On June 09 2024 13:21 RogerChillingworth wrote: Oh look it's MegaBuster being positive. I get it now.
I feel like you crawl around your apartment on your belly and eat a mostly sugar-based diet.
The insinuation this cross-eyed reptilian is trying to hiss out is that people only are making appraisals of these games based on a kind of politicization. That's not the case for me but I'm glad you can divulge exactly what your striping pattern means.
If you want to talk principles, some of the contrasts you could draw between Battle Aces and Stormgate is that the former made a couple off-hand comments about their through-line to SC2 and never overstressed it while the latter has built a completely activated NFT-bro community believing in their rightful spiritual lineage of SC2.
This stuff has resulted already in a distinct difference between their communities where Battle Aces feels normal and professional, has a clear scope and communication about their game, and only expects people to hang out and have fun. Compare this to Frost Giant which has fostered this haunted atmosphere that consists of endless nebulous promises about the game, shady ass fundraising, and a fanbase who think they should mobilize and attack people who lay any criticism. You won't see any of that with Uncapped Games and you should think about why.
Its not zero sum for these games and there's more than a holding capacity of 1 for good RTS. From the outset its a lot more fun to think about Battle Aces due to its novelty and clear promises about what you are going to play and when.
I mean, you make all these outrageous claims but are you even involved in Frost Giant's community beyond bashing their employees in the megathread?
No one is mobilizing to attack criticism of FG/SG. This is such a false understanding of the community and frankly borders on fucking libel lol. There is so much constructive criticism thrown Stormgate's way by people who want the game to continually improve. The difference between the feedback that's given by people who play Stormgate and are active in the community and those who don't play the game is that the former want the game to be good and the latter have literally no vested interested as a player and just want the game to fail. I think there's a very clear difference in quality and integrity of feedback between the two.
Anyways, on the topic of Battle Aces, I thought that DK documentary was nifty and I was genuinely hopeful. But if I'm honest, it seems like a game that could be made inside the editor of another game. If people are loving it, don't let me crunch your fun. There are aspects of this kind of battle arena that seem quite cool. But the "scope" of BA and SG are incomparable and that is hopefully acknowledged by people.
On June 09 2024 05:14 nforce wrote: I don't want to be negative as I'm overall excited about the game but the monetization they're going with seems like it would create a lot of issues.
How will players pay for Battle Aces?
Battle Aces is a free-to-play game, where players will be able to earn in-game currency to unlock new units simply by playing the game, or choose to use real money to unlock units and cosmetics more quickly.
The League of Legends p2w model, which is argued not to be p2w.
Atleast in LoL you each have 1 character who are all supposedly atleast somewhat equal in general.
Playing an RTS where you have half the units available compared to your opponent just sounds utterly miserable. It doesn't matter if your f2p when all your free players are going to immediately leave due to a massive p2w wall from minute 1.
On June 09 2024 13:21 RogerChillingworth wrote: Oh look it's MegaBuster being positive. I get it now.
I feel like you crawl around your apartment on your belly and eat a mostly sugar-based diet.
The insinuation this cross-eyed reptilian is trying to hiss out is that people only are making appraisals of these games based on a kind of politicization. That's not the case for me but I'm glad you can divulge exactly what your striping pattern means.
If you want to talk principles, some of the contrasts you could draw between Battle Aces and Stormgate is that the former made a couple off-hand comments about their through-line to SC2 and never overstressed it while the latter has built a completely activated NFT-bro community believing in their rightful spiritual lineage of SC2.
This stuff has resulted already in a distinct difference between their communities where Battle Aces feels normal and professional, has a clear scope and communication about their game, and only expects people to hang out and have fun. Compare this to Frost Giant which has fostered this haunted atmosphere that consists of endless nebulous promises about the game, shady ass fundraising, and a fanbase who think they should mobilize and attack people who lay any criticism. You won't see any of that with Uncapped Games and you should think about why.
Its not zero sum for these games and there's more than a holding capacity of 1 for good RTS. From the outset its a lot more fun to think about Battle Aces due to its novelty and clear promises about what you are going to play and when.
