|
|
On July 22 2014 22:40 ComaDose wrote:
"give us more ways to customize our characters"
"okay here"
"fuck you dead game worse than lol"
LoL, its so true. I also like how people are freaking out about a system that is clearly going to be adjusted over time. But they just see the developers blog and freak out in the worst way possible. Total chicken little syndrome.
PS: Of course criticism is valid and even I see flaws in the current proposed system. I'm mostly talking about the extremely hyperbolic comments.
|
On July 22 2014 22:20 SoleSteeler wrote:Considering they've had basically zero positive feedback, I'm sure it'll be changed slightly...hopefully... Specifically this.
I just noticed there's a post by user TheYanger. Yeah, it's probably not TheYango but I still found it funny.
|
Don't uninstall or freak out like that. By all means bombard the official forums, but let's be real: after the negative feedback, they would be insane to keep on track.
Honestly, I think they'll pull a Warhound.
Or, alternatively, have the artifacts have only cosmetic or out-of-game effects. Hat artifacts are fine. Artifacts that buff XP (character or general) or gold (per win, or for quests, or whatever) or hoopla points are fine.
Another route is the "sidegrade" route. Each character can be built in at least 2 ways. So pick the one that's most popular at the top of ladder for each character, call it the "default," and give that character that artifact to start. But allow grinding to get other kinds of artifacts that facilitate the other builds. For instance, Kerrigan can be specialized for more CC or more damage. Say that damage is more popular at the top of ladder. Give her a damage artifact by default, but allow grinding for an artifact that increases the CC done by abilities.
But really I'd be happy with a total rollback. Ignore/fuck the people who want this game to be LoL.
|
Perhaps a naive question: what's wrong with the "pay some money, get a game with everything unlocked" model?
|
On July 23 2014 05:59 entropius wrote:
Perhaps a naive question: what's wrong with the "pay some money, get a game with everything unlocked" model?
Nothing, but there are games that can be made that don't follow that model. Also, if you want a company to support a game over a long period of time(like years and years), they need income to pay for that support. Thus the free to play model, where you can pay if you want, or just unlock stuff over time.
|
Last thing I saw/checked - Tassadar has Psi-Storm, finally :D
|
On July 23 2014 05:59 entropius wrote:
Perhaps a naive question: what's wrong with the "pay some money, get a game with everything unlocked" model?
You make less money from microtransactions, also there's a bigger chance of people Being bored without a progression system.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
A pay once model will likely earn less money, but also fewer people may be inclined to pay that starting price. For example, someone might be put off by a $30 price tag, even though they may spend more than $30 in microtransactions.
|
On July 22 2014 23:10 Noro wrote:
I came here thinking about complaining that I needed a beta key and after reading the past 2 pages I don't think I want one anymore... o.o
To be honest I'm in the same boat now. I'd randomly clicked on this topic just now to see how the game was coming along. And its just all bad news these past few pages.
But now...I mean really, Blizzard? Locking off hero capability until you reach a specific level with them? LoL-style Runes, sorry Artefacts, which provide out of game inherent bonuses which are locked off to players who haven't spent a pile of time unlocking them? Are you really going to go down that road?
Not to mention the whole "purchase your heroes" thing. Its silly how that's become a thing in supposedly competitive games. Its an inherently anti-competitive model. :-\
|
From a pure competitive standpoint it sucks, but I still find the game fun as hell to play!
|
On July 22 2014 23:04 ComaDose wrote:
you have very good arguments against items but i'm not sure who you are talking to.
you honestly believe the other mobas fucked up by having items? no advantage for winning? sounds like a mentality oriented towards mario party mini games not so much mobas.
talkin bout unfair advantage to people who put in more work like you never played an mmo or something?
when i want to play chess i play sc2, when i want to tune a build to get a bit more out of my char i play lol, when i want to watch diablo superplex kerrigan i play HotS. I'm not gonna wana see that less if diablo gets 5% movespeed more cause he plays everyday. i just think everyone's over reacting like they are really expecting this to be the next one true moba saving esports. half the people complaining have never even played it.
MOBAs became mainstream with Dota. Neither Dota nor Dota 2 gives you an advantage for winning. So no, it's not a Mario Party mentality, it's a MOBA mentality that the playing field is level and that you don't get an advantage for paying real money or grinding more.
