[quote=“Zenity;16300”][quote=“McCrorie;16297”]
I want to see this game succeed, but I’m not yet convinced they can adequately manage a balanced and fun FPS gameplay style with some players having access to around 7 mercs and others having access to 15 or more. And how are you supposed to host a competitive league with those kinds of discrepancies? [/quote]
How does League of Legends, where choice of champion matters a lot more?
[/quote]
LoL doesn’t do anything of the sort, it’s a game. Riot games have not balanced a f2p first person shooter. Your question is moot. Further, they’re fundamentally different games; LoL is a variation on a winning formula, and LoL already has other things besides heros that you can purchase.
[quote=“Zenity;16300”][quote=“McCrorie;16297”]
I want to see this game succeed, but I’m not yet convinced they can adequately manage a balanced and fun FPS gameplay style with some players having access to around 7 mercs and others having access to 15 or more. And how are you supposed to host a competitive league with those kinds of discrepancies? [/quote]Right now it takes about $30 to unlock all the mercs, or perhaps a few months of playing.[/quote]
Right now is not really relevant when we only have half of the mercs that will be available at launch. And every “new” merc they release now comes at the cost of 10 euro. And those 30 euro it costs for everything now is if you buy the starter pack. Without it it’s like 45 euro. So unless they continue to release packs of mercs it’s not worth it. And even then, who would buy a single merc at these prices?!
[left]Let’s take a look more closely, the cash shop is all about the mercs and the loadouts. But the problem is the ratio “credits earn”/“credits spent” is not that good.
What would be great is to do, basically, a copy/paste of TF2 cash shop system but with minor modifications.
First, it would be great to reduce the merc’s prices, I mean, 30k for a single merc seems a bit too much, perticulary for new mercs (50 k, nearly twice the price of a merc) 15k would be a more honest price, and 17,5/20k for new mercs. Otherwise we should earn more credits at the end of a round. Like 500 when you loose and 1000 when you win.
Secondly, you could sell cosmetics items for mercs/weapons, excatly like in TF2.
If you’re afraid of this business plan, keep in mind that TF2 has increased it revenues by a factor of twelves with this new F2P system !
Nowaydays, we are more willing to pay for cosmetics items. Paying to access new gameplay (new mercs in this case) is part of what we may call “the old F2P monetization”. So as RowRowDango said, it might produce a “bad publicity” for DB, which would be bad since this game has a loads of potentials.
Please do not misuderstand me, this game is absolutely not a P2W. But the problem is the current monetization system.
I really hope that you will consider our opinion about this missmurder. I’m also really concerned about your game, I don’t want it to end up like other F2P that have bad monetization reputations. :’( [/left]
[left][quote=“Szakalot;16626”]@kittenishBlender Giving winners 2x the credits losers get is what will get you bad reputation.
Awful stacks, with people not switching to balance the teams, everyone looking at their virtual $$$, rather than caring about a good game.[/quote]
Aww, now that you’re mentioning it that would be indeed a terrible idea.
And yeah, there’s also this problem with people switching to the winning team just to earn credits. Sorry I did not think about this case .
Then, credits earned should be based on your actions, depending on how you helped your teammate and how you’re doing the objectives no matter which sides you are.
Like 500 based credits and a certain bonus of credits.
I’m really caring about this game. That’s why I think the devs should reconsider their current monetization system. [/left]
I think the best way that the devs can alleviate some of the grind without going too deep into unknown territory is to reward players bonus credits after each achievement. For example, maybe provide 15 credits for a 5 kill spree? Idk the exact values, but I do wish that I get to see a straight up reward for these achievements, rather than having it be converted to xp, and have the rewards scale based on your total xp (is that how it works?).
Credit and exp boosters would also be nice. If the devs wanna separate the bonuses so that players don’t just buy exp boosters only so that they would also get more credits, then just make such calculations after the initial rewards are given (i.e. I gain 3k exp and 150 credits, then credit boosters are applied and I get another 150 credits, instead of 3k exp doubled by boosters = 6k exp and then credit is scaled and rewarded based on exp).
[quote=“umberInlet;16662”]I think the best way that the devs can alleviate some of the grind without going too deep into unknown territory is to reward players bonus credits after each achievement. For example, maybe provide 15 credits for a 5 kill spree? Idk the exact values, but I do wish that I get to see a straight up reward for these achievements, rather than having it be converted to xp, and have the rewards scale based on your total xp (is that how it works?).
[/quote]
This will also promote team stackings. Its easiest to get multiple ACEs and Godlikes with the other team locked in spawn/choke.
Not a bad idea except the team stacking issues Szakalot mentioned. Following it, my idea :
The game could give extra credits based on the average game mode and support score of the team. This would promote teamplay, and constructive behaviour. As an example, you have a game with two fairly unbalanced teams, with one just getting kills and doing minimal teamwork to succeed. If its enemy team cooperate enough and achieve to defend themselves well by reviving, providing ammo etc, they will have a higher fraction of their score from support score and objective mode score. Even though they lose, they will get extra credits for trying.
