Any bias against free to play from a competitive perspective is purely rational. There are not enough examples of things like Dota 2 that do it right without giving any player an advantage. This game has variance in card and tower levels, both of which are immense in this game. You can absolutely pay to win. Just because it levels you out eventually doesn't mean you didn't whoop a ton of ass all the way up there once you gemmed. For example, the player AY who is now currently showing up on TV Royale out of no where dumped thousands into his account and climbed 329 spots in a single day! That's insane. You can't just dump ten grand into Dota 2 and then be in the top 5 players in the world, it doesn't work like that. Defense of F2P when it's done in such a manner to play the player is significantly more irrational than poking at why it makes a great game worse. And it really does. I find more often than not that solely this specific forum(which I still love to death), has more of an irrational bias towards defending F2P despite what it does to the mechanics of the games. I'm not entirely sure how anybody could take this leaderboard seriously for example. But I still play and enjoy this game quite a bit. I've dropped to 2100 trophies, but for F2P that's solid. I've gotten very far in this, and I still have no problem calling out the bullshit for what it is.
I can totally see your point if you look at the "top rated" players. In reality they are the top spenders. I was thinking it would be nice to have 2 brackets: those for people who aren't going to spend money and those who are. They would never implement this but it would be interesting none the less.
Same here. If I played these expecting to be a top player due to skill alone that would be one thing. I play quite a few games like this, (Boom Beach, Royal Revolt 2, Hero Sky, Tiny Troopers Alliance) and don't spend a penny until I feel I've played enough, and gotten enough enjoyment out of them to give the dev something. Even then I usually only spend $5-10 at most. I don't expect to break the top 100, (or even 1000) since at the age of 48 I'm past my prime regarding reflexes, and with all the meds I'm on for nerve damage, (and other problems) my mind isn't as sharp as it used to be either. Still doesn't mean the games aren't fun. Hell I play a couple just to level bases up and don't even bother much with the head to head. I read a comment a couple days ago that FTP is "ruining games". The person was referring to console and PC games being ruined by FTP. I find that silly. If anything is "ruining games" it's shipping them broken and incomplete and then fixing them later, (if ever). That and showing them early on running high end graphics on a PC to start, then stripping them down to run on console level. The old bait and switch.
Well I AM impatient, I admit that . However, your argument seems to be that I should alter my personality to fit the game I'm playing, and that's not generally how reviews work.
Man, I've gone from being consistently in the 900s yesterday to over 1400/Arena 5 right now (and easily maintaining in the 1300s). Haven't paid a thing. This paywall, if it exists, seems to be made of balsa wood.
Thing is, you are 90ish% matched with people with roughly similar units for the trophy count. The people with really strong units for their trophy count are often quite stupid (PTW people) or sometimes on a cold streak (boy do they happen). So if you want to have a great challenge, the system gives it to you. As you get new and different units and move up in trophies, the matching system insures that the challenge continues. You either like the **challenge** of proving your good against people with similar units or you want the **achievement** of being highly ranked on the leaderboard. FTP is very rewarding for people that play for the challenge, and very frustrating for those that play for leaderboard achievement. There are a few myths here: (1) there is nothing to do if you cant get a chest. False. There is a big learning curve, so just playing, even if you dont get a chest, really helps you get a lot better. (2) there is a paywall. False. You keep gaining trophies as you get better and get different units. More slowly than someone that pays of course, but the sense of progression and achievement in getting to a new arena is huge.
How should I invest into epics? Is there a clear tier system that dictates what I should be spending gold on? I have a baby dragon and a balloon. Should I save gold in an effort to upgrade these epics? Or spread across a few generally useful epics?
This game truly has me my wife and I addicted beyond normal belief. I might even buy some gems for Sunday's double bonus dealio! Royal W Cheese (very proud of my name lol) Clan: Team Taco
My understanding (I'm only 1225 trophies, still new) is that you cant really pay to upgrade epics or rares that much unless your spending a lot, because each level takes more and more. If your spending $4.99, just buy the gold and use it to upgrade troops, which gets very costly. Baby Dragon is highly awesome. Balloon is really good if you can use it properly, but it does die easy if your opponent is prepared and you dont set it up right. Balloon + Skeleton Giant gives me fits.
Paywall doesn't have to mean that you can't get past it without spending money. It can also refer to a point that requires a lot of time investment to get past.
There is no such point. Admittedly, with level 6 and above (for common troops) taking a bit of doing, levelling up troops does slow progressively. So there is no wall, but perhaps a bit of jello, eventually. If you get that far, you've already gotten quite a bit of value from this free game. And there is always room to get better through skill. With a range of level 5 troops - which doesnt take long to get at all (pre jello for sure) - my high is 1225 trophies. With the same troops, I saw a strategy guide that mentioned the poster got 1500 trophies. And I've seen a bunch of people with vastly higher level troops still at my level.
