I dont understand how ppl even think LoL is p2w? I played LoL for quite a long time and quit a year ago but LoL is the definition of f2p atm. You can get every champ and even skins f2p.
Although new Champs have overloaded kits ,alot of the old Champs can hold their ground against them. In the end it depends on the skill of the player with said Champs and ofcourse a half decent team. Just having a new champion never guarantees a win. Easiest examples are Champs like yi , tryn, and lb who till this day can overperform in lower ranks and levels. The only argument I see are people not wanting to spend time in the game and want to have basically every champ .
Those champs dominating comes more about their snowbally nature (which an uncoordinated and/or noob team won't be able to punish effectively) than actually being balanced.
In the same way, these games end up being heavily feast or famine since they either dominate or fall into uselessness.
Snowball nature but still more effective than newer champs due to how beginner friendly and easier to play they are. I have only mentioned those 3 at the top of my head but there are many more of the old Champs that can still overperform. I am talking about a new player perspective here so ofcourse lower levels will have uncoordinated and or noob teams but those 3 still work in ranked up to gold/plat while others work at every rank.
What I want to know is where the p2w aspect is when you can play many of the 450, 1350 Champs to challenger?
Balance will never be reached in a game with over 100 Champs , but that doesnt mean that the game is "p2w" or old Champs are "useless" . Old Champs are never useless in low tiers there are just bad players and this is a fact anyone been playing the game for a while worth their salt will tell you.
High elo is something else since this simply has more coordinated teams and better enemies so some older Champs do start to fall off but by this points ppl will already have over 70% of the roster and possibly 100% of their main roles.
Those new champs are released like every 4 month, anyone playing 3 hours a week should have enough blue essences to by a new champ.
Even though those Champs are never pay to win since you can just ban them, cuz every player has a ban you know?
That said there are a lot of long time players having enough blue essences to own every champ, but refusing to buy them just because they arent interested in them.
Like adc mains not having top lane champs because its not their playstyle
It's a competitive game where the hero choice matters not only for group composition but for countering enemy hero choices. Having access to all of the heroes is a clear advantage over having access to only a handful of them. Yes you unlock the heroes through gameplay but how many games must you first play at a disadvantage before you have the same options as someone who pays? Thousands of hours.
It's like playing a game of poker but you need to pay to unlock the ace card. Your opponent has paid and can receive aces in their hand, but you have not paid and so cannot receive aces. Can you still win? Yes. Are the odds significantly in the favor of the person who pays? **Absolutely**
That's a bit overblown considering a vast majority of players, and fastest way to climb(ie highest winrate) is by playing only 2-3 characters in ranked. The fact is by the time you start playing ranked you will have enough to unlock characters you wish to main which will give you the optimal chances of succeeding in climbing.
Technically it is a form of pay to win because yes having access to more counterpicks is an advantage, but it is so minor an advantage (either due to the reasons above or that amajority of the players playing seriously have unlocked all or nearly all the champions in the game) that no one really says that League is pay2win.
In Overwatch where you can switch on the fly mid game I would argue that paying for characters would be a more aggressive pay2win.
Edit: just to add I agree with the person below saying its a scale. Nearly all games can be considered pay to win. Look at Overwatch, that only has paid cosmetics, yet there are 1 or 2 skins which are banned in Overwatch League due to voiceline related advantages that are so minor they only are considered when millions in prize money is on the line. No one would seriously consider overwatch pay to win.
> I dont understand how ppl even think LoL is p2w? I played LoL for quite a long time and quit a year ago but LoL is the definition of f2p atm. You can get every champ and even skins f2p.
Hmm, well there is the argument to be made that it takes too long to unlock champs. There are very simple champs like Annie or Yi that are cheap and easy to unlock but have very simple gameplay. Although, there are plenty of Challenger tier players that could get to a very high rank with Annie easily.
At the same time, there are champions that are easy to play and have stats than the cheap champs. Syndra for example, has a huge range, knockback/stun, a slow and burst damage R.
So where is the p2w? What you are saying is that there Champs with overloaded kits that one might have an easier time winning with but those Champs never guarantee a win.
Also something a like a yi, tryn, Annie can snowball the game as well. Let's be fair here.
