As the years go by, the "fun and interactive gameplay" abilities of new champions has gone ballistic.
I appreciate that this is core to f2p games as the new champions with great abilities are necessary to get people to dip into their pockets to keep up with the power creep.
I think you're greatly overestimating the rate of power creep in this game, but I also think you don't appreciate why it even exists. It doesn't exist just to force people to spend: power creep existed in subscription-based MMOs that had no micro-transactions. It exists because you need to keep players interested in the game, and novelty is part of keeping people interested. Novelty unavoidably creates some power creep in any game. In a subscription based game it keeps the veterans around and attracts newer players over time. In an F2P game it keeps the veterans chasing new things and it also lowers the entry curve for newer players (by making their starting point higher than it was in the past, it prevents them from starting so far behind veterans that no amount of playing and spending will make them competitive).
This isn't a problem to solve. This is the engine the game is built upon. It would be completely counter-productive to allow players to "buy" their way around it or allow a sizeable percentage of players to somehow ignore it.
This doesn't address the merits of the actual suggestion, which I think is extremely not good. This addresses the point that *no* "solution" will be good, because in the best case scenario you'd be damaging the ability for the game to sustain itself, not just in revenue, but in long term interest. In the worst case scenario you'd just destroy the game completely.
Again: the premise is that power creep is a bad side effect of having to make money. This is false, because games that don't make any money on power creep and have no way to monetize it still do it. Power creep is an unavoidable side effect of trying to keep the game interesting for veterans and new players alike, and making money on it is just a side effect of making money on the game continuing to be interesting to participate in.
Firstly Brian Grant was playing this game for 7 hours a day. He says so in his latest YouTube video. He proves my point. F2p can only compete at the top level by overcoming money with obscene amounts of time. 7 hours a day. On a video game. Just to remain competitive. And Brian does not support kabam keeping the game running.
As to power creep being unavoidable. I agree. Hence 4 stars, then 5 stars, then 6 stars. With the latest power creep on rank 3 6 stars soon to be evident. However a 4/55 duped 5 star Omega would probably be more useful than a 3/45 duped 6 star cyclops. So there are two types of power curve.
There are high odds of pulling useless champions that can only be overcome by further gambling, to try to keep up with the new champion power curve. People won't rank up trash champions.
Making all champions broadly equal would reduce the need to gamble and thereby revenue. So they have to have a dual degree of power curve with continuous new champions. But why leave 2/3rds or thereabouts of the champions/game tools broadly useless if they don't have to and can still protect their revenue?
And look to protect it in case the whales start to bail. The f2p zealots won't have a game to play without the whales and p2p players.
But why leave 2/3rds or thereabouts of the champions/game tools broadly useless if they don't have to and can still protect their revenue?
2/3rds of champions aren't broadly useless. Not only are they useful in the way the question intends, but they are even more useful in a way the question probably doesn't even contemplate. It is all about progress, and how games must always anticipate how quickly players run into progress walls.
Most players have those champs, and use them. And most players slowly replace them with other champs over time, and replace those again with other champs. And that process of getting, using, and later replacing champs with new ones is the only reason the game still exists.
If the only way to make a game is for a small number of people to fund it by gambling, then various MMOs would not have existed. Neither would vast numbers of other games. World of Warcraft did it for 15 years without people paying for each gamble. You can have power creep without the need to gamble real money or play 7+ hours a day to keep up with it.
The launch of new, ridiculously overpowered champions and the neglect of original ones is of course, partly to encourage the gamblers and whales and p2ps to spend to keep up with the power creep. But we have the power creep with the rank up system and gating of associated resources. My solution is to get rid of some or all of the paid gambling elements and replace it with a funded solution that retains the power creep and hunt for new champions, but without the need to have 100 or so addicted gamblers funding it.
If the only way to make a game is for a small number of people to fund it by gambling, then various MMOs would not have existed. Neither would vast numbers of other games. World of Warcraft did it for 15 years without people paying for each gamble. You can have power creep without the need to gamble real money or play 7+ hours a day to keep up with it.
