Supply - in-game currency

what? why are you asking me? i do not expect anything for free at all after i purchased the game... updates and bugfixes, yes. but no content whatsoever. (still, i cried tears of joy when faster than light released its advanced edition for free )
and the effect of bulletins on the game is marginal, nay, negligible. so even if they sold them it would not be p2w. commanders on the other hand could be (im looking at you tiger ace and sov industry), but if properly balanced they should pose no threat to a p2w-free f2p (i do hate these acronyms)

i still think its pitchforky, because people in here seem to assume that relic will fuck this up intentionally

so again: i pre-ordered the game and did NOT habe all the content on the day of release. 0 day DLC was offered worth more than double the retail price. among that commanders that as you say yourself do affect gameplay. so i paid for a more or less incomplete product (several promised features were implemented later on, which is kind of okay, but still not optimal).

if you release ToWs and stuff like that as DLC, please, go ahead. But releasing stuff that directly affects multiplayer that is locked behind a paywall (and i'm not talking about the stand-alone addons) imho is not okay. and with bulletins i'm not of your opinion that they have no effect, especially when stacked. just because there are a lot of literally worthless bulletins does not mean that the other ones or potentially new ones, that might get released when they're being sold for money might not be strong enough to sway games. sure, individual skill will still have more impact on the game, but claiming they have no effect is not taking into account all the possibilities. as for commanders, we had multiple examples over the course of coh2 where we could witness first hand that newly released commanders were literally pay to win, since you paid for the commander and given a similar strength opponent could almost guarantee a win simply by selecting the commander.

so let's assume it's not pay to win, the game mechanic of degrading items is still a bad one, as inverse already said. there's only two ways this system CAN work:
a) In order for your content to stay usable, you have to pay with real money. Effectively making a full price game with hundreds of dollar worth of DLCs a pay to play/pay to win (i am including "pay for an advantage here, no matter how miniscule that advantage might be).
b) You can gain the ingame currency by playing AND can sustain your content solely by playing, rendering the system basically useless.

Since Relic is a business that wants to earn money, option a) seems rather unlikely.

Wait are we now arguing that BULLETINS are P2W DLC that will RUIN the game?


Words fail me

Here we go:


Never in the field of human history have so many nice people been determined to get so angry about so little.

I feel there ought to be a great Calming of the Tits about all this.

Trust in Relic seems to be at an all-time low at the moment. That is fine, they sort of deserve it. And I am always up for a good lynching, PROVIDED IT IS JUSTIFIED.

It is at the moment NOT JUSTIFIED.

There are games out there with extremely fair microtransaction models and in-game currencies. As someone who pre-purchased pretty much everything for CoH2 (yes, including AA), I wouldn't mind one bit if the game tomorrow became completely free to play, the same way I didn't mind when TF2 became F2P and all I got for it was a hat.

It would be worth it - imagine 50-100k simultaneous players.

It would be worth it - imagine 50-100k simultaneous players.

All the new noobs i could pawn MVGame

Lots of good points here, and I agree that the system would probably be fine if they excluded commanders. But I think calling people cheap or entitled or whatever is a bit of a cop-out, especially if you're not fully aware of the history of CoH2.

This is a game that the community was promised would never have microtransaction DLC that affected gameplay, by multiple developers. Then a few months after release they started putting out paid commanders with new units and abilities. Now there are hints of a system that sounds extremely similar to one implemented in a previous game by the same studio, which in that game was there solely to nickle and dime players who wanted to use the best units and abilities for extended periods of time. You don't have to be cheap or entitled to take issue with that, or to be concerned about it given the company's track record.

There's a lot of references to microtransaction models done right in this thread, and people are using those examples as justification for this sort of system. The problem is, none of those successful microtransaction-based games use a system even remotely close to the durability system described here. Imagine if Dota 2 items disappeared after 50 games, or you had to pay to repair your CSGO knife after 50 kills. Those games wouldn't be nearly as popular as they are now if their items degraded over time.