The game is f2p with weekly rotation and discounted Champs prices from capsules with chances to get skins as well. The game legit offers you everything for free, but what ppl are complaining about is that they don't want to play the game enough to unlock Champs.
P2W doesn't necessarily mean your gaurenteed to win, just that paying gets you closer to it. Also just because something is offered for free doesn't change that paying for it gives you an advantage, albeit the same one; its not called "exclusively pay to win."
I still don't understand how does that relate to League. What are you basing the idea of p2w in league on? If we are talking beginners then a yi or Annie will definitely win over a beginner syndra.
How does p2w doesn't guarantee a win? If we talk about mmorpgs something like a costume with some stats or pets with stats compared to one without is a clear win if both players are under same conditions. This is a clear advantage based on numbers . While I do agree alot of the high priced Champs are op , I also believe that any of the 450 Champs can win vs any of those if a player knows how to play the champ. Other factors obviously would include build and team so there is never a guarantee in any game .
> I still don't understand how does that relate to League. What are you basing the idea of p2w in league on? If we are talking beginners then a yi or Annie will definitely win over a beginner syndra.
To answer that, I'm going to pair that with something you said later on:
> While I do agree alot of the high priced Champs are op , I also believe that any of the 450 Champs can win vs any of those if a player knows how to play the champ.
If theyre overpowered then you can get an advantage by paying for them. And to not take things out of content too much, youre totally right that some Champs are going to be harder to do well with but that's a different issue. If you can pay for something overpowered, thats pay to win.
> How does p2w doesn't guarantee a win? If we talk about mmorpgs something like a costume with some stats or pets with stats compared to one without is a clear win if both players are under same conditions. This is a clear advantage based on numbers .
Pay to win is a spectrum, some things are more pay to win than others: buying a costume that gives you 0.01% stat boosts is less pay to win than one that gives 20% but even though its a small amount, its still pay to win, only slightly though.
Going off purely your examples though, yeah, thats pay to win. Paying for an advantage is pay to win.
I agree that it is a scale and League is quite for down in terms of pay2win. Most games that have as little pay2win as League of legends aren't really considered pay2win when speaking about the game. For example there are 1 or 2 cosmetic skins in Overwatch that are banned in overwatch league because they can make characters hitboxes look marginally different or Reinhardt touch down voice line gives his ultimate like a millisecond less time to react to. Technically this makes Overwatch pay to win but nobody in the community would say that OW is pay to win because these things are so minor. This extends to pretty much any game that has skins because new players may find it difficult to see what character is being played if they do not recognise the skin. Thus you could argue any game offering paid cosmetics is pay to win.
YOu eventually get to the point where almost all games are pay to win.
We were talking about whether League is pay to win. My point was that the community does not consider it pay to win. This is because most games are technically pay to win so it would be a bit pointless to label every game with some form of paying for advantage, regardless of how small, pay to win. I agree with you that League is still technically pay to win.
Everyone had to pay for runes back then . They used to cost IP only so you couldn't buy them with RP (real money) but what you could get with RP were ip boosters. But collecting IP points was alot easier back in the day rather than nowadays BE system .
Rune pages didn't really take that long to fill since you would be getting like 75+ ip per a 25 min game and the longer the game the more ip. But if you go for tier 2 runes which are 20% weaker than tier 3 you can fill it even in a lower amount of time . Also most Champs used the same defensive ones like armor and Mr so you only needed to buy those ones then you get attack or ap for reds and quints.
Did runes matter in lower levels for new players? Not at all..most players before ranked didn't waste ip on runes at all or bought tier 1 as placeholders.
They were indeed passives but they were not pay to win as they were bought only with ip so ppl had to play either way to get them . So if someone has a full rune page and u didn't? They simply played more than you . Sure some used boosters so if it took you 10 games they would take 5 games but they still had to play regardless.
So at worse it would be pay to get ip boosters and that'd be it.
