Is It Bad To Encourage Playing More Characters?
Not a rhetorical question, I'm legitimately wondering this.
A few people have pointed out that the new prestige system, while definitely a good change for veteran players (as well as for new players, despite flawed arguments supposing otherwise), might hurt people who only care about playing one survivor. After all, they do have to spend ten extra bloodwebs in exchange for their grind only being reduced a little bit; arguably a third, since they only need to find two perk tiers, but since it's still RNG it's hard to say.
If you religiously only play the one survivor, that's an increase in the grind over multiple prestiged survivors, arguably. But... is that a bad thing?
Is it a bad thing for the game's overall system to be designed to encourage that you try out other characters, even if only to get a feel for their perks while deciding if you want to unlock them? I'm not so sure. At worst, I'd say it's pretty neutral, all the survivors play exactly the same.
What do you guys think?
Comments
-
I don't think this type of game needs the level of grind that it will still have, and I don't think players would suddenly stop playing if they were able to use the things they wanted to use. I don't know, I'm just of the opinion that BHVR leans way too hard into skinner box type mechanics/RNG and it does them no favors.
I don't log off for the week if I have the perks I want to use. I play with those perks. It's not like I'm playing a vertical progression RPG where I have certain content I can't clear until I have this armor or I reach this level. I'm just annoyingly limited until I'm not.
To circle back the OP's question: I don't think players should be massively inconvienced because they don't want to grind the way the devs want them to in a pvp game with this monetization model.
8 -
Encouraging playing more characters is fine. Punishing players for not doing so is not.
5 -
That's kind of my point, though- should it be considered a "punishment" when all that's really happening is interacting unfavourably with a mechanic you don't want to engage with fully?
If the intent is to encourage variety for easier levelling, is it actually a bad thing, or somehow a mark of failure, if not following that encouragement makes things a little bit harder for you?
2 -
Yes IMO.
0 -
Three things are here:
1) You can level up characters but don't use them. You level up those characters (playing your main) just to get tier 3 teachables and that's it. You get all benefits from new system but don't play new characters at all.
2) You don't get any special value out of playing-only different characters (i.e. without leveling them). You just don't. Survs are the same, with no powers or abilities. Sometimes they moan quieter or hide easily, but new system isn't involved in loudness of moans.
3) If you play AND level up different characters you don't get any special (game)value too, you only grind less than someone who prefers one character to play.
Summorizing: this system doesn't encourage playing more characters. At all. This system benefits only those players who levels up (waste BP on) different characters. Feel it? No playing required.
Even if you are going to start to play different characters, that's just to feel less robbed while P3-ing and to fill leveling up those characters with more sense, not because new system encourged you somehow. There's no reason to do that, you can just level up those characters without playing.
TL;DR: Encourage play more characters could be good, maybe. But unfortunately there's no encourage to do so.
P.S. Survs are same, yeah, but not really. They sound different, look different, have different cosmetics. Why should I play new surv if I don't like them, don't have nice skins and so on? Yes, I have all perks for them, but I do have all perks for Felix either, and I dress him in gourgeous outfit and I'm happy watching him on my screen (unlike new surv). It's ok for killers since I have a real reason to try them, but for survs? No.
I personally don't know people who use/level up ALL 30 survs equally and it sounds unrealistic, we all have favorites, buy them skins and play only them. Those "might hurt people who only care about playing one survivor" and "interacting unfavourably with a mechanic you don't want to engage with fully" parts are applied to a lot of people.
I can say "this new feature will make a spherical horse in vacuum moving 300% faster" and brag about how much 300% is. It's cool, but majority of horses aren't spherical and will move only 25% faster.
Maybe the problem is here: there are a lot of real horses and spherical solutions doesn't inspire us as much.
0 -
But it kinda is punishment. Leveling and earning perks in this game is already unbearably slow. Making that even slower is not encouraging no matter how you look at it. Why does p2p game need f2p mmo levels of grind in the first place?
0 -
Making it slower isn't encouragement at all. Being given a way to make it faster is the encouragement, obviously it's going to be slower than that if you choose not to take that option.
I am, I should mention, in favour of making levelling itself faster, either with more BP or lesser node costs. I just think it's kind of silly to hyper-focus on people who insist on only ever playing one character to say the new reduction system is bad when it's clearly designed for players to not do that, even if just to test out teachable perks.
0 -
Three things are here:
1) You can level up characters but don't use them. You level up those characters (playing your main) just to get tier 3 teachables and that's it. You get all benefits from new system but don't play new characters at all.
