You might not see that. But the fact is that it is unbalanced. One player having less options than other players purely because they played it less is unbalanced. I don't lose in Chess against a Grandmaster because he unlocked the Queen. I lose because of the superior play.
You also brought up fighting games where counter-picking is a real thing at tournaments. It always happens in asymmetrical multiplayer games.
The more I play, the less of a problem it seems. Specifically these reasons:
- Your 22 champions basically seem to be like 11 overall characters, with shifts for a "good" version, and an "evil" version. So it's something more like 11 "characters", with different skins, voices, and effects between each one.
- Since you can't change builds and stuff once starting, it's basically "team" vs "team" and not a character vs character balancing base. Each character has to be unique per team, too, and it's blind selection VS the opponents, so this just... isn't a counterpick game. You pick a strategy from the get go, and then stick with it.
Personal opinion, but I always hate "counterpick" in games; It's basically an admittance of "The characters are not as well balanced VS each other as they should be, pick a more advantageous matchup". Thing I love about KoF XIII: the game has "tight" tiers, and since each player picks 3 characters, and the characters are well rounded, a full match is decided less by pure matchup / counterpicks, and more by meter management, player skill, and patience / ability.
One of my favotire things in fighters is seeing someone who knows their character's tools so well, that they even-out a matchup. I strongly prefer "player VS player" rather than "character VS character", and this game's basic structure (3 lane, generally splitting characters into groups of 2 to defend each node, and one lane left to be taken by a stronger / better player) is more focused on the teamwork aspect, rather than the per-character aspect, which I think really helps give it's balance more of a chance.
We'll see though. To reference your chess example, In the end, character choice should feel like each player was given the same overall set of pieces (Pawns, kings, queens, etc), one player just decided to bring a set of glassware pieces to the table, while the other has oak pieces with an ebony finish. Game still ends up playing the same way, as the superior skill and coordination was what truly won the day.
And that singleplayer do that kind of progression is besides the point. In singleplayer you're fighting against AI and there are lots of places where the AI cheats, which some people are also unhappy about. Encounter design and such are all very interesting topics but not interesting when talking about a multiplayer game IMO.
Yeah, but it's good that there's games of all types. I never mind when a PC focused genre comes to Console, and then designs itself by what console gamers expect, rather than PC. It gives more of a reason for that particular game to exist; That brings some possible bad decisions and challenges at times, but it's better to test the waters rather than just straight copy.
I haven't noticed AI cheating in this game; they seem to play similiar to players, and if anything, they may be weaker, since they don't use bushes as often / well, and play less turtley, more offensively. Seem like a fine way to earn some gold and exp, and pass the dead air, between real player matches.
I also disagree that there are only two ways to go about it or you've seen everything after 10 minutes.
Clearly there isn't just "progress bar"-grind with ingame unlocks or paying 5 dollars to unlock a hero.
The DotA-model is that every hero (100+) is available for everyone at all times (unless it's already picked). So you will not see everything in 10 minutes in either DotA or DOTA 2..
Yeah, more than 2 ways to go about it, they just happened to pick this method. But "locking content effectiveness" behind an in-game credits paywall, or a "you have to play this many hours, in order to try each of these 100 characters out in a 15+ minute match", at the end of the day, isn't that different.
If anything, this method just favors the "newbie" a bit more, because the "expert" players won't be able to rush to a specific character, and start playing them moment-1, while they spend 4 hours trying to find their character. Each person is "forced" to have some kind of "try some variety!" play, which sounds o-so-bad on paper ("why should I have to play in a way unlike what I intent?", "what right do the devs have to make me sit through this?" etc, etc), but in the end, it's just a method to level out the experinces of the playing field, and make the game less daunting to approach, for a longer period of time, than a game that tosses everything out immediately.
DoTA didn't start with 100+ characters, right? If it did, I'm sure it would have shot itself in the foot from the get-go. Players had more classes revealed to them as time went on. Not too different to what will happen here...
A big problem I had with this game before launch (as I do have with many games) is the playerbase fragmentation because there is no cross-platform play. Now seeing the way they have a season pass and how the game features non-cosmetical unlocks I'm not interested any more. For shame.
That's fine and all, and too bad, but.. I don't understand the season pass complaints. At the end of the day, it's a 30 dollar game if you wanna play some additional characters (And get a "bonus" survival mode).
I'd personally have been much more turned off by, say, a cost structure that only gave 3 our of 5 character class types at 800 MSP, and then forced the unlock of the 2 additional classes through a 10 dollar unlock, and then unlocked beyond those 10 initial character for an additional 10 dollars.
As it is now, you have multiple choice available for the base price, in each class, and all classes unlocked. The DLC/season pass gives you character that are still in development (assumedly), that'll have to fit into these already-established classes, for $15.
I think they could have picked a much more money-greedy method to monetizing this game than they did, and I think we're getting a pretty strong wealth of content for the prices. Truthfully, save for the PC fore-fathers out there, I see no reason why a game of this calibur and polish shouldn't / couldn't have simple been sold as a $60 full retail game, with maybe a few more stage-skins on offer. And I'm sure the in-app purchases of the PC games aim to make more money off each consumer, than what this game right here is doing so far..