59 replies to this topic

[Effay]

Having to 'level up' to unlock more units or powers (for the heroes) or boost their stats would be the one decision that would ruin this game. Games that are designed to be highly skillful (and thus tournament games) should never, EVER have any grind. It's inexcusible. A 'free' to play game that requires you to grind forever to get to the actual game isn't actually free, since time is more valuable than money. I would gladly pay a fee to unlock everything useful in a game (known as buying the game until the F2P model became popular) if the game is good.

I encourage/hope the devs make the game acutally deep and not rely on 'grinding' to keep people's interest. This game sounds quite interesting and if the devs don't put any of this grinding nonsense in I'll definitely keep my eye on it.

Edited by Effay, 18 March 2012 - 08:10 PM.

[Jeru_Sorrin]

Effay, on 18 March 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

Having to 'level up' to unlock more units or powers (for the heroes) or boost their stats would be the one decision that would ruin this game. Games that are designed to be highly skillful (and thus tournament games) should never, EVER have any grind. It's inexcusible. A 'free' to play game that requires you to grind forever to get to the actual game isn't actually free, since time is more valuable than money. I would gladly pay a fee to unlock everything useful in a game (known as buying the game until the F2P model became popular) if the game is good.

I encourage/hope the devs make the game acutally deep and not rely on 'grinding' to keep people's interest. This game sounds quite interesting and if the devs don't put any of this grinding nonsense in I'll definitely keep my eye on it.

Dude don't worry the dev's got your back. They mention in the GDC vids that they hope to make it not to grinding for the player. However personally I don't mind grinding to much cause it means that theres more cool stuff on the horizon to get and play around with. Although I quess it's just a matter of preference.

[Hamengeri]

I think 'leveling' is needed. It helps in keeping players in 'active users' group.

[IanD967]

Definitly would vote for leveling. it helps alot in LoL to identify people who need more help to learn the game, who should know how to play the game properly and it does help that the summoner spells unlock with certain level's aswell because then you can learn them all one or two at a time.

[Colinftw]

Totally for leveling . Keeps game balanced. Let's take LoL as a F2P game. If all the rune spots were unlocked from the start a pro player who knows very well a champ will build runes straight forward and will pwn everyone without too much effort. At the same time a newbie will try to focus on learning champs not on building runes. Moreover you have to pass through all the learning periods to play ranked, else you can ruin your elo (you'll regret that) + you'll ruin others. I still can't understand  why a newbie doesn't start from 0 Elo.

Edited by Colinftw, 19 March 2012 - 09:20 AM.

[Effay]

I think some of you may be misunderstanding what i'm saying. I'm all for having a matchmaking system that matches you up with people of similar skill to you to keep the game interesting and challenging for everyone, and it doesn't diminish the quality of the game. With a matchmaking system like this, new/bad players would only play against other new/bad players, and as they start winning they'll play better people. Worrying that the game will have too many options for a new player is a non issue, because at low ranks everyone will be equally as ignorant, and as players get better and learn how to play the game, they'll rise in rank and cease playing against people that are new or don't understand how things work.

Making players grind for in game powers/units would make things MORE confusing, actually. Since you don't have access to everything in the game right away, essentially you are not playing the same game as people that have unlocked everything. The strategy would change dramatically from the beginning when you have nothing to when you have everything unlocked. It would be much less confusing if you have the same stuff no matter how long you've been playing, since it will be more consistent.

[Thanatological]

So let me get this right, have everything unlocked from day 1? No progression no working too unlock anything? It might be fair too say have Tier 1 units unlocked at level on and at level 5 unlock all tier 2 units, or even buy units too create your own faction and have certain units limited too each time of faction(s). Either way if we just unlock everything on the first day I am sure people with little too no RTS experience let alone anyone who has some will be overwhelmed when we take into account all the hero/commander interaction that must go on. I am for a system too unlock new units/buildings as you progress.

[Effay]

Games like Starcraft (1 and 2) have everything unlocked from day 1 and it's not a problem. I don't see how it would be a problem for this game.

[Jeru_Sorrin]

Okay Effay I'm sorry for being a bit assuming for my answer. I get now that what you're saying not one but two different topics. The first I think I understood was the leveling up with expanded gameplay, units, and spells. The second was the one I didn't understand was the level of skill. Honestly I still like the expanded gameplay leveling because, as I said earlier, I like to look forward to new things. You don't like that sort of leveling, I understand that. Now I understand that you would like to see a competitive system of ranking, similar to LoL ELO system. I also agree with that, we need a system where noobs aren't placed with pros. However you argue that the second is needed but not the first and you do have some good points.

