On September 04 2023 22:12 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i'd like them to charge an annual fee to play one of their ladders. they can have a separate ladder that is F2P. this allows them to ban hackers and keep them off the paid mode of play. a high ranking on the paid ladder will be taken more seriously because it is carefully policed. The annual fee pays for the oversight.
A two-class society, hell yeah!
No need to make it too two-tiered, have unranked ladder work as in SC2, if you want to climb the official ranks and get various nuggets and kudos, perhaps further goodies play the ranked ladder for 5/10 dollars a year.
For me that’s a more effective way of monetising than having the multiplayer completely free and making the campaigns a paying option. A lot of people who want to play the game as the new SC2/WC3/BW and get that competitive RTS fix.
If it’s good and even remotely achieves what it’s setting out to, 5/10 quid a year is basically nothing in the wider scheme of things. I put about 120 quid all told into SC2 between buying games, a few packs and an alternate account, a small fee for playing competitive MP would be small fry in comparison
They should have ladders with a buy-in like a poker tournament haha
Also did anyone see dota banned 90k smurfs? But they defined smurf as (paraphrasing) an alt account that’s breaking the rules lol.
I swear “smurf” is like the bogeyman now. GJ for banning accounts in violation of the TOS. That’s your job. Not sure why it’s important that they’re alt accounts. Maybe just forget about smurfs/alts and simply ban all rulebreakers
On August 31 2023 04:16 RogerChillingworth wrote: hmmm yeah, we've heard that single player content is gonna be monetized, but maybe co-op stuff will be too? i'm not too familiar with it but i know co-op commander did well in sc2.
when it comes to monetizing user generated content, it feels a bit like 11D chess. i would hate to see the vibe of the community of map makers turn into some profit-motivated competition. i think it'd be sweet if things were open and collaborative--but all that becomes tricky when you introduce the promise of some juicy $$ into the equation. but i also think we're probably past the point of people pouring hundreds of hours into maps without -some- kind of incentive structure. i feel like this element of monetization, if there will be one for ugc at all, is very complex and should be handled with care.
admittedly, i plan on making some pretty involved stuff inside the stormgate editor, if things go well and people end up playing the game, so i'm very interested to see how this develops. to me, the editor feels like the part of the iceberg that's underwater, where the other pillars of the game are the top part. just so much to think about and explore there.
I quite disagree with you. Even if it was free content, every map creator used every trick in the book to protect their map in Warcraft (maybe because it is then easy to make cheat or to just do aggressive fork and still hard work, I don't know the situation well in Sc2)
I also think money can be a great motivation to have more good content. I mean if it cost money to host a map sure it's gonna be bad, but allow an easy the way for players to encourage map creator is good I think. It's the same in programming, most people do it for money, yet in most area people are still keen to help each others with learning how things works, or create useful tools.
What worry me the most is when the editor will land. I think it's a low priority because it's something that will earn long term benefits over just landing the multiplayer coop or so campaign.
On September 04 2023 23:54 NonY wrote: They should have ladders with a buy-in like a poker tournament haha
Also did anyone see dota banned 90k smurfs? But they defined smurf as (paraphrasing) an alt account that’s breaking the rules lol.
I swear “smurf” is like the bogeyman now. GJ for banning accounts in violation of the TOS. That’s your job. Not sure why it’s important that they’re alt accounts. Maybe just forget about smurfs/alts and simply ban all rulebreakers
Eh just Valve's style is to ban in waves, there was a "cheating" ban wave not too long ago. They are also new systems for communication abuse.
On September 04 2023 23:54 NonY wrote: They should have ladders with a buy-in like a poker tournament haha
Also to this part, Artifact kinda tried something like this (pay to play modes) and it failed miserably... probably not the only reason, but part of it for sure.