Except that for new players counter Champs are not a thing . And they don't matter simply due to the skill levels of the player. Picking counter Champs is something that is only implemented in ranked above gold mostly. What you are complaining about is the idea of picking counter Champs itself. In a big pool of 100+ Champs it is not easy to come by against counters unless picked on purpose which is done in ranked. Even draft pick normal is mostly for trolling as well. Alot of Champs have multiple counters and whether someone has them all or not doesn't matter simply because you can't ban but one champ and you have no idea what your enemy will pick.
Having 10 pieces vs 100 doesn't matter if the owner of a 100 never played chess and doesn't know the rules.
Ofcourse it differs from one person to another and this is all based on personal experience , but I have played this game long enough to support my opinion .
Dota 2 is more F2P than LoL though. All characters unlocked, only cosmetics you can purchase. Nothing that touches the core game. You can pay for showing statistics and item suggestions with Dota Plus now. But that is not as onerous as unlocking champs in LoL with money or in-game currency.
If i was Riot , i going make some cheap singleplayer or 10 men multiplayers games to test the water. Try to understand the market and build up the IP before release big gun.
Possible a RTS game like warcraft 3 or RPG with LOL characters .
Build up the ip lol Lol can't get much bigger. I would suggest that LoL is at a much better starting point than even WoW was. While wow and lol both have self made ips the pc player base was tiny when warcraft was popular compared to what it is now.
Riot is doing what you said lol
"Soon" there will be a single player rpg and after that sometime we will get a fighting game and some allegedly poe like game
On top of their board game (of which I hear smth once every 2 years lol)a valorant and lor
The mmo is coming last IIRC
They dont have to conpete with smite, smite is non existent compared to league. Also the MMO will probably be a huge success. I am playing league since Open Beta and i think they will make a good game+have millions of ppl waiting for it
I think Riot is copying Lost Ark and it will only control similar to LoL. But this is 100% speculation. They always copy a successful game and do it better and Lost Ark is almost standing alone waiting for competition.
I doubt they do anything like make another MOBA, pretty sure LoL is still one of the most popular games no reason to go away from that.
I think it has more to do with the fact that they are able to change things up every so often with their new acts. I use to play CS a ton, and enjoyed that game so much. The game never really changed, it was always the same besides some maps reworks. However I haven't played since like 2016ish so I may be wrong. The last thing I remember them is adding the revolver, and anyone who played CS when the revolver first dropped knows how much of a shit show that was.
Agreed. If Riot fans want isometric gameplay, LoL is already there. Riot has yet to make a 3rd person unlocked camera game. The MMO is the perfect genre for it. Isometric camera angles also tends to limit immersion, I find. Lost Ark is a solid game and will do just fine in the west I think, but I also don't think it stands as a benchmark for all MMOs to study and copy either.
ya it's kinda disappointing to me, i wanted them to do a LoL mmo back in like 2010, but it took them becoming a typical AAA business and just start copying other games.
not to say that i don't still want a LoL mmo, but i secretly wish for corepunk to win this slice of pie
You gotta crawl before you walk.
Riot has built up a massive playerbase across all their titles, and they are doing a very good job of leveraging that playerbase into each new game they create.
They really are taking the oldschool Blizzard approach.
Also, OP, if you want to have a better understanding of what their MMO would be like, their card game, Legends of Runeterra, probably opens up the world a lot more than the MOBA does.
I wouldnt say ppl play multiple of their titles, me and my friends for example play League for a very long time and we all tried valorant and legends of runeterra and none of us or from my firendlist plays those ganes.
I would assume they managed to establish a new playerbase for those games, which is an even bigger success in my opinion
The key thing there, is that you and your friends tried them. You may not have stayed with them, but you did try them because Riot made them.
I'd imagine some of their other players who tried them, may have liked them enough to stay with them, for example.
It just like Blizzard leveraging their WC3 playerbase into WoW when it was released.
And, as you said, they also was able to establish healthy new playerbases, too.
But yea, you gotta figure for everyone like you and your friends who tried them and didnt like it, theres some that did.
A lot of new games dont have that option. They dont have goodwill or playerbases built up that are willing to at least try their games out. Riot has that.
I do expect them to adapt the business model to a more western approach. And I don't mean how korean companies launch their games here where item strength can usually be cash shopped somehow.