Successful microtransaction games exist, and they're awesome. But they're successful because they're constantly releasing quality content that people want to buy. They're not trying to squeeze a few extra dollars out of dedicated players by essentially punishing them for using their items. They're constantly moving forward with new content, not taxing the content that's already been released.

If Relic does a free-to-play CoH2 right, it's going to be an incredible boon to the game and its community. But if they do it wrong, the game could just as easily end up like CoHO. This microtransaction model in particular is, in my opinion, the wrong direction to take the franchise in. Instead of taxing existing content, they need to be focused on constantly releasing quality new content that makes people want to spend their money. Unless durability is limited to dropped skins and decals only, it's going to discourage people from actively seeking out and purchasing additional content. And if durability is in fact limited to dropped skins and decals, then what exactly is the point of the system? Why even bother adding it when all you're going to be doing is taking a few dropped items away from players who probably wouldn't have spent a dime on microtransactions in the first place? No matter how you slice it, it just doesn't seem like a very good idea to me.

Fair points Inverse. Very well thought out post. Is this the internet?

Lets hope Relic has the foresight to do whatever changes they have in store intelligently. Who knows this may turn out to be another NOT ONE STEP BACK! (i.e. Changes we shall never see)

It would be worth it - imagine 50-100k simultaneous random nerf threads by complete scrubs.

Fixed and yea, can see that coming.

For those arguing this "isn't a bad thing" and people who've shelled out $$$'s and are now "acting entitled" - here in pictures I explain the issue:

You do this first:




To get this later:



And if I'm unhappy about it - I'm "entitled"?

LOL

if you release ToWs and stuff like that as DLC, please, go ahead. But releasing stuff that directly affects multiplayer that is locked behind a paywall (and i'm not talking about the stand-alone addons) imho is not okay. and with bulletins i'm not of your opinion that they have no effect, especially when stacked. just because there are a lot of literally worthless bulletins does not mean that the other ones or potentially new ones, that might get released when they're being sold for money might not be strong enough to sway games. sure, individual skill will still have more impact on the game, but claiming they have no effect is not taking into account all the possibilities. as for commanders, we had multiple examples over the course of coh2 where we could witness first hand that newly released commanders were literally pay to win, since you paid for the commander and given a similar strength opponent could almost guarantee a win simply by selecting the commander.

numbers dont need our opinions. take conscripts. +3% accuracy (arguably one of the best bulletins overall) actually raises their accuracy bya tad more than 0.01 at near/mid. thats 1 additional shot out of 100 that hits. conscripts need 230+ seconds to shot 100 times (at near. at far its ~600 seconds with less accuracy gain from the bulletin [+0.087]). so 1 extra hit (make that 3.xx with stacked bulletins) every 4 minutes (only at near range!) might sway games? (source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApmrrrPr20ncdGF4VURuYjVGZXlIN3ptbV8tbzRzN0E&usp=drive_web#gid=0)

Lots of good points here, and I agree that the system would probably be fine if they excluded commanders. But I think calling people cheap or entitled or whatever is a bit of a cop-out, especially if you're not fully aware of the history of CoH2.

This is a game that the community was promised would never have microtransaction DLC that affected gameplay, by multiple developers. Then a few months after release they started putting out paid commanders with new units and abilities. Now there are hints of a system that sounds extremely similar to one implemented in a previous game by the same studio, which in that game was there solely to nickle and dime players who wanted to use the best units and abilities for extended periods of time. You don't have to be cheap or entitled to take issue with that, or to be concerned about it given the company's track record.

There's a lot of references to microtransaction models done right in this thread, and people are using those examples as justification for this sort of system. The problem is, none of those successful microtransaction-based games use a system even remotely close to the durability system described here. Imagine if Dota 2 items disappeared after 50 games, or you had to pay to repair your CSGO knife after 50 kills. Those games wouldn't be nearly as popular as they are now if their items degraded over time.

