Progression system is terrible (and questions for devs)
Locking gameplay elements that are material advantages (instead of just side-grades) that matter right from the picking screen, is terrible. It's even worse if you market your game as an RTS or competitive esports-worthy material.
It creates a forced grind and an uneven playfield were newcomers are put at an intentionally unfair and anti-competitive material disadvantage, diminishes the whole point of the picking screen: choosing an army composition that synergises with your team and counters the enemy team, and also makes it needlessly difficult for new players to find out what faction/hero/units suits them best.
If you are going to say that "it's reasonably fast to unlock everything", then you are agreeing with my point that it's bad to lock gameplay elements behind a grindwall or paywall. You are just arguing about the degree of terribleness; that it's terrible but tolerable or slightly terrible instead of absolutely terrible.
If you tolerate forced grinds but dislike paywalls (when gameplay elements can only be unlocked with money), then realize that the forced grind has the same properties that make you hate paywalls. "How come the opponent has an advantage just by virtue of spending more money than me?" becomes "How come the opponent has an advantage just by virtue of spending more time than me?". After all, money is time previously spent, the feel bad part is that the opponents have an unfair advantage.
If, on the other hand, you think gameplay unlocks do not provide a meaningful advantage, then why are they there in the first place? If their purpose is to provide progression, there are better ways to do that, such as any kind of gameplay unrelated rewards: cosmetics, account/hero/unit levels/points, account portraits, ribbons, etc. If it's a kind of forced tutorial, so new players don't get overwhelmed by the amount of units, then suggest default army comps and provide better learning resources: in-game tutorials, a test map, tips about when a unit is good or bad, per hero/unit video tutorials, etc. That would help more than putting a, roughly 30-50 games long, forced "tutorial".
If you think that a forced grind is fun, should be longer, have more impact, make the playfield more uneven, make it easier for you to "rek noobs", and you like forced grinds in a strategy or competitive games, then you are hopeless and you might want to try League of Legends, Hearthstone's Constructed Mode or any popular PvP mobile game. Wouldn't it be great if Titans Guardians of Atlas was better, at least in principle and design, than the mentioned games?
Gameplay unlocks makes the game a laughing stock and a reject out of hand for many competitive-minded players. That may not apply to MOBA players, who are used to bullshit practices, but it's definitely true for players coming from more niche and competitive genres like RTS games, which the game is marketed to.
I realize that my opinion is in the minority; the majority of the player base loves grinding, or at least tolerates it to some degree, due to Skinner Box operant conditioning reasons. Both players and Artillery's revenue benefit from having a progression system. The matter is that you can provide progression without hurting gameplay. The human mind doesn't care were the rewards are coming from, it doesn't value gameplay progression higher than cosmetic progression. Some exhibits of how effective cosmetics progression is: CS:GO, Team Fortress 2, Overwatch and DOTA 2 loot boxes.
Think about the implications that gameplay unlocks will have on ranked mode when it comes out. Would you like being forbidden from playing ranked until you have everything unlocked, making ranked mode itself the ultimate unlockable, or would you rather play with teammates that don't have enough gameplay elements unlocked and hurt their team by being inflexible, unable to counter certain deck compositions, or flat out made "bad" purchasing decisions? Both sound unacceptably bad to me, but you may have lower standards.
I will write a more elaborate post on why gameplay unlocks are bad for new players, competitive players, Artillery and the esports potential of the game if the devs answer some questions or there's interest in the subject.
So, my questions for the devs are:
- Is the gameplay unlocks system something you are still testing, or is it definitive? I want to know if you can be swayed or if proving feedback on that matter is pointless.
- Are the gameplay unlocks meant as a progression feel-good system, or was it put in place to support a particular business model? If it's the former, there are ways to provide progression without hurting gameplay. If it's the later, tell it straight so it becomes a business model discussion.
Comments
TL;DR. I disagree. I'm ready to see if you have any counter-arguments, but there are two good reasons just from the top of my head.
It's also interesting that you mention CS:GO as effective, when it has one of the most annoying, boring and long grinds there is to even get to play competitive, as well as restrictions to playing with your friends before you have a rank etc.
Also, unlocking stuff in GoA is really fast, I don't really see the problem.
I fully agree with you.
1 - Could be solved by just having a list of recommended starter builds. Locking features (including lvl 3 requirement for pvp) seems to be bad design choice to achieve this. I'd think, that similarly to people feeling overwhelmed by too many choices, there are people frustrated by seeing features being locked and having to grind games with compositions, they don't necessarily want.
2 - not sure, how to feel about this. I never thought having several smurf accounts on iccup was an issue.
