|
On June 13 2024 20:31 ZeroByte13 wrote:
So what happens if I have focus fire disabled and I right-clicked on a unit?
It's interpreted as attack ground / A-move?
That's what I'm assuming yeah. Since a-move isn't something taught in RTS games, and isn't tied to any button (usually - i think it is a button in AoE2 for example), newbies usually assume that right clicking on a unit or attacking a unit will just do what's optimal (regardless of whether they know it'll focus fire or not).
|
On June 13 2024 12:49 Waxangel wrote:
Earning/Spending in game currency for new unit unlocks: You can unlock new units in any order you prefer, but they will be gated by in game currency that you earn as you play games.
This is the first time ever we are testing this area of the game, so we expect lots of feedback and iteration throughout the first phase of our closed beta.
We wanted to also point out this is the first big scale testing we’re doing. We want to iterate very closely with you throughout the beta test. Also, we strongly encourage honest, transparent, and respectful discussions (fun fact: we have 3 studio values that we work by day to day, this being one of the 3, and we hope to apply them when working together with you as well.)
I feel really cynical about this, sorry. They thoroughly stress how important it is for them to be transparent and honest, yet they don't mention that this test will very likely be used to gather information on how to monetise this system.
On June 13 2024 20:31 ZeroByte13 wrote:
So what happens if I have focus fire disabled and I right-clicked on a unit?
It's interpreted as attack ground / A-move?
It's hopefully being treated as move command for the learning experience.
|
When will this be playable?
|
United States33712 Posts
On June 14 2024 04:34 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2024 12:49 Waxangel wrote:
Earning/Spending in game currency for new unit unlocks: You can unlock new units in any order you prefer, but they will be gated by in game currency that you earn as you play games.
This is the first time ever we are testing this area of the game, so we expect lots of feedback and iteration throughout the first phase of our closed beta.
We wanted to also point out this is the first big scale testing we’re doing. We want to iterate very closely with you throughout the beta test. Also, we strongly encourage honest, transparent, and respectful discussions (fun fact: we have 3 studio values that we work by day to day, this being one of the 3, and we hope to apply them when working together with you as well.)
I feel really cynical about this, sorry. They thoroughly stress how important it is for them to be transparent and honest, yet they don't mention that this test will very likely be used to gather information on how to monetise this system.
Lol it's extremely obvious what it is; they're not hiding anything. It would be weird (and a negligent business practice) for a game with this model NOT to do this. All the more reason for testers to collude and influence the data 
|
On June 13 2024 12:49 Waxangel wrote:Recent dev update in the Discord about the upcoming beta and monetization:
Our first Closed Beta Test is starting soon at the end of this month so we just wanted to say a few things on our areas of focus. Main goals for testing are: Core gameplay: This is by far the most important thing to test. New user starting experience: (This is called the Proving Grounds, and we want to ease especially new players into our game. Takes 10 wins to complete it.) We’ll msg this elsewhere too, but just wanted to point out if you are an RTS player, please remember to go into gameplay options and Enable Focus Fire in order to be able to focus fire specific units. TLDR on why it is disabled by default is due to our new user testing results from non RTS players. Earning/Spending in game currency for new unit unlocks: You can unlock new units in any order you prefer, but they will be gated by in game currency that you earn as you play games. This is the first time ever we are testing this area of the game, so we expect lots of feedback and iteration throughout the first phase of our closed beta. We wanted to also point out this is the first big scale testing we’re doing. We want to iterate very closely with you throughout the beta test. Also, we strongly encourage honest, transparent, and respectful discussions (fun fact: we have 3 studio values that we work by day to day, this being one of the 3, and we hope to apply them when working together with you as well.)
Having to disable focus fire by default due to testing sounds hilarious. I wonder how 'bad' the open play sessions at Summer Games Fest were. Honestly, that's just an RTS thing in general—anyone who's tried to teach a more casual friend how to play BW/SC2/yourgamehere can relate to how watching them play is an excruciating experience. Also, makes me wonder what % of SC2 players ever turned off the 'can't select enemy units' default setting. Also, interested to see what unlock speed they start at in beta. How can beta players collude their behavior to ensure it's the fastest possible ?
This is nice info but there is nothing on actual monetization, is there?
