Star Wars Battlefront 2

[Lahis]

So I can't unlock them specifically by playing and "killing 40 people to upgrade the weapon to a 2* version"?

You craft the weapon with scrap you get from a lootbox.

You need like dozen boxes worth of scrap to craft anything.

Basic loot boxes cost 1100 credits, and you get ~150 credits from a game victory.

Or you can always buy them with real money.

[Matt0193]

As soon as you can buy power with money - it is.

Isn't it freemium, though? You can grind it in-game, but you can spend money to speed it up. I was under the impression that P2W was purely an advantage that could be bought. Ie, if the Yoda Pre-order card was exclusively a pre-order bonus and would never be available in-game.

[Arrashi]

Isn't it freemium, though? You can grind it in-game, but you can spend money to speed it up. I was under the impression that P2W was purely an advantage that could be bought. Ie, if the Yoda Pre-order card was exclusively a pre-order bonus and would never be available in-game.

Everytime someone tries this hard to excuse those practices, publishers are having their day. Its hilarious how hard you guys want to be ripped off. They literally sell you adventage over other players. For real money. Thats P2W.

[Deleted]

You craft the weapon with scrap you get from a lootbox.

You need like dozen boxes worth of scrap to craft anything.

Basic loot boxes cost 1100 credits, and you get ~150 credits from a game victory.

Or you can always buy them with real money.

Hmmm I don't know, that seems reasonable though, considering that I had to get 300 kills or something for each weapon to get all the attachments in BF3. So the "pay to get ahead" is way more accurate than the p2w after all... Simply put, to call it p2w is just wrong and when people say that it leads to misinformation. When you can craft stuff, it's not even RNG. That means you can play to unlock specific items you want.

Is the level booster in WoW p2w? After all, no way I can beat a lvl 100 as lvl 30.

Everytime someone tries this hard to excuse those practices, publishers are having their day. Its hilarious how hard you guys want to be ripped off. They literally sell you adventage over other players. For real money. Thats P2W.

It's not, no one serious would refer to Battlefields "skip all the unlock stuff" as P2W... unless they have no idea what they are talking about.

[Lahis]

It's not, no one serious would refer to Battlefields "skip all the unlock stuff" as P2W... unless they have no idea what they are talking about.

Battlefield's starting kits have perfectly usable guns, and no unlock gives you invulnerability.

Battlefront 2's upgrades give you just that.

[Schmilblick]

Can someone give a TLDR of this game ? is it an RPG FPS like Destiny or it's just a solo campaign and end game is just PvP ?

[Lahis]

Can someone give a TLDR of this game ? is it an RPG FPS like Destiny or it's just a solo campaign and end game is just PvP ?

Solo champaing with unrelated multiplayer mode which progression is based solely on lootboxes you can buy with real money.

[Schmilblick]

Solo champaing with unrelated multiplayer mode which progression is based solely on lootboxes you can buy with real money.

I saw that part about loot boxes, but i'm asking if there PvE content end game or just PvP, thank you ^^

[Deleted]

Battlefield's starting kits have perfectly usable guns, and no unlock gives you invulnerability.

Battlefront 2's upgrades give you just that.

From the streams and videos I've seen already, I can say that this is just false information and once again, misleading.
Battlefield Tanks did have invulnerability to lock on rockets too btw. And weapons did get clearly better with attachments, so when you had 0 attachments, you were at a disadvantage and had 50% more recoil and such.
I really doubt that the standard weapons in Battlefront 2 are not "perfectly usable" either.

It doesn't give your argument any power either, because it's still pay to get ahead. If I want that super special thing, I can craft it first - and anyway, thats first and foremost, a balance issue if such a thing (that everyone wants) even exists.

A p2w feature would be to add a weapon, that is better (strictly speaking it *has* to be better, but I'm willing to say any weapon in general) than the ones you get from just buying the game.
To some extent, that's what DLC only weapons in Battlefield were about - once again, didn't hear a lot of complains about people not owning the F2000 early on, it was later nerfed because it was to strong too.

