Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Satori

Hero Deck and P2W Question

Recommended Posts

If the hero deck is removed, or expanded to the point of nullifying the effect, does that make the ability and requirement to buy more heroes with real money a pay-2-win element?

TE: Is this the real issue behind the Deck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think once the game is completed (the other hero skills passives are introduced, and more heroes are introduced), you won't need 1 of each hero to progress (as many believe is the case now). So I don't believe it will be pay-2-win by making other heroes purchasable.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think you guys missed the point.  Game is balanced around a hero deck atm.  If we were able to have a dedicated hero for every build in the future and be able to use them all that would no doubt (is this even in contention?) be better than someone who only has access to 4.

If the devs were to balance things around having access to all heroes/builds then the guys with only 4 might feel like they HAD to pay to be able to "compete"


Tbh, I do think it's the reason.  They feel as though being very adamant against P2W elements will get more players interested.  I don't very much agree - but meh.  Maybe give 8 free slots when they remove the hero deck.  I'd still buy more slots for sure, but maybe nobody would complain about p2w with two of each hero available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Pachi, this is the kind of conversation and thought sharing I am trying to stimulate. 

For the record I currently agree with you personally. 6-8 free would be fair and I would happily pay for more. 

More objectively however, I am concerned that a removal without a rework of the monetization may be received differently by different people. I am working on a more comprehensive post for a new thread that goes into more details and covers most angles but here I was hoping to discuss just the p2w implications of different designs. 

If anyone has some constructive thoughts please jump in!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@Pachipachio quote:

Think you guys missed the point.  Game is balanced around a hero deck atm.  If we were able to have a dedicated hero for every build in the future and be able to use them all that would no doubt (is this even in contention?) be better than someone who only has access to 4.

If the devs were to balance things around having access to all heroes/builds then the guys with only 4 might feel like they HAD to pay to be able to "compete"


Tbh, I do think it's the reason.  They feel as though being very adamant against P2W elements will get more players interested.  I don't very much agree - but meh.  Maybe give 8 free slots when they remove the hero deck.  I'd still buy more slots for sure, but maybe nobody would complain about p2w with two of each hero available.

How did they manage to do it in DD1? No one had to buy slots. You tell me what problems from DD1 that the hero deck actually solved that don't exist in DD2 and how it makes the game better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a tough thing, for sure... because whatever # they would implement people would create that many heroes.

Then a new hero comes out

And then people will have to delete some of their already 50 heroes to accommodate the new one?  That sucks.


Crappy spot to be put in.  Want to monetize.  But also don't want ANY P2W elements.  Dems the shakes when there are conflicting visions making decisions..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@Chappyy quote:


How did they manage to do it in DD1? No one had to buy slots. You tell me what problems from DD1 that the hero deck actually solved that don't exist in DD2 and how it makes the game better.

Well.. monetization?  DD1 wasn't f2p.  Hero deck lets you monetize it while simultaneously saying it isn't P2W



Satori something else you could consider in your compensive post is that allowing infinite creation of heroes would artifically increase the longevity of the game.  I know even if I gear everything up I'll create another hero for some dumb purpose - like a magic res squire, tank monk, etc etc.  = Good reason to remove hero deck


^to that point, more pets too.  No reason to have more than 4-6 elder pets atm.  With inf. hero creation/use it would make sense for people to feed more pets.  So, more gold sinks!  = Good reason to remove hero deck


Oh, AND, if we had infinite heroes to create costumes' value would go up since I'd bet my life people would prefer different costumes on different heroes to differentiate builds and what not.  So while it would hurt monetization of hero slots, it would increase the value of costumes - and costume creativity is something these guys are really good at.  = Good reason to remove hero deck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@Pachipachio quote:


@Chappyy quote:


How did they manage to do it in DD1? No one had to buy slots. You tell me what problems from DD1 that the hero deck actually solved that don't exist in DD2 and how it makes the game better.

Well.. monetization?  DD1 wasn't f2p.  Hero deck lets you monetize it while simultaneously saying it isn't P2W.

But it is P2W since those that. Buy slots have a very clear advantage over those that don't. In essence this is the absolute worst pay to win advantage you could gain over another player. The ability to buy additional towers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@Pachipachio quote:


@Chappyy quote:


How did they manage to do it in DD1? No one had to buy slots. You tell me what problems from DD1 that the hero deck actually solved that don't exist in DD2 and how it makes the game better.

Well.. monetization?  DD1 wasn't f2p.  Hero deck lets you monetize it while simultaneously saying it isn't P2W



Satori something else you could consider in your compensive post is that allowing infinite creation of heroes would artifically increase the longevity of the game.  I know even if I gear everything up I'll create another hero for some dumb purpose - like a magic res squire, tank monk, etc etc.  = Good reason to remove hero deck


^to that point, more pets too.  No reason to have more than 4-6 elder pets atm.  With inf. hero creation/use it would make sense for people to feed more pets.  So, more gold sinks!  = Good reason to remove hero deck


Oh, AND, if we had infinite heroes to create costumes' value would go up since I'd bet my life people would prefer different costumes on different heroes to differentiate builds and what not.  So while it would hurt monetization of hero slots, it would increase the value of costumes - and costume creativity is something these guys are really good at.  = Good reason to remove hero deck

great point. especially third one. that's how most successful f2p games work now, people pay lots for good cosmetics. i'd suggest for trendy to remove hero deck in future and work more on cosmetics. + lockboxes could have a chance to contain something that can't be bought in shop, so people would pay to open them. just like in dota 2. this is nothing new. valve has been doing this for years and it could definitely work in DD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

@Chappyy quote:


But it is P2W since those that. Buy slots have a very clear advantage over those that don't. In essence this is the absolute worst pay to win advantage you could gain over another player. The ability to buy additional towers.