Successful microtransaction games exist, and they're awesome. But they're successful because they're constantly releasing quality content that people want to buy. They're not trying to squeeze a few extra dollars out of dedicated players by essentially punishing them for using their items. They're constantly moving forward with new content, not taxing the content that's already been released.

If Relic does a free-to-play CoH2 right, it's going to be an incredible boon to the game and its community. But if they do it wrong, the game could just as easily end up like CoHO. This microtransaction model in particular is, in my opinion, the wrong direction to take the franchise in. Instead of taxing existing content, they need to be focused on constantly releasing quality new content that makes people want to spend their money. Unless durability is limited to dropped skins and decals only, it's going to discourage people from actively seeking out and purchasing additional content. And if durability is in fact limited to dropped skins and decals, then what exactly is the point of the system? Why even bother adding it when all you're going to be doing is taking a few dropped items away from players who probably wouldn't have spent a dime on microtransactions in the first place? No matter how you slice it, it just doesn't seem like a very good idea to me.

im fully aware of the history. so is relic. recieving massive backlash for dlc commanders has basically stopped further releases (there where like 6 more commanders in addition to not one step back and encirclement in the beta that where barely mentioned outside of it). coho was abandoned. assuming that relic wont learn from this is rather ignorant

anyways this is rather pointless. i dont see any benefit in going up in arms, before there has been any statement from relic on how this is going to work. some make a point about doing this before information is released to discourage what they deem improper economic decisions. i disagree. can we leave it at that?

For those arguing this "isn't a bad thing" and people who've shelled out $$$'s and are now "acting entitled" - here in pictures I explain the issue:

[...]

And if I'm unhappy about it - I'm "entitled"?

LOL

well... to be honest... i AM entitled to "all this shit" since i paid money for the game. i paid full price. yet i do not have access to all content in the game, which would cost multiple times what i paid for the game itself. now a system gets implemented that wants to entice me into spending even more money (regardless of whether its for things i aquired "for free" by playing the game or not). and not just that, they seemingly want to generate a steady stream of money from me to them just to keep the stuff i have (and most likely have already paid for, possibly multiple times). even with all the uncertainty about how exactly the system will work, trying to defend it by saying "we do not know how it will be implemented" is not exactly wise.

lol, indeed, eh?

lol, indeed, eh?

Yep - shame that most people in this community find sh!t stirring on a forum more fun than the actual game these days.

Still - if you're happy - then that's all that matters.

A fool and their money as they say...

Yep - shame that most people in this community find sh!t stirring on a forum more fun than the actual game these days.

Still - if you're happy - then that's all that matters.

A fool and their money as they say...

your initial post was nothing but shit stirring

talking of fools: "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain

thx for removing my doubts, though

And if I'm unhappy about it - I'm "entitled"? LOL

PingPing: "Relic's patch locked the content I paid for, I LITERALLY CANNOT PLAY THE GAME until I pay to unlock what I already paid for."

Reality: "Some vague new strings were released outlining something we know jack shit about."

your initial post was nothing but shit stirring

talking of fools: "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain

thx for removing my doubts, though

lol

numbers dont need our opinions. take conscripts. +3% accuracy (arguably one of the best bulletins overall) actually raises their accuracy bya tad more than 0.01 at near/mid. thats 1 additional shot out of 100 that hits. conscripts need 230+ seconds to shot 100 times (at near. at far its ~600 seconds with less accuracy gain from the bulletin [+0.087]). so 1 extra hit (make that 3.xx with stacked bulletins) every 4 minutes (only at near range!) might sway games? (source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApmrrrPr20ncdGF4VURuYjVGZXlIN3ptbV8tbzRzN0E&usp=drive_web#gid=0)

i would have prefered if you didn't troll and nitpick here, but, okay...

first off, i'm almost certain that the accuracy bulletins are flat accuracy increase, not relative. if it was relative, like you argue, the conscript accuracy bulletin would be one of the worst accuracy bulletins (since conscripts have bad accuracy, so the relative 3% is way less than for other entities).
now, let's take for example shocks at close range... already pretty great, right? now, if you add 3 * +3% acc. on top, they get a little more than +13.2% DPS (again, using flat accuracy increase). Now, admittedly, shocks probably don't really need the extra firepower, but imagine your enemy had +13% DPS on his shocks and you didn't (because you didn't pay money). are you trying to tell me that over 13% DPS is "negligble"?

