SPECULATION Star Wars: Battlefront II General Discussion

Time commitment is essential in multiplayer gaming.

 

Sure. I can’t really disagree with that.

But 220 - 240 hours just to unlock heroes and villains who should be available to play from the start of the game anyways? Who are advertised as being in the game in a lot of promotional material, but aren’t available in the game? And who are all only subjectively better than other characters, with no solid reasoning to back up why its segmented in the way that it is?

Anywhere from 8 - 15 hours per character seems fair. I’m sorry, but 40 hours is nothing more than a meaningless slog - during which you won’t be able to level up, because this requires Star Cards, which requires Loot Crates, etc.

I played the Mustafar out of 2015’s Battlefront when I could, and I’ve still only logged 200 hours or so, and I probably would have ended up playing this substantially less considering I’m in my second year of college and looking to go to uni next year. I know parents who work full-time to support their families and would have loved to spend an hour or two each night playing as Luke and Vader when they could (not to mention how it would be difficult enough to actually get to play as the characters anyway).

If you have the time to make a 200+ hour commitment to merely unlock heroes and villains that you could possibly end up using, then be my guest, but that seems both a) unrewarding and b) a waste of time.

Not everyone has the time on their hands to make a 200+ hour commitment to unlock characters who should be available in much less time, if not available from the start.

Like I suggested: make skins the ridiculous unlocks. It says nothing when every other person can play as Vader anyway, but if you can be battle-scarred Vader? It’s a real sign of commitment. Being Vader within a week with the current system screams that you might be spending too much time playing the game.

I’m not quite sure why some here seem so adamant to defend this game to the last.

 

So we agree, then. I'll repeat once again - I don't claim 40h per character is adequate. It's probably too much. A lot of things here are debatable (the amount of grind necessary, which characters are available from the start etc.), but the idea of unlockable heroes isn't unfair.

They are available... Try to make a good promotional campaign for a game using only level 1 content. Or only the first stage of the solo campaign.

Demanding time is reasonable. You can't make the game unlocks dependent purely on skill. In such case they would have to make everything super easy and accessible (to the point where locking is pointless) or difficult so it was a challenge for experienced players and then no casual would ever manage to get the best content.

 

But as a PVP player, you also know that the dude who's gonna play the hero on a pvp field is someone who knows a bit of a game and not any 8 years old nephew who wants to play Rey for fun in a 40 players battle.

 

Yes, the idea of unlockable heroes isn’t unfair. Killing 5 heroes to unlock Vader seems perfectly rational. The time commitment side of things is quite clearly the wrong way to implement things, though.

I think you know what I was getting at: they aren’t available from the start.

And there’s no reason that they shouldn’t be. We found out about this within the last day or so, and only found out more about the Loot Crate situation last month. I’m sure if EA could have, it would have kept these things quiet: they clearly did on the 60k credits required to unlock certain characters.

But I’ll reiterate: there’s no reason that these characters should be locked in the first place, behind any sort of barrier. 8 - 15 hours is fair in that it’s a much easier commitment than the 40 hours being cited.

There’s no major advantage to playing as these characters over characters available from the start of the game other than anything that is subjective.

The fact remains that this isn’t the only aspect of the game which requires levelling up (i.e. it takes 2.5 hours to earn enough credits to unlock a crate), but levelling up is thrown by the wayside if one is aiming to play as such characters

The way I see it, time commitment is only accessible to those with the available “free” time to invest in the game anyways, and is well beyond the commitment most casual players are likely to invest in the game.

So yes, I say locking is pointless for both hardcore players and casual players alike: all of the former will have access to the characters in no time, and thus it won’t mean much considering that they’ll supposedly be playing against players with a similar time/money investment and/or “ability”, whereas casual players aren’t going to invest 200+ hours, let alone 50 hours, to unlock all of the heroes and villains.

As I said: there are other things which are already locked behind a time commitment (as credit earnings are limited at 300/Galactic Assault, for example) without the need for even more of a time commitment.

I’m all for making games challenging, but that challenge needs to come tied pretty eloquently with an equivalent reward, and a time commitment to unlock heroes/villains which aren’t necessarily any better than those available with the base game is bizarre. Not to mention that EA can’t even directly profit from this: it’s an odd move all around.