I mean, you make all these outrageous claims but are you even involved in Frost Giant's community beyond bashing their employees in the megathread?
No one is mobilizing to attack criticism of FG/SG. This is such a false understanding of the community and frankly borders on fucking libel lol. There is so much constructive criticism thrown Stormgate's way by people who want the game to continually improve. The difference between the feedback that's given by people who play Stormgate and are active in the community and those who don't play the game is that the former want the game to be good and the latter have literally no vested interested as a player and just want the game to fail. I think there's a very clear difference in quality and integrity of feedback between the two.
Brother you just popped into a separate thread and tagged my posts with the info that I only said some excited things about this game because I'm acting out my deep neuroses as a purported enemy of the Stormgate cause. You need to be taken off the compound in a van and deprogrammed. I'm glad Uncapped can run their shit like a normal game studio and not do Stormgate things like enlist purposeless people to protect their finance scheme crap. Not falling for the attempt of the Stormheads to politicize and attack things and put them versus one another.
On June 09 2024 13:21 RogerChillingworth wrote: Oh look it's MegaBuster being positive. I get it now.
I feel like you crawl around your apartment on your belly and eat a mostly sugar-based diet.
The insinuation this cross-eyed reptilian is trying to hiss out is that people only are making appraisals of these games based on a kind of politicization. That's not the case for me but I'm glad you can divulge exactly what your striping pattern means.
If you want to talk principles, some of the contrasts you could draw between Battle Aces and Stormgate is that the former made a couple off-hand comments about their through-line to SC2 and never overstressed it while the latter has built a completely activated NFT-bro community believing in their rightful spiritual lineage of SC2.
This stuff has resulted already in a distinct difference between their communities where Battle Aces feels normal and professional, has a clear scope and communication about their game, and only expects people to hang out and have fun. Compare this to Frost Giant which has fostered this haunted atmosphere that consists of endless nebulous promises about the game, shady ass fundraising, and a fanbase who think they should mobilize and attack people who lay any criticism. You won't see any of that with Uncapped Games and you should think about why.
Its not zero sum for these games and there's more than a holding capacity of 1 for good RTS. From the outset its a lot more fun to think about Battle Aces due to its novelty and clear promises about what you are going to play and when.
I mean, you make all these outrageous claims but are you even involved in Frost Giant's community beyond bashing their employees in the megathread?
No one is mobilizing to attack criticism of FG/SG. This is such a false understanding of the community and frankly borders on fucking libel lol. There is so much constructive criticism thrown Stormgate's way by people who want the game to continually improve. The difference between the feedback that's given by people who play Stormgate and are active in the community and those who don't play the game is that the former want the game to be good and the latter have literally no vested interested as a player and just want the game to fail. I think there's a very clear difference in quality and integrity of feedback between the two.
Anyways, on the topic of Battle Aces, I thought that DK documentary was nifty and I was genuinely hopeful. But if I'm honest, it seems like a game that could be made inside the editor of another game. If people are loving it, don't let me crunch your fun. There are aspects of this kind of battle arena that seem quite cool. But the "scope" of BA and SG are incomparable and that is hopefully acknowledged by people.
Quiet you cross-eyed reptilian you!
I’m hoping both succeed, I think Battle Aces strips too much away in RTS games that I actively enjoy, but I’ll give it a proper shot when she drops and see if my mind changes.
I think it’ll be pretty awful for the genre (as a multiplayer proposition) if all of these projects fail, hopefully some of them can punch through, even if they’re not tailor-made for me wombat tastes
On June 09 2024 13:21 RogerChillingworth wrote: Oh look it's MegaBuster being positive. I get it now.
It's the counterpart to Spartak being negative here.
I really don't want to but then I tune in to an interview with David Kim and hear him talking about how a game franchise that sold more than 20m copies could never be enjoyed by "normal gamers": https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2167225638?t=02h15m19s He is just repeating all the bullshit that has been said about RTS games that created a ton of misconceptions about the genre over the years. I am more annoyed about the philosophy they are pushing than their game. I don't think their game is going to amount to much but I wouldn't care about it if they didn't also use their platform and all the money they got from Tencent to spread this nonsense.