The ‘grind’ people mention is basically SD’s mean of encouraging people to support the development of the game. Think of it like this: the game is in closed beta. A lot of stuff needs to be tested, including core mechanics. What better way to ensure a thorough testing phase than to introduce class rotation, so that each merc gets enough playtime to cover most of the code base related to it? And to not just restrict gameplay to an arbitrarily chosen set of mercs, let’s allow those who commit time to testing unlock their favourite mercs to play whenever they like. And let’s allow those impatient enough/those who want to support us pay some money to speed up the process. Sounds familiar? Almost any Early Access title employs some variation of this approach after all.
The problem with it comes with the achievement fad’s stigma on most of casual players these days - unlock what you can and move on. Unless SD properly emphasizes that the game is a class-based team shooter and not just another credit grinder, the game won’t grow, just like any old-school shooter in the last decade hasn’t managed to do. Sure, you have CS:GO and CoD, but compare them to their versions from before. They adapted their set of features and each obtained popularity via means specific to the cultures developed around them. If DB is to even attempt to tap the potential of ET (which by itself sure is not enough to grow, but it’s a part of it), then it has to put put a clear message: look, we know, or have an idea, what made you stuck with your favourite title for so long; we’ll try to preserve those ideas the best we can. And new players, well; I have faith in SD being able to find a compromise that will suit both sides, and even though that will be a feat not many managed to pull off, they are THE team to have experience in that field.
[quote=“yakcyll;16710”]The ‘grind’ people mention is basically SD’s mean of encouraging people to support the development of the game. Think of it like this: the game is in closed beta. A lot of stuff needs to be tested, including core mechanics. What better way to ensure a thorough testing phase than to introduce class rotation, so that each merc gets enough playtime to cover most of the code base related to it? And to not just restrict gameplay to an arbitrarily chosen set of mercs, let’s allow those who commit time to testing unlock their favourite mercs to play whenever they like. And let’s allow those impatient enough/those who want to support us pay some money to speed up the process. Sounds familiar? Almost any Early Access title employs some variation of this approach after all.
The problem with it comes with the achievement fad’s stigma on most of casual players these days - unlock what you can and move on. Unless SD properly emphasizes that the game is a class-based team shooter and not just another credit grinder, the game won’t grow, just like any old-school shooter in the last decade hasn’t managed to do. Sure, you have CS:GO and CoD, but compare them to their versions from before. They adapted their set of features and each obtained popularity via means specific to the cultures developed around them. If DB is to even attempt to tap the potential of ET (which by itself sure is not enough to grow, but it’s a part of it), then it has to put put a clear message: look, we know, or have an idea, what made you stuck with your favourite title for so long; we’ll try to preserve those ideas the best we can. And new players, well; I have faith in SD being able to find a compromise that will suit both sides, and even though that will be a feat not many managed to pull off, they are THE team to have experience in that field.[/quote]
nailed it. cs, cod and battlefield only improve but keep their basic gameplay experience that is what keeps the fanbase at bay and even increases it.
Imagine if battlefield designers decided to take out vehicles. Fanbase would be really mad.
Right now every ET player is really disappointed by DB, because they keep all the good stuff out, and try to reinvent the wheel with every title.
If we were at enemy territory 6 now, there would be an incredibly big fanbase.
If they don’t change a lot before release, I won’t be playing dirty bomb for sure. (and i’m not talking about mercs, loadouts etc. but the basic gameplay)
I’ll just go back to ET and play it for another 10 years. (there are still enough players, because this game is truly awesome)
honestly monetary system isn’t great but alright, biggest problem right now is that they’re so busy trying to earn money from a beta they’re holding back on mercs, which is ruining the gameplay
[left][quote=“Nail;16736”]earn money ??? from 200 players, are you insane, what a totally airheaded thing to say, do you think these posts through ?[/quote]
Well, though it is exagerated to talk about “earning money” considering the amount of players atm. I think he may be right somehow, just for the fact that they’re selling new mercs for 10€ / 50k credits. But I really hope I’m wrong…
Again, I hope that you’ll consider our opinion about this missmurder
[/left]
So why offer mercs for money if not to bring in some cash? You act as though they expected the pitiful numbers they have now. You don’t think they wanted a larger player base and more cash flow? Maybe you are the airhead.
I paid in for about $25. If I bought both mercs on offer the total would be $49. That’s the price of a full game. I bought Borderlands 2 the other night for $29.99.
So why offer mercs for money if not to bring in some cash? You act as though they expected the pitiful numbers they have now. You don’t think they wanted a larger player base and more cash flow? Maybe you are the airhead.[/quote]
To test out the monetisation system, before going public? Don’t you think if they wanted more players they would like… give more players a key? Maybe he’s not.
I paid in for about $25. If I bought both mercs on offer the total would be $49. That’s the price of a full game. I bought Borderlands 2 the other night for $29.99.