I argue that it would be a good idea to allow players in-game bonus's because, it gives a larger ability to be strategically flexible and tactically unpredictable, it gives players incentive to play a lot more with thier favorite and other characters, and it gives the player rewards quicker than just buying a new character.

However the Devs have said that this game will be less grinding so honestly I don't know what will happen due to what they've said.

[murdeoc]

they said they would have a rotation system involving the playable champions, those you need to buy from what i understand (buying doesnt necessarily mean actual money in this sentance btw). thus you have that to play for since we will all undoubtebly find our favorites we will want to keep playing with.
i don't mind not having everything unlocked from the start either because i kinda like the feel of 'rolling into' a game like that. let me start with the basics and work my way up from there, also the possibility to play a certain champion in a different way through out of game extra's (like LoL's masteries/runes) gives it more depth in my opinion and starting a champion i can outfit in 3 different ways will get me confused probably at first. even w starcraft i tend to start out with single-player caimpaigns because you get your units introduced to you slowly and one-by-one sort of... but its prob all just a matter of preference

[Effay]

I would gladly pay to unlock champions/commanders if it's a good game, hell I'd pay sixty bucks to unlock EVERYTHING in the game if it's a good game. I just don't want my time wasted by having to play for months to unlock the actual game (as in, the game with all the options available).

[Mornhaven]

As it stands there will be a rotation of free unlocked champions and commanders on a weekly basis, but you can unlock these heroes and commanders at anytime with real money or in-game currency. The in-game currency will be from playing matches but the devs have gone on record saying that they are taking a risk and requiring there to be less 'grinding' than other games to reach the amounts of currency needed to purchase the champions and commanders when compared to other games that use this pay style (I'm guessing this is primarily directed at LoL because of the near identical monetary systems of in-game and real cash).

As for leveling from experience, there will be one just for ball park estimates of skill (games played means exp earned that levels you up) not actually impacting what you can purchase or who you play(but obviously more games played means more accurate prediction of performance level).

In my opinion think it is fine to have a little grind (note a little) because it does force you to expand your horizons and try new things, and the free champ/commander rotation helps things stay fresh and let you try things before you buy them. I do agree that grinding should not be what keeps people involved and playing; that should be from the game being fun.

[Milkshaker]

Thanatological, on 19 March 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

So let me get this right, have everything unlocked from day 1? No progression no working too unlock anything? It might be fair too say have Tier 1 units unlocked at level on and at level 5 unlock all tier 2 units, or even buy units too create your own faction and have certain units limited too each time of faction(s). Either way if we just unlock everything on the first day I am sure people with little too no RTS experience let alone anyone who has some will be overwhelmed when we take into account all the hero/commander interaction that must go on. I am for a system too unlock new units/buildings as you progress.

My thoughts exactly. Information overload will make people lose *hm, i can build 20 units, lets read what they all do first*.. *Oh snap! the enemy is already attacking my base, and I havent even read all the tooltips yet! what a lousy game > *

Thanatological, on 19 March 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

So let me get this right, have everything unlocked from day 1? No progression no working too unlock anything? It might be fair too say have Tier 1 units unlocked at level on and at level 5 unlock all tier 2 units, or even buy units too create your own faction and have certain units limited too each time of faction(s). Either way if we just unlock everything on the first day I am sure people with little too no RTS experience let alone anyone who has some will be overwhelmed when we take into account all the hero/commander interaction that must go on. I am for a system too unlock new units/buildings as you progress.

Effay, on 19 March 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

Games like Starcraft (1 and 2) have everything unlocked from day 1 and it's not a problem. I don't see how it would be a problem for this game.

If you play through the campain, you will see this differently. The campain also serves as a way to allow players to get familiar with the game mechanics, units and UI. This is especially important if someone hasn't played starcraft or RTS games before (in SC2's case). Having a tech tree for commanders which they can unlock units in, will both allow for diversity between commanders, tweaking their units to their playstyle and will help them ease in to the game.

[psychoak]

If they have a proper ranking system, this is a moot argument.

New guys wont be playing against 500 game vets and doing a bang up job on the commander role.  If you really need a tutorial, play a tutorial.  Having a partial RTS for the first X levels would be silly, anyone with anything resembling experience would be bored out of their gourd.

[Frostfly]

I have been playing online games for...well it's closer to 20 years then 10.  There is no way for a match making system to adequately judge "skill".  Games like this are too complicated, to human to judge that way.   You can't compare this to Starcraft, not only is the game play (looking to be anyway) more complex but the business model is totally different.   FTP games are a lot like MMOs.  I've paid 60 bucks for an MMO and not had the entire game unlocked. I've played MMOs for years, and still not had everything unlocked.  For a game like this a "grind" is required, I promise you this game will have something someone will consider a "Grind" but that's just the way games like this work

[Thanatological]

psychoak, on 20 March 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

If they have a proper ranking system, this is a moot argument.