Sure. I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at, though: all I can ascertain from your comment is that it’s difficult enough for more casual players to become a hero/villain in a 40-player battle as it is.

In which case: why not just let them be the hero/villain they want to be?

 

I get what you're saying, but I think this is just a little bit different than, say, Call of Duty locking a certain gun behind a certain level.

If taken at face value, this means that you'd wouldn't be able to play as both Luke and Vader in a Star Wars game (in which they were both heavily advertised) until you have roughly 80 hours into the game- that's a lot of time for non-hardcore gamers, and many probably won't even make it that far anyway.

If this game had decent offline content, it'd be fine- people could play the game as they wanted offline, then go head to head on the servers.

The "pride" argument EA tried might even hold up, if the heroes couldn't also be purchased (which makes them less of a badge of honor and more of a status symbol).

I guess I grew up with the original Battlefronts, so I've come to expect them to offer different things- a competitive atmosphere if desired, but also a bit of a playset of Star Wars materials. If I wanted to jump into instant action, pilot an AT-TE (full controls, by the way) on Geonosis, jump out and become Mace Windu to duel my buddy sitting on the couch next to me who was playing as Dooku, I could do that. I didn't have to worry about spawn tickets (in reference to being a certain unit- at least, not significantly), I didn't have to worry about heroes being locked behind paywalls, I didn't have to worry about a lack of offline content.

For a player like me, this new game is basically only better in graphics only. There's a reason I still play the 2004/2005 games frequently, and have barely touched 2015's release in over a year.

 

I keep seeing this argument in responses even though I've explicitly stated I don't think 40+ hours per hero is OK.

I'm cool with the fact that they decided to lock some heroes - that's my opinion. It gives you prestige once you get one. But there are obviously much more reasonable conditions for unlocking them than 200 hours of grind. Challenges and whatnot. I also thought it could potentially work if they gave you let's say 60k credits at the beginning to spend on whatever you want - a set of crates or your beloved Luke/Vader. Time commitment - bigger or smaller - lies at the core of virtually every good progression system in games. You can call leveling leveling, but at the end of the day natural progression is all about how much time you spend doing stuff in the game.

------------

On a different note - damn, I've just come across a story mode spoiler via YouTube recommendations... Beware, people.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 13, 2017, Original Post Date: Nov 13, 2017 ---

Btw. Breaking news:

 

Full quote, from John Wasilczyk, Executive Producer at DICE:

This is only the start. That’s a little over 43 hours to unlock all characters, which still seems far too high. My belief is still rather firmly that these characters shouldn’t be locked behind boundaries to begin with.

Sit and wait until Wednesday’s AMA, I guess.

 

Good of EA to react. Honestly.

I guess we just want different games in the end, and I'm genuinely happy for you @srg that this is somewhat in line with what your vision for what a Star Wars game should be.

The older Battlefront games managed to be captivating to me without the carrot on a stick approach because I found the gameplay enjoyable, so a progression system wasn't really needed. If that's something people actually enjoy, though, I guess maybe I'm just old school.

Anyway, like I said, even I didn't, and still don't entirely, agree with how EA was handling this issue- announcing that a surcharge is less than what one might have originally expected doesn't really remove the surcharge, but it's at least progress. Still, it was hardly the only thing keeping me from buying this game, so hopefully Wasilczyk wasn't kidding and enough changes eventually come to motivate me to pick this up.

But for some fans for whom this is enough- I envy you! You're getting a new Star Wars game that you can enjoy soon, that's really cool!

 

Very cool live-action spot. I love the pinata scene:

 

Just tried the game for we have 10 hours free and the game is releasing tomorrow.

We have all the ships and 70% of the heroes already, the time I'll try all these 10 heroes, I think I could unlock the others.

People really like to complain.

 

Except it’s not just the fact that six heroes/villains are locked behind a seemingly unnecessary boundary.

It’s the progression system and the loot crate system too.

 

What is wrong with the progression system ?

 

That it’s engineered to depend upon randomised Loot Crates, which in turn greatly promotes and incentivises their purchase.

As in, it’s designed for EA to make a lot of money, despite the fact that 15 million+ units sold would already gain them a reasonable profit.

The shadow of greed, that is.

