|
On December 03 2016 05:26 insitelol wrote: I don't know why did they decided to make a sequel to BLC in the first place. Gameplay proved itself to be a complete failure. That was the reason of its decline. It is the reason why everyone lost interest in BR after the first month. The game on itself is very "shallow", its not mechanically demanding, nor its "deep" enough in term of strategy or tactics. It's not a good indication when you constantly fight urself to go off autopilot-mode while playing cause there is literally nothing to think about, everything is pure "he used cd ok i use my cd"...
I'm not sure you could be more wrong.
|
On December 03 2016 11:17 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 06:39 ItsFunToLose wrote:On November 13 2016 09:08 danl9rm wrote: Anyone grade 12+ have any tips on who to combo a Rook/Ruh Kaan with?
My buddy mains Jade/Jumong and we've had the most success with Rook/Jade, but this latest Rook nerf is just kinda infuriating. The buff may have been too strong, but this nerf w/o any other buff is just annoying when compared to other heroes.
We're having trouble finding good synergy and we haven't watched any tourneys for inspiration. G12(3950) sirius here: Sirius/Rook is pretty strong from my experience. In Rook + X teamcomps where X is not a healer, rook should always be spamming ex M1 to stay topped off on health. Even in games with a healer, Rook can at least compete with healers for protection. It's not surprising to see him with 3-400+ protection on rook. He's fine with the nerfs. still super good. If you want to be competitive at the highest levels, though, your team almost always needs a healer, unless you're running something super gimmicky like jade/croak and have the coordination to actually burst someone down during the camo+snipe combo. It will "feel" playable without a healer, but only because you will consistently match against other non-healer teamcomps at lower ranks and thus you feel like you're winning/losing a fair amount. write down the W/L record of the team that has a healer during your next 30 games where one team has a healer and the other does not. Oh, no! Is that true? We were just having this argument the other day about 2 dps or 1 healer. I thought 2 dps could work if played right. Agree about Rook. I've played the crap out of him lately and he is super good. I like it even more that I rarely see him on the ladder.
There's some really strong duo-DPS comps (I like Jade Ezmo or Taya Ezmo a lot actually with Pull -> Snipe/X-Strike), but it does seem like healer comps get an edge in the long run. It's not 100/0 like other games, but I don't think it's smart odds either.
I don't even know if it's the healing itself so much as the fact that healers give so many options. Someone like Lucy and the other healers have 3-4 ways to bail a teammate out on top of some of their personal defensive outs. So they can really cover a range of situations and help to consistently minimize damage.
|
On December 03 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2016 05:26 insitelol wrote: I don't know why did they decided to make a sequel to BLC in the first place. Gameplay proved itself to be a complete failure. That was the reason of its decline. It is the reason why everyone lost interest in BR after the first month. The game on itself is very "shallow", its not mechanically demanding, nor its "deep" enough in term of strategy or tactics. It's not a good indication when you constantly fight urself to go off autopilot-mode while playing cause there is literally nothing to think about, everything is pure "he used cd ok i use my cd"... There's money to be had in Battlerite tournaments, if the game is so shallow why not scoop up that prize money? Or likewise why are there consistently the same teams fighting over the top tournament spots if the game is shallow? Sure the game has no macro strategy and a lot of the strategy is more about subtle positioning and teamwork, but that doesn't make it shallow; it's just focused on a few very focused things. It's no different than most fighting games; the description you used applies equally to them. Oh please, Do you even know what are you talking about? Fighting games are COMPLETE opposite of that. Fighting games involve insane mechanics. BR is nothing but Moba stripped of pve/gear/strategy/tactics elements that my grandma can handle.
And i wouldn't get too exited about tournaments and stuff. Game hardly gets any viewers on twtich. Yes there was some hype at launch but it had rapidly fallen off radars. For the exact reasons i stated.
|
Nah, that's a load of crap.
How are MOBA's "tactical" elements stripped out of Battlerite? The whole game is about positioning and tactics (effective coordination/use of abilities). Battlerite amps up the tactical elements of the MOBA if anything. Either you're using a different definition of tactics than me or you don't know what you're talking about. As to the rest, what it loses in strategy (lol @ pve/gear) it makes up for in having more interesting/faster combat. If that's not you're cup of tea then so be it.
