|
On November 17 2017 08:54 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: I feel like everyone else's life is infinitely more exciting than mine. I'm just trying to survive film classes where my group literally has no idea what their doing. I'm pretty sure if I tried to live that Ketara lifestyle I'd been dead for 5 years so I'm good.
|
United States37500 Posts
On November 17 2017 09:15 phyvo wrote: I recently found out that you can look up how much you spent on league of legends. It turns out that over the years I played I spent $160. I'm kind of embarassed, honestly. $160 over, what, 5+ years? It's not that bad tbh.
|
I think it was more like 3ish years, unless you count 2014 when I was just playing coop AIs. I suppose that's still not too bad but it's still weird to think I spent that much money on one game.
|
I don't think I spent 160$ on league, but if I had I'd consider it worth, since it entertained me probably more than 160$ worth of other games.
|
On November 17 2017 09:13 Ketara wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:54 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: I feel like everyone else's life is infinitely more exciting than mine. I'm just trying to survive film classes where my group literally has no idea what their doing. Film classes are super interesting though. You get to wear a beret and smoke in dimly lit rooms and hang out with the 70s.
film analysis is fun. shooting a project then realizing that everything is shot in full dslr mode with everything set to automatic at 50 frames per second not so much. everysingle shoot we've had audio issues because nobody bothered to test the equipment before we got out (Their the ones picking up the equipment so its kind of on them.)
but at least I'm getting a lesson on how you can't assume people know what their doing
|
That's one of the best life lessons.
|
Buncha blue and green at the start, uh. And then in that one mount Kinabalu picture there's that tiny bundle of pink-red pixels signaling some dude lost in all the green. It's kind of a scale bird, but shinier. The picture of Malaysian sea (ocean?) where it gets hard to distinguish the sky and the water is quite pretty.
Ran into an interesting situation in tonight's draft, that may say a lot about the format. I'm curious to get a bit of input although I'm kind of expecting one in particular: + Show Spoiler +Pretty nuts and bolts UB deck. P1P1 was Entrancing Melody over Walk the Plank and as I feared that shoved my neighbour in B solidly. Actually 2 people to my right were U (I think my neighbour moved in from a Green dino deck when he opened Hostage Taker and saw 0 black pack 2) and 2 to my left were black. I could have drafted 5x Shipwreck Looter and 5x Desperate Casteways if I really wanted to. Because of that I had to pick Cutlass over Lookout's Dispersal P3P2. P3P3 was Vona over Kitesail Freebooter and Duskborne Skymarcher.
Basically I was running 6+ 2-drops, 5 3-drops, then Vona and Deathless Ancient, and 1x OwtW 2x Mark of the Vampire, Depths, Interdiction, Vanquish the Weak, Entrancing Melody as interaction, 16 lands but included UB and UW duals and 5 treasure makers to ease the splash. So weak early creatures and hope to suit them up and let them or the flyers do the job due to lack of bounce/tricks.
Match 2 was against my right neighbour, UG guy, who wasn't really merfolk (he passed great stuff like Vineshaper Mystic for the Watertrap one since he thought it was "more controlling", he passed a Shapers of Nature pack 3 too, and some other suboptimal picks since he's only really started playing this year). I knew he had Pounce, Savage Stomp, Grazing Whiptail from what I passed pack 2, but not much about his U.
On the draw, neither has a 2-drop, he goes Dryad and I play Siren Lookout revealing Mark of the Vampire. He plays a land and passes turn 4. I know I've passed a Run Aground pack 2, and he may have picked bounce effects otherwise. I don't have a 5th land, and my hand is: Sailor of Means, Skymarch Bloodletter, Vona, Mark of the Vampire, Depths of Desire, and an irrelevant card I can't remember. I hesitated between dropping the Sailor to make sure I have a turn 5 Vona, dropping the Mark of the Vampire and going off to the races with a 4/5 flying lifelinker, or just develop my board with the Bloodletter for more flying damage. But I didn't know what his deck had and although people would almost never mainboard Crushing Canopy here and Pounce does nothing, I was afraid of getting blown out, especially since if I don't hit a land for Vona next turn I'm basically forced to play a 3-drop turn 5 while he's got the Dryad and potentially explosive merfolk stuff in that pair to force me to act fast.