The launch of new, ridiculously overpowered champions and the neglect of original ones is of course, partly to encourage the gamblers and whales and p2ps to spend to keep up with the power creep. But we have the power creep with the rank up system and gating of associated resources. My solution is to get rid of some or all of the paid gambling elements and replace it with a funded solution that retains the power creep and hunt for new champions, but without the need to have 100 or so addicted gamblers funding it.
That's what I've been trying to tell you: power creep always existed, even in subscription games. So turning this game into a subscription game won't address the need for power creep: your solution isn't a solution.
Moreover, you're also retreading the evolution of F2P gaming. F2P gaming isn't an accident: F2P gaming is the result of the fact that in general, it is far more successful that subscription gaming. That's why most subscription games either added microtransactions as a hybrid model or converted completely to F2P. Subscription MMOs are now much more of a niche because while the subscription model works, it isn't as competitive against F2P. When subscription MMOs only had to compete with other subscription MMOs, the subscription model was much more widely successful. But most of the time the F2P model's advantages are extremely difficult to overcome with subscriptions.
WoW was able to carve an exception for itself due to its huge early success. But there's a huge graveyard of MMOs that failed to do so.
Now I dont like to be mean but the level of smugness and also just all around rudeness to a large portion of the community i have to say this. I've argued in the past about the worth of a f2p player and the fact that f2p player bring in money in the form of the friends they bring to the game especially if they are long time players and also dedicating time leading alliances where members spend.
Now what I am hearing now from you is you are not good enough to keep up with the content in game in the current state even with the sigil that gives you a bump over the f2p and arent willing to spend like the whales to pull the champs you want so you want a cheaper way to get a better advantage over the f2p then whaling out. If they are buffing champs why wouldnt everyone get those buffs if kabam is putting them out in game? Makes no sense and honestly in how this game is designed and is a terrible idea.
This is a you problem honestly not a power creep problem. There are plenty of resources in game to get units/gold/champs if you are playing the right content and prioritize your resources and units properly. If you cant do it while using money and others can without using money then maybe you need to get better or maybe rng just hasn't been kind. Either way still this is an extremely bad idea.
Also you dont need to grind for 7 hours a day to be an f2p player working on endgame content. If you want high tier alliance play then ya probably but if you are just keeping up with endgame questing then no it isnt necessary. You can play in mid tier alliances and you'll be just fine.
If the only way to make a game is for a small number of people to fund it by gambling, then various MMOs would not have existed. Neither would vast numbers of other games. World of Warcraft did it for 15 years without people paying for each gamble. You can have power creep without the need to gamble real money or play 7+ hours a day to keep up with it.
The launch of new, ridiculously overpowered champions and the neglect of original ones is of course, partly to encourage the gamblers and whales and p2ps to spend to keep up with the power creep. But we have the power creep with the rank up system and gating of associated resources. My solution is to get rid of some or all of the paid gambling elements and replace it with a funded solution that retains the power creep and hunt for new champions, but without the need to have 100 or so addicted gamblers funding it.
It sounds like your "solution" is to radically change a very successful game in order to address a problem that isn't actually a problem. I'll pass.
I'm glad to see us as summoners putting aside our differences to join forces and try to explain why this is a terrible idea and why their mindset on f2p is terrible.
I'm glad to see us as summoners putting aside our differences to join forces and try to explain why this is a terrible idea and why their mindset on f2p is terrible.
There's a reason why F2P games are so popular. Free to play players generally like them because they get to play a game for free, whereas with the subscription model everyone has to pay. Since generally 80% of F2P game populations are actually playing for free, that's a lot of players. Whales also tend to like F2P games because they are supported by microtransactions, and whales get to buy themselves advantages in the game. With subscription games this ability is greatly muted. Grinders tend to like F2P games because most good F2P games offer grindable ways to gain in-game currency and resources comparable to what you could buy with moderate amounts of cash. Min/maxers tends to like F2P games because they are constantly evolving, and that keeps changing the landscape of what's better and worse in the game, which gives them a strategic advantage in keeping up with the game.
When you argue that the problem with F2P gaming is that everyone should get more homogenous rewards and everyone should be paying a similar amount, you're basically arguing against almost everyone in the F2P gaming world. It is one thing to argue against the worst excesses of the model, but when you argue against the entire model itself, that's rough sledding. These disparate groups of players may not always like each other, but most realize they need to tolerate each other to keep the games they play going. And collectively they outnumber the people who don't like the F2P model about a hundred to one.