People are really pretentious these days... first all the bullshit about Shadow of War's lootboxes, which are completely irrelevant to anyone who actually plays the game for some hours - and now, probably this too.

[Puri]

From the streams and videos I've seen already, I can say that this is just false information and once again, misleading.
Battlefield Tanks did have invulnerability to lock on rockets too btw.

Well you can indeed get a star card that gives a hero invulnerability while using skills.
But also the "normal" star cards that give you up to 40% damage reduction, 50% cooldown reduction or 40% more health are way over the top (and not only talking about the pay2win aspect here, I mean they are so strong that they generally should be nerfed).

[Lahis]

From the streams and videos I've seen already, I can say that this is just false information and once again, misleading.
Battlefield Tanks did have invulnerability to lock on rockets too btw.
I really doubt that the standard weapons in Battlefron 2 are not "perfectly usable".

It doesn't give your argument any power either, because it's still pay to get ahead. If I want that super special thing, I can craft it first.

The tank's invulnerability is baseline for all tanks. Not only for those who were lucky/rich enough to get the invulnerability power up from a loot box.

In Battlefront the invulnerability is available only for those who got it from loot boxes, which are painfully slow to grind. So people with it are either damn lucky to get it in few boxes, or damn rich to buy hundred boxes to get it.

[Deleted]

The tank's invulnerability is baseline for all tanks. Not only for those who were lucky/rich enough to get the invulnerability power up from a loot box.

In Battlefront the invulnerability is available only for those who got it from loot boxes, which are painfully slow to grind. So people with it are either damn lucky to get it in few boxes, or damn rich to buy hundred boxes to get it.

The ECM (edit: sry I meant, point defense system-thingy) was not baseline, only smoke is baseline and ECM (* point defense) worked differently than it does now - it was way stronger - a straight up upgrade, same thing with attachments.

*If* I can craft these cards, they are just like unlocking them - the only difference is I can play whatever I want to unlock whatever I want.

And it's not "painfully slow to grind" when I get ~100-150 for a game and I need like ~1100 to craft them. You have one class set in about 3 days or something worth of *casual* gaming and then you keep playing that class to unlock the next class, at least you don't have to start @ 0 after you get your first thing done - which is something you had to do in Battlefield.

That doesn't even include the items you get from the lootboxes. In a mere month after it's release, no one will give a shit about this lootbox advantage anymore.

[Puri]

*If* I can craft these cards, they are just like unlocking them - the only difference is I can play whatever I want to unlock whatever I want.

And it's not "painfully slow to grind" when I get ~100-150 for a game and I need like ~1100 to craft them. You have one class set in about 3 days or something worth of *casual* gaming and then you keep playing that class to unlock the next class, at least you don't have to start @ 0 after you get your first thing done - which is something you had to do in Battlefield.

Err no every card has 4 levels, so for a full set of three cards you need 1100*4*3=13200 parts. Considering a round takes 20 minutes with a average win ratio of 50% we are at ~58h gametime needed for a full set, which almost is 3 days playtime and not casually playing for 3 days. And that is considering the higher level cards don't even get more expensive (I did not upgrade one beyond crafting the first in the beta).

[Elim Garak]

No the definition is not vague. Each edge case needs to be examined if it fits the definition.

It is vauge, edge cases show that. If it wasn't vague there would be no edge cases. The proper definition of P2W is like that. No edge cases.

Err no every card has 4 levels, so for a full set of three cards you need 1100*4*3=13200 parts. Considering a round takes 20 minutes with a average win ratio of 50% we are at ~58h gametime needed for a full set, which almost is 3 days playtime and not casually playing for 3 days. And that is considering the higher level cards don't even get more expensive (I did not upgrade one beyond crafting the first in the beta).