In the end I swung and played the Bloodletter. End of turn he flashed in Snapping Sailback, then used the Dryad to play another Dryad + Tishana's Wayfinder (finding a land) on turn 5 and hit for 4. I didn't find a 5th land for Vona so I had the same issue, especially since playing the Mark meant hitting for 6 and healing for 4, which would put him at 11 life and myself at 21 (thanks to Bloodletter effect), but with him untapping with 6 mana and 10 power. Any interaction on his part or just playing additional creatures would turn the race in his favour, so I play the Sailor instead to be able to play Vona next turn, and give me a blocker. He untapped, with up to 8 mana thanks to the Dryads, played Shaper of Nature, swung for 4 and passed. That turn when I attacked in the air he flashed in Wind Strider which I had to bounce to keep my creatures alive, but that removed my plan of bouncing whatever bear he'd try to load with counters to kill my blocking Sailor of Means and almost timewalking him. At that point in the game there was nothing I could do, it took a couple more turns but I was dead to him untapping with Shapers.
Basically because of not finding more lands to play 2 cards a turn or my more expensive ones, I was denied any occasion of playing Vona or the aura and the better quality of his cards (Strider, Shaper) killed me. I could have casted the Sailor to play it safe and casted Vona on turn 5 anyway, then on turn 6 I could cast the Mark on the Lookout and attack with a 4/5 flying lifelinker and Vona, ready to blow up whatever would need blowing up without losing life (worst case Vona gets a 3-for-1 by killing a big creature then 2 of his blockers. Alternatively, I could have jammed the Mark on Lookout, then played Sailor to prepare for a turn 6 Vona. She may have been too late at that point because Shapers would have been online and she'd have been unable to block anything (so he wouldn't have to use the mana anyway and hit for free) but making the Strider irrelevant thanks to the Mark and gaining 8+ life could have bought me some time to stabilise, or it could have simply went the distance considering I could have saved Depths to bounce whatever was actually threatening.
In short, it looks like despite me having all these options, and the ability to play around stuff or try to develop my board, the best decision seemed to be "jam your voltron and bet that he doesn't have something to answer it rather than play around it", with the back-up one being "run the mythic bomb in an all-in if his removal-light pair saved something for it." I'm thinking that it kinda summarizes the format's level 1 (and maybe even 2, once you had in bounce and cards like Dive Down). It's nice that it's pretty representative, but at the same time it's sad that you can sum up the format's main heuristic that way (and the other play was dropping a bomb anyway).
Edit: damn you guys posted a lot. Or I alt-tab too much while I type.
|
The answer is almost always mark + swing and hope they don't have it.
|
On November 17 2017 08:58 red_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 07:59 Fildun wrote: I understand that there are quite a lot of people who have the option of dropping 200 dollars on Battlefront, but i don't understand that there are so many who actually do it. Deciding to spend 200 dollars on the game also implies a decision to not spend those same 200 dollars on something else, and to quite a lot of people who have that extra bit of money, 200 dollars is still a lot. Or maybe this is just my upbringing speaking, idk. I'm right there with you I can't fathom people spending the amount they do on freemium games or cosmetics or whatever it may be, but the numbers say that these are the primary revenue streams of modern gaming. People want to talk about corporate greed and while it's an accurate statement, it is literally the job of the C levels at a company like EA to make them money(not even talking about the legal bounds of fiduciary duty that's a woefully misused statement, just that board members and majority shareholders will fire you if you aren't pursuing the most profitable part of modern gaming). Remember multiple posters in this thread play MTG or 40K :p
|
I discussed a bit with "new" faces at tonight's draft, who actually moved in town in early september and come on and off. They love drafting but don't want to go every week and spend money. But then they brought up boxes and deckbuilder toolkits and fat packs (well, bundles now) and... and it turns out one of them has already spent almost 400€ on Ixalan.
Dang. I do spend a bit over 1k€ annually on MTG so far but considering that I also spend easily 8 hours on it each week on average, looks like it comes down to... bit less than 3€ per hour? It costs less than staying at a bar or going to the movies or a bunch of stuff, it's just that I do a lot of it I guess. :|
|
damn, ea actually temporarily backing down
I guess it making its way into the mainstream media scared some people at the top
|
Backing down? Did they completely remove their pay to win system, redesigning it into a proper progression type system that feels enjoyable for the players?
edit: I see they just removed ability to pay for credits. So how poorly was their system designed if they can just alter amounts of the fly with no supposed impact and now remove purchase option all together. edit2: Oh it's just temp removing I see. Classic PR. Fuck those guys. I'm sure after Christmas sale they'll be back in full force, maybe even make the earning rate so low f2p(is it f2p if you have to pay to play it?!) have to purchase with money to stand a chance next year.
|
United Kingdom30774 Posts
On November 17 2017 19:07 killerdog wrote: damn, ea actually temporarily backing down
I guess it making its way into the mainstream media scared some people at the top
Hahahaha no microtransactions....