I think the very obvious subtext here is that he thinks 1v1 competitive is the core fun of the game and he wishes more ppl could have enjoyed it.
it's fine for ppl to pick "sides" (to some reasonable extent) but let's try to keep some minimum level of intellectual honesty here
Well, if he meant that he should have said that. That is not an automatic assumption you would make. SC2 is enjoyed by a lot of people in singleplayer and co-op, so there was already a way to enjoy those games without spending hundred+ hours practicing mechanics. Besides, even if he meant 1v1, he would be wrong then as well. A vast majority of people who play SC2 competitively are in platinum and below leagues. They don't spend dozens of hours practicing mechanics before having fun.
On June 08 2024 09:24 ETisME wrote: an arena RTS, pretty interesting. There are more things I like than dislike
pro: visually nice to see, that UI is clean. love the glados voices very simple to understand time limits is a great idea imo, but definitely not for a lot of players
drag formation would work so well in this game
con: units clump up a bit too much the strategy is nice but imo could get repetitive, good thing is the units themselves are all fairly unique in their role. I am not a massie fan of the massive resource dump into high tech units ball, I feel like this could be very frustrating.
The momentum of a successful defend and counter push will be difficult to balance imo. there's no building defense and game rotates around aggression.
Drag formation seems a perfect fit for this particular title.
I’ve seen it demoed and it looks very elegant, I’ve just yet to be exposed to a game that I’d play much of that uses it.
The masochist in me actually enjoys things like boxing and splitting units manually rather a lot, l’m just pretty conditioned with how Blizz-style RTS games play.
But for this game, OK it’s in early stages and whatnot, it just feels that kind of control scheme could really work.
Having played old RTT games (well, specifically the rather underrated Myth series) being able to switch between formations of different strengths and weaknesses was quite engaging, and it was way more clunky than the drag formation demos I’ve seen.
I’m assuming there’ll be a lot more interesting terrain options and other things to come, in the absence of that I think dynamically altering formations of units quickly and elegantly would be nice rather than trying to ball/unball a la Blizz games.
On June 09 2024 13:21 RogerChillingworth wrote: Oh look it's MegaBuster being positive. I get it now.
I feel like you crawl around your apartment on your belly and eat a mostly sugar-based diet.
The insinuation this cross-eyed reptilian is trying to hiss out is that people only are making appraisals of these games based on a kind of politicization. That's not the case for me but I'm glad you can divulge exactly what your striping pattern means.
If you want to talk principles, some of the contrasts you could draw between Battle Aces and Stormgate is that the former made a couple off-hand comments about their through-line to SC2 and never overstressed it while the latter has built a completely activated NFT-bro community believing in their rightful spiritual lineage of SC2.
This stuff has resulted already in a distinct difference between their communities where Battle Aces feels normal and professional, has a clear scope and communication about their game, and only expects people to hang out and have fun. Compare this to Frost Giant which has fostered this haunted atmosphere that consists of endless nebulous promises about the game, shady ass fundraising, and a fanbase who think they should mobilize and attack people who lay any criticism. You won't see any of that with Uncapped Games and you should think about why.
Its not zero sum for these games and there's more than a holding capacity of 1 for good RTS. From the outset its a lot more fun to think about Battle Aces due to its novelty and clear promises about what you are going to play and when.
I mean, you make all these outrageous claims but are you even involved in Frost Giant's community beyond bashing their employees in the megathread?
No one is mobilizing to attack criticism of FG/SG. This is such a false understanding of the community and frankly borders on fucking libel lol. There is so much constructive criticism thrown Stormgate's way by people who want the game to continually improve. The difference between the feedback that's given by people who play Stormgate and are active in the community and those who don't play the game is that the former want the game to be good and the latter have literally no vested interested as a player and just want the game to fail. I think there's a very clear difference in quality and integrity of feedback between the two.
Anyways, on the topic of Battle Aces, I thought that DK documentary was nifty and I was genuinely hopeful. But if I'm honest, it seems like a game that could be made inside the editor of another game. If people are loving it, don't let me crunch your fun. There are aspects of this kind of battle arena that seem quite cool. But the "scope" of BA and SG are incomparable and that is hopefully acknowledged by people.
