It's OK. If you hack the right targets you can still do some damage but the days of hacking something and distracting the entire enemy army are over.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer |OT| Rich, deep online role playing
- Thread starter EatChildren
- Start date
It's OK. If you hack the right targets you can still do some damage but the days of hacking something and distracting the entire enemy army are over.
walbertsmith
Member
And like I said in my very *first* sentence in my very first post about this... gamers are getting older, and this is the natural evolution of the video game industry.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35987342&postcount=2596
Diablo II came out over 10 years ago when no such system existed and yes, the average age of gamers was lower. This system wouldn't have worked back then, but it does now. Taken in a vacuum your points have merit, but looking at it as a whole then it makes a whole lot more sense.
And you keep saying they're "encouraging players to spend real money"... are they? Like many, many others have stated here, it's *not* difficult to earn enough credits to buy a Spectre pack... if you're good, it takes two Silver runs and if you're *really* good it takes one Gold run. Are those players "encouraged to spend real money"? Or are they being rewarded for skill and the time they put into the game? Sounds like the latter to me.
SnakeswithLasers
Member
As I said, I'm not against the card system, I just think the implementation needed work. It isn't made clear to the player.
If you played WoW and were level 1 and saw that you could run a few level 1 dungeons and be able to afford to unlock new abilities (race/class combos in ME3) and epic weapons that will last you until the high tiers -or- you could quickly cash in for some cheap shit that you'll quickly outgrow, you'd probably save your money and hope for the epics.
Since Bioware is giving people this very option, they should at least try to guarantee that point hoarders aren't going to gimp themselves and their team.
It makes more sense (to me) to give a random fixed-tier reward based on what you're competing in: complete bronze level, unlock bronze reward; silver, unlock silver; gold, unlock gold.
Then give bonus credits as well that let you hoard your points and unlock packs. This way you insure that your new players and hoarders are getting stuff (and remaining competitive), even if they are choosing to save their points in general. And the people that choose to spend their points constantly, will probably have an easier ride on the way up, get to constantly open packs, and will be playing with people less unprepared in general.
This wasn't addressed to me, but this is wrong.
The Stone of Jordan has a qLvl of 39; which, to simplify it, means that nothing underneath level 39 can drop a SoJ. If I'm level one and fighting in the Den of Evil, I will NEVER get a Stone of Jordan.
I will also NEVER get a Windforce. There are lots of items that I will NEVER get as a level 1 (or level 99 for that matter) by playing in the first areas of the game.
The difference between this and ME3 is that ME3 allows the Stone of Jordan, Windforce, Cham, or any of the top .00001% items to be obtained and used by a level 1 character. This provides an incentive to hoard points, but the game doesn't explain why you shouldn't. You just end up being "bad" and don't explicitly know why. The game should explain the systems better and balance the loot distribution between tiers and players better.
The system isn't inherently bad, it's just a bit sloppy, in my opinion.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
Isn't it merely your opinion that getting a Spectre pack isn't *that* difficult? I think it takes longer than it should. And I really don't think you can explain why $1 equals 20k credits for a Veteran pack, but yet $2 equals 60k credits for a Spectre pack. It seems clear that credits do not have a defined exchange rate with real dollars, which is suspicious. It's as if Bioware made the Spectre pack cost more in credits simply to promote purchasing them with real money.
FrontalMonk
Banned
I'll weigh in with a drive-by post before I leave work re: the spending money issue.
It's shitty to start off with, and super enticing to just drop a dollar or two for a big pack, but as you level up more and get a couple upgrades, it makes less and less sense to drop money on packs. As you've all stated several times you can get spectres after 2 silver runs, and another thing of note is that you can get 3 veteran packs from those 2 runs as well. Essentially they've made it so that if you were to say recruit/vet/spectre translated to bronze/silver/gold, you can get at least one pack after every single clear. Will it have everything you want? No, for the same reason why people buy entire boxes of Magic boosters. But the incentive to buy is less and less the more you play.