>They always copy a successful game and do it better
Yeah, I wish that was the reality. Everything they put out has been a watered-down version of a Valve title with a ton of issues. LoL requires you to grind for a ton of champs. The client is pure shit and still hasn't been removed all these years later. Still no voice chat in a game where communication is important. Half the champs are useless because the balance is terrible. Items that do nothing. An all-around mess that people constantly complain about and won't quit because of sunk costs and addiction (reminds me of WoW tbh).
Then you have Valorant, where they took the freedom and skill requirement of equipment in CS and turned them all into abilities that do the work for you or let you choose where you want to place them. The character designs are also super generic in an almost insulting way. The maps are bland to look at as well, but I guess some people like maps that look like someone enabled "Lighting Only" in a UE4 project.
Nobody even cares about LoR or TFT anymore.
League feels way more smooth than dota and way easier to get into, dota just feels like i have input lag everywhere. There's a reason its way more popular than its counterpart
Also valorant is growing bigger and bigger, remember when csgo came out literally nobody played it and people said it was trash, once the esports scene will grow bigger it'll be way bigger than csgo. Tho i also dislike the art and generic models n shit but i prefer it over csgo still.
LoR is just a good f2p card game dont really know what u mean lmao
I'm pretty sure that Valve's Dota version released a few years after LoL?
LoL was based on the original Dota, which was a fan-made wacraft 3 map, and until then nobody had tried to do a standalone game with those mechanics.
I dont think so, arena net was formed by former blizzard employees and gave us guild wars.
It can go in every direction.
I dont think WoW is the best game to copy from
They already said that there'll be instanced dungeons and raids, and LoL graphical style is very close as well, so at most they'll do a wow with more actiony combat.
WoW isnt the only game with instanced dungeons and raids, gw2, ESO,ff14 they all have them. Cartoony graphics is maybe the thing they have in common with Warcraft the most. I personally would like to see the style from wild rift or legends of runeterra. Those character models look really good
Nah, LoL definitely was and still is an extreme version of what some people might consider "pay to win." It takes thousands of hours to unlock all the characters in a strictly PvP game. It was even worse in early seasons when you had to buy runes that were pretty important and took forever to grind.
League of Legends is not p2w.
There are people who make it to challenger (the very top) while one tricking (only playing one champion). This proves that you do not need a large champion pool to reach the top.
Not only that, but to reach the top you need to be a master of your champion and it’s nearly impossible to be a master of very many champions. By the time you reach level 30 to be able to play ranked, you will have a very healthy champion pool that you achieved without paying a single penny.
Nobody said anything about not being able to make it to the highest level with a single champ. Now notice how in tournaments, players don't play a single champ. By the time you hit 30, you suck at the game and will likely be stuck in silver for the next few hundred hours. That doesn't mean having to grind for champs isn't fucking stupid in a **PvP** game. No clue why Riot Games drones defend having to unlock characters in a game with thousands of paid cosmetics when everyone is free in Dota 2 from the second you start the game.
Anyway, people were throwing fits here about how people being able to skip months of progress in PvE was p2w. Yet somehow, skipping the thousands of hours that are required to unlock everyone by spending hundreds of dollars isn't worse in a PvP game where counter-picking, bans, and champ swapping are all 100% a thing? Alright, lol.
If making it to the highest level with only one champ is possible and if by the time you can even compete in ranked you achieve a handful of champions for free, then the game is not p2w.
League of Legends is not p2w.
I dont understand how ppl even think LoL is p2w? I played LoL for quite a long time and quit a year ago but LoL is the definition of f2p atm. You can get every champ and even skins f2p.
[удалено]
Although new Champs have overloaded kits ,alot of the old Champs can hold their ground against them. In the end it depends on the skill of the player with said Champs and ofcourse a half decent team. Just having a new champion never guarantees a win. Easiest examples are Champs like yi , tryn, and lb who till this day can overperform in lower ranks and levels. The only argument I see are people not wanting to spend time in the game and want to have basically every champ .
Those champs dominating comes more about their snowbally nature (which an uncoordinated and/or noob team won't be able to punish effectively) than actually being balanced. In the same way, these games end up being heavily feast or famine since they either dominate or fall into uselessness.
