Almost time for me to sleep. Anyways, that's what I meant when I said "currency system"; a system that's pretty much like Dota 2's. Really, there's no patent on the economy model Valve uses for Dota 2, so why doesn't Relic just use Dota 2's model? The game has potential to earn a substantial revenue just by selling skins, unit, weapon models and etc. I've spent $80+ in Dota 2 because the content they put out I feel is worth it; Relic just needs to make quality unit models/skins, vehicle skins and etc and people will buy it, as long as it doesn't affect gameplay.
that's pretty much exactly how the system works right now. you buy with real money, you get to keep the stuff you bought. there is the possibility that this "new" system might change something about that. |
Option 3: System gets implemented and you get to keep purchased commanders/skins/bulletins forever, or you can use currency earned in game to purchase/upkeep degrading commanders/skins/bulletins. Combined with a whole bunch of cool new stuff.
Relic doesn't alienate people that have already purchased stuff by taking it away, and gives a free avenue for players who don't want to pay for stuff to still get it by playing the game.
Each of these 3 are equally plausible from what little actual information we have.
If you are going to speculate, atleast consider all possible avenues, not just the ones that give you a reason to talk shit about Relic.
the problem with your option 3 is that it is a subset of either option 1 or 2 unless you do not earn ingame currency through playing (which, by the way would mean you pay for buying and for maintaining, so i doubt you meant that).
to be more clear let's break it down:
there's four ways of combining "buying" and "maintaining":
1. The way it used to be: you don't have to buy the content, you don't have to buy to maintain it, you get it for free uncondintionally.
2. You pay to buy the content and don't have to maintain it, you can use it unconditionally AFTER you payed (this is the current system).
3. You do not have to buy the content, but have to pay money to load up charges (most mobile F2P games operate like that)
4. You both pay for the content and have to maintain it (there's multiple ways this could be true)
Currently the coh2 dlc system is option 2, and it's seemingly moving towards 4 and i'd assume (like you) that paid content stays free for use (if not, there might even be legal repercussions) and only "drops" or items purchased with ingame currency will lose durability. since, to my knowdledge at least, nobody ever paid money for a bulletin, i assume that the entirety of those will cost (ingame-)money to maintain.
Now again, and i've said this before as have others: There are only two binary option how this system will work out... either you gain enough ingame currency by playing to keep the durability of your items/bulletins up, or you don't. if you do, the system is pretty useless. if you don't, the system is bad. There is no argueing this. Either you DO get enough supply, or you don't. Either it's raining outside at the moment, or it's not. There is no option 3. Whether you say "it's snowing" belongs into the "it's raining" or "it's not raining" category might be debatable, but the fact that there are only those two categories is not.
Admittedly, depending on how exactly this new "supply system" works, the answer to which of these 2 options is true might be different for different users for different reasons, but the fact still stands: there are only those two options, and imho both are not good.
|
All I'm looking for is to clarify that you don't have near enough information to make some of the claims you have made, and as a result have made some comments about Relic that are at best disingenuous.
2 Options:
1.) System gets implemented and you do not gain (enough) ingame currency through playing, so you HAVE to pay real money to keep your bulletins going if you want to have them all the time (lets exclude commanders, because i doubt that commanders would degrade)
2.) System gets implemented and you DO gain enough ingame currency to sustain your bulletins.
Case 1 is bad, i guess we all agree on that. Case 2 factually doesn't change anything about the status quo, so relic wouldn't get any money. Which case seems more likely? |
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. |
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. |
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. |
1. you got what you paid for. but free content till kingdom come? hell, that would be the worst buisness model in the history of bad buisness models (yes even worse than me trying to sell swords [a.k.a tree branches] in kindergarden)
thing is: if i pay money for a game, especially when it's on release or as was the case with coh2 even before release, i expect to get all the content that is available at day 0. and i didnt. so i didn't really get what i paid for. as for free content after: i don't think anybody really expects free content, especially not forever. what exactly is this free content you're talking about anyway? if you're talking about bulletins, then i'm really sorry, but that is a part of the game, and definitely NOT something that you have to pay for. and if you have to, then i'm sorry, but that is the very definition of pay to win.
paying for new factions (as in WFA), paying for new skins, new faceplates, you name it... all legit.
2. of course discussions about this should take place here, but this seems like one of those pitchforky kind of threads to me
i don't think it is pitchforky. concerns are being brought up, as they should be. i didn't see anybody pick up pitchforks, telling others to boycott relic or write protest emails or anything of the sorts. apart from people argueing that "the soup is never eaten as hot as it's cooked" in a way to could be considered slightly offensive, this thread seems rather calm in comparison to some others.
also: how would you feel if you had to pay for extra maps too? that was a plan that relic initially had, that luckily got scrapped. and saying that the world builder or the mod tools got released and are free content... i don't know if you're old enough to know this, but 15 years ago this was common practice. warcraft 2, starcraft broodwar and even coh all had these things to begin with, that is to say ON RELEASE. it didn't have to be delivered after the fact. even then, for CoH stuff like corsix mod studio was written by the community, also for free.
again: these kinds of conversations are, imho, what convinces developers to finally go through (or not, depending on backlash) with their plans.
Would be nice but in fact Relic has a plan and i got the feeling that they aren't even reading this forum. Maybe, just maybe, the will think about your feedback if you approach one of the guys personal via mail or steam.
yeah, relic might have a bad track record when it comes to listening to community feedback regarding game mechanics and the sorts, but i always like giving people the benefit of the doubt, as in they might change their plans (even if only slightly) if the community reaction is overly negative. |
hmm. sorry for that.
but after reading the first dozen posts full of the usual "im entitled to get all this shit for free, fuck relic, fuck economics" i wasnt feeling like reading the rest
my bad
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.
a fairly recent example of that would for example be the ruleset from garena for a competitive female only league. in the ruleset it was stated that no team would be able to have more than one "lesbian, gay, transgendered woman" on the roster, or the entire roster would be banned from playing for a year. nobody knew whether they would actually enforce that rule, yet the community backlash was swift and sharp (rightfully so), and a day or two later the rule was removed.
discussions like this can have a DIRECT impact on how stuff like this actually gets implemented. if nobody shows the potential bad sides of a system like that, in all likelyhood all that "bad stuff" will get implemented, because the company feels like it can "get away with it".
given the track record of relic, especially with CoHO, this "speculation" is not at all unfounded. and remember, CoHO was going to be a F2P game, unlike CoH2.
on that note: i'd also be extremely disappointed if the game became F2P without giving the people that actually did purchase the game and possibly spent hundreds of dollars worth of money on it get nothing over the F2P users, yet this exact thing could also spell the death of "competitive" CoH2, because this could also turn the game more into a pay to win game than it already is. |
|
이 굉장합니다, 비록 그것의 하나의 단어를 이해하지 않는다! |
|
at least it used to be... but tbh, it looks like the parser is still broken atm (no player data being read... most likely this was introduced with the observer mode... makes sense to save that kind of data in the replay too, so that likely broke the parser). |
Germany
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
