FORESTRY | 2014-10-07 07:22:29 |
Hearthstone you have to pay money to get enough packs to be competitive, and from personal research ive found that on average people spend $250 in packs... of course theres loons out there that want a full golden collection... from various tests, people have concluded that it takes around 670 dollars to unlock all the collection in non golden version... which to me personally is INSANITY.
Spectromancer might be for those stronger in will and mind, while Hearthstone is better suited for people with lower IQs looking for a more casual gaming experience.
I play both, so im not talking out of my ass. StephanieF | 2014-10-10 07:59:47 |
I have seen this of course already before the game was out, that Hearthstone is just another money-trap of very greedy Blizzard, so I was never tempted to even install it!
But nice to have this confirmed from a player now, who has experienced it self, Forestry for the warning!
I think, 670$ can be invested better...
Krugopryad | 2014-10-10 09:20:49 |
I've been playing Hearthstone for about 6-7 months and hadn't spent a single penny on it. I've got all playable legendaries I need and consider myself more or less competitive, the main problem is lack of time. Playing 1-2 arenas a day (with average results around 4-10 wins) you can get all cards you want, do not hesitate to turn useless cards into dust and craft cards you are lack of. So, from my point of view, it's definitely not a money-trap. You just have a choice - to invest your money or your free time. StephanieF | 2014-10-10 09:42:31 |
So, from my point of view, it's definitely not a money-trap. You just have a choice - to invest your money or your free time.
Forestry...
FORESTRY | 2014-10-10 19:21:53 |
So, 3 hours a day for 8 months just to unlock all cards?... im free to play too, since around March, and i only have 2 legendaries and missing most epics... so idk, its either a time sink or a money trap, because most peple dont either have that much patience and end up paying, or dont have that much free time.
EDit: or you can spend all day in Casual, farming with some variant of Warlock Zoo, but that gets boring real fast. Modified by FORESTRY on 2014-10-10 19:45:39 Krugopryad | 2014-10-10 20:11:51 |
So, 3 hours a day for 8 months just to unlock all cards?
It just depends on your aim. For me it is fun to unlock cards by playing arenas step by step. But if you want to compete on the highest level beating top 10 legend each month, then money is surely not enough. You still won't be competetive against those no-lifers who spend 16 hours a day playing ladder. StephanieF | 2014-10-10 22:48:58 |
They play 24 hours a day lol... FORESTRY | 2014-10-11 00:12:57 |
... It just depends on your aim. For me it is fun to unlock cards by playing arenas step by step. But if you want to compete on the highest level beating top 10 legend each month, then money is surely not enough. You still won't be competetive against those no-lifers who spend 16 hours a day playing ladder.
This is true, for some of them it has become a job, and their boss is Twitch and the audience Siriusssdz | 2015-03-26 12:24:44 |
Thing is that Spectromancer has no polish, won't get patched anytime soon (looking at Time Class) and remains for a core audience, not profitable. i played spectromancer and hearthstone both for many hours and i enjoy hearthstone right now. i hoped that the Devs here would do something with spectromancer, but they just let it bury until everyone forgets about it. a shame.
Sinist | 2015-03-26 13:17:15 |
Thing is that Spectromancer has no polish, won't get patched anytime soon (looking at Time Class) and remains for a core audience, not profitable. i played spectromancer and hearthstone both for many hours and i enjoy hearthstone right now. i hoped that the Devs here would do something with spectromancer, but they just let it bury until everyone forgets about it. a shame. So? Are there that many polish players? And in HS you have your own imba set to abuse Cooler | 2015-03-27 19:40:48 |
but they just let it bury until everyone forgets about it. a shame. It's a lifecycle of EVERY game.
Wavelength | 2015-04-07 23:24:03 |
i hoped that the Devs here would do something with spectromancer, but they just let it bury until everyone forgets about it. a shame. What do you want the devs to do with it, exactly? It's almost in a perfect place balance-wise, and adding too many classes or features is just going to ruin what's good about it.
monoVamp | 2015-04-08 09:10:29 |
-more offline-stuff like in Magic...
-allow us to create stuff there, for example a new Campaign...
-give also Glory for offline or other bonuses/rewards...
Basically the row is endless...thousands things you can do...but WE have to be part of it like in all good modern games!