Quiet you cross-eyed reptilian you!
I’m hoping both succeed, I think Battle Aces strips too much away in RTS games that I actively enjoy, but I’ll give it a proper shot when she drops and see if my mind changes.
I think it’ll be pretty awful for the genre (as a multiplayer proposition) if all of these projects fail, hopefully some of them can punch through, even if they’re not tailor-made for me wombat tastes
I agree. I don't see much cannibalism between the two games. I'm interested to see how they both progress. It's exciting times.
On June 09 2024 05:14 nforce wrote: I don't want to be negative as I'm overall excited about the game but the monetization they're going with seems like it would create a lot of issues.
How will players pay for Battle Aces?
Battle Aces is a free-to-play game, where players will be able to earn in-game currency to unlock new units simply by playing the game, or choose to use real money to unlock units and cosmetics more quickly.
The League of Legends p2w model, which is argued not to be p2w.
Atleast in LoL you each have 1 character who are all supposedly atleast somewhat equal in general.
Playing an RTS where you have half the units available compared to your opponent just sounds utterly miserable. It doesn't matter if your f2p when all your free players are going to immediately leave due to a massive p2w wall from minute 1.
Mostly a sidebar but LoL definitely isn't P2W... or, at least, that's not even among the top 3 barriers to entry that it has. Even in the case where X character was twice as strong as any other character, you earn enough ingame points to buy the character within the first 3-4 games (and 3 of those were tutorials vs bots) by design.
It suffers the same barriers to entry any MOBA has - The biggest barrier to entry is knowledge and experience, and as time goes on with a skins-based system in a game that keeps adding more characters, visual cohesion goes further and further to shit (and increases the knowledge/experience barrier to entry) and any given skillshot has north of 4 possible audio effects and 5 different graphics.
I agree that P2W is an interesting problem to introduce into an RTS-lite, but I disagree completely that LoL's implementation is P2W.
Fuck skins though. Games old and new should have a /toggleskins function for your opponents so you can opt out of not being sure what the fuck their units are the first time you see them.
On June 09 2024 05:14 nforce wrote: I don't want to be negative as I'm overall excited about the game but the monetization they're going with seems like it would create a lot of issues.
How will players pay for Battle Aces?
Battle Aces is a free-to-play game, where players will be able to earn in-game currency to unlock new units simply by playing the game, or choose to use real money to unlock units and cosmetics more quickly.
The League of Legends p2w model, which is argued not to be p2w.
Atleast in LoL you each have 1 character who are all supposedly atleast somewhat equal in general.
Playing an RTS where you have half the units available compared to your opponent just sounds utterly miserable. It doesn't matter if your f2p when all your free players are going to immediately leave due to a massive p2w wall from minute 1.
Planetside2 is PvP and only P2W once you spend dozens of hours learning how your new tools work.
Many super skilled PS2 players love winning with general use free weapons that are 10% worse in certain specific conditions.
If the P2W elements are tuned properly no one will care.
The game is F2P so I will give it a shot. If it grabs me, as Planetside2 did, I will keep playing. Same applies to Stormgate.
My biggest barrier will be time not money... And I think for most RTS vets over 30 that will be the case.
All I know is I'm pushing my real life friends hard to try this game. The latest video where they show a <50 apm style utilizing recall is my selling point.
On June 09 2024 05:14 nforce wrote: I don't want to be negative as I'm overall excited about the game but the monetization they're going with seems like it would create a lot of issues.
How will players pay for Battle Aces?
Battle Aces is a free-to-play game, where players will be able to earn in-game currency to unlock new units simply by playing the game, or choose to use real money to unlock units and cosmetics more quickly.
The League of Legends p2w model, which is argued not to be p2w.
Atleast in LoL you each have 1 character who are all supposedly atleast somewhat equal in general.
Playing an RTS where you have half the units available compared to your opponent just sounds utterly miserable. It doesn't matter if your f2p when all your free players are going to immediately leave due to a massive p2w wall from minute 1.