On August 31 2023 04:16 RogerChillingworth wrote: hmmm yeah, we've heard that single player content is gonna be monetized, but maybe co-op stuff will be too? i'm not too familiar with it but i know co-op commander did well in sc2.
when it comes to monetizing user generated content, it feels a bit like 11D chess. i would hate to see the vibe of the community of map makers turn into some profit-motivated competition. i think it'd be sweet if things were open and collaborative--but all that becomes tricky when you introduce the promise of some juicy $$ into the equation. but i also think we're probably past the point of people pouring hundreds of hours into maps without -some- kind of incentive structure. i feel like this element of monetization, if there will be one for ugc at all, is very complex and should be handled with care.
admittedly, i plan on making some pretty involved stuff inside the stormgate editor, if things go well and people end up playing the game, so i'm very interested to see how this develops. to me, the editor feels like the part of the iceberg that's underwater, where the other pillars of the game are the top part. just so much to think about and explore there.
I quite disagree with you. Even if it was free content, every map creator used every trick in the book to protect their map in Warcraft (maybe because it is then easy to make cheat or to just do aggressive fork and still hard work, I don't know the situation well in Sc2)
Map protection is overrated in warcraft 3 and misunderstood, but is largely due to performance concerns. There are files that are used by the map editor that warcraft doesn't need to run. These are deleted which will prevent the most unsophisticated users from opening the map. Back in early 2000s reducing the map size was important.
The JASS itself is still readable to anyone which leads us to minification/obfuscation that you'd see with JavaScript or several other programming languages. This is going to reduce the file size again, but anyone who can program will still be able to understand what the code does as it only removes whitespace and changes variable names. It would take them longer to work out what the code is doing, but it is all there to read if you know how and had a reason.
Commercialization is what would drive that desire. If I can make money off editing some else's work then it makes sense to take the time.
On September 04 2023 23:54 NonY wrote: They should have ladders with a buy-in like a poker tournament haha
Also to this part, Artifact kinda tried something like this (pay to play modes) and it failed miserably... probably not the only reason, but part of it for sure.
monetizing competitive multiplayer in order to fund cleansing the ladder is going to be a tough challenge. they can monetize co-op by imitating Blizzard's model in SC2.
On September 04 2023 23:54 NonY wrote: They should have ladders with a buy-in like a poker tournament haha
Also to this part, Artifact kinda tried something like this (pay to play modes) and it failed miserably... probably not the only reason, but part of it for sure.
monetizing competitive multiplayer in order to fund cleansing the ladder is going to be a tough challenge. they can monetize co-op by imitating Blizzard's model in SC2.
Seems like atm their model will be co-op story chapters / seasons / something + skins to be overall financially viable. Fom what I understand, skins are more of a money maker in multiplayer games.
On September 04 2023 23:54 NonY wrote: They should have ladders with a buy-in like a poker tournament haha
Also to this part, Artifact kinda tried something like this (pay to play modes) and it failed miserably... probably not the only reason, but part of it for sure.
monetizing competitive multiplayer in order to fund cleansing the ladder is going to be a tough challenge. they can monetize co-op by imitating Blizzard's model in SC2.
Just make it optional and be done with it.
Free ladder for everyone
Premium ladder for small buyin (monthly/ seasonal/ yearly or even one time buy). Steller anti cheat and anti hack method. Almost nobodys gonna cheat with their Premium accounts when they can make free alt accounts to use hacks on free ladder
On September 04 2023 23:54 NonY wrote: They should have ladders with a buy-in like a poker tournament haha
Also to this part, Artifact kinda tried something like this (pay to play modes) and it failed miserably... probably not the only reason, but part of it for sure.
monetizing competitive multiplayer in order to fund cleansing the ladder is going to be a tough challenge. they can monetize co-op by imitating Blizzard's model in SC2.
Just make it optional and be done with it.
Free ladder for everyone
Premium ladder for small buyin (monthly/ seasonal/ yearly or even one time buy). Steller anti cheat and anti hack method. Almost nobodys gonna cheat with their Premium accounts when they can make free alt accounts to use hacks on free ladder
That’s fair, if you buy the campaign get access to the paid ladder. Idk if they’ll have the player base to separate though
I'm sure everyone's aware already but Frost Giant recently posted this new video. Shows some new footage and a new building. Think the building looks really cool.
On September 08 2023 10:30 RogerChillingworth wrote: I'm sure everyone's aware already but Frost Giant recently posted this new video. Shows some new footage and a new building. Think the building looks really cool.