CyberneticPony | 2015-04-08 10:21:48 |
... It's a lifecycle of EVERY game.
See Starcraft, Chess, Go, Civilisation, DotA ... the list goes on.
Cooler | 2015-04-08 13:59:28 |
See Starcraft, Chess, Go, Civilisation, DotA ... the list goes on.
Ok, Starcraft - 1998 year, Brood War - 99 year. What actually Blizzard did with it later, what improvements? Considering it is a major cyber-sport title! Here you can see it's history: http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/StarCraft_version_history - most patches are bug/exploit/compatibility fixes or minor changes. Chess, Go? Who are developers of these games? ;-)
Modified by Cooler on 2015-04-08 14:01:12 Sinist | 2015-04-08 15:55:13 |
... DotA ... the list goes on.
which proves that popular games are not always the best And developers are obviously concentrated on AM2 now
Claudob | 2015-04-09 05:27:10 |
Chess, Go? Who are developers of these games? ;-) Wrong question. Who software developers?
StephanieF | 2015-04-09 20:28:59 |
Oh, you are alive?!
Have you found your russian Steph?
CyberneticPony | 2015-04-13 13:59:07 |
... Ok, Starcraft - 1998 year, Brood War - 99 year. What actually Blizzard did with it later, what improvements? Considering it is a major cyber-sport title! Here you can see it's history: http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/StarCraft_version_history - most patches are bug/exploit/compatibility fixes or minor changes.Chess, Go? Who are developers of these games? ;-)
Blizzard allowed the COMMUNITY to pick up their game and balance the maps when the units themselves entered a stable state of balance, and then they released a sequel. All this game needs are changes; the problem is the frequency and the sense behind them. Right now for example, I find 3 or so factions have too high stats; a lot of players simply play them solely because they are so broken, and this is boring. I have to keep blacklisting people who play time/death/control just to get some variety!
Modified by CyberneticPony on 2015-04-13 14:00:01 Sinist | 2015-04-13 15:01:23 |
Hearthstone mech decks, dr Boom, etc are much more broken and boring and need blacklisting. So?
monoVamp | 2015-04-13 17:12:40 |
That's no argument, to compare it with HS lol!
Imo Pony should definitely blacklist all monoClass-players or Alts... Modified by monoVamp on 2015-04-13 17:13:05 Tendou | 2015-04-13 19:52:34 |
That's no argument, to compare it with HS lol! Imo Pony should definitely blacklist all monoClass-players or Alts...
I recommend starting it over here heh :DDD. CyberneticPony | 2015-04-14 22:59:34 |
Hearthstone mech decks, dr Boom, etc are much more broken and boring and need blacklisting. So? Hearthstone is a terrible game designed for stupid people (aka Blizzard apologists), and I think we were talking about the lifecycle of development, not about balance here. This game clearly has better balance than Hearthstone, but has worse balance than Starcraft. The only reason I mentioned my dislike for mono players was that I feel like with more frequent changes, these players would be much less problematic than they currently are. Also, this is kinda getting off-topic now, so I started a new thread.
Modified by CyberneticPony on 2015-04-14 23:00:27 Sinist | 2015-04-15 02:04:41 |
So? There is hardly any game (except chess)) with balance better than Starcraft (1, 2nd is a joke compared to original)... but it doesnt make sense to compare RTS with card games anyway. Anyway, I doubt that there is serious disbalance in Spectromancer; with probable exception of time, all classes are more or less equal. Even death and control, which shine only in hands of very experienced players and suck otherwise (like mutalisks in SC)
Cooler | 2015-04-15 19:07:57 |
This game clearly has better balance than Hearthstone, but has worse balance than Starcraft. The only reason I mentioned my dislike for mono players was that I feel like with more frequent changes, these players would be much less problematic than they currently are. Also, this is kinda getting off-topic now, so I started a new thread.
BTW, I was mono player in Starcraft and Warcraft :) I'm human and don't want to be anything else! :)
Jeronimo | 2015-04-16 01:00:30 |
... BTW, I was mono player in Starcraft and Warcraft :) I'm human and don't want to be anything else! :)
I want try to guess your races: Terran and Undead?