 

Loot crates won't get you some skill.

I don't understand why people still buy the game with the feeling to be swindled.

Just don't buy it.

 

...there was an epic Star Card in the beta which made Boba Fett invulnerable for a limited amount of time.

Skill doesn’t play into it much when other players have purchased Loot Crates which give you 50% or 100% increases in attack bonuses or defence bonuses.

As I said before, I’m not purchasing this game because of how EA has effectively ruined the game through their own greed. A Star Wars game will sell more than enough for them to make a profit; the dependency on Loot Crates to level up classes is outright crazy.

It’s so bad that even IGN, of all places, has called them out for the progression system, concluding that “Pay-to-win or not, it’s just bad.”

GameSpot has also reiterated similar things, saying that the game “is weighed down by an overbearing and convoluted progression system that doesn't value the average player's time, obscuring an otherwise solid Star Wars experience.”

EDIT: at the current rate, it would take 4500 hours to unlock all (EDIT 2 upgrade all Level 3 Star Cards to Level 4 (i.e. Epic, if I remember correctly). That’s half a year solid of playing this game and doing nothing else; otherwise, you’re playing 12 hours a day for the whole year if you want to accomplish the same thing.

 

I wouldn't have known about any of the progression system if not for the bad press. I cancelled my pre-order due to the press EA generated on game sites and reddit. If I pay $60 for a game I shouldn't be forced to pay more money just to progress. Pay to win games favour those with deep wallets and no free time (or children who empty their parent's wallets).

edit: This review sums up a lot of my concerns. https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017...roken-with-star-wars-battlefront-iis-economy/

 

Just completed the singleplayer campaign and here's my review for the game so far:

Spoiler: spoiler

SINGLEPLAYER: A disjointed remake of Shattered Empire of which the narrative is all over the place and together with its mission design is only meant to introduce players to multiplayer components such as starcards, heroes and vehicles. They dominate the story and mission structure, not informed narrative as you might expect. There are some highpoints in the campaign were the action and campaign seem focused and gunplay or stealth action fun. However it is a shame that Iden and inferno squad defect after the THIRD MISSION and you are forced to shoot imperials in a by the numbers story that basically blasts over anything you've read in Inferno Squad or which you might have expected from the alleged Iden/Admiral Versio tension, the trailers or the marketing campaign ("the first campaign were you play as the imperials"). The end of the campaign does open up some room for more missions in the first order era, but the story itself, Iden's story (if you can call it such) really only continues until the Battle of Jakku. Since Disney's new canon this game's story and missions represent really the first real bummer I've encountered so far. I absolutely love The Force Awakens, I like Rogue One and also enjoy the new novels, comics and Rebels. Hell, I even absolutely loved Battlefront 2015 which I've played for 300+ hours. Battlefront II however is disappointing and full of missed opportunities.

MULTIPLAYER: As for the Multiplayer (PS4), player movement is sluggish and even after trying to adapt the sensitivity and stick deadzones, it still is. Starfighter controls are terrible on console because rolling is always either on the the same stick as the speed throttle, whatever scheme you choose. The maps are terribly unbalanced, there is an amazing amount of input lag and normal lag, even so much that your screen will often freeze a second in a direct gun fight. The maps are beautiful though and breathe a real lively atmosphere. There is also enough variety. Gunplay is good on PC but terrible on consoles because they locked the speed of side-to-side movement when zoomed on consoles............yeah really. When zoomed it is often completely impossible to track targets moving from left to right or the other way around. I've never seen this in a console version of a FPS before. Whereas for PC gamers Battlefront 2015 was a console port, Battlefront 2 is definitely a PC port for console players.

As for the progression. Let's just say that, however good or bad you're playing, the rewards are always roughly the same. So basically progression is a bust. I won't even start on loot crates or hero unlocks

Edit: oh, two of our protagonists have daughter, who is not mentioned by name and is born ca. 9 months after the Battle of Jakku

So.........a bummer.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 14, 2017, Original Post Date: Nov 14, 2017 ---

Well I can at least assure you that it is in fact not pay to win as long as you don't play heroes versus villains

 

How long did it take for you guys to download this game on the Xbox One?

I'm so excited to play this when I get home! I hope it's worth the wait!