Again, if it's such a great idea, why don't you ask them to add it to SC2. Then when you want to play chess, you can play chess.
|
I watched the Heroes QA. There is only 2 interesting things that we learned from Dustin Browder in that QA:
1. They think that unlocking things and progression is great. So great in fact, he repeated this probably 4 times.
2. Gating talents is not about making the game easier for noobs, but Browder said that it makes it easier for noobs as a positive side effect (it doesn't, it makes it harder as they're playing gimped heroes and will have to relearn how to talent them properly), instead it is primarily because he thinks unlocking things is GREAT.
Basically, Browder REALLY REALLY LOVES unlocking things. He simply couldn't stop talking about it. He mentions how great they are in Titanfall and other games he plays.
I mean, if he really really loves unlocking things, why doesn't he add them to SC2? He is, after all, the game director for SC2. Unlock the marine after 2 games, unlock the stim pack upgrade after 15 games, unlock the battlecruiser after 100 games.
He also seems to have missed the fact that there is an infinity of cosmetic things he could have added as unlocks, instead of hero power. For example, why does each skin have only 3 tints? There are an infinity of colors, and thus, with minimal effort, there could be a infinity of hero levels, each with a new and different tint of the hero skins, if they chose to do that. In fact, if you look at Dota 2, for a F2P game, there is no limit to the amount of cosmetic unlocks/rewards/microtransactions that can be added. You could sell/unlock:
-Loading screens.
-Text fonts.
-Hero weapons and armor and an infinity of tints for each one.
-Emoticons.
-Text colors.
-Spell effects and an infinity of recolorings for spell effects.
-Icons, both for spells and for profile.
-Battle.net lobby backgrounds.
-UI layouts.
-Hero emotes and animations.
-Hero voice acting.
-Announcers.
-Any sound effect.
-Supplementary features and mini-games, like fantasy leagues or betting on TI4 winners, and the things associated with these features and mini-games.
-Death effects.
-Map theme.
-Weather effects in map.
This barely scratches the surface. Absolutely EVERYTHING you see and hear, from heroes to graphics to every piece of UI, can be associated with an infinite amount of cosmetic customization and unlocks. There is no limit. But, instead, they're in the narrow-minded and self-destructive view of unlocking power.
|
Northern Ireland27403 Posts
Have to agree with that, cosmetic and UI unlocks are something worth exploring with this model, gimped abilities until you unlock them is something else.
|
On July 23 2014 21:39 paralleluniverse wrote:
I watched the Heroes QA. There is only 2 interesting things that we learned from Dustin Browder in that QA:
1. They think that unlocking things and progression is great. So great in fact, he repeated this probably 4 times.
2. Gating talents is not about making the game easier for noobs, but Browder said that it makes it easier for noobs as a positive side effect (it doesn't, it makes it harder as they're playing gimped heroes and will have to relearn how to talent them properly), instead it is primarily because he thinks unlocking things is GREAT.
Basically, Browder REALLY REALLY LOVES unlocking things. He simply couldn't stop talking about it. He mentions how great they are in Titanfall and other games he plays.
I mean, if he really really loves unlocking things, why doesn't he add them to SC2? He is, after all, the game director for SC2. Unlock the marine after 2 games, unlock the stim pack upgrade after 15 games, unlock the battlecruiser after 100 games.
He also seems to have missed the fact that there is an infinity of cosmetic things he could have added as unlocks, instead of hero power. For example, why does each skin have only 3 tints? There are an infinity of colors, and thus, with minimal effort, there could be a infinity of hero levels, each with a new and different tint of the hero skins, if they chose to do that. In fact, if you look at Dota 2, for a F2P game, there is no limit to the amount of cosmetic unlocks/rewards/microtransactions that can be added. You could sell/unlock:
-Loading screens.
-Text fonts.
-Hero weapons and armor and an infinity of tints for each one.
-Emoticons.
-Text colors.
-Spell effects and an infinity of recolorings for spell effects.
-Icons, both for spells and for profile.
-Battle.net lobby backgrounds.
-UI layouts.
-Hero emotes and animations.
-Hero voice acting.
-Announcers.
-Any sound effect.