Will new units cost IG currency as well as real money? Or is it either / or? Did they say how many "starting units" they have at release? There was something somewhere on 50 units total I believe.
Are there cosmetics?
|
It will be in-game currency or real money, similar to how you unlock heroes in some MOBAs. They talked about that before.
|
United States12270 Posts
On June 14 2024 18:35 Harris1st wrote:
This is nice info but there is nothing on actual monetization, is there?
Will new units cost IG currency as well as real money? Or is it either / or? Did they say how many "starting units" they have at release? There was something somewhere on 50 units total I believe.
Are there cosmetics?
You can see in the deck selection screen there are three buttons: [Add] [Unlock (gold currency)] [Unlock (purple currency)]. In monetization models, you can choose to unlock via the gold ("soft", or grindable) currency or the purple ("hard", or real money equivalent) currency, but never a combination of the two (this is for internal revenue recognition purposes).
|
When it has a deck system, inevitably it would have some sort of monetization like this. Very Tencent or eastern MMO monetization scheme.
|
I mean give or take, it's going to rub the "skill" diff purist a little bit here, but in the long run when everyone have access to all the deck it's not that much of a matter, especially the "PRO" scene, just a matter of how greedy will they be with this, if the right amount I think everyone will most likely tolerate it.
|
On the plus side if the brand gets popular enough you might be able to grab the latest unit unlock from a collab with one of those conveyor belt sushi places where you put your empty plates into the slot and get prizes for eating a bunch of sushi. How great would that be?
|
On June 16 2024 02:30 PurE)Rabbit-SF wrote:
I mean give or take, it's going to rub the "skill" diff purist a little bit here, but in the long run when everyone have access to all the deck it's not that much of a matter, especially the "PRO" scene, just a matter of how greedy will they be with this, if the right amount I think everyone will most likely tolerate it.
That's the point, though. F2p or even minnows will never have access to the whole deck, and only piecemeal access to the newest cards. It's how monetisation is done in LOTS of mobile games, e.g. Star Wars: Galaxy of Heroes or Marvel Snap. When done properly, you can beat whales with a clever strategy and good older cards, when done badly (e.g. most Gacha games), the new releases will always crush anything and there'll be continuous power creep.
E: and yes, unless there's also an RNG component, pros should always have access to everything, the same way they do in LoL. Not as if a team is going to drop out of a season because nobody wanted to buy the latest OP hero...
|
I won't think it will be a massive issue.
Players count matter more and pro will always grind enough to unlock latest release.
|
This depends a lot on how malicious balance will be with
1. release of new units and
2. buff units that only few players have to make the rest buy in as well.
|
Northern Ireland27471 Posts
Aside from how it’s monetised, even as a model its impact on the actual gameplay will be interesting to observe.
If we’re talking 50 units just to start, and presumably more to come, there are a few ways that can go wrong.
Be it having a lot of rock-paper-scissors interactions with how compositions face off with each other, or the alternative where sheer numbers of units sees a lot of overlapping roles and redundancy.
On the flipside they’ve really changed up a lot of other fundamentals that I’m very used to in RTS games, and folks who’ve play tested have said it does kinda work so I remain cautiously optimistic
|
United States33712 Posts
On June 16 2024 18:13 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2024 02:30 PurE)Rabbit-SF wrote:
I mean give or take, it's going to rub the "skill" diff purist a little bit here, but in the long run when everyone have access to all the deck it's not that much of a matter, especially the "PRO" scene, just a matter of how greedy will they be with this, if the right amount I think everyone will most likely tolerate it. That's the point, though. F2p or even minnows will never have access to the whole deck, and only piecemeal access to the newest cards. It's how monetisation is done in LOTS of mobile games, e.g. Star Wars: Galaxy of Heroes or Marvel Snap. When done properly, you can beat whales with a clever strategy and good older cards, when done badly (e.g. most Gacha games), the new releases will always crush anything and there'll be continuous power creep. E: and yes, unless there's also an RNG component, pros should always have access to everything, the same way they do in LoL. Not as if a team is going to drop out of a season because nobody wanted to buy the latest OP hero...
The thing is that card games center around powerful legendary/rare cards which define the entire playstyle of a certain deck, and if you don't have these meta-centric cards you basically can't play the game 'normally.' Depending on how harsh a game's gacha/RNG system is, it can be really brutal for F2P players.