Keiras you say "features being locked and having to grind games with compositions, they don't necessarily want."; but how do you know what you want if you've never played the game? After 30 mins of the game you should have enough gold to buy 1 or 2 units that you wish to play, and since you only pick 5 different units per game, I think your point is pretty moot...
I understand this concern but it takes maybe 5-6 games in the current iteration to unlock virtually any unit composition, and that's a reasonable learning window anyway to figure out what the units you're unlocking are even doing.
In short while I have my own reservations with unlocking systems the one presently in place does almost nothing to restrict players and everything to encourage gradual assimilation of knowledge.
I just played a bunch of Games with random compositions because I liked the Game. Then I had a ton of Money and could buy my first "Dream-Composition".
Ez
HoolaBandoola, people might watch streams and want to try the exact build someone uses, or are playing with friends, that would suggest different build then the basic one provided.
Unlockable content reduces the "holy s***t ,so many options" effect from the start, I wouldn´t say it´s a bad thing. However, I don´t understand why some of the unlock prices are higher than the others (starting unit 400 gold, vs end-game unit 2000 gold), they all make impact in different phases of the game, I call nonesense.
I disagree with beginner leveling, I would suggest a player having to play a few games against bots / lowest mmr players as an alternative. Creating new accounts freely isn´t a bad thing as of now, as there is no serious form of ranking, or rewards from long-term playing.
It makes it more natural for some players, but also far worse for other players. We can't try the cool army composition we've just came up with, or seen in-game or in some stream. It limits creativity and exploration for many new players, which makes the game off putting from the start. There are ways to easy in new players without screwing a portion of the rest of new players.
I feel that those in favor of unlocks are closed alpha testers and devs that already know each and every unit and effective compositions, so they already know what unlock path they will follow and what factions they will be playing. New players don't have that foreknowledge.
There are players who find gameplay unlocks off putting, going as far as rejecting any game which "features" those. Do you think that there are many players who would reject a game without gameplay unlocks?
If matchmaking is efficient, that is, it places people into their actual MMR as fast as possible, that's less of a problem. That heavily depends on game length (which right now is short enough) and individual skill impact in the game (easy of carrying), which is high since the game is only 3v3. I haven't seen smurfs being a problem in any RTS I've played.
Bots can just grind in vs bots games, anyway. Regarding smurfs, you can place restrictions on when they can start playing ranked. For the record, I'm against any kind of restrictions that put in place arbitrary anti-competitive and unfair grinds.
I'm refering to CSGO's monetization as effective (no gameplay unlocks), not the ranked restrictions. For context, it requires 10 wins as placement matches (which are already ranked), and if I recall correctly you can only get 2 wins per day, afterwards you can't play more ranked for the day. Also, you can only party with people 5 tiers away (there are roughly 18 tiers with an almost normal distribution). Both restrictions are bullshit because they are just lazy patches against smurfing, boosting and hackers that ultimately don't solve any of that but make every player a little bit more miserable, much like gameplay unlocks.
As I see it, gameplay unlocks are small terrible instead of big terrible and arguably provide diminished barrier of entry for some new players. But, they are an off putting forced grind for many, introduce an uneven playfield, putting new players at even further disadvantage, limit exploration for new players, replace the "Wtf do I play?" with the "Wtf do I buy?" burden, while introducing potential noob traps where new players mistakenly buy shitty compositions or units from different factions and become a liability to their teams.
All in all, I fear that gameplay unlocks are there for future business model reasons, so gameplay will be subject to business interests and there's no point in discussing it until devs publicly state their chosen business model.
New players will not be able to take advantage of being able to select every unit. In fact, they are more likely to be worse off by making terrible compositions because they don't know how the game/units work. Experienced players, who can make strategic decisions on picking units will have unlocked all the units they want as you earn credits very fast so there is no real downside to the current system.
I don't understand where the assumption, that new players won't be able to utilize fully unlocked roster, come from.
Speaking from experience from my gaming circle, plenty of players come to a new game after seeing some of their friends play the game. In this case, they have an experienced player in their group, who could recommend some builds, he considers fun/good/useful.
Another source of new players are stream viewers, that happens to like what they see, and want to try it as well. In this case, they also have some prior knowledge on what seems to be good compositions and locking mechanism prevents them from copying the play that made them try the game.
I don't know the exact numbers on new players and their reasons to try the game. Locking units out definitely seems to be a hindrance for the players from aforementioned cases.
If they make a bad purchasing decision as a result of not knowing what units do, they are stuck with that decision for many games while they grind for the correct units. If they make a bad picking decision in one game, they can just pick another composition the next game.
It's a contrived argument that gimping new players and forcing them to grind while they have less options is actually helping them. Meanwhile, you are telling them "Trust me, I know better than you what you want and what's good for ya". You are depriving them of their freedom of choice and agency and forcing them to grind "for their own good".