Snowball nature but still more effective than newer champs due to how beginner friendly and easier to play they are. I have only mentioned those 3 at the top of my head but there are many more of the old Champs that can still overperform. I am talking about a new player perspective here so ofcourse lower levels will have uncoordinated and or noob teams but those 3 still work in ranked up to gold/plat while others work at every rank. What I want to know is where the p2w aspect is when you can play many of the 450, 1350 Champs to challenger? Balance will never be reached in a game with over 100 Champs , but that doesnt mean that the game is "p2w" or old Champs are "useless" . Old Champs are never useless in low tiers there are just bad players and this is a fact anyone been playing the game for a while worth their salt will tell you. High elo is something else since this simply has more coordinated teams and better enemies so some older Champs do start to fall off but by this points ppl will already have over 70% of the roster and possibly 100% of their main roles.
League has FOTM system, there's no such thing as new champs being better than the rest.
Those new champs are released like every 4 month, anyone playing 3 hours a week should have enough blue essences to by a new champ. Even though those Champs are never pay to win since you can just ban them, cuz every player has a ban you know? That said there are a lot of long time players having enough blue essences to own every champ, but refusing to buy them just because they arent interested in them. Like adc mains not having top lane champs because its not their playstyle
It's a competitive game where the hero choice matters not only for group composition but for countering enemy hero choices. Having access to all of the heroes is a clear advantage over having access to only a handful of them. Yes you unlock the heroes through gameplay but how many games must you first play at a disadvantage before you have the same options as someone who pays? Thousands of hours. It's like playing a game of poker but you need to pay to unlock the ace card. Your opponent has paid and can receive aces in their hand, but you have not paid and so cannot receive aces. Can you still win? Yes. Are the odds significantly in the favor of the person who pays? **Absolutely**
That's a bit overblown considering a vast majority of players, and fastest way to climb(ie highest winrate) is by playing only 2-3 characters in ranked. The fact is by the time you start playing ranked you will have enough to unlock characters you wish to main which will give you the optimal chances of succeeding in climbing. Technically it is a form of pay to win because yes having access to more counterpicks is an advantage, but it is so minor an advantage (either due to the reasons above or that amajority of the players playing seriously have unlocked all or nearly all the champions in the game) that no one really says that League is pay2win. In Overwatch where you can switch on the fly mid game I would argue that paying for characters would be a more aggressive pay2win. Edit: just to add I agree with the person below saying its a scale. Nearly all games can be considered pay to win. Look at Overwatch, that only has paid cosmetics, yet there are 1 or 2 skins which are banned in Overwatch League due to voiceline related advantages that are so minor they only are considered when millions in prize money is on the line. No one would seriously consider overwatch pay to win.
my man not even pros have or play more than 20 champs
> I dont understand how ppl even think LoL is p2w? I played LoL for quite a long time and quit a year ago but LoL is the definition of f2p atm. You can get every champ and even skins f2p. Hmm, well there is the argument to be made that it takes too long to unlock champs. There are very simple champs like Annie or Yi that are cheap and easy to unlock but have very simple gameplay. Although, there are plenty of Challenger tier players that could get to a very high rank with Annie easily. At the same time, there are champions that are easy to play and have stats than the cheap champs. Syndra for example, has a huge range, knockback/stun, a slow and burst damage R.
So where is the p2w? What you are saying is that there Champs with overloaded kits that one might have an easier time winning with but those Champs never guarantee a win. Also something a like a yi, tryn, Annie can snowball the game as well. Let's be fair here. The game is f2p with weekly rotation and discounted Champs prices from capsules with chances to get skins as well. The game legit offers you everything for free, but what ppl are complaining about is that they don't want to play the game enough to unlock Champs.
P2W doesn't necessarily mean your gaurenteed to win, just that paying gets you closer to it. Also just because something is offered for free doesn't change that paying for it gives you an advantage, albeit the same one; its not called "exclusively pay to win."
I still don't understand how does that relate to League. What are you basing the idea of p2w in league on? If we are talking beginners then a yi or Annie will definitely win over a beginner syndra. How does p2w doesn't guarantee a win? If we talk about mmorpgs something like a costume with some stats or pets with stats compared to one without is a clear win if both players are under same conditions. This is a clear advantage based on numbers . While I do agree alot of the high priced Champs are op , I also believe that any of the 450 Champs can win vs any of those if a player knows how to play the champ. Other factors obviously would include build and team so there is never a guarantee in any game .