2) You don't get any special value out of playing-only different characters (i.e. without leveling them). You just don't. Survs are the same, with no powers or abilities. Sometimes they moan quieter or hide easily, but new system isn't involved in loudness of moans.
3) If you play AND level up different characters you don't get any special (game)value too, you only grind less than someone who prefers one character to play.
Summorizing: this system doesn't encourage playing more characters. At all. This system benefits only those players who levels up (waste BP on) different characters. Feel it? No playing required.
Even if you are going to start to play different characters, that's just to feel less robbed while P3-ing and to fill leveling up those characters with more sense, not because new system encourged you somehow. There's no reason to do that, you can just level up those characters without playing.
TL;DR: Encourage play more characters could be good, maybe. But unfortunately there's no encourage to do so.
P.S. Survs are same, yeah, but not really. They sound different, look different, have different cosmetics. Why should I play new surv if I don't like them, don't have nice skins and so on? Yes, I have all perks for them, but I do have all perks for Felix either, and I dress him in gourgeous outfit and I'm happy watching him on my screen (unlike new surv). It's ok for killers since I have a real reason to try them, but survs? No.
I personally don't know people who use/level up ALL 30 survs equally and it sounds unrealistic, we all have favorites, buy them skins and play only them. Those "might hurt people who only care about playing one survivor" and "interacting unfavourably with a mechanic you don't want to engage with fully" parts are applied to a lot of people. I can say "this new feature will make a spherical horse in vacuum moving 300% faster". It's cool, but majority of horses aren't spherical and will move only 25% faster.
Maybe the problem is here: there are a lot of real horses and spherical solutions doesn't inspire us as much.
0 -
Encouraging means giving benefit for doing something.
In our case, this is punishing people who don't play many characters.
0 -
I'd like to tackle one specific point you make here, because it's the one I feel is most being overlooked- playing and levelling multiple survivors does give you in-game value. It gives you access to the perks that you want without having to go through their entire bloodweb progression first.
So yes, if wanting access to multiple perks is the goal - which of course it is, we're talking about the grind here, that's literally all that the grind is - then playing and levelling multiple survivors is being encouraged. The more you do that, the more perks you'll have available on the next survivor that you try, due to the way the system works.
0 -
No it really isn't.
I mean playing a diverse range of characters is the idea that's why they have a diverse range of characters.
My understanding is they are reducing the RNG nature of the grind somewhat which I think is a better move. Builds are ready to go on new characters rather than fishing for builds at random till you unlock what you want.
Is the increased BP cost of this for a singular character too much for the benefit of reducing the RNG nature, well we'll have to wait and see.
People seem hung up on raw numbers though discounting the reduction in RNG reduction.
(correct me if I'm wrong on this, I went on holiday rather than play the PTB this time around so haven't tried any of it or really bothered too much to follow with it).
1 -
All you need to know is that it is now significantly harder to grind for add-ons, items, and offerings.
0 -
You're basically correct. The only real concerns I have are that prestiging costs 50k BP (which is way, way too much even if a cost should be there to begin with), and getting higher-rarity addons/etc will be slightly harder.
For the actual grind, IE, the perks, it's unambiguously a reduction if you spread the cost around- which is why I wonder if being a little worse for players who don't spread that cost around is actually a bad thing.
0 -
It is a bad thing because there's no necessity to doing it and upside to doing it for the people who play single characters. It's pure downside that doesn't need to exist.
0 -
I think you're being disingenuous saying there's no upside. The upside is that it lessens the grind and gives you access to the perks that you want to unlock quicker.
Given that the extra ten bloodwebs you spend to prestige is at least partially offset by the resulting grind on your main being a third shorter, I really don't think it's actually so much of a downside that it warrants serious change. Players who choose not to engage with the entirety of the system have things at worst a little bit worse, and everyone else has it better.
0 -
I specifically said no upside to the people who play single characters. Not disingenuous.
0 -
IIRC, it gives buying the teachables from the shrine a secondary use to lessen your grind -- leveling up the perk for you on everyone.
0 -
Leveling up - yes. _Playing_ those characters - no. And those are two completely different actions which you can't merge together. The fact that I play Mikaela doesn't unlock her perks for other characters, I can play lvl1 Mikaela and be ok with that. But I can unlock her perks without playing her, only by leveling her up - and I can earn those BP for Mikaela playing Felix.