The game is a hybrid. All games that take elements of multiple genres end up having to sacrifice some elements of each of them. If you want to focus on the mechanics it leaves behind you'll be eternally disappointed. The question is whether the game provides a coherent experience and Battlerite is promising enough given we're only in Alpha. I don't know if this game will make it, but the gameplay absolutely is not what will hold it back.
|
I dont know about the gameplay actually, i got tired of it after maybe 50-100 games. At first glance its fun but it loses value pretty fast imo, gets a bit stale and so on.
|
I can see people playing a burst of games then quitting. Though I don't think that implies its shallow. There's no addictive (in game) carrot like traditional MOBAs; you aren't playing for that one game where everything goes right and you get to make some godlike rampage for 20 minutes. So you have to be much more about playing a game with the idea that you want to keep improving and get better.
|
On December 05 2016 09:16 Amarok wrote: I don't know if this game will make it, but the gameplay absolutely is not what will hold it back. We can pretend things and justify our personal tastes but Gameplay is the only major factor that defines game's success and popularity. There is no way around it. Yeah, blah blah, devs can ruin players experience by providing poor support/code etc. But that's secondary. If the gameplay isn't there there is just no "game". I was hyped about BLC when i played WoW arena (and played a lot) long time ago. The BLC/BR idea itself is based on WoW w/o needless (as devs stated) mana mechanics, pve gear grind, ramndomness etc. It sounded cool on paper. But it turned out to be complete opposite. BLC made me realise that mana mechanics wasn't something bad but instead added another layer of tactical depth, as well as much wider arsenal of abilities, as well as long CDs and randomness element etc. It all made the arena fight much more complex. Stripped of that it's just became a mindless m1 spam (to a certain extent ofc). BLC/BR feels and plays like a phone app compared to any decent moba (coming from a moba hater). There is literally nothing to do in the game.
On December 06 2016 00:22 Logo wrote: So you have to be much more about playing a game with the idea that you want to keep improving and get better. Why would i want to play a game with 0 mechanics involved to get better and improve? While i have SC2, BW, Street Fighter V to actually feel what improvement is.
|
Russian Federation262 Posts
add me to play together
|
We can pretend things and justify our personal tastes but Gameplay is the only major factor that defines game's success and popularity.
It's pretty adorable that you believe that.
Marketing, polish, in game carrots/rewards, ease of access, price, system requirements, being quick to learn all matter as much if not more (combined) than gameplay. If they didn't we'd all be playing things like Street Fighter 2 Turbo, Tribes, and Brood War.
If you aren't the best at the game and see "0 mechanics" to get better at then that's really eroding the credibility of your criticisms.
|
On December 07 2016 00:38 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +We can pretend things and justify our personal tastes but Gameplay is the only major factor that defines game's success and popularity. It's pretty adorable that you believe that. Marketing, polish, in game carrots/rewards, ease of access, price, system requirements, being quick to learn all matter as much if not more (combined) than gameplay. If they didn't we'd all be playing things like Street Fighter 2 Turbo, Tribes, and Brood War. If you aren't the best at the game and see "0 mechanics" to get better at then that's really eroding the credibility of your criticisms.
Just me that honestly don't like the gameplay in any of the three titles you mentioned? There is such a thing as a difference of opinion on what fun gameplay is. Which is what makes his original statement somewhat hold true. Many titles that goes for the mass marketing and so on usually have slimmed down gameplay that is easy to learn and makes for quick entertainment.
I played a bit of BLC and won't be playing this. I honestly am not into short round games. I like 30 min+ maps and building something up while not being too hectic the entire time. Which is why most games I love are single player games at their core. Anything with shorter rounds such as CS GO and this is fun for a few hours, then I am not interested any more since too much of the gameplay is the same.
|
On December 07 2016 01:05 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2016 00:38 Logo wrote:We can pretend things and justify our personal tastes but Gameplay is the only major factor that defines game's success and popularity. It's pretty adorable that you believe that. Marketing, polish, in game carrots/rewards, ease of access, price, system requirements, being quick to learn all matter as much if not more (combined) than gameplay. If they didn't we'd all be playing things like Street Fighter 2 Turbo, Tribes, and Brood War. If you aren't the best at the game and see "0 mechanics" to get better at then that's really eroding the credibility of your criticisms. Just me that honestly don't like the gameplay in any of the three titles you mentioned? There is such a thing as a difference of opinion on what fun gameplay is. Which is what makes his original statement somewhat hold true. Many titles that goes for the mass marketing and so on usually have slimmed down gameplay that is easy to learn and makes for quick entertainment.
