criterion-sm dice-lg ea-starwars-lg instagram lucasfilm-lg motive-lg twitch you-tube
July Community Calendar
Obi-Wan Kenobi Community Quests

Locked Heroes...? Are You Kidding Me?!

Prev1345
Landeaux
3467 posts Member
edited November 2017


Apparently there are Heroes that will be automatically locked at the beginning of the game. You will be required to level up and/or purchase the Heroes with credits to unlock them. How can this be happening? I don't understand the logic behind this. Give us the Heroes. We've all paid money for the game in its entirety. Why make a mini in-game in order to unlock the most popular heroes? This is just wrong. I don't know what more to say. Are we to assume that future popular characters that will be added through free DLC will be behind a credit and/or level wall? Come on, DICE. This is silly.

Replies

  • Locked Heroes are mentioned at 2:30 in the video...
  • Blazur
    4468 posts Member
    According to leaks you only need to purchase them with credits, and your player level has no bearing on when you can do so. I don't mind this at all because it adds some choice in how we get to spend our credits throughout progression.

    It's also possible we're not seeing the complete picture. It's possible they may become unlocked through playing the campaign or accomplishing certain milestones, and the option to buy them exists for players who don't want to earn them.

    Regardless, unlocking new toys through progression isn't a foreign concept. We have no idea how quickly we'll earn credits so it's not worth complaining about. It's possible some of us could naturally unlock them all after just a few days of playtime.
    The greatest teacher, failure is.
  • This makes me suspicious on whether or not the progression system is all that deep. If the system really did have that depth they claim it to have, there would be no need to lock heroes.
    PSN: Trooper8059
    "Remember: Your focus determines your reality."
    ezgif_5_a643336582.gif
  • oddly I’m not opposed to this if true, I like the idea of unlocking them like an old school fighter game. Plus I’ll have something other then crates to buy with credits.
  • i like to unlock stuff myself
  • Landeaux wrote: »


    Apparently there are Heroes that will be automatically locked at the beginning of the game. You will be required to level up and/or purchase the Heroes with credits to unlock them. How can this be happening? I don't understand the logic behind this. Give us the Heroes. We've all paid money for the game in its entirety. Why make a mini in-game in order to unlock the most popular heroes? This is just wrong. I don't know what more to say. Are we to assume that future popular characters that will be added through free DLC will be behind a credit and/or level wall? Come on, DICE. This is silly.

    There's literally nothing wrong with this; it'll be one of the many things to aim for through gameplay. Plus, gaining credits is easy... simply through game play... which is fun... I honestly don't understand how people expect to just have everything handed to them without a challenge - it's not like we're receiving nothing for our money the moment the game launches, there's just some things we'll need to work for. Keeps up busy. Geez.
    "DEW IT."
    p1jlhhgtai3b.png
    "I am the Senate."
  • i like to unlock stuff myself

    "DEW IT."
    p1jlhhgtai3b.png
    "I am the Senate."
  • i like to unlock stuff myself

    This
    This makes me suspicious on whether or not the progression system is all that deep. If the system really did have that depth they claim it to have, there would be no need to lock heroes.

    That also concerns me. Though I don’t mind that they are locked, it makes me wonder if this is just to give the perception of more progression in the game.
  • Cad_Bane wrote: »
    i like to unlock stuff myself

    This
    This makes me suspicious on whether or not the progression system is all that deep. If the system really did have that depth they claim it to have, there would be no need to lock heroes.

    That also concerns me. Though I don’t mind that they are locked, it makes me wonder if this is just to give the perception of more progression in the game.

    same. I'd rather have heroes unlocked straight away cause they're supposed to be a reward for playing the objective. even tho it makes no sense to lock heroes behind credits for the sake of progression, least they're not in loot boxes
  • Vader costs 10k credits to unlock. Welp, I know what I'm going to be saving up for first...
  • Landeaux wrote: »


    Apparently there are Heroes that will be automatically locked at the beginning of the game. You will be required to level up and/or purchase the Heroes with credits to unlock them. How can this be happening? I don't understand the logic behind this. Give us the Heroes. We've all paid money for the game in its entirety. Why make a mini in-game in order to unlock the most popular heroes? This is just wrong. I don't know what more to say. Are we to assume that future popular characters that will be added through free DLC will be behind a credit and/or level wall? Come on, DICE. This is silly.

    There's literally nothing wrong with this; it'll be one of the many things to aim for through gameplay. Plus, gaining credits is easy... simply through game play... which is fun... I honestly don't understand how people expect to just have everything handed to them without a challenge - it's not like we're receiving nothing for our money the moment the game launches, there's just some things we'll need to work for. Keeps up busy. Geez.

    I don't expect everything to be handed to me. I do, however, expect to have every single hero given to everyone in their most basic form at the very least. It simply makes no sense to put Heroes behind a credit wall. I already have to grind to rank them up and get Star Cards for them. Why do I have to purchase them, as well? We should have every hero immediately available to us at launch. If progression is so in depth then we shouldn't have to also grind for something that should already be there. The Heroes vs Villains gamemode will start out with 3/7 of the Heroes missing because they're locked. That's silly.
  • i like to unlock stuff myself

    "DEW IT."
    p1jlhhgtai3b.png
    "I am the Senate."
  • Vader costs 10k credits to unlock. Welp, I know what I'm going to be saving up for first...

    I was planning out which Hero and Villain I wanted to start with first when I got the chance to be either. It was down to Yoda, Kylo, Luke, and Vader and I was leaning towards Yoda and Kylo first. I guess my decision was made for me by DICE...
  • Greeeeaaaatt gonna have to unlock heroes I should’ve had already. Purchase with credits you get in game. Not bad. Except we get like 100 credits per game.
  • Vader costs 10k credits to unlock. Welp, I know what I'm going to be saving up for first...