Maximum amount you can optionally pay for F2P game can be higher than frontloaded price of non-F2P game. Shocker. That value adds up to several thousand USD in League of Legends by the way, just to put things into perspective. Hundreds if you “just” buy all the champions.
Ironically, the Borderlands 2 GOTY bundle with all(?) the DLC is still $49 on Steam. Also, you get enough credits just from the starter pack and the starter level bonuses to unlock another 50k merc.
To test out the monetisation system, before going public? Don’t you think if they wanted more players they would like… give more players a key? Maybe he’s not.
/quote]
Well, I think the problem is that they’re willing to get more players, but mostly through the starter pack (in other words by paying $20 to access the beta). They’re not highlighting the fact that those keys can be earned without paying.
I know they’re testing their monetization, but this is going a bit too far, they’re starting to build themselves a bad reputation and yet it’s still a closed beta.
[/left]
So why offer mercs for money if not to bring in some cash? You act as though they expected the pitiful numbers they have now. You don’t think they wanted a larger player base and more cash flow? Maybe you are the airhead.[/quote]
To test out the monetisation system, before going public? Don’t you think if they wanted more players they would like… give more players a key? Maybe he’s not.
I paid in for about $25. If I bought both mercs on offer the total would be $49. That’s the price of a full game. I bought Borderlands 2 the other night for $29.99.
Maximum amount you can optionally pay for F2P game can be higher than frontloaded price of non-F2P game. Shocker. That value adds up to several thousand USD in League of Legends by the way, just to put things into perspective. Hundreds if you “just” buy all the champions.
Ironically, the Borderlands 2 GOTY bundle with all(?) the DLC is still $49 on Steam. Also, you get enough credits just from the starter pack and the starter level bonuses to unlock another 50k merc.[/quote]
Ah, so you know that the number of keys given out is directly proportional to the current number of players? No, you do not. Fact is they’re advertising the game on Steam with a pay-to-play option. They’re not artificially restricting the player count. Ridiculous notion.
Also remember this is SD’s “hardcore” FPS. Try convincing a large number of serious players that all the different mercs are strictly optional. Good luck.
And I’m not sure what you mean exactly by “test out” their monetisation system? It’s functional, obviously. Things could go wrong, but you think that’s the only reason it’s there? Please.
So why offer mercs for money if not to bring in some cash? You act as though they expected the pitiful numbers they have now. You don’t think they wanted a larger player base and more cash flow? Maybe you are the airhead.[/quote]
To test out the monetisation system, before going public? Don’t you think if they wanted more players they would like… give more players a key? Maybe he’s not.
I paid in for about $25. If I bought both mercs on offer the total would be $49. That’s the price of a full game. I bought Borderlands 2 the other night for $29.99.
Maximum amount you can optionally pay for F2P game can be higher than frontloaded price of non-F2P game. Shocker. That value adds up to several thousand USD in League of Legends by the way, just to put things into perspective. Hundreds if you “just” buy all the champions.
Ironically, the Borderlands 2 GOTY bundle with all(?) the DLC is still $49 on Steam. Also, you get enough credits just from the starter pack and the starter level bonuses to unlock another 50k merc.[/quote]
Ah, so you know that the number of keys given out is directly proportional to the current number of players? No, you do not. Fact is they’re advertising the game on Steam with a pay-to-play option. They’re not artificially restricting the player count. Ridiculous notion.
Also remember this is SD’s “hardcore” FPS. Try convincing a large number of serious players that all the different mercs are strictly optional. Good luck.
And I’m not sure what you mean exactly by “test out” their monetisation system? It’s functional, obviously. Things could go wrong, but you think that’s the only reason it’s there? Please.
[/quote]
Pay to get access to beta is an option for those who desperately want to get in. It’s a good way to recruit dedicated beta testers. The game is intended to be free to play, so this is of course not a primary revenue source. If they wanted more players right now, they would release more keys or simply invite everybody. It’s as simple as that.
Mercs are of course optional. There is even less reason to have access to all characters than there is in any MOBA, since most players will specialise on a small number of mercs and there is no drafting (yet, at least). Free rotation is enough to gain basic familiarity with mercs you don’t own. Moreover you obviously have the option of earning mercs for credits, and for dedicated players (you know, the serious type you mentioned) it is really easy to unlock a new merc in a week or two.
And yes, test out the monetisation system. No, not the mechanics of it. It’s really not hard to understand what this means.
It’s also a good way to recruit quite a numerous army of dedicated naysayers who will drop the game after spending less than ten hours on it and then proceed to smear shit over it on the Internet. It’s really not simple, certainly not as that.
Idk, I think it’d help them a lot if they were transparent about their ideas in this particular case, although if they are afraid that people will just jump to weird conclusions, then it’s understandable they want to keep all that stuff low. One way or the other, my hopes are that the game on release will be an enjoyable and thrilling team experience - no need to put the emphasis on all the candies around it - and that it will find a player base that will appreciate it for what it is.
.