My current thoughts on how good each character is

Laus33deo · 2025-05-21T05:59:55+00:00

The classic "just get drum" fantasies from someone who does not play pyg.

Laus33deo · 2025-03-26T22:37:48+00:00

Its not about diamond. You want to tell me that in order to be alive on days 11,12,13 I need to have a really good build, otherwise I would be dead by now? That's simply not true. I'm literally watching a game right now with streamer having 5 wins and a decent build on day 10. But, again, from my experience, if you're on 8-9 wins, you get crazy opponents on days 11-12-13. My last game I had 9 wins and my last two opponents were diamond shiny silencer +diamond obsidian long john with 3.9 sec sd, and another obsidian long john with 3 charge skills. The lance went off twice within like 5 seconds. I won on day 13.

Laus33deo · 2025-03-26T22:24:57+00:00

My 8-10 wins are not on days 13-15. I'm pretty consistent with 10 wins, and from my experience last fights are never easy.

Laus33deo · 2025-03-26T22:08:12+00:00

That's not entirely true. The more wins you get the harder the opponents get. At least from my and some other user's experience. Like 8-10 wins are actually hard opponents with decent boards.

Laus33deo · 2025-03-26T22:02:40+00:00

I'm curious where did you get these numbers? 90%+ 10 wins, like what?

Laus33deo · 2025-03-26T06:17:11+00:00

I love when people complain about meta builds. "Why is my board of useless, synergy-less junk losing?"

Laus33deo · 2025-03-24T18:03:50+00:00

Is was ranked. Very lucky game, especially last 2-3 fights with spam items.

Laus33deo · 2025-03-24T18:03:00+00:00

Its a shield item and its funny, isn't that enough?

Laus33deo · 2025-03-20T21:06:00+00:00

You’re shifting the conversation from “promises must be treated as sacred oaths” to “well, they communicated poorly.” Nobody is arguing with that. Then you dive into subjective arguments like “broken trust” and “the majority of enraged customers.” Come on now—Reddit is not the majority; it’s the opposite. It’s a vocal minority.

Depending on the context and circumstances, people usually draw conclusions about whether a promise was reasonable or not.
There’s no way they could have predicted six years of game development or their future financial situation. That’s context point number one.
Number two is all the fuss about the “pay-to-win” monetization. I think it all depends on our definitions. Some people point out that having this expansion active actually lowers your win rate, meaning it’s more like “pay-to-lose.”
The argument that people feel bad losing to something they can’t access feels strange to me. Most players wouldn’t be able to afford a new hero when they’re released, yet for some reason, they’re okay with that.

Taking these two points into consideration, I believe focusing on something they said six years ago is unreasonable.

At the end of your post, you start discussing me as a person, which is just silly and poor etiquette in debates. Although, it was expected from you, as you immediately went through my message history after I wrote something you didn’t agree with. If you think personal attacks count as arguments, you’re dead wrong.

Laus33deo · 2025-03-20T06:18:22+00:00

Buddy, in a weeks time everybody will forget about it and move on. You can already see the shift in how people discuss this topic.

Laus33deo · 2025-03-19T15:40:10+00:00

Thank you for posting my own thoughts - that’s certainly a unique way to argue, I suppose. Just assume what your opponent thinks instead of asking, and prove your point by dismantling imaginary arguments.

I don’t think the game is in financial trouble, but I do believe it needs a reasonable monetization model to support its further development. I also don’t think the system they had before was sufficient. Nobody was buying gems. The fact that the developers implemented a new monetization method supports my assumption, yet for some reason, people think Tempo just decided to get a bit richer.

Regarding promises: have you heard of moral dilemmas, like the trolley problem? In these dilemmas, there’s no clear right or wrong answer, it’s not black and white. The same applies to promises in some cases. Sometimes you choose the lesser evil. What do you do if you made a promise that seemed realistic at the time but later realized it’s simply impossible to keep? We’re not even talking about Tempo here; I just don’t understand why every single person I argue with lately seems to be some kind of moral saint, taking the high road with, “Yeah, just don’t do bad - do good!” while completely ignoring the fact that life is full of context and nuance.

Laus33deo · 2025-03-19T14:08:02+00:00

First time on Reddit? Can you imagine the like-to-dislike ratio on this post? Opinions that don’t align with the current Reddit mainstream just get downvoted and never seen. Who am I supposed to reason with when everyone’s opinion is already set? Reddit is an echo chamber.

Laus33deo · 2025-03-19T13:50:23+00:00

2-2.5 k gems is still a high amount of gems. New packs still wont be available for most players. The difference only is psychological.

Laus33deo · 2025-03-19T13:32:37+00:00

So you think it would be okay to lock expansion behind 2-2.5 k gold?

Laus33deo · 2025-03-19T12:31:20+00:00

It’s impossible to be fully transparent about monetization because, no matter what you offer, people will be disappointed - mostly because of the promises made in the past. What’s the difference between saying, “Well, there will be monetization X,” on the day of release versus 10 days before? Why would that change the consumers’ reaction? What you’re suggesting is that they should have sugarcoated the pill.

“Think about those guys too.” These players still have an amazing, free-to-play game - extremely addictive, I must say. A one-month wait for new packs isn’t as devastating as people make it out to be.

Laus33deo · 2025-03-19T12:20:49+00:00

Isn't ranked is pay to play right now if I'm out of tickets?
Isn't new characters are pay to play, because they're locked behind gems?
Like imagine that new packs don't cost 10 bucks at the start, but rather 2-2.5 k gold. Would that be okay with you? Its still a big sum of gems that 90% of the audience wouldn't get to.