    I’ll be saving up for palps first
  • People need to save up their credits for a better attitude
    "DEW IT."
    p1jlhhgtai3b.png
    "I am the Senate."
  • Ezio
    974 posts Member
    Honestly, I don't see anything objectively wrong with this system. I don't have much multiplayer shooter experience, (so far the EA Battlefront franchise is my only excursion into multiplayer), but this sounds to me like any other single-player game I've played. In a video game, you generally have to unlock things that are better/add variety, often obtainable through either direct purchases with in-game currency or reaching milestones/achievements.

    The argument "I paid for this game so I shouldn't have buy/grind for this and this thing" is akin to saying "I bought this game, therefore I should already have everything unlocked, achievements done, and have the campaign in 100% completion." Yes, it's an extreme case, but it's an extension of the same logic. When you purchase a game, your purchasing the challenge and the entertainment it provides, part of that challenge being progression. If you think the challenge or progression is unfair, then it's up to you to decide whether or not to invest the time and money, not try to force it to suit your needs. (That's not to say that some things don't need to be discussed, like balancing and whether or not the base mechanics or objectively good. On the same token, though, it's still your job to decide if the game is worth your time and money).

    However, I do share the concerns others have expressed that this may just be an attempt to mask a lack of depth in progression, but we'll just have to wait and see.
  • Ashoka unlocked after reaching the 1200
    Hours of playing time milestone lol jk
    #infantrylivesmatter
  • I have no problem with unlocking heroes through credits, it gives me something to strive for that isn't rng star cards. 10,000 isn't even a lot of credits, I would earn that within the 1st week easy.
  • Good, you all unlock heros first and I’ll focus on my infantry units :)
    #infantrylivesmatter
  • I have no problem with unlocking heroes through credits, it gives me something to strive for that isn't rng star cards. 10,000 isn't even a lot of credits, I would earn that within the 1st week easy.

    "DEW IT."
    p1jlhhgtai3b.png
    "I am the Senate."
  • Greeeeaaaatt gonna have to unlock heroes I should’ve had already. Purchase with credits you get in game. Not bad. Except we get like 100 credits per game.

    Credits were capped in the beta.
  • I think iden may be unlocked after finisihing the campaign you know :) :)
  • Possibly
    "DEW IT."
    p1jlhhgtai3b.png
    "I am the Senate."
  • koprich
    1438 posts Member
    Question: if you don't unlock the heroes, do you still get their cards in crates?

    In other words, could you strategically not unlock some you're not keen on to keep the pool of loot crate cards as small as possible and maximise your chances of getting ones for the heroes you do like?

    If so, good change.
  • Ezio wrote: »
    Honestly, I don't see anything objectively wrong with this system. I don't have much multiplayer shooter experience, (so far the EA Battlefront franchise is my only excursion into multiplayer), but this sounds to me like any other single-player game I've played. In a video game, you generally have to unlock things that are better/add variety, often obtainable through either direct purchases with in-game currency or reaching milestones/achievements.

    The argument "I paid for this game so I shouldn't have buy/grind for this and this thing" is akin to saying "I bought this game, therefore I should already have everything unlocked, achievements done, and have the campaign in 100% completion." Yes, it's an extreme case, but it's an extension of the same logic. When you purchase a game, your purchasing the challenge and the entertainment it provides, part of that challenge being progression. If you think the challenge or progression is unfair, then it's up to you to decide whether or not to invest the time and money, not try to force it to suit your needs. (That's not to say that some things don't need to be discussed, like balancing and whether or not the base mechanics or objectively good. On the same token, though, it's still your job to decide if the game is worth your time and money).

    However, I do share the concerns others have expressed that this may just be an attempt to mask a lack of depth in progression, but we'll just have to wait and see.

    I kind of had a similar thought. It's like getting a final fantasy game and complaining that you don't start off with all the summons, spells, and top their weapons.

    It seems so odd to me to hear so many people complaining about the grind in video games now a days. If a game is fun, it isn't really a grind, it's just playing the game, and unlocking new rewards as you play. If a game is not fun then having everything unlocked is unlikely to change that.

    If the prices are too high then they can be adjusted, but just the fact that we need to unlock them is no more an issue to me than not starting with all starcards and weapons, which is to say it isn't an issue to me at all.
  • koprich
    1438 posts Member
    edited November 2017
    Ezio wrote: »
    Honestly, I don't see anything objectively wrong with this system. I don't have much multiplayer shooter experience, (so far the EA Battlefront franchise is my only excursion into multiplayer), but this sounds to me like any other single-player game I've played. In a video game, you generally have to unlock things that are better/add variety, often obtainable through either direct purchases with in-game currency or reaching milestones/achievements.

    The argument "I paid for this game so I shouldn't have buy/grind for this and this thing" is akin to saying "I bought this game, therefore I should already have everything unlocked, achievements done, and have the campaign in 100% completion." Yes, it's an extreme case, but it's an extension of the same logic. When you purchase a game, your purchasing the challenge and the entertainment it provides, part of that challenge being progression. If you think the challenge or progression is unfair, then it's up to you to decide whether or not to invest the time and money, not try to force it to suit your needs. (That's not to say that some things don't need to be discussed, like balancing and whether or not the base mechanics or objectively good. On the same token, though, it's still your job to decide if the game is worth your time and money).

    However, I do share the concerns others have expressed that this may just be an attempt to mask a lack of depth in progression, but we'll just have to wait and see.

    I kind of had a similar thought. It's like getting a final fantasy game and complaining that you don't start off with all the summons, spells, and top their weapons.

    It seems so odd to me to hear so many people complaining about the grind in video games now a days. If a game is fun, it isn't really a grind, it's just playing the game, and unlocking new rewards as you play. If a game is not fun then having everything unlocked is unlikely to change that.