New guys wont be playing against 500 game vets and doing a bang up job on the commander role.  If you really need a tutorial, play a tutorial.  Having a partial RTS for the first X levels would be silly, anyone with anything resembling experience would be bored out of their gourd.

As such I can point out many RTS games that REQUIRE hours of game play too unlock things, but here is the biggest concern, I can't point too a single MMORTS of any style that allows full 100% units unlocked from day one. So not having a system too unlock units structures and abilities would be even more silly.

For a simple reason.  A tutorial to go over EVERY single unit in the game would take hours. Now I don't know anyone who is going too sit and learn about all the units for the first five hours of the game and have any applicable experience or be expected too remember every single unit. The system of progressively unlocking is so one can learn the game over the course of many games slowly adding more and more too what they have too deal as they learn.  Anything else in a competitive environment with no campaign too allow one too simulate this system will inherently be bad by design.

Frostfly, on 20 March 2012 - 05:34 AM, said:

I have been playing online games for...well it's closer to 20 years then 10.  There is no way for a match making system to adequately judge "skill".  Games like this are too complicated, to human to judge that way.   You can't compare this to Starcraft, not only is the game play (looking to be anyway) more complex but the business model is totally different.   FTP games are a lot like MMOs.  I've paid 60 bucks for an MMO and not had the entire game unlocked. I've played MMOs for years, and still not had everything unlocked.  For a game like this a "grind" is required, I promise you this game will have something someone will consider a "Grind" but that's just the way games like this work

In all fairness the ELO system is the best ranking system that has been created too date.  However, we can't EVER create a ranking system due too humans rapidly changing in their state of mind.  That is true of all games.

PS: whats a FTP?

Edited by Thanatological, 20 March 2012 - 07:28 AM.

[Washuaddict]

I believe he is referring to Free To Play as FTP.

I'm also for more of an experience-base system. As the user gains more skill as a commander or hero, more options will be made available to him. Combine this with the ELO system that is currently in use with LoL, it'll provide enough challenge to keep the game interesting, but not frustrate players at every turn.

Also, I think grinding is part of the learning curve in any game. If you don't practice using your abilities and skills against whatever the game has to throw at you, I mean, you may as well just do AI battles against a computer who is going to play in a particular style that will allow a user to win everytime. It would get a little boring at some point, not that I'm against winning or anything...

However, I find it to be a little unfair to have the ability to just purchase your way to victory.  I think that is one of the pitfalls in a Free-To-Play model. I do like that Sins of a Dark Age will avoid that type of purchasing power =^^=

[murdeoc]

Washuaddict, on 20 March 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

However, I find it to be a little unfair to have the ability to just purchase your way to victory.  I think that is one of the pitfalls in a Free-To-Play model. I do like that Sins of a Dark Age will avoid that type of purchasing power =^^=

with this i completely agree, i quit some f2p games because of this.
but having to play more games to unlock more stuff doesnt sound bad to me, judging from the way i play LoL now i can afford about 5 new champs on max price, but i still havent because i still enjoy playing with the 5 or 6 i have now. at some point i'll get bored and buy others to expand my gameplay experience, but who knows how much i can afford by then. my point is that it depends on how fun the game actually is, if you really have to play games while you dont really feel like it just because you want to unlock stuff then either the game is simply not good enough (for your preference) or the levelling/ cash gaining system is off-balance and the unlockable stuff should simply be cheaper.
in other words, whats the harm in having to play a game you enjoy to get even more out of it?

[sinner]

No game worth their mettle is going to do pay-to-win, so why do people keep mentioning it like IC did us a huge favor????

There's no way a locked RTS is going to be competitive. A good RTS needs balance and having locked units throws balance right out the window.

[Milkshaker]

sinner, on 20 March 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

No game worth their mettle is going to do pay-to-win, so why do people keep mentioning it like IC did us a huge favor????

There's no way a locked RTS is going to be competitive. A good RTS needs balance and having locked units throws balance right out the window.

Units in talent trees can still be balanced. They are like talents in LoL, or different talent trees are basically different races. They diversify, but shouldn't neccecarily mean overpowered units or pay to win?

I dont see where the pay to win argument comes from. I was referring to a system where you unlock units using a talent tree based on experience earned (aka games played). This doesnt have to be a 1000 hour grind, but if its a 10 hour grind it could (and should) be a great way to ease into the game, and see different units being introduced gradually.

It could also mean some choices on the commanders' side: highest tier unit: do I want the catapult (fragile long range arty) or do I want the steamroller (damage sponge melee attacker)?

Edited by Milkshaker, 21 March 2012 - 02:32 AM.