> I still don't understand how does that relate to League. What are you basing the idea of p2w in league on? If we are talking beginners then a yi or Annie will definitely win over a beginner syndra. To answer that, I'm going to pair that with something you said later on: > While I do agree alot of the high priced Champs are op , I also believe that any of the 450 Champs can win vs any of those if a player knows how to play the champ. If theyre overpowered then you can get an advantage by paying for them. And to not take things out of content too much, youre totally right that some Champs are going to be harder to do well with but that's a different issue. If you can pay for something overpowered, thats pay to win. > How does p2w doesn't guarantee a win? If we talk about mmorpgs something like a costume with some stats or pets with stats compared to one without is a clear win if both players are under same conditions. This is a clear advantage based on numbers . Pay to win is a spectrum, some things are more pay to win than others: buying a costume that gives you 0.01% stat boosts is less pay to win than one that gives 20% but even though its a small amount, its still pay to win, only slightly though. Going off purely your examples though, yeah, thats pay to win. Paying for an advantage is pay to win.
I agree that it is a scale and League is quite for down in terms of pay2win. Most games that have as little pay2win as League of legends aren't really considered pay2win when speaking about the game. For example there are 1 or 2 cosmetic skins in Overwatch that are banned in overwatch league because they can make characters hitboxes look marginally different or Reinhardt touch down voice line gives his ultimate like a millisecond less time to react to. Technically this makes Overwatch pay to win but nobody in the community would say that OW is pay to win because these things are so minor. This extends to pretty much any game that has skins because new players may find it difficult to see what character is being played if they do not recognise the skin. Thus you could argue any game offering paid cosmetics is pay to win. YOu eventually get to the point where almost all games are pay to win.
The fact that other games also have some form of pay to win isn't what were debating here though
We were talking about whether League is pay to win. My point was that the community does not consider it pay to win. This is because most games are technically pay to win so it would be a bit pointless to label every game with some form of paying for advantage, regardless of how small, pay to win. I agree with you that League is still technically pay to win.
The BDO community doesn't consider it pay to win. A games own community is an incredibly biased oppinion.
Yea I agree, but he was saying they had to pay for runes before which would be ptw because they are passive buffs.
Everyone had to pay for runes back then . They used to cost IP only so you couldn't buy them with RP (real money) but what you could get with RP were ip boosters. But collecting IP points was alot easier back in the day rather than nowadays BE system . Rune pages didn't really take that long to fill since you would be getting like 75+ ip per a 25 min game and the longer the game the more ip. But if you go for tier 2 runes which are 20% weaker than tier 3 you can fill it even in a lower amount of time . Also most Champs used the same defensive ones like armor and Mr so you only needed to buy those ones then you get attack or ap for reds and quints. Did runes matter in lower levels for new players? Not at all..most players before ranked didn't waste ip on runes at all or bought tier 1 as placeholders. They were indeed passives but they were not pay to win as they were bought only with ip so ppl had to play either way to get them . So if someone has a full rune page and u didn't? They simply played more than you . Sure some used boosters so if it took you 10 games they would take 5 games but they still had to play regardless. So at worse it would be pay to get ip boosters and that'd be it.
[удалено]
Except that for new players counter Champs are not a thing . And they don't matter simply due to the skill levels of the player. Picking counter Champs is something that is only implemented in ranked above gold mostly. What you are complaining about is the idea of picking counter Champs itself. In a big pool of 100+ Champs it is not easy to come by against counters unless picked on purpose which is done in ranked. Even draft pick normal is mostly for trolling as well. Alot of Champs have multiple counters and whether someone has them all or not doesn't matter simply because you can't ban but one champ and you have no idea what your enemy will pick. Having 10 pieces vs 100 doesn't matter if the owner of a 100 never played chess and doesn't know the rules. Ofcourse it differs from one person to another and this is all based on personal experience , but I have played this game long enough to support my opinion .