On August 31 2023 04:16 RogerChillingworth wrote: hmmm yeah, we've heard that single player content is gonna be monetized, but maybe co-op stuff will be too? i'm not too familiar with it but i know co-op commander did well in sc2.
when it comes to monetizing user generated content, it feels a bit like 11D chess. i would hate to see the vibe of the community of map makers turn into some profit-motivated competition. i think it'd be sweet if things were open and collaborative--but all that becomes tricky when you introduce the promise of some juicy $$ into the equation. but i also think we're probably past the point of people pouring hundreds of hours into maps without -some- kind of incentive structure. i feel like this element of monetization, if there will be one for ugc at all, is very complex and should be handled with care.
admittedly, i plan on making some pretty involved stuff inside the stormgate editor, if things go well and people end up playing the game, so i'm very interested to see how this develops. to me, the editor feels like the part of the iceberg that's underwater, where the other pillars of the game are the top part. just so much to think about and explore there.
I quite disagree with you. Even if it was free content, every map creator used every trick in the book to protect their map in Warcraft (maybe because it is then easy to make cheat or to just do aggressive fork and still hard work, I don't know the situation well in Sc2)
Map protection is overrated in warcraft 3 and misunderstood, but is largely due to performance concerns. There are files that are used by the map editor that warcraft doesn't need to run. These are deleted which will prevent the most unsophisticated users from opening the map. Back in early 2000s reducing the map size was important.
The JASS itself is still readable to anyone which leads us to minification/obfuscation that you'd see with JavaScript or several other programming languages. This is going to reduce the file size again, but anyone who can program will still be able to understand what the code does as it only removes whitespace and changes variable names. It would take them longer to work out what the code is doing, but it is all there to read if you know how and had a reason.
Commercialization is what would drive that desire. If I can make money off editing some else's work then it makes sense to take the time.
Interesting, but many maps if not all that are even a bit popular are still protected to this day. Minification and obfuscation make something almost unreadable for me, even tho I guess you can use tools maybe to make it more readable, but as well as you could try to use some tools to unprotect the most obvious way of protecting maps.
The thing is usually things can be minified and also open source on the side. Warcraft 3 maps are not, but Im not complaining against that I can understand that people may be willing to share a Jass system, a model or a map but not all together, there is also the huge concern of cheat injection.
It's just for me I feel it's wrong to say that potential money will ruin a modding scene.
It's just for me I feel it's wrong to say that potential money will ruin a modding scene.
I want to quickly address this because i was the one who said $$ would shit in the soup. I misspoke a bit. I don't think -any- money would ruin the scene, but I think there are ways in which it can. It all depends on the strategy employed by Frost Giant. FG seems to care about player experience first so I'm not too worried. If it does end up being a shit show then I will be very loud about it. Otherwise, it's best to wait and see how things develop.
On September 04 2023 23:54 NonY wrote: They should have ladders with a buy-in like a poker tournament haha
Also to this part, Artifact kinda tried something like this (pay to play modes) and it failed miserably... probably not the only reason, but part of it for sure.
Eh, I agree its a bad idea but that seems like a bad argument. Since card games are a collectible game, it kinda makes sense to have buy ins for stuff. Like that's how certain events in MTGO and Arena work. I don't think thats going to transfer over to an RTS.
Seems weird that they're asking the community these questions when these are almost exclusively issues for the top 1% or even 0.1% of the ladder. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, a matchmaking system that looks for a close MMR match for 60 seconds within your region before it begins loosening its parameters (look outside your region, widen the MMR discrepancy) will almost always find a good MMR match within your region for the average player. It's only at the top of the ladder where population is smaller and MMR differences are bigger that we are faced with tough questions about balancing between MMR discrepancy vs latency vs queue time.
And as far as the leaderboard goes, again this is really only an issue for the top players. For everyone else, your regional rank vs your global rank is basically a piece of trivia.
Lower rank players feel free to share your perspective to educate me...
In any case, I think global matchmaking is the obvious way to go. If it's calibrated well, then it's almost pure upside. Ideally there'd be an option to say "I'm willing to wait longer for a close MMR match within my region" which wouldn't be available for top players, so there's no funny business about one matchmaking option or another being advantageous.
A global ladder queue would also mean a global social interface, no? In previous blizz games you could only interact with people on your server. Now everyone will be together. This would be the real advantage for me.
EPT