It's shitty to start off with, and super enticing to just drop a dollar or two for a big pack, but as you level up more and get a couple upgrades, it makes less and less sense to drop money on packs. As you've all stated several times you can get spectres after 2 silver runs, and another thing of note is that you can get 3 veteran packs from those 2 runs as well. Essentially they've made it so that if you were to say recruit/vet/spectre translated to bronze/silver/gold, you can get at least one pack after every single clear. Will it have everything you want? No, for the same reason why people buy entire boxes of Magic boosters. But the incentive to buy is less and less the more you play.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
So your defense of this system is: Gamers are now older, so they can afford it? How does that make any sense? That doesn't defend the system, it just merely reinforces why Bioware wants to monetize it.
You keep relying on this trope that it's not that difficult to unlock a Spectre pack. It's all relative, even if you're a great player. Sure, you could spend 45 minutes on Gold and unlock a Spectre pack. But what if, had Bioware not monetized the unlock system, they thought the best ratio would be that you could unlock a Spectre and a Veteran pack after completion of a Gold game? That's what is wrong with this system, making a bigger profit clouds their judgment.
walbertsmith
Member
No, it's not just my opinion, that sentiment was carried by many other gaffers just on these last few pages alone. If you can consistently compete at the highest level then you deserve it's best reward but if you have a 30% success rate on Gold then you should have an appropriate amount of difficulty in obtaining the prize as well.
As far as the conversion, well, you get multiple unlocks right? With Recruit packs you can sometimes get an uncommon, and in Veteran you can sometimes unlock Gold cards, and in Spectre you can sometimes unlock two Gold cards. I don't know what that rate is, but as we've seen from several gaffers here (and I've unlocked two before as well) it's not so rare as to be unseen. So yes, it's not an unequal conversion but seeing as how Gold's aren't guaranteed in Veterans I'd say $2 is a steal for Spectre (guaranteed 1 gold card, which you aren't guaranteed in 3 Veterans).
TangoAlphaLima
Member
Okay, so it's your opinion that's shared by handful of other people. Guess that's gospel then...
And you're completely missing my point about the credit/dollar exchange rate with your analysis of what they can unlock. It doesn't matter what rarity items they unlock, the point is that it costs more in credits (20k more) to get a Spectre pack than it does in dollars by using the $1 = 20k credit exchange rate established by the Veteran pack. You even say that "$2 is a steal for Spectre," that's exactly what Bioware wants you to think!!!
Only because you're making blind assumptions about the development process with absolutely nothing to back it up, then treating your assumptions as self-evident fact. If BioWare designed this system with the intention of milking their players, they did a piss-poor job of it. Personally, I don't feel the slightest need to spend real money on additional packs. Judging from the experiences of my friends and from various forums, most other players don't feel the need to buy additional packs either. The unlock speed felt fine in the demo, and it generally feels fine in the full version as well. It only becomes a problem if you're after one or two specific unlocks and don't care about the rest, because there's so many more items diluting the pool.
However, the real money booster option doesn't even address that problem. If specific unlocks were available for real money but ultra-rare in currency-bought packs, I could see the point being made. That's not the situation we have. By your own admission, you wouldn't have a problem if the credit costs and rarities were identical, but the real money option was removed. Are you sure you don't just have a strong personal bias against these kinds of real money options, which is causing you to assume the worst intentions on the part of the developer regardless of the evidence?
walbertsmith
Member
Umm... it entirely makes sense. Gamers are older, they comprise a bigger market than 10 years ago, and gaming in general is no longer considered a "nerdy" activity. Giving people an option on how they want to play their games (yet maintaining an equal playing field) totally makes sense.
This is standard price differentiation... a normal business tactic in pretty much any industry out there. Some people value time more than money, and this is what it caters to. Do you begrudge a company for trying to make money? Here's EA's stock price. Their past two quarters have been pretty ugly. Is it wrong for a company to try and stay afloat?
Note that I'm only defending this practice, which does not violate standard business ethics... I don't want to get into it, but I feel that other ME3 monetization practices (day 1 DLC, all the Razer gear tie-ins) DO venture into gray areas when it comes to standard business ethics. Your crusade is barking up the wrong tree.
So if they didn't monetize the system and implemented exactly what you described here... doesn't that favor those players with more time to play? Isn't that entirely *less* fair because someone with less time now has no other option than to grind?
divisionbyzorro
Member
No, it's true regardless.
If the drop rates are too good, people won't buy Spectre packs with dollars because they'll get enough good stuff with what they can afford with their credits. If the drop rates are too low, people will stop playing out of frustration, which means people aren't spending anything, be it dollars or credits.