This is ridiculous. Why should the two be separate? In any competitive gaming environment you climb the ladder for the **challenge** AND the **achievement**. You can't tell somebody that they either like it this way, or they want it the other. That seems more like an excuse for this questionable system. The wording is particularly bizarre because the **achievement** is diminished when it involves dumping tens of thousands of dollars into your account because the game allows you to have more powerful cards than other players. I also think you're overselling the matchmaking ability in this game. It is very loose on purpose and only takes trophy level into account. This is a major boon for paid players, and is the reason why it works so effectively. I'm going to have to say that this is a major oversell on the learning curve of the game as well. It's all relative, though. As a longtime gamer who loves Starcraft, a game that deserves the statement of "There is a big learning curve," I can't take this too seriously. But it's all subjective. Here's a cool tip to give you a boost on that curve. Did you know that you can drop multiple cards at the exact same time using multi-touch? This is fairly dependent on the player, and how strict of a definition the user has of a paywall, but regardless this game has genius monetization loops that are incredibly effective. I'd say since the math works out to 22+ years to max out the vanilla deck(the math was done before the new batch of cards was released, and we all know more are coming), there are effectively paywalls because the amount of time necessary to be competitive with the top players is utterly inhumane. And the time simply isn't just grinding out the cards. It's grinding out the gold(THIS is the killer for me at Arena 7 and I'd imagine most higher level players). You just don't get the gold you need to make these insane upgrades. You can thank the chest/timer system for that. And the notion that "you keep gaining trophies as you get better and get different units" stops at Arena 7 and up. There are no new units to get after this, and when you trophy push at this point, the wall is very much players with higher level cards. And now I just saw you post this and it put it all into perspective. You're still at the level that feels very natural as far as progression goes. A bit hard, but easy to make your way up with a modicum of skill. Cards and their levels are progressing at a relatively fair rate. I'd rather you hold off on responding to my post until you at least break the 2k trophy mark, because I think we'll be at more of an understanding. Right now we're nearly playing different games.
I get it, really, because I've played games with this model before. There is a progressive slow down of level ups. First a couple cards a day, then a card a day, then maybe your at several days to upgrade one of your cards, a week, or worse. However, how much time did you put in to get there? Great value for a ftp game, no? Considering how much I've played and enjoyed this over, I dunno, 5-6 days, I'd certainly have paid for this game based just on what I've gotten out of it so far. Several of my cards are gonna jump soon, and I'm confident I'll be out of arena 4 in a day or two . . . more value. If you say you'd rather pay 2.99 or whatever for a non ftp version of this and a level playing field, well I get that, but the playing field is never truly level in these games because someone else always started before you. Maybe you want them to start new servers every so often, but that doesnt actually work that well in a game where you want to be matched with someone near your trophy level almost instantly, does it? This isnt Starcraft with a giant and loyal fan base -- these games can and do die if the player base isnt large enough. I used to love one called Witch Wars until the matches started taking progressively longer to find an opponent and people started dropping in a chain reaction. Anyways, I get where your coming from and I dont truly disagree with what your saying - its a legit viewpoint - its just that mine is different. And, given how much you've played, perhaps we would even agree that this is worthwhile for new players to start?
I feel like my main thing is that you can play and enjoy these games very much like I am with Clash Royale, but you don't have to disguise the fact that it has paywalls or defend the pay to win aspects that are very clearly there. It's dishonest. I have no problem calling a spade a spade while still enjoying the game. And ultimately, the most important take-away you can get from my post....is the fact that you can drop units simultaneously with multi-touch. I am not even joking. Usually when I had multiple units to drop to counter something, I would click and drag/click and tap the units individually, which wastes precious time. Dropping them both at the same time so they load onto the field simultaneously is pretty big dps wise.
"Pay to Advance Faster" is not the same as "Pay to Win". You will predominantly be matched against people in your tier. Those who pay to advance faster will move past you and be fighting other money-spenders soon enough. If the game is fun, which it is, just play. Don't confuse playing poorly with pay to win.
I don't care about leaderboards because I'm not good, but I'd like I could win when I deserve it and lose, too. I'm only 900, but I see people with two or three level 3 epic cards: I could win only if he/she/it is/plays dumb.
I'm at the exact space you are at now -- arena 4. But for me, this is the paywall. Not because I don't enjoy it but rather because I know if I spent money I could actually progress, whereas without spending money I'm going to be grinding. Now I can't even think about arena 7 -- that is like an ant looking up at the clouds -- but I'm still enjoying it, just the competition of it all. But until they add in other modes - clan wars, a campaign, or other enhancements, I can feel my clan (which has 50 very active players) already getting antsy for the next thing. They are all heavy clanners, with task forces and clans as well -- but the time needed to invest in Royale is a bit more than the other two supercell offerings, so I'm really hoping for either a war feature or a campaign at some point in the near future.
Perhaps we need a new term, since it seems like the slowdown increases gradually enough that you dont feel like you are stuck for a good while, but I hear you, in practical terms the slowdown gradually approaches a wall at some point. I dont think it matters what one calls it as long as new players get an explanation of what eventually happens and when, and it seems you agree. But I will take objection to using the phrase pay to win here, since people that pay go up some number of trophies, and at that point they then compete with people with the same number of trophies, winning no more or less than they did before. Its pay to get a somewhat better spot on the leaderboard, which isnt something that has meaning for everyone. Yeah, getting a better spot on the leaderboard is entirely what it is about for some games (such as high score games), but in head to head games, you get reminded that even though spent money, your still not all that. Its a real difference, at least to me -- I'd use pay to win for a high score game, but not for a head to head game. Its only pay to win if you care if your #21 on the leaderboard or #151. Either way, you'll still win the same number of games. Thanks for the tip. Sorry if I'm quibbling over words. You seem like a smart dude and I think we agree entirely on how the game works.
