Well people are stupid, and think their money entitles them to something in a game, which can be changed at any time. This is nothing new.
If it were a skin or something and removed, I’d understand. But nerfing, buffing, etc, that’s just game balance.
[quote=“immenseWalnut;95026”]
You can’t seriously compare DB to TF2 or CS:GO either, but people still do it.
The only thing any game has in common with any other game, is that gamers like to play them. But it doesn’t take a lot of effort these days to spot the trends within PC gaming, and that is, skill based games are out, low skill games are in. And never ever discount the sheeple effect (where masses of dumb people flock with each other towards whichever trend is popular, out of fear of being individuals and left behind), something DB has never produced, and never will. But Blizzard understand that concept all too well, and they use it effectively, which is why they mass advertise/hype their games, and design them to appeal to low skill sheeple.
But that is a reflection of the low skill, low intelligence playerbase, not the games themselves. [/quote]
TF2 and CS:GO have much more in common with DB than Overwatch does.
The topic is about a competitive scene. The casual players that you call low skill sheeple and who would potentially play Overwatch are not those who will play a game competitively.
The reason why DB has potential is because as you said it yourself most skill based games are ‘out’ as in old and quite inactive (Quake series, RTCW:ET, etc.).
I’d rather we keep DB similar to what it is now and avoid all the trend-following teenage whiners and lamers that you get in bulks in games like Call of Duty. They can go to Overwatch for all I care.
Yes, but the obvious point to make, is that Valve are making a killing with TF2 AND Dota 2, so they have the resources available to invest in their games that aren’t doing so well.
They use a vastly superior micro-transaction model, that laughs at the poor models used by the ‘early death’ F2P games we have seen in recent years. Those models scream ‘grab as much cash as we can before the game dies’, and that sets up a particular attitude and lack of confidence (such as my attitude now is, which is to never spend a penny in a F2P game unless it is still going strong after a year of open release).
I’ve made that mistake too many times, and whereas I DO have money to spend, I choose not to, because I don’t like feeling like I have been ripped off. Which is why I have not spent a penny on this game, because I have doubted its potential success since the first day I got into the closed beta, and the game was MUCH better back then than it is today (the players were of a much higher calibre).
Splash Damage don’t have the necessary level of support available to them that Valve (or Blizzard or EA do), which is why it baffles me that they didn’t work towards using the community to produce content for them. Community maps and private servers would have helped DB out no end, instead we have a slowly dying game with little hope for a better tomorrow.
All we can do is keep our fingers crossed that the Devs have something SPECTACULAR! up their sleeves, and who really believes that anyway? False hope is still false mate.
How many hours have you actually played this game and are you still playing?
Yes, but they are potentially the people that WILL watch comp play. The more people you can get to do that, the more money you can make, and hence the more you can offer in the prize pool.
And the more you can offer as a prize pool, the more high skilled pros you can attract. And the more of them you have, the more it will influence evolving tactics. This is a good thing, because it is more entertaining to watch, but it all has to begin, with a large audience, and that require a game with a very high playerbase.
However, I will say this, I am a firm believer that a comp scene and Esports are the same thing. I will not ever consider a game with a very small comp scene to be a success, unless it is also a popular Esport. I think that is what we should be aiming for as far as comp games go.
[quote=“immenseWalnut;95038”]I’ve made that mistake too many times, and whereas I DO have money to spend, I choose not to, because I don’t like feeling like I have been ripped off. Which is why I have not spent a penny on this game, because I have doubted its potential success since the first day I got into the closed beta, and the game was MUCH better back then than it is today (the players were of a much higher calibre).
All we can do is keep our fingers crossed that the Devs have something SPECTACULAR! up their sleeves, and who really believes that anyway? False hope is still false mate.
[/quote]
I’ve never ever paid for a F2P game for the exact reason above that I was probably not going to stick with those games anyway. On DB however, I did put some money in because I had great fun so far with the game and it was worth the money I put in even if it now dies. For me it has more potential than any of the F2P games I’ve played.
If you feel like DB is not worth any money maybe the game is simply not for you and you should just look for something else. And I’m not saying that in a rude way. You doubt its potential and think its dying and worse than it was at the beginning, it sounds to me like you’re very sour and have already jumped out of the ship.
EA is a terrible example. They do indeed have the potential to support their games but rarely do past a few months after a game has been released. They don’t care about multiplayer and only develop it on their games out of necessity.