    If the prices are too high then they can be adjusted, but just the fact that we need to unlock them is no more an issue to me than not starting with all starcards and weapons, which is to say it isn't an issue to me at all.

    I'll tell you the difference, in a single-player game the grind is tailored to be part of the experience and you should unlock things at the appropriate moment if you play normally.

    In a RNG system like this in a multiplayer game, the grind is designed to frustrate you into buying more RNG loot boxes. The grind is typically orders of magnitude larger than it would be in a single-player game (realistically we can expect many hundreds of hours to unlock everything in this game) and other people with better luck or who pay more than you, get a tangible advantage over you, diminishing your enjoyment.

    So a pretty big difference, really.

    There is a compromise between grind and microtransaction revenue, but EA definitely have not struck it here. All the changes they have made only limit the P2W advantage and do nothing to limit the grind.
  • koprich wrote: »
    Ezio wrote: »
    Honestly, I don't see anything objectively wrong with this system. I don't have much multiplayer shooter experience, (so far the EA Battlefront franchise is my only excursion into multiplayer), but this sounds to me like any other single-player game I've played. In a video game, you generally have to unlock things that are better/add variety, often obtainable through either direct purchases with in-game currency or reaching milestones/achievements.

    The argument "I paid for this game so I shouldn't have buy/grind for this and this thing" is akin to saying "I bought this game, therefore I should already have everything unlocked, achievements done, and have the campaign in 100% completion." Yes, it's an extreme case, but it's an extension of the same logic. When you purchase a game, your purchasing the challenge and the entertainment it provides, part of that challenge being progression. If you think the challenge or progression is unfair, then it's up to you to decide whether or not to invest the time and money, not try to force it to suit your needs. (That's not to say that some things don't need to be discussed, like balancing and whether or not the base mechanics or objectively good. On the same token, though, it's still your job to decide if the game is worth your time and money).

    However, I do share the concerns others have expressed that this may just be an attempt to mask a lack of depth in progression, but we'll just have to wait and see.

    I kind of had a similar thought. It's like getting a final fantasy game and complaining that you don't start off with all the summons, spells, and top their weapons.

    It seems so odd to me to hear so many people complaining about the grind in video games now a days. If a game is fun, it isn't really a grind, it's just playing the game, and unlocking new rewards as you play. If a game is not fun then having everything unlocked is unlikely to change that.

    If the prices are too high then they can be adjusted, but just the fact that we need to unlock them is no more an issue to me than not starting with all starcards and weapons, which is to say it isn't an issue to me at all.

    I'll tell you the difference, in a single-player game the grind is tailored to be part of the experience and you should unlock things at the appropriate moment if you play normally.

    In a RNG system like this in a multiplayer game, the grind is designed to frustrate you into buying more RNG loot boxes. The grind is typically orders of magnitude larger than it would be in a single-player game (realistically we can expect many hundreds of hours to unlock everything in this game) and other people with better luck or who pay more than you, get a tangible advantage over you, diminishing your enjoyment.

    So a pretty big difference, really.

    There is a compromise between grind and microtransaction revenue, but EA definitely have not struck it here. All the changes they have made only limit the P2W advantage and do nothing to limit the grind.

    It's not frustrating if you're good
    "DEW IT."
    p1jlhhgtai3b.png
    "I am the Senate."
  • koprich
    1438 posts Member
    edited November 2017
    koprich wrote: »
    Ezio wrote: »
    Honestly, I don't see anything objectively wrong with this system. I don't have much multiplayer shooter experience, (so far the EA Battlefront franchise is my only excursion into multiplayer), but this sounds to me like any other single-player game I've played. In a video game, you generally have to unlock things that are better/add variety, often obtainable through either direct purchases with in-game currency or reaching milestones/achievements.

    The argument "I paid for this game so I shouldn't have buy/grind for this and this thing" is akin to saying "I bought this game, therefore I should already have everything unlocked, achievements done, and have the campaign in 100% completion." Yes, it's an extreme case, but it's an extension of the same logic. When you purchase a game, your purchasing the challenge and the entertainment it provides, part of that challenge being progression. If you think the challenge or progression is unfair, then it's up to you to decide whether or not to invest the time and money, not try to force it to suit your needs. (That's not to say that some things don't need to be discussed, like balancing and whether or not the base mechanics or objectively good. On the same token, though, it's still your job to decide if the game is worth your time and money).

    However, I do share the concerns others have expressed that this may just be an attempt to mask a lack of depth in progression, but we'll just have to wait and see.

    I kind of had a similar thought. It's like getting a final fantasy game and complaining that you don't start off with all the summons, spells, and top their weapons.

    It seems so odd to me to hear so many people complaining about the grind in video games now a days. If a game is fun, it isn't really a grind, it's just playing the game, and unlocking new rewards as you play. If a game is not fun then having everything unlocked is unlikely to change that.

    If the prices are too high then they can be adjusted, but just the fact that we need to unlock them is no more an issue to me than not starting with all starcards and weapons, which is to say it isn't an issue to me at all.

    I'll tell you the difference, in a single-player game the grind is tailored to be part of the experience and you should unlock things at the appropriate moment if you play normally.

    In a RNG system like this in a multiplayer game, the grind is designed to frustrate you into buying more RNG loot boxes. The grind is typically orders of magnitude larger than it would be in a single-player game (realistically we can expect many hundreds of hours to unlock everything in this game) and other people with better luck or who pay more than you, get a tangible advantage over you, diminishing your enjoyment.

    So a pretty big difference, really.

    There is a compromise between grind and microtransaction revenue, but EA definitely have not struck it here. All the changes they have made only limit the P2W advantage and do nothing to limit the grind.