If dollars aren't part of the equation, you try to balance drop rates and pack price to keep players playing and enjoying your game, while dangling that carrot in front of them. But once dollars enter the system, you're incentivized to make the drop rates just a little bit less forgiving and the pack cost just a little bit more in order to entice players to take the monetized shortcut. You're no longer balancing for the optimal gameplay experience - you're balancing for optimal income. It's detrimental to good game design.
Sure, I wasn't in the room when design decisions were made. But there is a clear conflict of interest present in this situation, which is what I'm trying to point out. And you're naive if you think that revenue stream wasn't a big part of the balance decisions - the server-side patch they just pushed to shut down the easiest known farming method should be evidence enough of this.
walbertsmith
Member
BUT YOU DON"T HAVE TO PAY FOR IT... and the time-to-money or money-to-time ratio is entirely reasonable! What don't you understand about that? You're completely discounting the entire point of each tiered pack (chance of uncommon -> chance of rare -> chance of multiple rares) and looking at each pack in a vacuum... you constantly choose to nitpick against one specific thing instead of looking at the system as a whole. And you have yet to respond to my comment here:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35989404&postcount=2621
Specifically about the longevity of the unlocks.
SnakeswithLasers
Member
Haha, that's assuming the single player is any good and we even want to play through it once, much less multiple times.
Edit: Also, since you're the most vocal supporter of the system in here, I'm curious what your response is to the point I made above with regard to your Diablo 2 analogy. I am not against monetization, I think they made a mistake with the "any item" available to "any player" philosophy, in that it induces hoarding and spending, rather than playing and progressing with skill.
walbertsmith
Member
Regardless of the brewing end-game controversy with ME3, fact is both ME1 and ME2 were GOTY candidates/winners, and had the unprecedented structure of game decisions carrying over into future versions. People have a LOT invested into the single player in those games and have built-in incentive to play through single player in ME3 multiple times.
First off, I just mentioned SoJ because it was the only item I remember from DII that had worth... I never played on realms (just with friends) so I never had any of those elite items.
But you do have an interesting point, to be sure. I wouldn't necessarily say you're wrong or right, but the structure of the two games itself feeds into its own system better (but I do agree they should encourage you to stick with packs suited for your level). DII had the loot system but while you're cooperating to beat the boss, you compete with others in terms of who picked up the loot. In ME3 there's no competition for items so even if you're a level 1 and get a Geth Pulse Shotgun you're not "penalizing" other players for your reward. It works both ways, but I do agree it should be a bit more delineated.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
You say it's optional and I don't have to pay for it. I totally agree, and I'm not going to pay for it. But unfortunately the inclusion of the real money pay method likely made Bioware make design choices that weren't for the best game balance, but rather were for the best profit margin. Even if I never utilize it, the paid unlock system affected the product I bought.
And how are you determining that the time-to-money ratio is reasonable? I paid $80 for the Collector's Edition of the game. One Spectre pack is worth 1/40th of the game? I hardly think so (but then I'm also annoyed by a $60 30-hour game charging $10 for 2-hour DLC).
Regarding your post about the longevity of the unlocks, I hardly see how that plays into the equation. You mention MW3's prestige system. You do know that's optional, right? You aren't forced to prestige, and many people think the small benefits for prestiging aren't worth it. Regardless, whether the unlocks have longevity or not is inconsequential. My original point has always been that the inclusion of real money unlocks does not give players the best product possible, as the concern for making profit guides the developer's decisions.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
No blind assumptions, I just understand how the world works. If you think there weren't multiple Bioware team meetings about maximizing profit with these real money unlocks, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Many people may not feel the need to pay for unlocks, and many people like myself may be opposed to the practice in general. But that's not the issue. There are people out there who are buying them, and that's why Bioware put it in the game. Unfortunately, that means design decisions were made with maximizing profit in mind, as opposed to providing the best game experience, and that does affect me.
walbertsmith
Member
Again you're picking at specific aspects of the issue instead of looking at the whole... while ignoring other components of my argument. God forbid a company that lost over 30% of its stock price in the past 2 quarters (despite a market that hit its highest today since the bottom 3 years ago) try and make money from one of their biggest franchises in a fair way.