im fully aware of the history. so is relic. recieving massive backlash for dlc commanders has basically stopped further releases (there where like 6 more commanders in addition to not one step back and encirclement in the beta that where barely mentioned outside of it). coho was abandoned. assuming that relic wont learn from this is rather ignorant

anyways this is rather pointless. i dont see any benefit in going up in arms, before there has been any statement from relic on how this is going to work. some make a point about doing this before information is released to discourage what they deem improper economic decisions. i disagree. can we leave it at that?

but it seems like that is EXACTLY what relic is doing. coh2 on release was already way closer to CoHO than it was to CoH. This would be the next "logical step". And as you correctly state, DLC commander release have almost ceased because of what? COMMUNITY BACKLASH. So, if we think a system is flawed, we should tell relic.

Also, please don't nitpick a single point out of several made, then go on to attack that single point and then claim that our entire opinion is wrong/invalid/whatever.

That exact scenario has been addressed multiple times if you actually read the thread.

I did in fact follow the thread. I might have higher standards regarding what can be called "topic discussed and dismissed". I did reply to your post, cause you stated none of the possible ways of implemantation could be anything but complete catastrophcal failure. And, speculation about propability aside, i really dont see, how any of your more elaborate posts in this thread have named reasons why having degradation on dropped content is in anyway harmfull to people that decide to buy it.

There's a lot of references to microtransaction models done right in this thread, and people are using those examples as justification for this sort of system. The problem is, none of those successful microtransaction-based games use a system even remotely close to the durability system described here. Imagine if Dota 2 items disappeared after 50 games, or you had to pay to repair your CSGO knife after 50 kills. Those games wouldn't be nearly as popular as they are now if their items degraded over time.

I agree with a good bit of your post, but the bolded and underlined bit is where we disconnect.

You see, the thing is that virtually NOTHING is described here. You see the durability and repair words, and without any logical reason jump to the worst possible case.

Once again, there is NOT enough information here to determine anything about how the system will be implemented.

Relax.

sorry to go off topic but the 3% accuracy increase bulletin is effectively a 3% dps on all units that can use it.

accuracy comes at the end of the dps formula ( rate of fire x damage x accuracy) as a multiplyer and the bulletin applies a x1.03 modifer accuracy to the affected units.

You see, the thing is that virtually NOTHING is described here. You see the durability and repair words, and without any logical reason jump to the worst possible case.

some extra lines from the .ucs file

11084914 Durability is an indicator of item health. Once the durability of an item reaches zero, that item cannot be reused until it has been repaired.
11084915 Repairing an item adds durability to it at the cost of Supply. Once the durability of an item reaches zero, that item cannot be reused until it has been repaired.
11084916 Salvaging an item converts an item’s durability back into supply.


some possibly related news: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=987083

sorry to go off topic but the 3% accuracy increase bulletin is effectively a 3% dps on all units that can use it.

accuracy comes at the end of the dps formula ( rate of fire x damage x accuracy) as a multiplyer and the bulletin applies a x1.03 modifer accuracy to the affected units.

while your formula is correct, your deduction is not necessarily correct (if my assumption that the accuracy increase is flat and not relative is correct, if it is not, then see my above post, conscript acc bulletin would be one of the worst ones).

say we have the formula a * b = dps with a equal to the accuracy and b being the damage*RoF.

if you add 0.03 to the accuracy, we get the following: (a + 0.03) * b = dps

or: a*b + 0.03b = dps

Since a*b is the old DPS, we increase the DPS by 3% of the old DPS disregarding the accuracy factor.



If the accuracy increase were indeed relative, your formula would be completely correct and would result in a 3% DPS increase, but that would also mean that it would be wasted on any unit that does not have a high DPS.