    It's not frustrating if you're good

    The point has clearly soared over your head so let me try spell it out a little simpler for you:
    • There a lot of different cards & cosmetics to unlock from crates
    • This means the chances of you getting a rare version of the card you want from a given loot crate is very slim
    • Therefore, it will take a very long time to unlock things that you want
    • You can perhaps see other people using the cards/abilities/weapons that you want but have not been able to unlock yet
    • Not being able to have what you want is a frustrating experience for many, this is magnified over the long time it takes to unlock them
    • How good you are at FPS games has no bearing on that

    If you can't understand that loot boxes as a concept were invented to make unlocking things in-game frustrating to incentivise loot box sales, then there's no hope for you.

    The reason publishers tend to opt for loot boxes over a linear progression such as 'buy cards with credits' is that linear progressions are less frustrating to play so you'll be less inclined to buy your way past it.
  • koprich wrote: »
    Ezio wrote: »
    Honestly, I don't see anything objectively wrong with this system. I don't have much multiplayer shooter experience, (so far the EA Battlefront franchise is my only excursion into multiplayer), but this sounds to me like any other single-player game I've played. In a video game, you generally have to unlock things that are better/add variety, often obtainable through either direct purchases with in-game currency or reaching milestones/achievements.

    The argument "I paid for this game so I shouldn't have buy/grind for this and this thing" is akin to saying "I bought this game, therefore I should already have everything unlocked, achievements done, and have the campaign in 100% completion." Yes, it's an extreme case, but it's an extension of the same logic. When you purchase a game, your purchasing the challenge and the entertainment it provides, part of that challenge being progression. If you think the challenge or progression is unfair, then it's up to you to decide whether or not to invest the time and money, not try to force it to suit your needs. (That's not to say that some things don't need to be discussed, like balancing and whether or not the base mechanics or objectively good. On the same token, though, it's still your job to decide if the game is worth your time and money).

    However, I do share the concerns others have expressed that this may just be an attempt to mask a lack of depth in progression, but we'll just have to wait and see.

    I kind of had a similar thought. It's like getting a final fantasy game and complaining that you don't start off with all the summons, spells, and top their weapons.

    It seems so odd to me to hear so many people complaining about the grind in video games now a days. If a game is fun, it isn't really a grind, it's just playing the game, and unlocking new rewards as you play. If a game is not fun then having everything unlocked is unlikely to change that.

    If the prices are too high then they can be adjusted, but just the fact that we need to unlock them is no more an issue to me than not starting with all starcards and weapons, which is to say it isn't an issue to me at all.

    I'll tell you the difference, in a single-player game the grind is tailored to be part of the experience and you should unlock things at the appropriate moment if you play normally.

    In a RNG system like this in a multiplayer game, the grind is designed to frustrate you into buying more RNG loot boxes. The grind is typically orders of magnitude larger than it would be in a single-player game (realistically we can expect many hundreds of hours to unlock everything in this game) and other people with better luck or who pay more than you, get a tangible advantage over you, diminishing your enjoyment.

    So a pretty big difference, really.

    There is a compromise between grind and microtransaction revenue, but EA definitely have not struck it here. All the changes they have made only limit the P2W advantage and do nothing to limit the grind.

    It's not frustrating if you're good

    Accept the fact that you're actually gonna have to put some solid hours into this game to unlock stuff - which is a great thing. I'm sick of all these losers complaining about having to put time into unlocking stuff. GIT GUD
    "DEW IT."
    p1jlhhgtai3b.png
    "I am the Senate."
  • koprich
    1438 posts Member
    GIT GUD

    Is that the extent of your ability to reason?

    It doesn't even apply to this situation so you just sound like a ****.

  • koprich wrote: »
    Ezio wrote: »
    Honestly, I don't see anything objectively wrong with this system. I don't have much multiplayer shooter experience, (so far the EA Battlefront franchise is my only excursion into multiplayer), but this sounds to me like any other single-player game I've played. In a video game, you generally have to unlock things that are better/add variety, often obtainable through either direct purchases with in-game currency or reaching milestones/achievements.

    The argument "I paid for this game so I shouldn't have buy/grind for this and this thing" is akin to saying "I bought this game, therefore I should already have everything unlocked, achievements done, and have the campaign in 100% completion." Yes, it's an extreme case, but it's an extension of the same logic. When you purchase a game, your purchasing the challenge and the entertainment it provides, part of that challenge being progression. If you think the challenge or progression is unfair, then it's up to you to decide whether or not to invest the time and money, not try to force it to suit your needs. (That's not to say that some things don't need to be discussed, like balancing and whether or not the base mechanics or objectively good. On the same token, though, it's still your job to decide if the game is worth your time and money).

    However, I do share the concerns others have expressed that this may just be an attempt to mask a lack of depth in progression, but we'll just have to wait and see.

    I kind of had a similar thought. It's like getting a final fantasy game and complaining that you don't start off with all the summons, spells, and top their weapons.

    It seems so odd to me to hear so many people complaining about the grind in video games now a days. If a game is fun, it isn't really a grind, it's just playing the game, and unlocking new rewards as you play. If a game is not fun then having everything unlocked is unlikely to change that.

    If the prices are too high then they can be adjusted, but just the fact that we need to unlock them is no more an issue to me than not starting with all starcards and weapons, which is to say it isn't an issue to me at all.

    I'll tell you the difference, in a single-player game the grind is tailored to be part of the experience and you should unlock things at the appropriate moment if you play normally.

    In a RNG system like this in a multiplayer game, the grind is designed to frustrate you into buying more RNG loot boxes. The grind is typically orders of magnitude larger than it would be in a single-player game (realistically we can expect many hundreds of hours to unlock everything in this game) and other people with better luck or who pay more than you, get a tangible advantage over you, diminishing your enjoyment.

    So a pretty big difference, really.

    There is a compromise between grind and microtransaction revenue, but EA definitely have not struck it here. All the changes they have made only limit the P2W advantage and do nothing to limit the grind.