Suffice it to say, we'll agree to disagree.
Psychoward
Banned
Got a Turian Soldier
Any good builds?
Any good builds?
RebornYeti
Member
I'm so glad that they introduced the Equipment packs. I was sick of not getting any Medi-Gel in the Spectre packs. Now I have tons!
chickdigger802
Banned
wrong topic.
The Xtortionist
Member
Got a Turian Soldier
Any good builds?
Use the Revenant. Spec Marksman for Fire Rate, Duration, and Accuracy and Fire Rate. Spec Proximity Mine for Damage, Damage Taken and more Damage. Spec Fitness for health and Turian Veteran for weapon and headshot damage and stability. Go to town.
Turian Sentinels using tech armor reemed.
It's easier to carry a Mantis X than it is to carry a Vindicator. Mantis pairs terribly with a rapid fire Overload so an Overload specced for damage is preferred. The best bet for overload speed is once again, Heavy Pistol.
I really hate the Vindicator nerf.
It's easier to carry a Mantis X than it is to carry a Vindicator. Mantis pairs terribly with a rapid fire Overload so an Overload specced for damage is preferred. The best bet for overload speed is once again, Heavy Pistol.
I really hate the Vindicator nerf.
meSchnitzel
Neo Member
I think the packs are priced pretty well...
If you beat a bronze game you have about 17/18k credits. That is three recruit packs! That can really help with mods/items/and upgrading your weapons. You can even decide to buy recruit packs lets say, then play another bronze game --- then you would have enough for a vet pack! all in under 20 mins (assuming you win, and if you havent won you probably still have some credits to get some recruit packs)
When you feel you can take on silver and get the hang of it you get enough credits for a Vet pack AND some recruit packs! OMG looks at these options!
Once you feel you have a group that can take on gold, and if you can beat it, you can walk away with a whoping 72k credits! Wowoweeeeewo! That is a spectre pack and a couple recruit packs!
Obviously this is just one example, everyone has the freedom to save credits through multiple rounds and buy whichever packs they want. But to say that bioware designed it to encourage real money spending just seems retarded. Sure, if you want the best of the best right out of the gates and you are too impatient to build it up yourself then you are going to be unhappy with it.
If you beat a bronze game you have about 17/18k credits. That is three recruit packs! That can really help with mods/items/and upgrading your weapons. You can even decide to buy recruit packs lets say, then play another bronze game --- then you would have enough for a vet pack! all in under 20 mins (assuming you win, and if you havent won you probably still have some credits to get some recruit packs)
When you feel you can take on silver and get the hang of it you get enough credits for a Vet pack AND some recruit packs! OMG looks at these options!
Once you feel you have a group that can take on gold, and if you can beat it, you can walk away with a whoping 72k credits! Wowoweeeeewo! That is a spectre pack and a couple recruit packs!
Obviously this is just one example, everyone has the freedom to save credits through multiple rounds and buy whichever packs they want. But to say that bioware designed it to encourage real money spending just seems retarded. Sure, if you want the best of the best right out of the gates and you are too impatient to build it up yourself then you are going to be unhappy with it.
Nearly everyone thinks they understand how the world works. Very few of them actually do. I hate to break it to you, but using "I understand how the world works" as your sole evidence for a statement is essentially the definition of a blind assumption.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
Right, Bioware included the real money unlock option in the game so that people wouldn't use it and so that they wouldn't make a bigger profit. Some people are so naive...
No, it's just a simple understanding that EA/Bioware is a business, and their #1 goal is making a profit. It's very simple to figure out the rest if you have that basic understanding. Unfortunately, many people are blinded by fanboyism and some odd belief that game developers are somehow making choices for altruistic reasons. "Gee, they let us unlock stuff by paying real money! That's awful nice of them. Now I don't have to spend time getting unlocks." Unreal.
meSchnitzel
Neo Member
I didn't say that they put it in the game hoping nobody would use it, I said I dont think the price of the packs (credits) was intentionally designed to encourage more real money transaction. Yeah, people sure can be naive....
TangoAlphaLima
Member
Do you think it was intentionally designed to encourage less real money transactions? I don't. You must think they designed it perfectly then, huh?