I'm glad to see us as summoners putting aside our differences to join forces and try to explain why this is a terrible idea and why their mindset on f2p is terrible.
There's a reason why F2P games are so popular. Free to play players generally like them because they get to play a game for free, whereas with the subscription model everyone has to pay. Since generally 80% of F2P game populations are actually playing for free, that's a lot of players. Whales also tend to like F2P games because they are supported by microtransactions, and whales get to buy themselves advantages in the game. With subscription games this ability is greatly muted. Grinders tend to like F2P games because most good F2P games offer grindable ways to gain in-game currency and resources comparable to what you could buy with moderate amounts of cash. Min/maxers tends to like F2P games because they are constantly evolving, and that keeps changing the landscape of what's better and worse in the game, which gives them a strategic advantage in keeping up with the game.
When you argue that the problem with F2P gaming is that everyone should get more homogenous rewards and everyone should be paying a similar amount, you're basically arguing against almost everyone in the F2P gaming world. It is one thing to argue against the worst excesses of the model, but when you argue against the entire model itself, that's rough sledding. These disparate groups of players may not always like each other, but most realize they need to tolerate each other to keep the games they play going. And collectively they outnumber the people who don't like the F2P model about a hundred to one.
I'm glad to see us as summoners putting aside our differences to join forces and try to explain why this is a terrible idea and why their mindset on f2p is terrible.
There's a reason why F2P games are so popular. Free to play players generally like them because they get to play a game for free, whereas with the subscription model everyone has to pay. Since generally 80% of F2P game populations are actually playing for free, that's a lot of players. Whales also tend to like F2P games because they are supported by microtransactions, and whales get to buy themselves advantages in the game. With subscription games this ability is greatly muted. Grinders tend to like F2P games because most good F2P games offer grindable ways to gain in-game currency and resources comparable to what you could buy with moderate amounts of cash. Min/maxers tends to like F2P games because they are constantly evolving, and that keeps changing the landscape of what's better and worse in the game, which gives them a strategic advantage in keeping up with the game.
When you argue that the problem with F2P gaming is that everyone should get more homogenous rewards and everyone should be paying a similar amount, you're basically arguing against almost everyone in the F2P gaming world. It is one thing to argue against the worst excesses of the model, but when you argue against the entire model itself, that's rough sledding. These disparate groups of players may not always like each other, but most realize they need to tolerate each other to keep the games they play going. And collectively they outnumber the people who don't like the F2P model about a hundred to one.
I'm glad to see us as summoners putting aside our differences to join forces and try to explain why this is a terrible idea and why their mindset on f2p is terrible.
There's a reason why F2P games are so popular. Free to play players generally like them because they get to play a game for free, whereas with the subscription model everyone has to pay. Since generally 80% of F2P game populations are actually playing for free, that's a lot of players. Whales also tend to like F2P games because they are supported by microtransactions, and whales get to buy themselves advantages in the game. With subscription games this ability is greatly muted. Grinders tend to like F2P games because most good F2P games offer grindable ways to gain in-game currency and resources comparable to what you could buy with moderate amounts of cash. Min/maxers tends to like F2P games because they are constantly evolving, and that keeps changing the landscape of what's better and worse in the game, which gives them a strategic advantage in keeping up with the game.
When you argue that the problem with F2P gaming is that everyone should get more homogenous rewards and everyone should be paying a similar amount, you're basically arguing against almost everyone in the F2P gaming world. It is one thing to argue against the worst excesses of the model, but when you argue against the entire model itself, that's rough sledding. These disparate groups of players may not always like each other, but most realize they need to tolerate each other to keep the games they play going. And collectively they outnumber the people who don't like the F2P model about a hundred to one.
Firstly Brian Grant was playing this game for 7 hours a day. He says so in his latest YouTube video. He proves my point. F2p can only compete at the top level by overcoming money with obscene amounts of time. 7 hours a day. On a video game. Just to remain competitive. And Brian does not support kabam keeping the game running.