    So do you think we should have all guns and cards unlocked as well? It's not really any different that needing to earn those items. It's still content you can't play immediately.

    You are just guessing about a grind because we don't know what the final games credits earning rate looks like. We know that earnings were limited in the beta. We don't know how long it will take to unlock everything, because we don't even know how much there is be unlocked.

    This whole concept that the developers will set the game up to frustrate players and force them to pay for crates, is just your fear. Frustrating your players is far more likely to make them stop playing than start paying. This isn't some big secret in business, unhappy customers are less likely to spend more money. Add to that the fact that EAAcess starts well before the game launches so even people who won't be playing it will have huge amounts of impressions from all kinds of players. Do you really think there would be so much prerelease material if they were hiding an unreasonably long grind?
  • koprich wrote: »
    koprich wrote: »
    Ezio wrote: »
    Honestly, I don't see anything objectively wrong with this system. I don't have much multiplayer shooter experience, (so far the EA Battlefront franchise is my only excursion into multiplayer), but this sounds to me like any other single-player game I've played. In a video game, you generally have to unlock things that are better/add variety, often obtainable through either direct purchases with in-game currency or reaching milestones/achievements.

    The argument "I paid for this game so I shouldn't have buy/grind for this and this thing" is akin to saying "I bought this game, therefore I should already have everything unlocked, achievements done, and have the campaign in 100% completion." Yes, it's an extreme case, but it's an extension of the same logic. When you purchase a game, your purchasing the challenge and the entertainment it provides, part of that challenge being progression. If you think the challenge or progression is unfair, then it's up to you to decide whether or not to invest the time and money, not try to force it to suit your needs. (That's not to say that some things don't need to be discussed, like balancing and whether or not the base mechanics or objectively good. On the same token, though, it's still your job to decide if the game is worth your time and money).

    However, I do share the concerns others have expressed that this may just be an attempt to mask a lack of depth in progression, but we'll just have to wait and see.

    I kind of had a similar thought. It's like getting a final fantasy game and complaining that you don't start off with all the summons, spells, and top their weapons.

    It seems so odd to me to hear so many people complaining about the grind in video games now a days. If a game is fun, it isn't really a grind, it's just playing the game, and unlocking new rewards as you play. If a game is not fun then having everything unlocked is unlikely to change that.

    If the prices are too high then they can be adjusted, but just the fact that we need to unlock them is no more an issue to me than not starting with all starcards and weapons, which is to say it isn't an issue to me at all.

    I'll tell you the difference, in a single-player game the grind is tailored to be part of the experience and you should unlock things at the appropriate moment if you play normally.

    In a RNG system like this in a multiplayer game, the grind is designed to frustrate you into buying more RNG loot boxes. The grind is typically orders of magnitude larger than it would be in a single-player game (realistically we can expect many hundreds of hours to unlock everything in this game) and other people with better luck or who pay more than you, get a tangible advantage over you, diminishing your enjoyment.

    So a pretty big difference, really.

    There is a compromise between grind and microtransaction revenue, but EA definitely have not struck it here. All the changes they have made only limit the P2W advantage and do nothing to limit the grind.

    It's not frustrating if you're good

    The point has clearly soared over your head so let me try spell it out a little simpler for you:
    • There a lot of different cards & cosmetics to unlock from crates
    • This means the chances of you getting a rare version of the card you want from a given loot crate is very slim
    • Therefore, it will take a very long time to unlock things that you want
    • You can perhaps see other people using the cards/abilities/weapons that you want but have not been able to unlock yet
    • Not being able to have what you want is a frustrating experience for many, this is magnified over the long time it takes to unlock them
    • How good you are at FPS games has no bearing on that

    If you can't understand that loot boxes as a concept were invented to make unlocking things in-game frustrating to incentivise loot box sales, then there's no hope for you.

    The reason publishers tend to opt for loot boxes over a linear progression such as 'buy cards with credits' is that linear progressions are less frustrating to play so you'll be less inclined to buy your way past it.

    Literally every point you've listed here is you whining that you actually have to work for unlockabkes, all you have to do is actually play the game and earn your way up. Couldn't be easier. Quit complaining and just GIT GUD already M8 #takeaseat
    "DEW IT."
    p1jlhhgtai3b.png
    "I am the Senate."
  • Rogueb0beroo
    166 posts Member
    edited November 2017
    Calm down everyone.. This is just a rumor, who knows if its actually true! I personally doubt that its true..
  • koprich wrote: »
    Ezio wrote: »
    Honestly, I don't see anything objectively wrong with this system. I don't have much multiplayer shooter experience, (so far the EA Battlefront franchise is my only excursion into multiplayer), but this sounds to me like any other single-player game I've played. In a video game, you generally have to unlock things that are better/add variety, often obtainable through either direct purchases with in-game currency or reaching milestones/achievements.

    The argument "I paid for this game so I shouldn't have buy/grind for this and this thing" is akin to saying "I bought this game, therefore I should already have everything unlocked, achievements done, and have the campaign in 100% completion." Yes, it's an extreme case, but it's an extension of the same logic. When you purchase a game, your purchasing the challenge and the entertainment it provides, part of that challenge being progression. If you think the challenge or progression is unfair, then it's up to you to decide whether or not to invest the time and money, not try to force it to suit your needs. (That's not to say that some things don't need to be discussed, like balancing and whether or not the base mechanics or objectively good. On the same token, though, it's still your job to decide if the game is worth your time and money).

    However, I do share the concerns others have expressed that this may just be an attempt to mask a lack of depth in progression, but we'll just have to wait and see.

    I kind of had a similar thought. It's like getting a final fantasy game and complaining that you don't start off with all the summons, spells, and top their weapons.

    It seems so odd to me to hear so many people complaining about the grind in video games now a days. If a game is fun, it isn't really a grind, it's just playing the game, and unlocking new rewards as you play. If a game is not fun then having everything unlocked is unlikely to change that.