For a limited time only..... Hahahahahaha
Plz buy the game guys.
+ Show Spoiler +
Just scummy as fuck at this point.
|
Oh god, I've bought the Vampire Commander deck for my friends birthday, while he was doing a cube draft, and I've injected the cardboard crack back into my systems....
Also, I've found DM'ing now more fun than actual videogames. Maybe until DbzF/MHW pc/ new PoE content tho.
|
On November 17 2017 09:15 phyvo wrote: I recently found out that you can look up how much you spent on league of legends. It turns out that over the years I played I spent $160. I'm kind of embarassed, honestly.
That's really not bad at all. I definitely don't mind paying for content, especially if I end up getting my "money's worth" out of it. I remember hesitating to spend $20 on Rocket League, and I got my worth out of it the first day I had it.
Game monetization is a weird thing... I don't really blink at dropping a bit of cash on Hearthstone each expansion because it's a card game that I play consistently enough to not feel bad about spending. The real disdain from me is monetizing the power (which, I guess, there's an argument against HS there...). But EA has really shown their true colors every step of the way here.
|
My issue with HS type content is that the money you put in is so incredibly ineffective as getting quality experience out of. Buying 40 packs then opening garbage that you just can't use feels like a massive waste of money. That's partly why I'm more open to spend money in league/mtg. I can buy specifically what I want. I only spent money on adventures in HS for that very reason. If I was still playing I wouldn't mind $40 big adventures honestly. Most expansions have 50-70% filler cards so if you just cut those and make an adventure with the actual good cards it's pretty sweet.
|
On November 18 2017 00:07 Numy wrote: My issue with HS type content is that the money you put in is so incredibly ineffective as getting quality experience out of. Buying 40 packs then opening garbage that you just can't use feels like a massive waste of money. THat's partly why I'm more open to spend money in league/mtg. I can buy specifically what I want.
Oh absolutely. But idk man, just opening 50 packs feels so good, even if I don't get a lot (but with that many, you're guaranteed at least something good).
|
On November 18 2017 00:07 Numy wrote: My issue with HS type content is that the money you put in is so incredibly ineffective as getting quality experience out of. Buying 40 packs then opening garbage that you just can't use feels like a massive waste of money. That's partly why I'm more open to spend money in league/mtg. I can buy specifically what I want. I only spent money on adventures in HS for that very reason. If I was still playing I wouldn't mind $40 big adventures honestly. Most expansions have 50-70% filler cards so if you just cut those and make an adventure with the actual good cards it's pretty sweet. Isn't mtg still random booster packs or are you talking about secondary market? I'm not familiar with that business model.
Also added up just Riot Point purchases that are in my inbox, about $335. Then again I did play pretty regularly for like 5+ years so I guess that's not too bad?
|
I think he's talking about buying singles for constructed decks.
For the F2P games, I've racked up 7 bucks for League, 2 bucks for HS, and 5 bucks for PoE.
|
On November 17 2017 09:15 phyvo wrote: I recently found out that you can look up how much you spent on league of legends. It turns out that over the years I played I spent $160. I'm kind of embarassed, honestly.
I literally spent 4.53125 times that (anyone else curious can check http://privacy.riotgames.com/en_US/data for your info).
On November 18 2017 00:15 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2017 00:07 Numy wrote: My issue with HS type content is that the money you put in is so incredibly ineffective as getting quality experience out of. Buying 40 packs then opening garbage that you just can't use feels like a massive waste of money. THat's partly why I'm more open to spend money in league/mtg. I can buy specifically what I want. Oh absolutely. But idk man, just opening 50 packs feels so good, even if I don't get a lot (but with that many, you're guaranteed at least something good).
Hearthstone has two fundamental problems at the moment. First, if you're a new or long-absent player getting into the game is a pretty tough climb unless you drop money. Second, now that so many deck archetypes are heavily reliant on very specific and often expensive legendaries and epics, it's incredibly difficult to determine if a given deck archetype is something you'll enjoy or not before you commit your dust.
Those aren't the only issues, but most of Hearthstone's other problems are either exacerbated by them, or directly caused by them.
|
|
|
|