For Battle Aces, you'll be able to choose exactly what card you want, and as far as I can tell, the power budget is pretty even across the units (especially at this phase of the game where they're insistent on not having special/complicated abilities). Because there's much less of the FOMO/P2W factor around each individual unit in Battle Aces, I have to wonder if they'll just be really slow to unlock in order to entice the intended amount of spend from users.
Ideally, I hope it's more like League of Legends where the unit collection is relatively trivial, and they're able to make most of the money off of cosmetics.
|
8751 Posts
this type of monetization is definitely a downside for competitive players with limited hours to grind. i'd like to see them maintain a few curated loadouts that are competitive and offer some different playstyle options, which you can buy in bulk at a discount
the idea would be that if someone tries the game and gets hooked by playing the free units, they are in position to be tempted to buy a large pack of units immediately if it's a good value. then they are really hooked on the game as they have spent some money on it now and they have a lot of units to try. if they play a lot of hours, they could proceed to be a free-to-play player from there and eventually acquire everything. otherwise they will need to periodically buy more units.
also it'd be nice if they release only one unit at a time. if they have expansion packs with many units released simultaneously, there will be a lot of dissatisfied people who have been spending their currency one unit at a time. they'd probably wish to refund some units to buy some of the new ones. but it's also silly to advise them to start saving currency when an expansion pack has been announced. like they're not allowed to enjoy purchasing units on the eve of every new release?
in any case i do think they have a challenge ahead of them with figuring this monetization model out to keep people happy while also generating enough revenue for themselves
|
I honestly find it pretty sad that people are at a point where they are defending companies for p2w monetisation models. Like, what do you gain from that as a player? Right, nothing, it's simply bad for you. How bad it is obviously depends on the system and not every p2w system is equally destructive. There are a lot of different shades of grey. None of them is _good_ for the players though, they are just different levels of bad. We have been on this slipery slope for too long and if we continue I'm fairly sure in 10-15 years we will reach the current state of p2w common in eastern games nowadays.
|
Northern Ireland27471 Posts
On June 18 2024 05:49 Miragee wrote:
I honestly find it pretty sad that people are at a point where they are defending companies for p2w monetisation models. Like, what do you gain from that as a player? Right, nothing, it's simply bad for you. How bad it is obviously depends on the system and not every p2w system is equally destructive. There are a lot of different shades of grey. None of them is _good_ for the players though, they are just different levels of bad. We have been on this slipery slope for too long and if we continue I'm fairly sure in 10-15 years we will reach the current state of p2w common in eastern games nowadays.
There’s a flipside to that, one I’ve experienced as a father of an 11 year old youngling which is if there’s an interesting looking game, we can give it a shot together, or he solo. Whereas when I was a youngster it was a case of shelling out 40/50 quid for a copy for myself.
So I think the F2P model has a lot of advantages in outreach, the rest really depends on how the balancing of monetisation works
|
They need to rename the deck load-out thing to your 'unit wallet'. Since at the end of the day you are just fighting the opponent with your money. Then they should allow broke players to show up to matches with holes at certain load-out spots, having spent all their money on just a few meta units. Then if you try to build units that correspond to the empty spots, it just has like a moth that flies out and does nothing.
Also they need disheveled looking portraits for some of the Battle Aces, missing teeth, sallow, this sort of thing. They need to bring this class warfare type stuff into the emergent narrative of the game.
Me personally I will be playing with whatever the equivalent of a Rolex is for my drones. My Battle Ace will look like Ted DiBiase or Richard Branson. If Blizzard can swing a Porsche Overwatch skin, then the Uncapped people better be able to figure out a 'Dolce&Gabbana x Battle Aces' collab so I can play in the kind of luxury I am accustomed to.
|
On June 18 2024 05:49 Miragee wrote:
I honestly find it pretty sad that people are at a point where they are defending companies for p2w monetisation models. Like, what do you gain from that as a player? Right, nothing, it's simply bad for you. How bad it is obviously depends on the system and not every p2w system is equally destructive. There are a lot of different shades of grey. None of them is _good_ for the players though, they are just different levels of bad. We have been on this slipery slope for too long and if we continue I'm fairly sure in 10-15 years we will reach the current state of p2w common in eastern games nowadays.
f2p is not necessarily p2w. Haven't spend a single dime on league.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