So, again, new system doesn't encourage you PLAY new characters. Only leveling them up. Yes, "levelling multiple survivors _is_ being encouraged", but your topic was about different things:
>>After all, they do have to spend ten extra bloodwebs in exchange for their grind only being reduced a little bit; arguably a third, since they only need to find two perk tiers, but since it's still RNG it's hard to say.
I don't argue about grind being reduced, but again: what the point of bragging about 300% speed boost for a spherical horse if real number for real non-spherical horses are much much lower? That's deffinetely not a 75%, and people expected those numbers being applied for them. No one specified that thing before, BHVR was saing "75-percent-in-general" again and again. Of course people are upset now. People upset because 25% and 33% are much lower than 75%. Good that gring is being reduced but I can understand this frustration.
>>If you religiously only play the one survivor, that's an increase in the grind over multiple prestiged survivors, arguably. But... is that a bad thing?
Maybe? Let's say "grind over multiple prestiged survivors" is increased. Again, no one play ALL survs equally (play, I don't talk about leveling up here). If grind was reduced only for those players who are spherical, and all other non-spherical players get grind being increased, isn't that a bad thing? Even if it's minority of player base. 49% is minority too. BHVR deffinetely could make smth to reduce gring for all, and not for only part of community. Of course people are upset now. [2] It's completely understandable.
>>Is it a bad thing for the game's overall system to be designed to encourage that you try out other characters, even if only to get a feel for their perks while deciding if you want to unlock them?
And that's your main thought, if I understand correctly.
System does NOT encourage you to try them out. At all. It encourages level them up. I can agree on other topics, I like new system (excluding 50k taxes), but you asked if it's good that new system encourages play different survs. But new system does not encourage you PLAY them. That's my point.
0 -
I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that you can't merge levelling up and trying out survivors together, because what you actually can't do is separate them.
In order to try out a survivor, you level them up. Ideally, to level 15, so you have all four perk slots. If you refuse to then play that survivor, your bloodpoints are wasted up until you prestige, but if you start playing them then, you get to use the perks you want to unlock and your bloodpoints become an investment, not a waste.
Sure, running into a trial as a level 1 Mikaela gives you nothing, but you're the one suggesting that hypothetical- I'm talking about trying Mikaela out, which necessarily involves levelling her up first. Those two things are linked, pretty inextricably; you could play her without doing that, but it's not really reasonably to suggest that most people would, at least in my view.
So, to sum up: The encouragement to try other survivors is because "trying out" survivors and "getting perks from" survivors both require spending bloodpoints, but the former makes that expenditure an investment and the latter effectively wastes your BP. That's the encouragement, get value from your BP by playing new survivors and, as a bonus, get to use their perks earlier -- just on them, and not on your former main.
0 -
I agree, why should the prestige step cost an extra 50k it seems like just some arbitrary BP vacuum that isn't really in the spirit of reducing the grind.
1 -
Well, ok, let's get Mikaela to lvl 15. With new system she will get 4 slots and all other unlocked perks. No reason to level her up further (all perks a here and ready) unless you want unlock her perks for others. So I can play her without leveling her up. And that's what I was doing through the event - I used bloody party and cakes on old characters (playing them) to level up someone I want (without playing them). I played only one Haddie game to adept her, but I leveled her up to unlock her perks without playing her at all (because I don't realy like her skins for now, doubt I'll ever play her without archives or daily).
But yeah, ok, we are agree here and summed all up. Then:
>>That's the encouragement, get value from your BP by playing new survivors and, as a bonus, get to use their perks earlier -- just on them, and not on your former main.
Correct me if I understand you wrong. If you just level character up - you kinda waste your bp, because you don't use stuff you got from bloodweb. That's why you are encouraged to play new surv - to use this stuff and make them... pay for themselves. Sort of. Plus you already have a lot of perks ready to equip from previous level-ups, and hence you have much easier start with new surv. Am I right?
But... well. Firstly, you don't waste your BP if you don't play that charachter. You use bp to unlock their perks, it can't be a waste by default. Lot of people leveled up characters to lvl 40 to unlock their perks and forget them for good. They invested their bp specifically into perks' unlocking.
Secondly, this encouragment (get value from your BP by playing new survivors) is here already, it's not that different from current system. You have to level them up to 40, and a lot of people (unlike those who forgot them for good) play new characters to get value.
There's nothing new here, the trully new thing is all those unlocked perks being ready to equip from the very first level. And it's good, really good, people understand that, but that's not the innovation that can overlap all underwater stones which make people concern about the update.
Did I miss something or missunderstood you?
0