Yeah of course gameplay is relevant and subject to personal taste, but it's ridiculous to think it's the only major factor in who plays what competitively. Those three titles are relevant because in a large part people didn't stop playing those games because they stopped liking the gameplay of them, many people moved on because that's where the communities went and where there was competition. People are constantly trying to bring Tribes back, but never with a huge studio doing it. SC2 had people from day one in large numbers (including pros) argue that BW had better gameplay. Super Turbo wasn't dropped from EVO until 2010 and is still run as a side tournament.
Blizzard was able to push Overwatch to 7 million players within a week, most indie games don't sell 7 million copies in their lifetime. Are you really telling me those sale numbers at launch are entirely because of gameplay and not because of Blizzard's reputation, their marketing push, and their ability to deliver fancy graphics?
Or take Hearthstone, do you really think games like Hex or SolForge stood any chance against Hearthstone? How many HS players do you think are even aware of these other games (certainly the hardcore players, but what about the massive base of casual Hearthstone players?).
And never mind any idea of player mobility. Do you really think people will give up LoL for a game with better gameplay if it's still relevant and they've sunk countless hours and $s into it? There's stickiness to a community once it's large & active enough; people are mostly going to switch through attrition to other big giant titles (like players going from LoL to Overwatch which are incomparable in terms of 'gameplay') or getting distracted through single player releases.
Hell there's even dozens and dozens of indie competitive games of all genres people have probably never heard of because it's really hard to get enough of an initial user base to support an active community (otherwise everyone leaves because they can't find matches) and even harder to have that community be large enough to start spreading word of mouth on how good the gameplay is.
It's a ridiculous claim.
|
On December 07 2016 00:38 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +We can pretend things and justify our personal tastes but Gameplay is the only major factor that defines game's success and popularity. It's pretty adorable that you believe that. Marketing, polish, in game carrots/rewards, ease of access, price, system requirements, being quick to learn all matter as much if not more (combined) than gameplay. If they didn't we'd all be playing things like Street Fighter 2 Turbo, Tribes, and Brood War. If you aren't the best at the game and see "0 mechanics" to get better at then that's really eroding the credibility of your criticisms.
Wtf, get outta my brain
|
yo. Game is still awesome despite the decreasing number of players. I love this game to death so I hope the F2P launch will be succesful! The studio said they were saving marketing money for this launch, and working on essential features untl then.
Speaking of, big patch coming out tomorrow. It followed the complaint of some top players who found that most of the stuff were too difficult to avoid. I'm pretty hyped for it!
|
|
I might keep playing this game. I sort of wish there was a little more to the maps in general. I think back and forth between players are fine, but the maps are all kind of bland.
I also want little words that pop up blocked when an attack is blocked.
|
It's tough to make the maps more interesting without also making them gimmicky. I wouldn't mind some more experimentation with terrain layouts though, possibly even something like high ground (probably not blocking vision, but could block movement in one direction).
I think most directional shields do something kind of obvious when they block a shot or have words above the heroes head, but text on the actual block is not a bad idea.
It seems like they're intending on focusing a lot of this year on UI and graphics improvements. They just redid one hero's model and SFX and I think that's going to happen to all of them. They've also been working on an overhaul for the lobby UI.
|
The choice between gimmicky and dull at rocks is a hard one, but I'll take gimmicky. Lack of variety and experimentation in maps leads to stagnation. The board you play on is as important as the pieces you play with.
|
Please update the OP, Battlerite officially launched Free to play today! There has been a huge launch patch, lots of reworks on battlerites, Thorn has been added, there has been a UI update, and many other changes, everyone should come hop aboard!
Thorn
Launch Trailer
|
Unfortunately the edit option isn't showing up for as an option for me any more on the OP. If a Mod wants to edit it then I have no objections.
|
Battlerite is F2P now!!! It is really fun to play LoL and WoW pvp hybrid.If you like MOBA RTS or WoW arena you will like this game too.
|
|
|
|