My first ever favourite game was by EA and had a great multiplayer mode with a lot of potential but EA decided to stop all support after they got the sales they wanted.
If you mean me, I’ve played (according to Steam) 262 hours, and yes, I still play from time to time, but my frustration is outweighing my enjoyment. I spend more time in the new UT these days than I do in DB (more maps, higher calibre of player, precision weapons etc).
I’ve not spent a penny on DB yet, and I never will. Not until this game proves to me that it has staying power, that I can expect dozens of new maps, a couple of new game modes, decent matchmaking both in casual and comp modes, and they lower the cost of those over-priced mercs. And bin the RNG of the Loadout cards (I know, that is NOT something that will ever happen, but I hate the idea of a game conning people instead of offering them value for their purchases).
I know that is a silly amount to ask, but I’ve been down this road before, where I spent money on future hope instead of real value. Nothing about this game in its current state will ever convince me it is worth spending money on. I am always willing to change my mind, and I just LOVE being proven wrong, but it is yet to happen. The Devs of both HAWKEN and Tribes Ascend have popped up in recent times to state they are continuing development, but until I see real changes that matter, I will continue to view it as a cheap trick. And I am a guy that LOVES Tribes Ascend (but thinks HAWKEN is really bad).
You think a game needs more than 262 hours of play before it deserves some money, and you’ve not had enough enjoyment in that ENTIRE time to warrant any purchases what so ever? If 262 hours has been mostly frustration for you then I’m afraid you’re a masochist.
[quote=“ImmenseWalnut;95031”]The point I was making, is that Esports potential usually revolves around having a high player base, that not only play and enjoy the game, but would also be willing to tune in and watch competitive matches.[/quote]I was actually talking about that watching DB is boring compared to other these games because “lack of depth” etc. and matches between pros being almost the same. I was asking what these games mentioned have offer to that they aren’t “pretty boring to watch” and being something that “have depth”.
[quote=“Watsyurdeal;95031”]One thing I got to say, this is an open beta, yet we don’t see any radical changes to mercs or drafts of them. We see maps without textures and game modes that are changed, but I don’t get why they don’t experiment more with the mercs and their abilities. Phantom and soon to be Vasilli are great examples.[/quote]When I first heard there would be “event weekends” I thought this would mean experimenting with other game concepts as well apart from maps and gamemodes.
I think “Vassili without instagib”-weekend would be nice start to this tradition.
[quote=“immenseWalnut;95045”]Yes, but they are potentially the people that WILL watch comp play. The more people you can get to do that, the more money you can make, and hence the more you can offer in the prize pool.
And the more you can offer as a prize pool, the more high skilled pros you can attract. And the more of them you have, the more it will influence evolving tactics. This is a good thing, because it is more entertaining to watch, but it all has to begin, with a large audience, and that require a game with a very high playerbase.
However, I will say this, I am a firm believer that a comp scene and Esports are the same thing. I will not ever consider a game with a very small comp scene to be a success, unless it is also a popular Esport. I think that is what we should be aiming for as far as comp games go.[/quote]
DB is definitely not for you then. It will never be an ‘Esport’ like CS:GO. As much as I would love it to be, it just won’t happen just because of the type of game it is.
Also, a competitive scene is not just about the money and pro players. To me that just attracts the wrong people to the game, those who play a game only for the money, and those who only play the game to follow a trend and because it’s popular.
I give you an example, Quake3 is the type of game that has always had a very competitive scene but never had the pro scene you’d find in games like CS:GO. It’s been out for 16 years now and people still play it competitively under Q3 and under QL. Also look at games like RTCW:ET and how many years they staid alive and played competitively having Eurocups, Nationcups, LANs etc.
This is more likely what the Dirty Bomb scene will be like, just because of the type of game it is. We don’t need another dumbed down game to fit the masses.
If you think UT has the potential to have a pro scene like the one you described, you’re highly delusional my friend. The only people who play UT are those who played the previous UT.
Interesting analogy, considering I’m a sailor! We only abandon ship when the worst comes to the worst.
Look at it this way, if I had truly abandoned hope for this game, I wouldn’t be here chatting with you. I still have a small shred of hope that this game has a future, but I am cynical enough to doubt it. That doesn’t make a sourpuss, it makes me a cynical romatic.