It may reduce the burden of choice for some players, but it just replaces it with the burden of grinding and the burden of deciding what to buy next.
Every time someone in my gaming circle introduces a new game, there's that moment of "Oh, so it has gameplay unlocks". Everyone is automatically put off, some (such as me) reject it out of hand because they are fed up with bullshit, and the one who plays the game tries to convince everyone else that "it's not too bad". But we all know it's bad, the question is just how bad? And what for?
This thread is evidence that not everyone is automatically put off. There are games with millions of players that have a lot less accessible unlock systems.
That's not really true though. They unlock some units/heroes, play around with them for a few games and when they realize they don't like their choices, they will have already gathered enough currency to unlock new ones and if they realize they don't like them as well, then they will have more credits to unlock more units and so on. Your whole argument about "grinding" doesn't apply in the context of this game due to how fast you unlock things.
I'm talking about my group, not generalizing. Yes, many people like or tolerate grinds because the rest of the game is good. Some people don't. But who rejects a competitive PvP game because it has no gameplay unlocks?
The thing is, by taking feedback from the alpha testers and the people who already love the game and will play it no matter what, you are getting a biased sample. What I'm doing is providing feedback from the perspective of those competitive players that will neither play the game nor provide any feedback, because they will just straight up reject it.
These type of players have experienced both actually competitive, fair games, and games with gameplay unlocks: grinding, uneven playfields or straight up pay to win. When they hear about gameplay unlocks they mentally associate the game with negative past experiences of the likes of some MMO's, CCG's or grindy MOBA's.
These players may not even bother trying the game, or they may try it, and as soon as they see that the grind is bigger than what they are willing to put up with, they just leave. Even if the grind is, as some argue, "not too long", which is subjective, some players reject it on principle or out of fear and distrust caused by past experiences. You won't hear about those players. They don't care enough to provide feedback, because they think the game or company behind it is a joke.
Why would you risk being perceived by potential players as an unfair grindy game? The reason to be willing to alienate a potential part of your player base is revenue.
Gameplay unlocks make most sense when you are selling them for money, and perpetually releasing new gameplay content (heroes and units) so players want to catch up with the release schedule by spending money or playing the game frequently. If that's the case, there goes my hope for this game. If that's not the case, I frankly don't see the point of this "small and not so terrible" grind. "Helping" (I beg to disagree) new players is not a good enough reason by itself. See my previous posts about why I think so.
On a side note, gameplay unlocks introduce needless development costs: decide what to have unlocked by default so new players aren't screwed too much, or implement weekly rotations and make them not terrible, decide relative cost of the different unlockables, balance the currency gain to time spent ratio and unlockable costs so it doesn't feel too grindy (unsolvable; it will feel grindy no matter what to some people), introduce a way to try unlockables before buying (either weekly rotations, or a try-before-buying mode, like the one HotS has) to reduce buyers remorse and burden of choice.
That's a lot of work to make gameplay unlocks less bad. Removing them altogether is cheaper, simpler, faster, more fair and pleases the highest amount of people. Even if you tolerate gameplay unlocks, you probably don't reject games that don't have them, while the opposite isn't true for e veryone. Also, I specifically mentioned development costs that don't apply to cosmetics or other gameplay-unrelated progression/monetization systems.
Progression systems that don't disrupt gameplay benefit both players and game makers. Gameplay unlocks are perceived as unacceptable by many players, and as a result may not be as optimal for revenue as the game publisher thinks. I see them as an unnecessary risk for Artillery, particularly because many people coming to Atlas do so from an RTS background, a genre whose players are not used to grinding gameplay unlocks and perceive them as anti-competitive and unfair, a.k.a. bullshit.
I like the current progression system. I think it adds to the game, for me it makes it more fun to try new heroes/units. I have a few hundreds hours playtime of DotA2, and i couldn't care less for skins or whatever I got there.
But if they make the progression in GoA much slower when/if they enable you to pay, I will not like it.
They need to make some money, they have family to feed. I think if we get more units, heroes, as time goes i think that progression system should be slower.
But i would not like if there is way to pay 100e +- 30 as bundle, to open them all!
I am more like LoLegends, WoTanks, TWArena person i love to open them and make nice deck build
Would you like a system where players can choose if they want to unlock units? For instance, first time you log in you would be asked if you want to gradually unlock units or start with everything unlocked. Would you agree to having such a system? And why?
What if there were gameplay unlocks but there was a one-time real money purchase option that unlocked everything gameplay related, both current and future, as some games do. As a player you can choose what model you prefer, either free to play with some grind, or traditional pay to play.
If you want to grind yourself but are against other players not grinding, you are either guilty of supporting pay to win / grind to win mentality, or you think that grinding/paying provides an unfair advantage.