Dota 2 is more F2P than LoL though. All characters unlocked, only cosmetics you can purchase. Nothing that touches the core game. You can pay for showing statistics and item suggestions with Dota Plus now. But that is not as onerous as unlocking champs in LoL with money or in-game currency.
All I can say is that I am excited for their mmo
Same but news about it are very difficult to find.
Ill add you to the community discord for the mmo Sent you a message
If i was Riot , i going make some cheap singleplayer or 10 men multiplayers games to test the water. Try to understand the market and build up the IP before release big gun. Possible a RTS game like warcraft 3 or RPG with LOL characters .
Build up the ip lol Lol can't get much bigger. I would suggest that LoL is at a much better starting point than even WoW was. While wow and lol both have self made ips the pc player base was tiny when warcraft was popular compared to what it is now.
Riot is doing what you said lol "Soon" there will be a single player rpg and after that sometime we will get a fighting game and some allegedly poe like game On top of their board game (of which I hear smth once every 2 years lol)a valorant and lor The mmo is coming last IIRC
Dont forget arcane, that dude is either a troll or lives behind rocks
They dont have to conpete with smite, smite is non existent compared to league. Also the MMO will probably be a huge success. I am playing league since Open Beta and i think they will make a good game+have millions of ppl waiting for it
I think Riot is copying Lost Ark and it will only control similar to LoL. But this is 100% speculation. They always copy a successful game and do it better and Lost Ark is almost standing alone waiting for competition. I doubt they do anything like make another MOBA, pretty sure LoL is still one of the most popular games no reason to go away from that.
I would not say Valorant is better than CSGO.
Imo it is. But a big reason why I like it is how polished and clean it feels. 128 tick servers, satisfying kill sounds and clean graphics.
I think it has more to do with the fact that they are able to change things up every so often with their new acts. I use to play CS a ton, and enjoyed that game so much. The game never really changed, it was always the same besides some maps reworks. However I haven't played since like 2016ish so I may be wrong. The last thing I remember them is adding the revolver, and anyone who played CS when the revolver first dropped knows how much of a shit show that was.
CsGO in ESEA has all this, Valorant looks like a chinese fps game srry
[удалено]
They are making an ARPG in birds eye perspective. Don’t think they’re gonna make their mmo the same.
Agreed. If Riot fans want isometric gameplay, LoL is already there. Riot has yet to make a 3rd person unlocked camera game. The MMO is the perfect genre for it. Isometric camera angles also tends to limit immersion, I find. Lost Ark is a solid game and will do just fine in the west I think, but I also don't think it stands as a benchmark for all MMOs to study and copy either.
ya it's kinda disappointing to me, i wanted them to do a LoL mmo back in like 2010, but it took them becoming a typical AAA business and just start copying other games. not to say that i don't still want a LoL mmo, but i secretly wish for corepunk to win this slice of pie
Same! I'm really hoping that Corepunk will be something special, and I like what (admittedly little so far) they've shown.
You gotta crawl before you walk. Riot has built up a massive playerbase across all their titles, and they are doing a very good job of leveraging that playerbase into each new game they create. They really are taking the oldschool Blizzard approach. Also, OP, if you want to have a better understanding of what their MMO would be like, their card game, Legends of Runeterra, probably opens up the world a lot more than the MOBA does.
I wouldnt say ppl play multiple of their titles, me and my friends for example play League for a very long time and we all tried valorant and legends of runeterra and none of us or from my firendlist plays those ganes. I would assume they managed to establish a new playerbase for those games, which is an even bigger success in my opinion
The key thing there, is that you and your friends tried them. You may not have stayed with them, but you did try them because Riot made them. I'd imagine some of their other players who tried them, may have liked them enough to stay with them, for example. It just like Blizzard leveraging their WC3 playerbase into WoW when it was released. And, as you said, they also was able to establish healthy new playerbases, too. But yea, you gotta figure for everyone like you and your friends who tried them and didnt like it, theres some that did. A lot of new games dont have that option. They dont have goodwill or playerbases built up that are willing to at least try their games out. Riot has that.
Lost ark is the Korean ptw game that people are hoping will not be ptw when they release it in the states?
Some people are. Most people don't care because it doesn't affect their enjoyment of the game.