    If the prices are too high then they can be adjusted, but just the fact that we need to unlock them is no more an issue to me than not starting with all starcards and weapons, which is to say it isn't an issue to me at all.

    I'll tell you the difference, in a single-player game the grind is tailored to be part of the experience and you should unlock things at the appropriate moment if you play normally.

    In a RNG system like this in a multiplayer game, the grind is designed to frustrate you into buying more RNG loot boxes. The grind is typically orders of magnitude larger than it would be in a single-player game (realistically we can expect many hundreds of hours to unlock everything in this game) and other people with better luck or who pay more than you, get a tangible advantage over you, diminishing your enjoyment.

    So a pretty big difference, really.

    There is a compromise between grind and microtransaction revenue, but EA definitely have not struck it here. All the changes they have made only limit the P2W advantage and do nothing to limit the grind.

    So do you think we should have all guns and cards unlocked as well? It's not really any different that needing to earn those items. It's still content you can't play immediately.

    You are just guessing about a grind because we don't know what the final games credits earning rate looks like. We know that earnings were limited in the beta. We don't know how long it will take to unlock everything, because we don't even know how much there is be unlocked.

    This whole concept that the developers will set the game up to frustrate players and force them to pay for crates, is just your fear. Frustrating your players is far more likely to make them stop playing than start paying. This isn't some big secret in business, unhappy customers are less likely to spend more money. Add to that the fact that EAAcess starts well before the game launches so even people who won't be playing it will have huge amounts of impressions from all kinds of players. Do you really think there would be so much prerelease material if they were hiding an unreasonably long grind?

    Two things:
    1. Nowhere did I say everything should be unlocked from the start. I was pointing out that there's a huge difference between single-player progression systems and this loot box farce. As I said, there is a compromise whereby there is a bit of a grind and the publisher can make money from selling people shortcuts but without the entire game turning into an enormous RNG grind. Take CoD for example, the franchise takes a lot of flak for being boring (which it is) but they have a linear in-game progression system which isn't too long of a grind for your average player with exp boosts & cosmetics in crates. EA have gone for the MOST aggressively monetised system here whereby the entire progression is lootbox based. It is the worst progression of any game I've ever played, bar none.
    2. You're being extremely naive about companies caring about how happy their customers are. Small local business need to but larger ones (especially publicly -listed ones) don't give a **** so long as the reasons for their customers to keep buying outweigh the reasons for them to not. Major publishers like EA, WBs and Activision already have a dirt reputation amongst gamers but they don't care because as long as they keep publishing games that you want to play, they know you'll keep buying. There theoretically is a limit at which point customers say "enough is enough" and they'll keep pushing until they find it. That's why the monetisation of each game tends to be more aggressive and intrusive than the last.
  • koprich
    1438 posts Member
    edited November 2017
    . Quit complaining and just GIT GUD already M8 #takeaseat

    I refuse to believe you're older than 13.
    Post edited by koprich on
  • koprich wrote: »
    . Quit complaining and just GIT GUD already M8 #takeaseat

    I refuse to believe you're older than 13. Unless you're autistic as ****.

    The sad thing is your skill level would be that of a 13 year old. What I love about progression and unlockables is that it'll separate pro players from scrub shinies. Expect to get teabagged a lot, junior #takeaseat
    "DEW IT."
    p1jlhhgtai3b.png
    "I am the Senate."
  • Honestly see nothing wrong with this. To me I see it as being able to earn the credits throughmultiplayer. thus allowing me to earn the heros I want to use. Nothing wrong with it at all,
  • koprich
    1438 posts Member
    edited November 2017
    Honestly see nothing wrong with this. To me I see it as being able to earn the credits throughmultiplayer. thus allowing me to earn the heros I want to use. Nothing wrong with it at all,

    Me either, credits for heroes is a fair, linear system and the proposed credit costs (up to 10k) are reasonable. If star cards and guns were unlocked the same way in-game and the loot crates were purely an optional monetised 'acceleration mechanism', I don't think EA would have taken anywhere near as much heat over them but they're greedy.

    Do we know whether if you don't unlock some heroes, do you still get their cards from loot crates?

    In other words, could you strategically not unlock some you're not keen on to keep the pool of loot crate cards as small as possible and maximise your chances of getting ones for the heroes you do like?
  • koprich wrote: »
    . Quit complaining and just GIT GUD already M8 #takeaseat

    I refuse to believe you're older than 13. Unless you're autistic as ****.

    Dude, it's kind of ironic to accuse someone of being a kid, while simultaneously insulting them like a kid would.

    And no, I'm not being naive. It really is very simple math, frustrated players don't pay, they quit playing. Most of these terrible businesses practices are incredibly blown out of proportion. People look at the most extreme examples and extrapolate that as the norm.

    I don't buy many new games anymore, probably three titles a year, so no, they don't know that what ever they do I'll just keep buying, that may be the case for you however.

    I was able to unlock things at a good rate in the beta, without having the benefit of a performance bonus further increasing my credit earning rate. I didn't feel like it was a grind, and now I can unlock a bunch of class specific stuff just by playing that class, and while doing so I'll still be earning credits.

    Loot crates in video games are no more insidious than real life lootcrates, sports cards packs, mystery bundle sales, or collectors card games. To imply that one is ok, while the others aren't is disingenuous.
  • koprich wrote: »
    . Quit complaining and just GIT GUD already M8 #takeaseat

    I refuse to believe you're older than 13. Unless you're autistic as ****.

    Dude, it's kind of ironic to accuse someone of being a kid, while simultaneously insulting them like a kid would.

    And no, I'm not being naive. It really is very simple math, frustrated players don't pay, they quit playing. Most of these terrible businesses practices are incredibly blown out of proportion. People look at the most extreme examples and extrapolate that as the norm.

