to access.
But a few players gave it a 1, mainly due to technical issues (black screens, lag, etc.).
If someone can’t even get past the start screen, there’s no chance they’ll become a dedicated player. Fixing those onboarding bugs should be a priority.
Controls: Are We Fighting the Game Itself?
Overall, high marks here—most players rated controls between 7-10.
A couple of people gave it a 1 or 4, which might indicate platform-specific issues.
In short: the controls are solid, but they aren’t bulletproof.
Graphics: Stunning or Stumbling?
Most players gave 7-10, suggesting the visuals are solid.
One person rated it a 1—probably the same player who couldn’t get past a black screen. (RIP.)
There were mentions of delays and lag in visuals, meaning optimization could use some work.
The takeaway? The graphics look good when they work, but performance issues need addressing.
Core Gameplay Loop: Addictive or a Chore?
High marks again—most players rated it 8-10.
A few people landed in the 5-7 range, meaning engagement was hit-or-miss for some.
One outlier gave it a 1—we can safely assume they had technical issues and didn’t get to experience it properly.
If a game’s core loop isn’t engaging, nothing else matters. Luckily, this seems to be a strength here.
Story: Does It Even Matter?
10s across the board for some players.
Others settled around 7-9, which is still decent.
A couple of 1s—probably from the people who barely played.
Overall, the story seems solid but might not be the primary draw.
Unit and Attack Variations: Enough Diversity?
Mostly 8-10 ratings, which is promising.
A few players found it lacking (5-7 scores).
The most significant criticism was balance—some units feel much stronger than others.
For a game with strategic elements, variety and balance are crucial. More units and refined balancing could go a long way.
Final Thoughts: The Verdict from the Community
Players had plenty to say about their experiences, from frustrations to outright praise. Here’s what stood out:
Progression felt slow for some, with one player mentioning, "The leveling system is so slow, maybe adjusting it would be nice."
Players want more variety and better balancing, as one put it, "More cards in the future, smoother gameplay, balance other cards overall pretty good game, addicting also."
Performance issues were noticeable, with feedback like "The visual has some delays yet, need to improve more."
Not everyone had complaints—some players were fully on board, with one simply stating, "Freaking Awesome Game."
Conclusion: What Needs Work?
✅ Strengths:
Engaging core gameplay loop
Strong unit/attack diversity
Smooth controls
Decent storytelling (for those who care about it)
❌ Needs Improvement:
Technical issues (black screens, lag, etc.)
Progression speed (leveling feels slow)
More units and better balance
Optimization for smoother performance
Overall, the game is in a good place, but it’s not flawless. Some players had an amazing time, others hit frustrating roadblocks. If the devs smooth out the rough edges, this game could stick around for the long haul.
Thoughts? Drop them in the comments. And if you got stuck on a black screen… we salute your patience.Today we game.
Full data
Hours Played
Hours Played | Players |
4+ hours | 6 |
2-4 hours | 4 |
1-2 hours | 3 |
0-1 hours | 4 |
Suggested to Friends
Suggested to Friends | Players |
Yes | 8 |
No | 9 |
Questing & Rewards
Encouraged by Questing | Players |
Yes | 11 |
No | 6 |
Ease of Access Ratings
Rating | Players |
1 | 1 |
3-5 | 2 |
7-8 | 5 |
9-10 | 9 |
Controls Ratings
Rating | Players |
1-4 | 2 |
5-7 | 3 |
8-10 | 12 |
Graphics Ratings
Rating | Players |
1-4 | 2 |
5-7 | 3 |
8-10 | 12 |
Core Gameplay Loop Ratings
Rating | Players |
1-4 | 1 |
5-7 | 3 |
8-10 | 13 |
Story Ratings
Rating | Players |
1-4 | 2 |
5-7 | 2 |
8-10 | 13 |
Unit & Attack Variation Ratings
Rating | Players |
1-4 | 1 |
5-7 | 3 |
8-10 | 13 |
Comments