Planetside2 is PvP and only P2W once you spend dozens of hours learning how your new tools work.
Many super skilled PS2 players love winning with general use free weapons that are 10% worse in certain specific conditions.
If the P2W elements are tuned properly no one will care.
The game is F2P so I will give it a shot. If it grabs me, as Planetside2 did, I will keep playing. Same applies to Stormgate.
My biggest barrier will be time not money... And I think for most RTS vets over 30 that will be the case.
I’d wager RTS vets looking for a new fix will be a lot of the early uptake, and either through played unlocks or just buying will potentially have everything that’s available in the first weeks of launch.
So you potentially end up with players already better than newcomers, also having better tools as well.
Which could be brutal, but I’m assuming they’re sensible and will try to avoid such a scenario.
On June 10 2024 06:00 nforce wrote: They really did a poor job showcasing it in the PC Gaming Show. And yeah, LoL's hero purchasing is p2w. It's even more so in a 1v1 RTS game.
You'd have to quantify or qualify anything for this to be an argument. Right now, it's just your feeling.
For example, I believe hero purchasing in LOL is not p2w because:
You can get any hero in the game for free on a new account without even doing casual PVP, nevermind ranked PVP.
The hypothetical in which you could spend money to buy a hero that would increase your chances to win is absurd. You'd have to have never played the game, be unwilling to do a 20 minute tutorial, and have bothered to look up which hero is 'the best', and only then could you spend $ on a hero to have a better chance to win. And you'd be stupid to do so.
There's approximately an 8% winrate deviation between the worst character and the best character, sorted by just winrate%. The collective total purchase cost for the top 3 "most OP" characters by that metric for under 5,000 points. You get more than 5,000 points from doing the tutorial missions.
Your experience with a character is vastly more impactful on your chances to win than its relative power. The B-tier hero you've got 10 games on is better for you than the S-tier hero you've never played. This is why "one-trick" (only playing one hero ever, as opposed to specializing a specific role) has been a term forever in League.
In my experience people just sit on their points and don't buy new champions unless they want to play them. This would not be the case if you could pay to win.
I would accept an argument that skins are pay to win. The way League has implemented hero purchasing, it is absolutely not pay to win.
On June 10 2024 07:58 Fleetfeet wrote: I would accept an argument that skins are pay to win. The way League has implemented hero purchasing, it is absolutely not pay to win.
I agree with your post (all of it, only snipped it for brevity). Spending money is no shortcut to victory in League of Legends and winrate differences are not gigantic and monitored quite thoroughly by the balance team.
However, is there not a pattern of most new champion releases being overtuned, and spending some time at the top before they get knocked down? For people who are long-established in the game, many feel it's a bit P2W that the new champion comes out and they can choose to buy it or not and part of that calculus won't just be how much it fits their playstyle, it'll be how loaded the kit is (this has trended upwards over time) and how the champion is tuned (typically a bit high initially). So I can see at least where some calls of "P2W" are coming from.
On June 10 2024 07:58 Fleetfeet wrote: I would accept an argument that skins are pay to win. The way League has implemented hero purchasing, it is absolutely not pay to win.
I agree with your post (all of it, only snipped it for brevity). Spending money is no shortcut to victory in League of Legends and winrate differences are not gigantic and monitored quite thoroughly by the balance team.
However, is there not a pattern of most new champion releases being overtuned, and spending some time at the top before they get knocked down? For people who are long-established in the game, many feel it's a bit P2W that the new champion comes out and they can choose to buy it or not and part of that calculus won't just be how much it fits their playstyle, it'll be how loaded the kit is (this has trended upwards over time) and how the champion is tuned (typically a bit high initially). So I can see at least where some calls of "P2W" are coming from.
Totally, and I hear that. However, that's definitely an issue of Riot just fucking missing the mark sometimes, and not a general strategy.
Hwei, one of the more recent releases, was around 30-40% winrate on release. Smolder, the most recent, was 40% for the first 24h. Briar, K'sante, and Nafiiri also all struggled to break 50% winrate early on. That's the most recent 5 releases, and they're all (Well, maybe not Smolder, he's like 45% rn) doing fine now.