    I don't buy many new games anymore, probably three titles a year, so no, they don't know that what ever they do I'll just keep buying, that may be the case for you however.

    I was able to unlock things at a good rate in the beta, without having the benefit of a performance bonus further increasing my credit earning rate. I didn't feel like it was a grind, and now I can unlock a bunch of class specific stuff just by playing that class, and while doing so I'll still be earning credits.

    Loot crates in video games are no more insidious than real life lootcrates, sports cards packs, mystery bundle sales, or collectors card games. To imply that one is ok, while the others aren't is disingenuous.

    GG
    "DEW IT."
    p1jlhhgtai3b.png
    "I am the Senate."

  • I was able to unlock things at a good rate in the beta, without having the benefit of a performance bonus further increasing my credit earning rate. I didn't feel like it was a grind, and now I can unlock a bunch of class specific stuff just by playing that class, and while doing so I'll still be earning credits.

    Loot crates in video games are no more insidious than real life lootcrates, sports cards packs, mystery bundle sales, or collectors card games. To imply that one is ok, while the others aren't is disingenuous.


    You do realise that in the beta there was only a tiny fraction of the total pool of unlocks which made the chances of getting useful things MUCH higher? For a start, there was no useless cosmetics in there. You also no longer get crafting parts for duplicates either which is a little progression nerf they managed to slip under the radar.

    Additionally, I've not said "all loot crates are the devil", it's about this particular implementation of them which is so bad. I never once objected to how Overwatch were implementing loot crates, for example. They were purely cosmetic and the drop rates of the rarer items were pretty reasonable.

    The two worst things about this system (in my opinon) are:
    1. It is both non-cosmetic AND luck/RNG-based at the same time. Just to play all the gameplay-affecting content, you have to take your chances with the loot boxes
    2. The progression grind is far too long

    As for comparing them to card games - that's not a great comparison because card games are free and you only pay for the cards. This isn't a free to play game, it's a premium-priced, AAA game. Anyone buying the game should expect to be able to play everything in it (including all guns/star cards) within a reasonable time frame. If the grind to completion is much longer than 100 hours (which feels like a safe assumption - it's probably going to be closer to 10 times that for the 'average' lucked player), that's unacceptable in my opinion as they're compromising the experience for many people to try to promote loot crate sales.
  • bfloo
    15020 posts Member
    edited November 2017
    Oh no, I actually need to earn the heroes I want to play as.....

    Bad Dice making us work for things...

    LOL
    In case you missed it, this post is dripping with sarcasm
    The Knights of Gareth are Eternal

    Pirate of the Knights of Gareth

    h846398gb27k.png


  • bfloo wrote: »
    Oh no, I actually need to earn the heroes I want to play as.....

    Bad Dice making us work for things...

    LOL
    In case you missed it, this post is dripping with sarcasm

    It's sad that scrubs like @koprich simply don't understand.
    "DEW IT."
    p1jlhhgtai3b.png
    "I am the Senate."
  • koprich wrote: »

    I was able to unlock things at a good rate in the beta, without having the benefit of a performance bonus further increasing my credit earning rate. I didn't feel like it was a grind, and now I can unlock a bunch of class specific stuff just by playing that class, and while doing so I'll still be earning credits.

    Loot crates in video games are no more insidious than real life lootcrates, sports cards packs, mystery bundle sales, or collectors card games. To imply that one is ok, while the others aren't is disingenuous.


    You do realise that in the beta there was only a tiny fraction of the total pool of unlocks which made the chances of getting useful things MUCH higher? For a start, there was no useless cosmetics in there. You also no longer get crafting parts for duplicates either which is a little progression nerf they managed to slip under the radar.

    Additionally, I've not said "all loot crates are the devil", it's about this particular implementation of them which is so bad. I never once objected to how Overwatch were implementing loot crates, for example. They were purely cosmetic and the drop rates of the rarer items were pretty reasonable.

    The two worst things about this system (in my opinon) are:
    1. It is both non-cosmetic AND luck/RNG-based at the same time. Just to play all the gameplay-affecting content, you have to take your chances with the loot boxes
    2. The progression grind is far too long

    As for comparing them to card games - that's not a great comparison because card games are free and you only pay for the cards. This isn't a free to play game, it's a premium-priced, AAA game. Anyone buying the game should expect to be able to play everything in it (including all guns/star cards) within a reasonable time frame. If the grind to completion is much longer than 100 hours (which feels like a safe assumption - it's probably going to be closer to 10 times that for the 'average' lucked player), that's unacceptable in my opinion as they're compromising the experience for many people to try to promote loot crate sales.

    It's inaccurate to say card games are free when your pretty much going to have to either buy a starter kit, or invest a significant amount in random cards up front just to get enough to actually play the game.

    "The progression grind is far too long" -this is just speculation. You are literally just making up numbers with no concrete information. You are claiming that the game is going to be a closer to a thousand hours than a hundred hours based off of a hunch.

    If you feel so strongly about it why not vote with your wallet and just not buy it? If you feel like these practices are so insipid, aren't you just further enabling a company buy buying it?
  • koprich
    1438 posts Member
    edited November 2017
    koprich wrote: »

    I was able to unlock things at a good rate in the beta, without having the benefit of a performance bonus further increasing my credit earning rate. I didn't feel like it was a grind, and now I can unlock a bunch of class specific stuff just by playing that class, and while doing so I'll still be earning credits.

    Loot crates in video games are no more insidious than real life lootcrates, sports cards packs, mystery bundle sales, or collectors card games. To imply that one is ok, while the others aren't is disingenuous.


    You do realise that in the beta there was only a tiny fraction of the total pool of unlocks which made the chances of getting useful things MUCH higher? For a start, there was no useless cosmetics in there. You also no longer get crafting parts for duplicates either which is a little progression nerf they managed to slip under the radar.