CyberneticPony | 2015-04-16 01:32:32 |
... I want try to guess your races: Terran and Undead?
I thought he meant Terran and Human, but don't tournaments in WC3/SC1 or 2 actually require you to stick to one faction, whereas Spectromancer specifically disallows this?
Sinist | 2015-04-16 12:33:59 |
Tournaments in two very different games on two very different scales, surprise!
Jeronimo | 2015-04-17 02:12:05 |
... I thought he meant Terran and Human, but don't tournaments in WC3/SC1 or 2 actually require you to stick to one faction, whereas Spectromancer specifically disallows this?
Yes, I misunderstood in a first read and interpreted he reasserted being a "human by nature" (homo sapiens sapiens) even if he would only stick to one race/class... because is commonly accepted that mono-players are... inhuman?? I thought he had made a philosophical statement there.
Modified by Jeronimo on 2015-04-17 02:23:02
... BTW, I was mono player in Starcraft and Warcraft :) I'm human and don't want to be anything else! :)
I was mono player too. Protoss only. And almost all progamers in Starcraft was mono players.
Modified by Sinot on 2015-04-17 03:53:08 Siriusssdz | 2015-04-21 12:16:01 |
Well i want Spectromancer to get recognition, for it's still one of my favourite games. The RNG in Hearthstone and low skill in some classes like Face Hunter are both examples where blizzard is going to work on it. For this makes it more like poker without the strategy of looking at reactions etc. Back to Spectromancer, well. I would hope that it gets some better design, you can see that this is an old game. The example of starcraft is really good, because they made a sequel with better graphics. Spectromancer will put most off with these old graphics alone. A shame, because it's wonderful from a balance point in most of these classes, i loved holy, illusion, vampire etc. Well, this forum looks old too, the game modes are off putting for me, with the exception if the usual ranked mode. I remember the same bunch of people in this mode when i played it daily, which was odd. I like games with more variety of a player pool, which brings me back to the problem. Try searching for a community anywhere else than in this forum (reddit, twitch, youtube).
Claudob | 2015-04-22 06:33:20 |
Well i want Spectromancer to get recognition, for it's still one of my favourite games. The RNG in Hearthstone and low skill in some classes like Face Hunter are both examples where blizzard is going to work on it. For this makes it more like poker without the strategy of looking at reactions etc. Back to Spectromancer, well. I would hope that it gets some better design, you can see that this is an old game. The example of starcraft is really good, because they made a sequel with better graphics. Spectromancer will put most off with these old graphics alone. A shame, because it's wonderful from a balance point in most of these classes, i loved holy, illusion, vampire etc. Well, this forum looks old too, the game modes are off putting for me, with the exception if the usual ranked mode. I remember the same bunch of people in this mode when i played it daily, which was odd. I like games with more variety of a player pool, which brings me back to the problem. Try searching for a community anywhere else than in this forum (reddit, twitch, youtube).
The graphics in general is good. We just need to make some improvements. For example aspect of 16 : 9. Then you can show the cards of the opponent on the same screen. What would you like to improve the graphics? Support 3D Vision? Or something else?
Siriusssdz | 2015-04-22 10:20:26 |
I don't expect this game to have 3d at all, no need for that. I just expect it to have a future, vision, roadmap of any sort. If that involves an engine that's easier to work with like unity, a revamped graphic style, that's not looking like a 2008 school project, fine. Or just mobile accessability to not fire up my notebook, when i'm not at home. Because this game doesn't go to lengths like magic, you could play some rounds on the go from 5-10 minutes. I know that there's an iphone/ipad app, but just look at other digital card games. There's android too, >80% marketshare, that could get some players in and money too with iap.
I don't think that the devs have any further plans with this game as it seems "finished" already. Minecraft was finished with version 1.0 too for the most part, but look at the platforms where they are still working on. Finishing a product doesn't mean it can starve to death now.
Cooler | 2015-04-22 10:41:17 |
I don't think that the devs have any further plans with this game as it seems "finished" already. Minecraft was finished with version 1.0 too for the most part, but look at the platforms where they are still working on. Finishing a product doesn't mean it can starve to death now.