As to power creep being unavoidable. I agree. Hence 4 stars, then 5 stars, then 6 stars. With the latest power creep on rank 3 6 stars soon to be evident. However a 4/55 duped 5 star Omega would probably be more useful than a 3/45 duped 6 star cyclops. So there are two types of power curve.
There are high odds of pulling useless champions that can only be overcome by further gambling, to try to keep up with the new champion power curve. People won't rank up trash champions.
Making all champions broadly equal would reduce the need to gamble and thereby revenue. So they have to have a dual degree of power curve with continuous new champions. But why leave 2/3rds or thereabouts of the champions/game tools broadly useless if they don't have to and can still protect their revenue?
And look to protect it in case the whales start to bail. The f2p zealots won't have a game to play without the whales and p2p players.
Hahaha you think they way to stop power creep is to cut off better champs from f2p players which is probably half the playerbase. Also I don't appreciate your hatred towards f2p players not everyone has money to spend on a mobile game. Basic point is your idea was horrible and you are the only one who even comes close to thinking it is a good one.
But why leave 2/3rds or thereabouts of the champions/game tools broadly useless if they don't have to and can still protect their revenue?
2/3rds of champions aren't broadly useless. Not only are they useful in the way the question intends, but they are even more useful in a way the question probably doesn't even contemplate. It is all about progress, and how games must always anticipate how quickly players run into progress walls.
Most players have those champs, and use them. And most players slowly replace them with other champs over time, and replace those again with other champs. And that process of getting, using, and later replacing champs with new ones is the only reason the game still exists.
Yes and no. Why are 2/3rd of the champions "useless"? Because deciding which champion to invest in is not only dictated by the present, but also by the future. You always run the risk of getting a good champion the next pull and getting the feeling you've wasted resources on the previous champion. Like, I can pull 5* Psylocke. If that is my only 5* power control champion, then it would be wise to invest in her. But what if I pull Magik, Doctor Doom or a better power control champion next time? Then I will prefer that champion, but might not have the resources to do it.
Same thing with 4*: with some dedication I can rank-up any 4* to at least rank 3. But when it comes to invest t4bc, I start to doubt. I've a lot of good 4* at rank 3 who are equally worthy that rank-up (for instant unawakened Namor, Stealth Spidey, etc.). At rank 4, there is even more competition and even more investment, but I can only choose one. To pull a good 4* today might not worth investing to go all the way to rank 5.
The alternative is to take a sub-optimal but decent champion that you got a long way ago and did some investment in and which is cheaper than to take a new champion to the same level. Most players don't move forward if they would continually rank-up all good champions they get. You got to make a choice someday: this is my top team and I'm going to move forward with it.
The reverse is certainly true: why would you ever rank-up a newly pulled sub-optimal champion if you've better champions ranked-up already? If I've 5* Magik, I wouldn't invest in a 5* Psylocke anymore, purely because I've the better option already. Most players don't swim in the sea of money with the whales.
In sum: your cycle of replacement doesn't take path dependency and resource scarcity into account, which can either promote sub-optimal options over the better ones or devalue sub-optimal but decent champions compared to god tier champions. It all depends who you've got first.
Comments
This isn't a problem to solve. This is the engine the game is built upon. It would be completely counter-productive to allow players to "buy" their way around it or allow a sizeable percentage of players to somehow ignore it.
This doesn't address the merits of the actual suggestion, which I think is extremely not good. This addresses the point that *no* "solution" will be good, because in the best case scenario you'd be damaging the ability for the game to sustain itself, not just in revenue, but in long term interest. In the worst case scenario you'd just destroy the game completely.
Again: the premise is that power creep is a bad side effect of having to make money. This is false, because games that don't make any money on power creep and have no way to monetize it still do it. Power creep is an unavoidable side effect of trying to keep the game interesting for veterans and new players alike, and making money on it is just a side effect of making money on the game continuing to be interesting to participate in.
As to power creep being unavoidable. I agree. Hence 4 stars, then 5 stars, then 6 stars. With the latest power creep on rank 3 6 stars soon to be evident. However a 4/55 duped 5 star Omega would probably be more useful than a 3/45 duped 6 star cyclops. So there are two types of power curve.