    Additionally, I've not said "all loot crates are the devil", it's about this particular implementation of them which is so bad. I never once objected to how Overwatch were implementing loot crates, for example. They were purely cosmetic and the drop rates of the rarer items were pretty reasonable.

    The two worst things about this system (in my opinon) are:
    1. It is both non-cosmetic AND luck/RNG-based at the same time. Just to play all the gameplay-affecting content, you have to take your chances with the loot boxes
    2. The progression grind is far too long

    As for comparing them to card games - that's not a great comparison because card games are free and you only pay for the cards. This isn't a free to play game, it's a premium-priced, AAA game. Anyone buying the game should expect to be able to play everything in it (including all guns/star cards) within a reasonable time frame. If the grind to completion is much longer than 100 hours (which feels like a safe assumption - it's probably going to be closer to 10 times that for the 'average' lucked player), that's unacceptable in my opinion as they're compromising the experience for many people to try to promote loot crate sales.

    It's inaccurate to say card games are free when your pretty much going to have to either buy a starter kit, or invest a significant amount in random cards up front just to get enough to actually play the game.

    "The progression grind is far too long" -this is just speculation. You are literally just making up numbers with no concrete information. You are claiming that the game is going to be a closer to a thousand hours than a hundred hours based off of a hunch.

    If you feel so strongly about it why not vote with your wallet and just not buy it? If you feel like these practices are so insipid, aren't you just further enabling a company buy buying it?

    Based on precedent and whilst it is an assumption, I feel quite confident in it.

    We'll find out in just a few days as once the embargo lifts at least one YouTuber will probably have the balls to stand up to EA and share some analysis on drop rates etc. Get ready to see this game review-bombed off the face of the planet if the findings are bad.

    I'm not buying it, by the way. I cancelled my pre-order a while back and am only following it on the slim chance they make another change when the inevitable fume hits post-release.
  • i like to unlock stuff myself

  • ROMG4
    2613 posts Member
    I don't see a problem with this

    Unlocks are part of the game a thing that keeps a Player going is the strive to unlock everything to finally achieve everything

    If you had everything handed to you on a Silver Platter it would be boring

    Wait

    THEY LOCKED PALPATINE?!

    FOR 10,000 POINTS?!

    OOM-9 FOR BATTLEFRONT 2
    OOM-9 Hero Concept by AzelfandQuilava
    https://i.redd.it/uleh1g22xrhz.png

    OOM-9 Canonical Material Check-List:

    Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace
    William Shakespeare's The Phantom of Menace: Star Wars Part the First
    Ultimate Star Wars (Reference Guide)
    Star Wars: On the Front Lines (Reference Guide)
    Darth Maul: "Who is supervising the search for the Gungan cities?" Nute Gunray: "Commander OOM-Nine." Darth Maul: "A droid. The predecessor of your inept B-Ones." Rune Haako: "A superior droid, Lord Maul. Viceroy Gunray's personal guard."
    The OOM-9 Thread
    https://battlefront-forums.ea.com/discussion/76756/the-oom-9-thread-9-9-the-phantom-droid/p1
  • koprich wrote: »

    I was able to unlock things at a good rate in the beta, without having the benefit of a performance bonus further increasing my credit earning rate. I didn't feel like it was a grind, and now I can unlock a bunch of class specific stuff just by playing that class, and while doing so I'll still be earning credits.

    Loot crates in video games are no more insidious than real life lootcrates, sports cards packs, mystery bundle sales, or collectors card games. To imply that one is ok, while the others aren't is disingenuous.


    You do realise that in the beta there was only a tiny fraction of the total pool of unlocks which made the chances of getting useful things MUCH higher? For a start, there was no useless cosmetics in there. You also no longer get crafting parts for duplicates either which is a little progression nerf they managed to slip under the radar.

    Additionally, I've not said "all loot crates are the devil", it's about this particular implementation of them which is so bad. I never once objected to how Overwatch were implementing loot crates, for example. They were purely cosmetic and the drop rates of the rarer items were pretty reasonable.

    The two worst things about this system (in my opinon) are:
    1. It is both non-cosmetic AND luck/RNG-based at the same time. Just to play all the gameplay-affecting content, you have to take your chances with the loot boxes
    2. The progression grind is far too long

    As for comparing them to card games - that's not a great comparison because card games are free and you only pay for the cards. This isn't a free to play game, it's a premium-priced, AAA game. Anyone buying the game should expect to be able to play everything in it (including all guns/star cards) within a reasonable time frame. If the grind to completion is much longer than 100 hours (which feels like a safe assumption - it's probably going to be closer to 10 times that for the 'average' lucked player), that's unacceptable in my opinion as they're compromising the experience for many people to try to promote loot crate sales.

    It's inaccurate to say card games are free when your pretty much going to have to either buy a starter kit, or invest a significant amount in random cards up front just to get enough to actually play the game.

    "The progression grind is far too long" -this is just speculation. You are literally just making up numbers with no concrete information. You are claiming that the game is going to be a closer to a thousand hours than a hundred hours based off of a hunch.

    If you feel so strongly about it why not vote with your wallet and just not buy it? If you feel like these practices are so insipid, aren't you just further enabling a company buy buying it?

    Speculation based of precedent and whilst it is an assumption, I feel safe in it.

    We'll find out soon enough when the embargo lifts anyway. I expect at least one YouTuber will have the balls to stand up to EA and post some analysis on drop rates, crafting part rates etc.

    I'm not buying it, by the way. Cancelled my pre-order after the first change they posted after the beta. It did nothing to address my concerns so I lost faith that they ever would.

    I am still tracking the game to see whether they do make another change post release as I am expecting user reviews/consumer consensus on the game to be extremely negative still so they may feel they have to.

    Between now and then, I'll just continue to do everything I can to put people off buying it.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!