And neither of those examples are of shooters, this is. There are F2P shooters available where you don't have to play as someone else's fodder. Here's the thing, me saying that this doesn't sound fun is pointing out that I don't think it has an appeal sufficient to support the population to make it possible. On the other hand, you said earlier in this thread that you want this to happen so you can play as LSM heroically fending off hordes of Orks. You're not even saying that this appeals to you, you're hoping that someone else will have fun doing this, for your benifit. That's a far less logical argument than me saying, "I wouldn't enjoy this and therefore I don't think that very many others would." Once again, Dead by Daylight isn't a shooter, the fodder players aren't even supposed to fight the killer, they are trying to run away, its design intent is too significantly different. MOBAs are also very different games, the weaker characters aren't designed to win by superior numbers alone, they play at the same numbers but certain characters are given different skills that makes them dangerous in different ways. Its asymmetric, not inferior. In addition to the simple logical conclusion that I don't think that a faction that relies on superior numbers to win will actually attain them, I also provided numbers. LSM greatly outnumber Orks, for this idea to have any chance a huge influx of players would have to sprout up and stay around despite dying over and over again. What appeal do you think there is for playing an inferior faction when you can play a competitive faction in the same game, or just play a different game where you don't have to average a 100 deaths per kill? Because apparently you're not even included in this mystery demographic of people who play shooters to die a lot for the entertainment of others.
Actually what you are describing is what they are doing now, adding new features like campaign before they have fixed what is in game. