Instalar o Steam
Iniciar sessão
|
Idioma
简体中文 (Chinês Simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês Tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol de Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol da América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Brasil)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar problema de tradução
O autor deste tópico marcou um post como resposta à pergunta dele.
Regras e Orientações das Discussões
Denunciar este post
I disagree. Ranked roles simply is not Dota. It's sorta Dota. The game is about cooperation. Thank God it is a seperate mode. Players that want to insist on something can pool there. My queue will retain flexibility. Dota is free to play: not just normal queue, but lobbies, parties, teams and leagues. Ranked roles is a feature. At least one person having access to it with the Battle Pass, and, Dota Plus, has never used it, and likely will not. Even 10,000 shards is not of interest.
The problem in Dota 2 is not just Dota+. In fact, the monetization of Dota 2 started as early as around 2014, when Lunar New Year was hardly playable for free players and basically You had to pay to play it regularly.
In 2017, they released Siltbreaker, an event which was fully restricted to Battle Pass (BP) owners, i.e cash players. They also added Double Down, a feature that alters Match Making Rating (MMR) gain/loss. i will not discuss why it is pay-to-win (P2W) here, but leave a note that it is best to not tinker with matchmaking and MMR gain/loss, since it easily tends to become P2W or pay-to-lose, depending if it grants advantage or disadvantage.
i will admit; i did not oppose Siltbreaker back then because it was way too good, and i was used to buying BP for Majors. But even back then, i knew that Double Down was sketchy, hence only used it in The International (TI) MMR which i vowed to never use as replacement for my normal MMR. In this fashion, i purified myself from any possible P2W elements.
The problem aroze back then; i literally had someone telling me that the best thing about Siltbreaker is that it was restricted to BP owners. In their opinion, putting a paywall improves their gaming experience by filtering free players. This is in itself some sort of discrimination based on economical output, hence extremely toxic. One among the best things about Dota 2 is that it was free for everyone to join and invest any amount of time they have in their repository. Locking a whole event and crucial feature that alters MMR gain/loss behind a paywall is basically throwing one of Dota 2's cornerstones. i'll leave it up to supporters of Dota+ to reply why even play a free-to-play (F2P) game if they want a paywall around them.
Then, the famous Dota+ came. And oh my, things only spiraled downwards... First, more and more features were locked behind a paywall. This time, one had to subscribe, instead of a one-time purchase. Two crucial features are Plus-Assistant and improved Death Summary. For the sake of it, let's just say Dota+ is pay-to-learn. But such crucial features obviously should be in the game for everyone.
TI8 was just around the corner, with even more P2W content, events behind a paywall and more disappointment in item quality. Challenge Tokens were fixed, because the players complained about it. But since just few complained about Role Ranked and lots of positive posts favoring it, Valve just decided to make even more profits out of it, locking it permanently behind a paywall that is Dota+.
The greatest problem i see in Dota 2 isn't Dota 2 or Valve anymore, it is the community. People are endorsing this kind of crappy marketing that they would honestly bash and truly reject if it was any other game. How many players hate on League of Legends because the Champions are not free? But then, they claim they need paywalls in Dota 2 to protect themselves from toxicity. Isn't judging others based solely on their financial state one among the highest tier of toxic behavior? And what makes Dota 2 better than any other game when it has all these paywalls?
i lost hope in Valve long ago, but i had a remorse of hope, that if players revolted, there could possibly be a change. Sadly i fully lost hope in the community too. The Dota 2 community i know are the type that would go full-burst because a hero like Techies could place a cosmetic on the ground. But now they accept all kind of P2W features that alter matchmaking and MMR gain/loss in their favor. Of course, as the outsider, i am the toxic person when i point out the P2W features instead of people that discriminate others based on their finance abilities.
There is nothing left to see here; If You are against pay-to-play & P2W practices, it is the best time to push Yourself beyond Your limits, drop Your addiction, throw away all these feelings for Your profile, items, carreer, skills, sell Your items on Your way, and leave, without ever looking back. DotA era is over.
So much drama. Good luck with your next game.
The main function, player selectivity, is not given anymore if the ranked roles queue is open to everybody. In that case you would have the same people queueing up for it than in standard solo ranked queue, means a high percentage of players who don‘t care for the team but just themselves.
The ranked roles queue will probably regain it‘s typical solo gaming toxicity after a while of accommodation but for now it mainly profits from the restricted player pool.
I don't feel the monetization of Dota2 started as early in around 2014 with any release of pass or launch of event because that is optional thing in the game. If you want to say release or launch of an event for Battle Pass owners is called the monetization by Valve, then how are they going to find beta users or beta testers? Actually, this release of Ranked-roles was given permission to Battle Pass 2018 owners to play because I believe they need more feedback or data to analyze whether this Ranked-roles is good for the community or not (they cannot depend on the data from professional or upper bracket players only to judge the whole community). But when the big event (The International) ended, Valve changed it to be playable by players who own "different pass" invented by Valve, where we call it as DotaPlus.
This DotaPlus should be an optional thing for players to choose whether they want to own it or not. Why Valve want to stop or filter those who helped them during beta testing of Ranked-roles? If they really want to filter the toxic players away from the community, then why they don't execute strict move like how BlueStudios did on those who abuse BlueStudios product in PUBG (BlueStudios can permanently banned so many of their users who abuse the product)? Disappointed thing I can see is, Valve didn't openly show us their strict move by permanently ban or remove those accounts that involved in mmr boosting or smurfing. They have so many method to dig out those mmr boosters and smurfs who own a newly created account with capability to create a "green-line-days" in Dota2.
Perhap what you said is right by leaving or throwing away what I feel about my Steam profile, Dota2 items, skills, addictions, etc. You can say Dota era is over, almost over with free-playable stuff to be slowly one by one inserted into paywall pass (DotaPlus). Then, players will be controlled by the developer. If Valve really need so much profits, they should go design more hero skins, nicer, more beautiful and lovely cosmetics. Not always depend on workshop outputs.
i feel like if we would like to come to an agreement, we need to define "monetization" first. From Wikipedia: Monetization (also written monetisation) is the process of converting or establishing something into legal tender. While it usually refers to the coining of currency or the printing of banknotes by central banks, it may also take the form of a promissory currency. The term "monetization" may also be used informally to refer to exchanging possessions for cash or cash equivalents, including selling a security interest, charging fees for something that used to be free, or attempting to make money on goods or services that were previously unprofitable or had been considered to have the potential to earn profits. (Note that monetization in this case means "charging fees for something that used to be free".)
i do believe the term fits perfectly in my previous comment. The "something" in "charging fees for something that used to be free" refers to the ability to play the game and participate in events.
Valve did not force players to pay them to participate in seasonal events prior to that. In Lunar New Year of 2014, You had to farm some currency by playing matches in order to play the game. The more currency You paid, the more starting golds You'd get. This means that currency was extremely important to play the game. Why they added such a restriction to begin with is not in the scope of this reply. What matters is that they offered some kind of charm that boosted coin gain, hence players that paid could play the game regularly, while free players simply couldn't.
There are some nuances here. First is cosmetics. The item drops were also available to everyone, which became more and more restricted. Today, as a free player, You cannot farm anything to make a starting point in trading. One could argue that this is also monetization. But cosmetics impose no restrictions on playing the game, excepts for Greeviling, where Greevils, particularly Unusual Greevils, granted stats and even skills.
Some people could argue that tournament tickets were not free; People had to pay to watch them, and they can easily be considered events too. But watching tournaments isn't really part of playing the game, and most of these tournaments weren't even organized by Valve.
i believe the nuances aren't strong enough compared to the inconvenience of having restrictions in ranked matches and locked events. But just for the sake of completeness, i mentioned them.
With this definition in mind, i ask You: Do You still oppose the statement that monetization started as early as 2014, specifically Lunar New Year?
Maybe i should formulate it in this fashion: Do You find it acceptable that game developers add events as DLC?
(The two questions are really the same. If You answered yes to one and no to the other, then there is incoherence.)