There are high odds of pulling useless champions that can only be overcome by further gambling, to try to keep up with the new champion power curve. People won't rank up trash champions.
Making all champions broadly equal would reduce the need to gamble and thereby revenue. So they have to have a dual degree of power curve with continuous new champions. But why leave 2/3rds or thereabouts of the champions/game tools broadly useless if they don't have to and can still protect their revenue?
And look to protect it in case the whales start to bail. The f2p zealots won't have a game to play without the whales and p2p players.
Most players have those champs, and use them. And most players slowly replace them with other champs over time, and replace those again with other champs. And that process of getting, using, and later replacing champs with new ones is the only reason the game still exists.
The launch of new, ridiculously overpowered champions and the neglect of original ones is of course, partly to encourage the gamblers and whales and p2ps to spend to keep up with the power creep. But we have the power creep with the rank up system and gating of associated resources. My solution is to get rid of some or all of the paid gambling elements and replace it with a funded solution that retains the power creep and hunt for new champions, but without the need to have 100 or so addicted gamblers funding it.
Moreover, you're also retreading the evolution of F2P gaming. F2P gaming isn't an accident: F2P gaming is the result of the fact that in general, it is far more successful that subscription gaming. That's why most subscription games either added microtransactions as a hybrid model or converted completely to F2P. Subscription MMOs are now much more of a niche because while the subscription model works, it isn't as competitive against F2P. When subscription MMOs only had to compete with other subscription MMOs, the subscription model was much more widely successful. But most of the time the F2P model's advantages are extremely difficult to overcome with subscriptions.
WoW was able to carve an exception for itself due to its huge early success. But there's a huge graveyard of MMOs that failed to do so.
Now what I am hearing now from you is you are not good enough to keep up with the content in game in the current state even with the sigil that gives you a bump over the f2p and arent willing to spend like the whales to pull the champs you want so you want a cheaper way to get a better advantage over the f2p then whaling out. If they are buffing champs why wouldnt everyone get those buffs if kabam is putting them out in game? Makes no sense and honestly in how this game is designed and is a terrible idea.
This is a you problem honestly not a power creep problem. There are plenty of resources in game to get units/gold/champs if you are playing the right content and prioritize your resources and units properly. If you cant do it while using money and others can without using money then maybe you need to get better or maybe rng just hasn't been kind. Either way still this is an extremely bad idea.
Also you dont need to grind for 7 hours a day to be an f2p player working on endgame content. If you want high tier alliance play then ya probably but if you are just keeping up with endgame questing then no it isnt necessary. You can play in mid tier alliances and you'll be just fine.
When you argue that the problem with F2P gaming is that everyone should get more homogenous rewards and everyone should be paying a similar amount, you're basically arguing against almost everyone in the F2P gaming world. It is one thing to argue against the worst excesses of the model, but when you argue against the entire model itself, that's rough sledding. These disparate groups of players may not always like each other, but most realize they need to tolerate each other to keep the games they play going. And collectively they outnumber the people who don't like the F2P model about a hundred to one.
Same thing with 4*: with some dedication I can rank-up any 4* to at least rank 3. But when it comes to invest t4bc, I start to doubt. I've a lot of good 4* at rank 3 who are equally worthy that rank-up (for instant unawakened Namor, Stealth Spidey, etc.). At rank 4, there is even more competition and even more investment, but I can only choose one. To pull a good 4* today might not worth investing to go all the way to rank 5.
The alternative is to take a sub-optimal but decent champion that you got a long way ago and did some investment in and which is cheaper than to take a new champion to the same level. Most players don't move forward if they would continually rank-up all good champions they get. You got to make a choice someday: this is my top team and I'm going to move forward with it.
The reverse is certainly true: why would you ever rank-up a newly pulled sub-optimal champion if you've better champions ranked-up already? If I've 5* Magik, I wouldn't invest in a 5* Psylocke anymore, purely because I've the better option already. Most players don't swim in the sea of money with the whales.
In sum: your cycle of replacement doesn't take path dependency and resource scarcity into account, which can either promote sub-optimal options over the better ones or devalue sub-optimal but decent champions compared to god tier champions. It all depends who you've got first.