It isn't "buy additional towers" atm.  We always are limited to 4 types of towers in games with hero deck.  Those that buy slots don't really have an advantage over another player, especially ATM where it's very clearly monk AA, squire wall, app frosty, and huntress traps.  True, later it might be more "buy additional towers" than it is now, but with the hero deck it still will never be more than 4 types of towers per game


WITHOUT the hero deck your point stands tall.  Which is the issue we're discussing, I think


TBH, it's my personal opinion they should just remove the hero deck and remove the cost of buying new hero slots and that would bring in more revenue (considering my above points) than the current model.  Plus, we wouldn't be complaining about the hero deck anymore which would be a great quality of life change for us players


The only reason this is so hard is because there's the "No P2W" philosophy + want to monetize hero slots.  It's solved with the removal of either of those two philosophies >.>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Pay 2 Win" only applies to games where you are against other players, and last I checked this is a coop against AI game. If I say anything further then this, then I'll possibly get banned due to language and insults. The term you are looking for is "Pay to get ahead". Get it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@SFC. Rock quote:

"Pay 2 Win" only applies to games where you are against other players, and last I checked this is a coop against AI game. If I say anything further then this, then I'll possibly get banned due to language and insults. The term you are looking for is "Pay to get ahead". Get it right.

Can't tell if this is serious or not.  Who are you insulting here?  Devs for using the phrase in the first place, or us for repeating it? 

Paying to get ahead == Paying to win.  I don't know why you're so offended for using the phrase in a non-pvp game.  The whole phrase was spawned from free to play MMOs anyway... which are player vs environment. 


Like, da fuk are you smoking bro.  This wasn't even funny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so what are you winning and who against?

Where is the competition?

the term p2w in a game thats ment to be co-op just makes no sense and is out of place that's all.

maybe if there were tournaments( most efficient build on map X / or fastes clear time whatever), but that would require a whole new set of actual game design and no random item stat mashing to actually be interesting. So i doubt it's going to happen. Sad really cause that means people stop playing and regret ever spending 500 hours into the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh wow, this is serious then.


It is not out of place.  By that logic having data stored server sided to prevent memory editting is "out of place" as well because nobody editing the memory would be winning against people

And we both know that logic is retarded, right? ...right?

I realize YOU wouldn't be upset if there were P2W elements in your co-op games (I wouldn't either), but the gaming community has shown time and time again games that have a p2w element in them get a lot of hate, especially games targeted at younger audiences (all of them? lol).  It might as well be a business/vision thing.  If you aren't against p2w you'll get hate on your game, that's a fact.

I don't know if the two of you are new to games or what but p2w in like 90% of its usage is in regard to games that are PVE (player vs environment).  Where are you getting your information from that p2w only matters if a game is pvp?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like many other phrases out there P2W has developed to be a concept or way of doing things in free to play games. It is no longer used a just a literal term, it is now excepted to describe a practice of gaining advantage over another player by spending money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@SFC. Rock quote:

"Pay 2 Win" only applies to games where you are against other players, and last I checked this is a coop against AI game. If I say anything further then this, then I'll possibly get banned due to language and insults. The term you are looking for is "Pay to get ahead". Get it right.

Um, no.  Pay-2-win also applies if you are are required to pay in order to become powerful enough complete all content in the game.  If the hardest difficulty in the game is balanced around having five builders (all four classes plus a separate waller of one class) and one dps, and is impossible to complete with the default four slots that you have, then it's pay-2-win.

"Pay to get ahead" sounds more like paying for XP boosts and the like.  And even there is a line, however fuzzy, after which it becomes pay-2-win.  If it takes 1000 hours to grind enough XP for max level without paying and a premium perk gets you there in 10 hours, then yes, I'd call it pay-2-win.  (This assumes a typical setup where a major part of the game's content is locked to max level).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DD1 had no limit. I bet if you look stats, casual players either played solo or grouped with some high level with tons of geared alts and was simply grinding for good stats on that maps loot. Personally, balancing a game for the hardcore community seems stupid to me since it's the casual players that make up the most numbers.

I think if Trendy wanted to balance things, have hero selection be after map selection. The higher levels can be balanced to allow less heroes for more challenge. On the flipside, you could balance to allow more characters since hardcore players would be more willing to roll three specs of the same class builder than a casual. Either way, as a casual player of many games with super die hard players, at least let me dabble in NM1 before pushing difficulty off the cliff. I don't need to play NM10, but I would at least like to say I beat the same "level" as the cap. Making it so I can't get passed hard or insane end game would be super depressing. (Note: I just started doing end game hard I think with no complaints so I'm not implying you have a cliff yet).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@jmhjm quote:

Personally, balancing a game for the hardcore community seems stupid to me since it's the casual players that make up the most numbers.

Why can't it be both?  Players can choose different difficulties depending on their own ability and whether they want to take it easy or face a challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...