Now calculate the amount of money needed to get that number of cards, be fair.

[Lahis]

I really have no fucking hope left for gaming when people so vehemently defend the corporations who are blatantly exploiting them.

You pay $100 a game and then another $100 for loot boxes to get the full experience and still think it is somehow a good deal.

[Elim Garak]

I really have no fucking hope left for gaming when people so vehemently defend the corporations who are blatantly exploiting them.

You pay $100 a game and then another $100 for loot boxes to get the full experience and still think it is somehow a good deal.

No one defends EA for putting microtransactions into a premium game. Check your bias.
Falsly accusing EA of p2w is equally bad.

[Puri]

It is vauge, edge cases show that. If it wasn't vague there would be no edge cases. The proper definition of P2W is like that. No edge cases.

No it's not. Let's take a look at how wikipedia defines p2w: "In some multiplayer free-to-play games, players who are willing to pay for special items or downloadable content may be able to gain a significant advantage over those playing for free. Some critics of such games call them "pay-to-win" or "p2w" games."

So here it's even more vague by "significant advantage". What's significant then?
But I am won't say that I am not willing to learn. Perhaps we two can both come up with a general definition of pay2win.
You say my definition does not work because there are some edge cases not covered by it. Your definition does not work because it would say that even clear cases of pay2win like BF2 are not. So let's find a better one.

ow calculate the amount of money needed to get that number of cards, be fair.

What does it matter? Is it $10? Is it $100? Is it $1000? You still pay to get an advantage.

[Elim Garak]

No it's not. Let's take a look at how wikipedia defines p2w: "In some multiplayer free-to-play games, players who are willing to pay for special items or downloadable content may be able to gain a significant advantage over those playing for free. Some critics of such games call them "pay-to-win" or "p2w" games."

That's not a definition. Just an explanation. Rather vague one. I gave you the definition.

So here it's even more vague by "significant advantage". What's significant then?

I don't care, that's not a definition or a really poor one. just like yours.

But I am won't say that I am not willing to learn. Perhaps we two can both come up with a general definition of pay2win.

I already gave you the definition. You jsut disagreed with it.

You say my definition does not work because there are some edge cases not covered by it. Your definition does not work because it would say that even clear cases of pay2win like BF2 are not. So let's find a better one.

BF2 is not p2w as per definition. No need to find a better one. It's quite stupid to try to fit the definition to match your agenda.

What does it matter? Is it $10? Is it $100? Is it $1000? You still pay to get an advantage.

You pay to skip time, knowing money per hour is crucial to see if it's a fair deal.

[Deleted]

Err no every card has 4 levels, so for a full set of three cards you need 1100*4*3=13200 parts. Considering a round takes 20 minutes with a average win ratio of 50% we are at ~58h gametime needed for a full set, which almost is 3 days playtime and not casually playing for 3 days. And that is considering the higher level cards don't even get more expensive (I did not upgrade one beyond crafting the first in the beta).

The upgrade from blue to epic did cost 400 parts in closed alpha.

edit: do lootboxes have a rare or something guaranteed? Most likely yes?
I also read that you get lootboxes through achievements and such, so probably just like in battlefield and you need to have a certain level to upgrade a card.

[Puri]

It's quite stupid to try to fit the definition to match your agenda.

Yes here we can agree. Your definition is wrong, and you just don't agree to mine. We can play this game the whole day long.

- - - Updated - - -

The upgrade from blue to epic did cost 400 parts in closed alpha.

edit: do lootboxes have a rare or something guaranteed? Most likely yes?
I also read that you get lootboxes through achievements and such, so probably just like in battlefield and you need to have a certain level to upgrade a card.

That would bring the numbers significantly down. They already said in the "thank you for the beta" posting that levels are tied behind ranks, and that "the strongest" items and star cards will only be available by achievements. And they generally think about the content of purchasable loot boxes. So the backlash from the community already moved the developers.