Empty Space
Member
Man is the vindicator weight increase really that much? What a god damn waste might as well use the Geth pulse rifle then.
meSchnitzel
Neo Member
As I broke down above, yes. I think the credits you get for winning and playing work great for the prices of the pack. It is a COOP game and not a PVP game so I'm not really concerned with unlocking everything right away.
EDIT: Again you seem to read what I say much differently than I intend. I do not think that Bioware or EA put the option to pay with real money in the game hoping that nobody uses it. I do think that they want our money... oh that is for sure. I say, however, that the credit prices are not so outrageous for me to believe they priced them to encourage real money transactions.
The Xtortionist
Member
Yeah you want the fastest cooldown for frequent biotic explosions.
RebornYeti
Member
No, they included it because they know that there's a percentage of the gaming population that's flat-out unwilling to put in effort and time to get 'the good stuff' and will spend money in lieu of that effort. It's the same model that 99% of free to play games are based off.
You don't have to spend a dime to get the good gear. All this complaining about what someone else might do with their money, having no credible impact on your game whatsoever, is ridiculous.
SnakeswithLasers
Member
I like this conversation more than the flat "cards are dumb/no they're not" one.
I agree that D2's system kind of sucked because it didn't reward cooperative play unless you were with actual friends--zero incentive to share with randoms. I actually like this reward system (and the mission structure) a lot!
A delineation would be helpful though: I think credits are great, and I love hoarding them.
The one thing I wish for (and this is a wider discussion of console games) is that if we are getting more micro-transaction driven business models, console devs should consider putting resources into making actual substantive changes to the systems post-release.
WoW is a good example of a game that shipped one way, but had a profitable revenue model that allowed them to make really big changes.
I am betting that ME3 is going to be successful with their MP revenue model, so I would love to see them roll out significant patches that deal with the weird stuff in these systems.
As I said, the basic hope on my end is for them to introduce a flat "completion reward" that gives a random consumable or something.
Open thinking here: Maybe ONLY put the random reward on Bronze to put an incentive on playing bronze when you need to replenish your medi-gel or rockets. This way the new folks will always have people to play with, and are free to experiment with using the consumables without having to always pay to restock them?
I dunno. As I said, I like it a lot. The game is fun, the cooperation is great, and the loot is neat--it just needs either refinement or direction, because my first few games I REALLY didn't know what was going on.
meSchnitzel
Neo Member
My friend bought a spectre pack the other day because he had extra points, and I had to ask why! His response, "2 bucks can buy me a Coke... but I wasn't thirsty"
He makes a good point. It really can be just like a booster pack for a CCG, you may not be able to trade things out, but really anything you get CAN be used/useful. Other than cards for characters that are level 20... but then again the idea is you promote when they get there haha
Psychoward
Banned
Yeah, a friend of mine had $2 on his PSN account and bought one.
walbertsmith
Member
Oh also... some more food for thought.
Despite Electronic Arts (ticker: EA) having a rough past 6 months, the index it's a part of (NASDAQ) closed above 3000 points today, a level not seen since the year 2000.
In other words, despite the economy slowly recovering to pre-recession levels (and for the NASDAQ, even better than that), EA is still having a rough time nowadays (due in part to the games industry being down in general).
However, for comparison's sake, Activision Blizzard (ticker: ATVI) is holding steady at roughly 70% of it's value at it's prerecession level... compare that with EA holding roughly 35% (!!!) of it's value versus its pre-recession level.
God forbid companies try and make money.
Despite Electronic Arts (ticker: EA) having a rough past 6 months, the index it's a part of (NASDAQ) closed above 3000 points today, a level not seen since the year 2000.
In other words, despite the economy slowly recovering to pre-recession levels (and for the NASDAQ, even better than that), EA is still having a rough time nowadays (due in part to the games industry being down in general).
However, for comparison's sake, Activision Blizzard (ticker: ATVI) is holding steady at roughly 70% of it's value at it's prerecession level... compare that with EA holding roughly 35% (!!!) of it's value versus its pre-recession level.
God forbid companies try and make money.
go study for your midterms ho
Diablohead
Member
lol it seems your n7 rank means nothing when you join a bronze game as n7 rank 95, but oh whats that a level 1 quarian? KICK HIM!
idiots on the internet.
idiots on the internet.
Send me an invite? I'm on my level 1 soldier lol.