Part of the struggle with this is what I mentioned - even if the new champ is balanced, it'll be a balanced new champ someone has played twice vs a balanced old champ someone has played dozens of times. Unless the balance is slightly in favour of the new champ (or the matchup is unintuitive and exploitable) then the experience difference will just outweigh the raw champion balance.
Riot has definitely missed the mark beforre, and when they do that does leave very slim windows where you could 'buy power' for a week. That's valid.
On June 10 2024 07:58 Fleetfeet wrote: I would accept an argument that skins are pay to win. The way League has implemented hero purchasing, it is absolutely not pay to win.
I agree with your post (all of it, only snipped it for brevity). Spending money is no shortcut to victory in League of Legends and winrate differences are not gigantic and monitored quite thoroughly by the balance team.
However, is there not a pattern of most new champion releases being overtuned, and spending some time at the top before they get knocked down? For people who are long-established in the game, many feel it's a bit P2W that the new champion comes out and they can choose to buy it or not and part of that calculus won't just be how much it fits their playstyle, it'll be how loaded the kit is (this has trended upwards over time) and how the champion is tuned (typically a bit high initially). So I can see at least where some calls of "P2W" are coming from.
Totally, and I hear that. However, that's definitely an issue of Riot just fucking missing the mark sometimes, and not a general strategy.
Hwei, one of the more recent releases, was around 30-40% winrate on release. Smolder, the most recent, was 40% for the first 24h. Briar, K'sante, and Nafiiri also all struggled to break 50% winrate early on. That's the most recent 5 releases, and they're all (Well, maybe not Smolder, he's like 45% rn) doing fine now.
Part of the struggle with this is what I mentioned - even if the new champ is balanced, it'll be a balanced new champ someone has played twice vs a balanced old champ someone has played dozens of times. Unless the balance is slightly in favour of the new champ (or the matchup is unintuitive and exploitable) then the experience difference will just outweigh the raw champion balance.
Riot has definitely missed the mark beforre, and when they do that does very seldom leave windows where you could 'buy power' for a week. That's valid.
Thanks to yourself and Turbo for the breakdown, as a complete League noob and someone who plays a few F2P shooters with kiddo, my experience of how much ‘P2W’ is introduced is somewhat limited, which makes it trickier to appraise what such a model can potentially do in a genre I’m more familiar with.
As youse were saying picking a character with at least a decent chance of success and playing just that for a game, and as part of a team at that does mitigate P2W elements rather considerably.
But for an RTS? Well suppose we’ll have to wait for more concrete details on how all this aspect is going to work.
Good point on experience in using unlocks too, and this works in both directions. One needs time to learn the intricacies of your new toy, equally you have to have experience in actually playing against it as well.
I can’t imagine it’ll be this extreme but players would likely find getting the countermeasures versus say, banelings if they only played 1/10 XvZs against people who had them unlocked or w/e
On June 10 2024 07:58 Fleetfeet wrote: I would accept an argument that skins are pay to win. The way League has implemented hero purchasing, it is absolutely not pay to win.
I agree with your post (all of it, only snipped it for brevity). Spending money is no shortcut to victory in League of Legends and winrate differences are not gigantic and monitored quite thoroughly by the balance team.
However, is there not a pattern of most new champion releases being overtuned, and spending some time at the top before they get knocked down? For people who are long-established in the game, many feel it's a bit P2W that the new champion comes out and they can choose to buy it or not and part of that calculus won't just be how much it fits their playstyle, it'll be how loaded the kit is (this has trended upwards over time) and how the champion is tuned (typically a bit high initially). So I can see at least where some calls of "P2W" are coming from.
Totally, and I hear that. However, that's definitely an issue of Riot just fucking missing the mark sometimes, and not a general strategy.
Hwei, one of the more recent releases, was around 30-40% winrate on release. Smolder, the most recent, was 40% for the first 24h. Briar, K'sante, and Nafiiri also all struggled to break 50% winrate early on. That's the most recent 5 releases, and they're all (Well, maybe not Smolder, he's like 45% rn) doing fine now.