Have a look at ProSpectro version of the game: http://www.prospectro.net/spectromancer/444-prospectro-spectromancer.html Or similar mod from Tosher. Some games are extremely configurable and moddable, some are not moddable at all. Spectro is somewhere between of them.
a revamped graphic style, that's not looking like a 2008 school project Any example? Cooler | 2015-04-22 10:51:12 |
The example of starcraft is really good, because they made a sequel with better graphics. Spectromancer will put most off with these old graphics alone.
Spectromancer itself is a sequel to Astral Tournament with better graphics :)
Modified by Cooler on 2015-04-22 10:52:16 Siriusssdz | 2015-04-22 11:44:48 |
thank you for the reply, Cooler! I'm not that good with the russian language, so this means that there are in fact possibilities to revamp Spectromancer (widescreen for example) through projects like ProSpectro? That would be awesome.
[quote] Any example?[/quote] It's fantasy-related too. I don't mean that it should have the design of games like magic duel of the planeswalkers for example for they have a bigger team to work on things like these. I just hope for changes in that department at all, anything appreciated.
[quote]Spectromancer itself is a sequel to Astral Tournament with better graphics :) [/quote]
So there's maybe hope that in some years spectromancer might get the same treatment and resurrection like the original Astral Tournament gets with Astral Heroes right now.
Cooler | 2015-04-22 18:03:00 |
I'm not that good with the russian language, so this means that there are in fact possibilities to revamp Spectromancer (widescreen for example) through projects like ProSpectro? That would be awesome.
It's possible, but very difficult: both complicated and cumbersome, since you have to remake all the graphics and rewrite all the UI code. Very large amount of work, nearly equal to amount of work needed to create the same game from scratch. But it's quite easy to add simple features like "Copy incoming chat message to clipboard" (requested by Kealah) or displaying advanced statistics.
Ohh, it looks very cartoonish. I'm not against cartoonish style at all (finally, it's simpler and cheaper) and sometimes it's really cool. Some people like it, some don't. For me it associates with flash games and their gameplay cliches. I really like HS graphics. I've looked through many games of this genre and HS looks really outstanding. But this is the only example I'd like to follow, and unfortunately this example is very expensive. Most other games looks pretty poor (from graphical point of view). Sometimes I found something interesting in graphics (art/effects) and think "Wow, this could be awesome!", but we have to keep the balance between usability and visuals and our priority is for usability (btw, it's very interesting to see how this balance was kept in HS - they thought out every detail in order to not worsen usability).
So there's maybe hope that in some years spectromancer might get the same treatment and resurrection like the original Astral Tournament gets with Astral Heroes right now.
Sure! Siriussdz | 2015-04-26 16:14:11 |
... It's possible, but very difficult: both complicated and cumbersome, since you have to remake all the graphics and rewrite all the UI code. Very large amount of work, nearly equal to amount of work needed to create the same game from scratch. But it's quite easy to add simple features like "Copy incoming chat message to clipboard" (requested by Kealah) or displaying advanced statistics.
Looks like it needs to get rewritten from scratch, preferrably with the works from the same artist.
... Ohh, it looks very cartoonish. I'm not against cartoonish style at all (finally, it's simpler and cheaper) and sometimes it's really cool. Some people like it, some don't. For me it associates with flash games and their gameplay cliches. I really like HS graphics. I've looked through many games of this genre and HS looks really outstanding. But this is the only example I'd like to follow, and unfortunately this example is very expensive. Most other games looks pretty poor (from graphical point of view).Sometimes I found something interesting in graphics (art/effects) and think "Wow, this could be awesome!", but we have to keep the balance between usability and visuals and our priority is for usability (btw, it's very interesting to see how this balance was kept in HS - they thought out every detail in order to not worsen usability).
yep, it's cartoonish and mostly not the way to go for this game. it's just what i have found visually quite comparable to the size of your team of devs. they got their problems too in case of returning users and so on, but i think they got it right from a design-perspective. HS has many flaws that other games can take advantage of, but it may be the visually best developed online card game right now, from my opinion. it's entertaining to just watch it, that's why it's listed so high on twitch for example. it's over the top. But it's shallow, Spectromancer is not. There's no RNG in Spectromancer too afaik (you can guess the opponents cards quite good).
I'm very happy that you still care about this game and that it's not entirely abandened! I'm looking forward to Astral Heroes. |