-Supplementary features and mini-games, like fantasy leagues or betting on TI4 winners, and the things associated with these features and mini-games.
-Death effects.
-Map theme.
-Weather effects in map.
This barely scratches the surface. Absolutely EVERYTHING you see and hear, from heroes to graphics to every piece of UI, can be associated with an infinite amount of cosmetic customization and unlocks. There is no limit. But, instead, they're in the narrow-minded and self-destructive view of unlocking power.
If they want to mimic the DOTA2 business model then they'll have to create a Blizzard workshop (similar to Steam workshop) where players themselves can create these extra contents, submit to Blizzard for approval (just like in DOTA2
) and the player creators get like 25% and Blizzard get 75% of every sale of said extra contents.
As it is, everything extra is created by Blizzard, so all these extra contents you mentioned, yes, they are an infinite source of revenue, but without a workshop system like Steam workshop it is not feasible and on the contrary, economically crippling for Blizzard.
But hey, it's not like Blizzard already has an editor that players can used to create custom mods and maps, right? That's just silly talk!
|
On July 23 2014 21:17 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2014 23:04 ComaDose wrote:
you have very good arguments against items but i'm not sure who you are talking to.
you honestly believe the other mobas fucked up by having items? no advantage for winning? sounds like a mentality oriented towards mario party mini games not so much mobas.
talkin bout unfair advantage to people who put in more work like you never played an mmo or something?
when i want to play chess i play sc2, when i want to tune a build to get a bit more out of my char i play lol, when i want to watch diablo superplex kerrigan i play HotS. I'm not gonna wana see that less if diablo gets 5% movespeed more cause he plays everyday. i just think everyone's over reacting like they are really expecting this to be the next one true moba saving esports. half the people complaining have never even played it. MOBAs became mainstream with Dota. Neither Dota nor Dota 2 gives you an advantage for winning. So no, it's not a Mario Party mentality, it's a MOBA mentality that the playing field is level and that you don't get an advantage for paying real money or grinding more. Again, if it's such a great idea, why don't you ask them to add it to SC2. Then when you want to play chess, you can play chess.
yeah when you are winning in dota you buy better items. you said they fucked up by having items.
HotS is about fixing the snowball, not about starting it up again by repeating the mistakes of other MOBAs through the addition of items
but you misunderstood what i ment. also dota doesn't get to define a genre anymore than starcraft does.
I understand why people don't want to grind but I can't believe how entitled you all feel.
|
On July 23 2014 21:17 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2014 23:04 ComaDose wrote:
you have very good arguments against items but i'm not sure who you are talking to.
you honestly believe the other mobas fucked up by having items? no advantage for winning? sounds like a mentality oriented towards mario party mini games not so much mobas.
talkin bout unfair advantage to people who put in more work like you never played an mmo or something?
when i want to play chess i play sc2, when i want to tune a build to get a bit more out of my char i play lol, when i want to watch diablo superplex kerrigan i play HotS. I'm not gonna wana see that less if diablo gets 5% movespeed more cause he plays everyday. i just think everyone's over reacting like they are really expecting this to be the next one true moba saving esports. half the people complaining have never even played it. MOBAs became mainstream with Dota. Neither Dota nor Dota 2 gives you an advantage for winning. So no, it's not a Mario Party mentality, it's a MOBA mentality that the playing field is level and that you don't get an advantage for paying real money or grinding more. Again, if it's such a great idea, why don't you ask them to add it to SC2. Then when you want to play chess, you can play chess.
Aaand then it was dwarfed by LoL(btw its funny that you call it MOBA) that gives all sorts of advantages before you reach the max level and even after that to some extent. Turns out people don't care. If the majority of the players don't mind leveling and runes, then why should the developers ignore this stream of money ? There is a saying "Isn't insane the one who eats the pie, but who gives it to him."
Personally I think(after playing f2p games for a long time) that F2P models are cancer and should not exist.
|
On July 23 2014 21:39 paralleluniverse wrote:
2. Gating talents is not about making the game easier for noobs, but Browder said that it makes it easier for noobs as a positive side effect (it doesn't, it makes it harder as they're playing gimped heroes and will have to relearn how to talent them properly), instead it is primarily because he thinks unlocking things is GREAT.
I flat out don't understand the argument of "making it simpler for newbies" as a justification for locking anything off to be honest.