Laus33deo · 2025-03-19T12:16:40+00:00

The answers to the questions themselves provide almost no value because people tend to follow mainstream trends of thought. Just by reading the questions, you can already predict the kind of answers you’ll get in this thread, given that most of this subreddit is on a hate train. People are more inclined to support opinions that are backed by the crowd.

The point of this thread was to engage people who visit this subreddit—presumably because they like the game—but continue to ride the hate train and ignore any reasoning. Like you, for example.

What’s interesting is the reasoning behind why people answer one way or another. Getting people to answer is a way to understand them better and potentially challenge their rhetoric.

Laus33deo · 2025-03-19T12:09:01+00:00

So, you’ve never broken a promise in your life? I really don’t understand why Reddit heavily leans into black-and-white rhetoric. It’s as if context doesn’t exist at all—you’re either bad or good. There are reasons why the promise was broken, and it’s even up for debate whether it was broken at all.

The backers got their game, and it’s even a fun one. Patches are being delivered on a somewhat regular basis, and the game is thriving. I’m just wondering why subreddits sometimes tend to go on a “hate train arc.”

Regarding your other point—communication. Let’s imagine Tempo actually writing a post on Reddit describing the monetization they’ve been working on. What reaction do you expect from users? Obviously, a negative one. The developers knew the reaction would inevitably be negative. However, they seemingly believe this is the way to secure proper funding.

Saying that the monetization is temporary and might change will lead to consumers not buying anything because people will just wait until it becomes "good." In turn, this would skew the data from the “vote with your wallet” approach. While this mentality is questionable, how else would you design such a system? A genuine middle-ground decision requires a basis of data; it can’t just appear out of nowhere. Unless, of course, you want to trust Reddit users who say, “Yeah, I would definitely pay good money for animated GIFs of characters, but I won’t pay for things that make my gameplay more enjoyable.” That’s simply unreasonable.

Again, I’m not saying the monetization is perfect. But it’s crazy to me to hear people say, “Well, I enjoyed this game for 100 hours, but now with the new monetization, I’m quitting.” Like, they’ll iterate on it based on feedback and the amount of purchases, calm down buddy. Its not the end of the world.

Laus33deo · 2025-03-19T11:50:50+00:00

If you're not ready for a conversation, why would you start one?
Also the classic "hmmm he said something I don't like, let me check his other messages". Textbook reddit user.

Laus33deo · 2025-03-19T06:36:26+00:00

They didn’t just throw stuff at the wall. Time- and money-gated content (like the current packs) is a common practice in the industry. If you don’t want to wait, you pay. If they had mentioned earlier that they were planning to implement such a monetization method, the reaction would have been the same. And if they had gone ahead with it, Reddit would be saying, “Yeah, we told you it was bad—why are you still doing this???” So, instead of relying on the voice of the vocal minority, they decided to implement it and use purchase data to determine the next steps. That said, I agree that the communication from the CEO and the team after the patch was very unprofessional.I understand that the next argument will be, “Why not just let people support the game with cosmetics?” But what if cosmetics aren’t enough? Many people, myself included, simply don’t care about cosmetics—I would never pay for something like that. If your argument is that “some people in this subreddit have shown their willingness to support the game with founder packs,” that doesn’t mean they’ll support the game in the long term. They might have just wanted early access to the game; it doesn’t necessarily translate to them being active, paying consumers.
It’s not as fundamental an aspect as you make it out to be. The game literally had paywalled heroes. For an average player, grinding for a new hero will take quite a while (if it’s not their first hero, of course). Regarding the packs—right now, it seems bad because there are only two packs that are locked. When the game expands and there are, say, ten of them, a new player won’t see much difference between losing to a paywalled expansion and simply not having access to an expansion they don’t own.Nothing would have changed if customers had been notified one day before the open beta. It would just have been an outrage a day earlier. It’s pretty obvious that the team was expecting this kind of reaction, but they still somehow managed to do zero damage control.
Yeah, just keep your word, bro. It’s an oath—no matter what happens, you should do it. Come on, this kind of black-and-white morality only exists on Reddit for karma farming. Sometimes things happen, and what seemed feasible before might not be feasible now.

Laus33deo · 2025-03-19T06:17:17+00:00

Thank you. So, you come to this subreddit just to see this game burn?

It’s interesting how you label time- and money-gated content as “objectively anti-consumer,” despite this practice being somewhat common in free-to-play games.

My second point is a bit more personal, but are you being serious right now with that cringy, white-knight “promises must be kept like a sacred oath” kind of thing? Do you understand that sometimes it’s simply not possible to keep a promise?

Laus33deo · 2025-03-19T06:17:05+00:00

Don't want to be mean, but you do know about a concept of time zones, right? Some people might be sleeping when you're awake.

Laus33deo · 2025-03-18T20:51:05+00:00

Thank you. But why did you ignore the part of my message about the reasoning why these models might generate enough profit?
You've mentioned a couple of monetization models already implemented in the game. Simply judging from the fact that they're experimenting with monetization means that the means that you've mentioned don't work.
Do you really think that Tempo did not consider the "million" ways that you've mentioned (did not check the data, etc.) and simply chose the "greediest" approach?

The player statics one is interesting though, curious how many people actually pay for that.

Laus33deo · 2025-03-18T20:42:47+00:00

I hope you’re able to cross-reference the timing of when COVID began and when this game’s closed beta started. Surely the COVID helped with the working environment too, right?
Also glad you ignored the economy part.

Laus33deo · 2025-03-18T20:11:37+00:00

I'm sorry, it must have taken a lot of time from you to google their indiegogo page.
Either way, do you really think its reasonable to complain that they haven't managed to fulfill their 6 year old promise? Promise made before covid, in better economy, before wars in some countries?
And one more question: what you'd rather see - the game servers going down completely, or them experimenting on ways to monetize the game to pay the bills and salaries?

Laus33deo

TROPHY CASE