My lack of hope and love for DB comes from the limited maps, the limited gamemodes, the bugs, the lack of diversity between individual mercs, the wonky balancing (often based on public opinion instead of real data) and the fact that the playerbase is declining steadily.
Does that make me sour, well maybe. But I am still here, and I will still offer my own criticisms at the game, in the hopes for a better version in the future. But we shouldn’t lie to ourselves that the clock is ticking, and we need to see some something major to lift this game back up into something that has a future. If that doesn’t happen before Christmas, then I predict (based on my own cynical nature, with no facts or evidence whatsoever!) that this game will suffer a large loss of players, followed immediately thereafter by a large loss of income, followed not long after by future content being pulled.
Been there, seen it, done it, got the T-shirt. I do however, love to be proved wrong, so the ball is in SD’s court now. Show me something to make me believe in you guys!
No, I think it needs decent value before I put money into it, considering I spent money on HAWKEN, Loadout, Tribes Ascend, and sadly was forced to watch those games die.
And this is F2P remember? I can unlock mercs with credits, I don’t need (or want) to spend money. And just to get in there before you call me ‘tight’, I can afford it (as mentioned earlier), I just choose not to.
Why do you feel this game is so awesome that I should spend real money on it, when it has such a very limited future?
As for being a masochist, yes, I love a good spanking same as the rest of us, but 262 hours is nothing compared to what I could have played. I only play occasionally these days, and more often that is just to do my dailies/missions.
If you think UT has the potential to have a pro scene like the one you described, you’re highly delusional my friend. The only people who play UT are those who played the previous UT.[/quote]
No doubt!
But I still enjoy playing it, it is nice to go into a match where I finish bottom of the scoreboard for a change.
I probably am a masochist to be fair, but somehow I just love the fact that the players are much better than DB’s button mashers (and over 50% of them are better than I am), the weapons are precise, there are far more maps and the movement is just dreamy.
I think the new UT has more of a future than DB has, but then, I am drunk on Rum, so I might be a bit illogical 
IMO paying for a F2P game is not just about if you think the game will have a future or not, but also to show your appreciation and support to the creators of the game if you’re having fun with it.
20 dollars/euros/pounds is what you would spend in an arcade centre in about an hour. I find DB a lot more fun than that and had plenty of fun nights on it with my mates. For that I feel like they deserved my twenty pounds
btw UT never ever had a future in the past and never will. Sorry
[quote=“DarkangelUK;95010”][quote=“SereneFlight;94986”]
Probably the biggest difference between the two: Blizzard didn’t fuck up.
Also, I’ve been playing a little bit of Killing Floor 2, an Early Access title by Tripwire Interactive, a 50 employee indie studio and… well, I have to say that KF2 is better in terms of functionality and most importantly KF2’s updates don’t bring down the functionality like DB’s updates do.
(plus 20+ player servers, bzillion zed on the screen, high graphics runs better than 6v6 DB with potato config)[/quote]
First of all, how do you know they haven’t fucked up? It’s not even out to play in a grand scale.
I’ll probably get in deep crap for this, but I wish there were 50 people working on DB…[/quote]
They fuck’d up Brink and according to wikipedia, there’s 75 people in SD.
stop addin useless shit! ist all about the new players who ll join & stay if the mechanic fits for them.
no1 cares about that 10% freaks who goin HAM in competetive mode with their clan REMOVED!
autoteambalance ingame (Tf 2 style) or this game ll gettin rekt!
overwatch*8==D~~ t(^o^t)*dirty bomb
Yes, but the obvious point to make, is that Valve are making a killing with TF2 AND Dota 2, so they have the resources available to invest in their games that aren’t doing so well.
[/quote]
You’re totally right on that one. Valve has indeed more levers than SD/Nexon can have on moving playerbase to a game. But still, I think that the comp scene would have moved to cs:go anyway without the economy rework. It’s quite hard to see this as the major game updates and the economy were introduced in the same period of time.
But proper content is in my opinion enough leverage to get players into this game. We’ll see where they want to go, we can’t predict. But clouds are still quite dark indeed.
DB has plenty of potential, but they still need to address the skill difference in casual play. Even if its as simple as introducing another matchmaking mechanic. Though this is difficult for a small player base.
Rented servers and / or a “hardcore” mode could alleviate some of the changes needed for competitive mode while opening up the game for more casual players as well.