Part of the struggle with this is what I mentioned - even if the new champ is balanced, it'll be a balanced new champ someone has played twice vs a balanced old champ someone has played dozens of times. Unless the balance is slightly in favour of the new champ (or the matchup is unintuitive and exploitable) then the experience difference will just outweigh the raw champion balance.
Riot has definitely missed the mark beforre, and when they do that does very seldom leave windows where you could 'buy power' for a week. That's valid.
Thanks to yourself and Turbo for the breakdown, as a complete League noob and someone who plays a few F2P shooters with kiddo, my experience of how much ‘P2W’ is introduced is somewhat limited, which makes it trickier to appraise what such a model can potentially do in a genre I’m more familiar with.
As youse were saying picking a character with at least a decent chance of success and playing just that for a game, and as part of a team at that does mitigate P2W elements rather considerably.
But for an RTS? Well suppose we’ll have to wait for more concrete details on how all this aspect is going to work.
Good point on experience in using unlocks too, and this works in both directions. One needs time to learn the intricacies of your new toy, equally you have to have experience in actually playing against it as well.
I can’t imagine it’ll be this extreme but players would likely find getting the countermeasures versus say, banelings if they only played 1/10 XvZs against people who had them unlocked or w/e
Yeah ultimately it comes down to whether or not the things being sold are balanced. In the case of League of Legends, they (seem to) make attempts to have things released 'balanced'. Obviously a predatory implementation of the same system could have the new things be overpowered to boost their own sales, but I'm erring on the side of Uncapped NOT going that direction out the gate.
Tbh I think champions being for sale as part of LoL is an outdated model that they don't prioritize and are kind of just 'stuck with' now. With that in mind it seems questionable for Battle Aces to implement that model, and makes me curious how they're going to implement it in a non-predatory way. I think a general fear of it becoming p2w or predatory is entirely healthy. Not that we should EXPECT that, just that it's a reasonable fear.
"Skins in general make waaaay more then any new champion ever makes, and it's not really a goal for the Champions team to make revenue. Our main goal is engagement, which is to say we want to make products that keep people playing LoL." - Reav3, Riot dev
my partner and I play 2v2 starcraft occasionally, she can react to things relatively well but her macro just slip off too much. She just started grinding last month and is a gold 1v1 Korean server (more like silver tbh)
She definitely will enjoy this game, there's just too much initial hurdle to get into the mechanics, and then needing to deal with all the BS cheese strats. At least this game can be over in 10mins
On June 10 2024 07:58 Fleetfeet wrote: I would accept an argument that skins are pay to win. The way League has implemented hero purchasing, it is absolutely not pay to win.
I agree with your post (all of it, only snipped it for brevity). Spending money is no shortcut to victory in League of Legends and winrate differences are not gigantic and monitored quite thoroughly by the balance team.
However, is there not a pattern of most new champion releases being overtuned, and spending some time at the top before they get knocked down? For people who are long-established in the game, many feel it's a bit P2W that the new champion comes out and they can choose to buy it or not and part of that calculus won't just be how much it fits their playstyle, it'll be how loaded the kit is (this has trended upwards over time) and how the champion is tuned (typically a bit high initially). So I can see at least where some calls of "P2W" are coming from.
I agree that LoL is a really bad example when card games are RIGHT THERE as the more appropriate comparison. Anyway, here's how it's phrased on their website:
"There will always be a path to unlock units through earned in-game currency. Players will also be able to choose their next unit unlock, instead of unlocking them in a predetermined order. With approximately 50 units planned at launch, and multiple viable and balanced play styles, we aim to make Battle Aces competitive and fun for all types of players."
You have to wonder how fast the unlock progress will be considering they do need people to spend. For instance, I think the RTS community would balk at what HearthStone ppl would consider a 'normal' per-season spend. Another comparison I could make is Legends of Runeterra, which was one of the rare card games that had a "choose exactly what you want to unlock" mechanism rather than packs. The progress speed ended up feeling pretty fair to me as a free-to-play person, though I was playing it much more casually than HearthStone.
EPT