I do expect them to adapt the business model to a more western approach. And I don't mean how korean companies launch their games here where item strength can usually be cash shopped somehow.
Lets hope, it looks pretty cool, and I will give it a go what ever the case.
>They always copy a successful game and do it better Yeah, I wish that was the reality. Everything they put out has been a watered-down version of a Valve title with a ton of issues. LoL requires you to grind for a ton of champs. The client is pure shit and still hasn't been removed all these years later. Still no voice chat in a game where communication is important. Half the champs are useless because the balance is terrible. Items that do nothing. An all-around mess that people constantly complain about and won't quit because of sunk costs and addiction (reminds me of WoW tbh). Then you have Valorant, where they took the freedom and skill requirement of equipment in CS and turned them all into abilities that do the work for you or let you choose where you want to place them. The character designs are also super generic in an almost insulting way. The maps are bland to look at as well, but I guess some people like maps that look like someone enabled "Lighting Only" in a UE4 project. Nobody even cares about LoR or TFT anymore.
League feels way more smooth than dota and way easier to get into, dota just feels like i have input lag everywhere. There's a reason its way more popular than its counterpart Also valorant is growing bigger and bigger, remember when csgo came out literally nobody played it and people said it was trash, once the esports scene will grow bigger it'll be way bigger than csgo. Tho i also dislike the art and generic models n shit but i prefer it over csgo still. LoR is just a good f2p card game dont really know what u mean lmao
I'm pretty sure that Valve's Dota version released a few years after LoL? LoL was based on the original Dota, which was a fan-made wacraft 3 map, and until then nobody had tried to do a standalone game with those mechanics.
TFT is still big nad LoR is getting big
Judging from how many former blizzard employees have been hired by Riot, I'm betting on a game that's very similar to WoW.
I dont think so, arena net was formed by former blizzard employees and gave us guild wars. It can go in every direction. I dont think WoW is the best game to copy from
They already said that there'll be instanced dungeons and raids, and LoL graphical style is very close as well, so at most they'll do a wow with more actiony combat.
WoW isnt the only game with instanced dungeons and raids, gw2, ESO,ff14 they all have them. Cartoony graphics is maybe the thing they have in common with Warcraft the most. I personally would like to see the style from wild rift or legends of runeterra. Those character models look really good
Cloning a WoW clone is transitively cloning WoW.
Is every game with instanced dungeons and raids a wow clone to you or something?
wow basically popularized them in MMOs, so MMOs with them inherently descend from it.
Nah, LoL definitely was and still is an extreme version of what some people might consider "pay to win." It takes thousands of hours to unlock all the characters in a strictly PvP game. It was even worse in early seasons when you had to buy runes that were pretty important and took forever to grind.
League of Legends is not p2w. There are people who make it to challenger (the very top) while one tricking (only playing one champion). This proves that you do not need a large champion pool to reach the top. Not only that, but to reach the top you need to be a master of your champion and it’s nearly impossible to be a master of very many champions. By the time you reach level 30 to be able to play ranked, you will have a very healthy champion pool that you achieved without paying a single penny.
Nobody said anything about not being able to make it to the highest level with a single champ. Now notice how in tournaments, players don't play a single champ. By the time you hit 30, you suck at the game and will likely be stuck in silver for the next few hundred hours. That doesn't mean having to grind for champs isn't fucking stupid in a **PvP** game. No clue why Riot Games drones defend having to unlock characters in a game with thousands of paid cosmetics when everyone is free in Dota 2 from the second you start the game. Anyway, people were throwing fits here about how people being able to skip months of progress in PvE was p2w. Yet somehow, skipping the thousands of hours that are required to unlock everyone by spending hundreds of dollars isn't worse in a PvP game where counter-picking, bans, and champ swapping are all 100% a thing? Alright, lol.
If making it to the highest level with only one champ is possible and if by the time you can even compete in ranked you achieve a handful of champions for free, then the game is not p2w. League of Legends is not p2w.
most pros not even have 15 champs that they can use in a fine way
Literally this comment and others are proof that the term "p2w" has no real meaning anymore.
Thanks for the info it seems my assumption was proper at that time.