Deliberately reducing the number of options someone has until they pass an arbitrary point of "playing x number of hours/games" or "earn y amount of points" in the interests of making it easier to understand is NOT good game design. And is antithesis to fostering proper competitive play of any sort. The way you deal with people being confused is to have good tutorials, a good practice mode, optional limited selection game modes and a variety of heroes ranging from the simple to the complex. Its not to lock big chunks of the game off so they can't experiment.
The truth is that the systems are set up that way to achieve two things:
1. To force people into spending money (through charging for things like characters and rune pages that they NEED to be able to play properly) or face a horrendous grind. I'm as guilty of supporting this as anyone else, but I still find it an offensive business model.
And
2. To create a Skinner box effect. Keep playing and get this shiny thing or new ability or whatever. Precisely the same method MMORPGs use to keep people playing. And virtually the complete opposite for what ARTS games are supposed to be about.
A game should be good enough that people want to play it solely because its fun to play. Not because grinding another twenty games will unlock another thing.
I mean, if he really really loves unlocking things, why doesn't he add them to SC2? He is, after all, the game director for SC2. Unlock the marine after 2 games, unlock the stim pack upgrade after 15 games, unlock the battlecruiser after 100 games.
On a side note...technically there is. Though its just cosmetics (the portraits and stuff like that).
|
On July 23 2014 23:31 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2014 21:17 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 22 2014 23:04 ComaDose wrote:
you have very good arguments against items but i'm not sure who you are talking to.
you honestly believe the other mobas fucked up by having items? no advantage for winning? sounds like a mentality oriented towards mario party mini games not so much mobas.
talkin bout unfair advantage to people who put in more work like you never played an mmo or something?
when i want to play chess i play sc2, when i want to tune a build to get a bit more out of my char i play lol, when i want to watch diablo superplex kerrigan i play HotS. I'm not gonna wana see that less if diablo gets 5% movespeed more cause he plays everyday. i just think everyone's over reacting like they are really expecting this to be the next one true moba saving esports. half the people complaining have never even played it. MOBAs became mainstream with Dota. Neither Dota nor Dota 2 gives you an advantage for winning. So no, it's not a Mario Party mentality, it's a MOBA mentality that the playing field is level and that you don't get an advantage for paying real money or grinding more. Again, if it's such a great idea, why don't you ask them to add it to SC2. Then when you want to play chess, you can play chess. yeah when you are winning in dota you buy better items. you said they fucked up by having items. Show nested quote +HotS is about fixing the snowball, not about starting it up again by repeating the mistakes of other MOBAs through the addition of items but you misunderstood what i ment. also dota doesn't get to define a genre anymore than starcraft does. I understand why people don't want to grind but I can't believe how entitled you all feel.
Do you read? As I said, items are not the same as artifacts. Items are within-game. They do not give you an advantage from outside of the game. Everyone starts the game with the same potential to buy items. Artifacts come from grinding and winning previous games, not within the current game, to give you an advantage in the current game. Unlike items, with artifacts, you are already ahead before the game even starts compared to someone who doesn't have it. Why is that so hard to understand? Why do you fail to understand such a simple concept?
Should winning 50 SC2 games unlock a +2 damage to your marines in all future SC2 games?
I understood what you meant perfectly: you said "when i want to play chess i play sc2". Well, let's add that +2 damage unlock to SC2, because it's such a great idea, and see how you enjoy SC2 as chess now.
|
On July 23 2014 23:21 ref4 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2014 21:39 paralleluniverse wrote:
I watched the Heroes QA. There is only 2 interesting things that we learned from Dustin Browder in that QA:
1. They think that unlocking things and progression is great. So great in fact, he repeated this probably 4 times.
2. Gating talents is not about making the game easier for noobs, but Browder said that it makes it easier for noobs as a positive side effect (it doesn't, it makes it harder as they're playing gimped heroes and will have to relearn how to talent them properly), instead it is primarily because he thinks unlocking things is GREAT.
Basically, Browder REALLY REALLY LOVES unlocking things. He simply couldn't stop talking about it. He mentions how great they are in Titanfall and other games he plays.
I mean, if he really really loves unlocking things, why doesn't he add them to SC2? He is, after all, the game director for SC2. Unlock the marine after 2 games, unlock the stim pack upgrade after 15 games, unlock the battlecruiser after 100 games.
He also seems to have missed the fact that there is an infinity of cosmetic things he could have added as unlocks, instead of hero power. For example, why does each skin have only 3 tints? There are an infinity of colors, and thus, with minimal effort, there could be a infinity of hero levels, each with a new and different tint of the hero skins, if they chose to do that. In fact, if you look at Dota 2, for a F2P game, there is no limit to the amount of cosmetic unlocks/rewards/microtransactions that can be added. You could sell/unlock:
-Loading screens.
-Text fonts.
-Hero weapons and armor and an infinity of tints for each one.
-Emoticons.
-Text colors.
-Spell effects and an infinity of recolorings for spell effects.
-Icons, both for spells and for profile.
-Battle.net lobby backgrounds.
-UI layouts.
-Hero emotes and animations.
-Hero voice acting.
-Announcers.
-Any sound effect.
-Supplementary features and mini-games, like fantasy leagues or betting on TI4 winners, and the things associated with these features and mini-games.
-Death effects.
-Map theme.
-Weather effects in map.
This barely scratches the surface. Absolutely EVERYTHING you see and hear, from heroes to graphics to every piece of UI, can be associated with an infinite amount of cosmetic customization and unlocks. There is no limit. But, instead, they're in the narrow-minded and self-destructive view of unlocking power. If they want to mimic the DOTA2 business model then they'll have to create a Blizzard workshop (similar to Steam workshop) where players themselves can create these extra contents, submit to Blizzard for approval (just like in DOTA2 ) and the player creators get like 25% and Blizzard get 75% of every sale of said extra contents. As it is, everything extra is created by Blizzard, so all these extra contents you mentioned, yes, they are an infinite source of revenue, but without a workshop system like Steam workshop it is not feasible and on the contrary, economically crippling for Blizzard. But hey, it's not like Blizzard already has an editor that players can used to create custom mods and maps, right? That's just silly talk!
That's one way to do it.
But many things don't require a workshop.
Again, there's 3 tints for each hero skin. You can increase that too, say, 100000000 different tints per skin, with a simple palette swap, using several lines of code and virtually zero art resources.
|
On July 23 2014 23:39 -Celestial- wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2014 21:39 paralleluniverse wrote:
2. Gating talents is not about making the game easier for noobs, but Browder said that it makes it easier for noobs as a positive side effect (it doesn't, it makes it harder as they're playing gimped heroes and will have to relearn how to talent them properly), instead it is primarily because he thinks unlocking things is GREAT. I flat out don't understand the argument of "making it simpler for newbies" as a justification for locking anything off to be honest. Deliberately reducing the number of options someone has until they pass an arbitrary point of "playing x number of hours/games" or "earn y amount of points" in the interests of making it easier to understand is NOT good game design. And is antithesis to fostering proper competitive play of any sort. The way you deal with people being confused is to have good tutorials, a good practice mode, optional limited selection game modes and a variety of heroes ranging from the simple to the complex. Its not to lock big chunks of the game off so they can't experiment. The truth is that the systems are set up that way to achieve two things: 1. To force people into spending money (through charging for things like characters and rune pages that they NEED to be able to play properly) or face a horrendous grind. I'm as guilty of supporting this as anyone else, but I still find it an offensive business model. And 2. To create a Skinner box effect. Keep playing and get this shiny thing or new ability or whatever. Precisely the same method MMORPGs use to keep people playing. And virtually the complete opposite for what ARTS games are supposed to be about. A game should be good enough that people want to play it solely because its fun to play. Not because grinding another twenty games will unlock another thing. Show nested quote +I mean, if he really really loves unlocking things, why doesn't he add them to SC2? He is, after all, the game director for SC2. Unlock the marine after 2 games, unlock the stim pack upgrade after 15 games, unlock the battlecruiser after 100 games. On a side note...technically there is. Though its just cosmetics (the portraits and stuff like that). I agree completely.
But Browder says that the argument is NOT that it's easier for noobs. The argument is unlocking stuff is really really fun. He couldn't stop talking about just how wonderfully great unlocking stuff is.
Also, I'm aware that SC2 does it right. The question was why they don't they add unlocking power in SC2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
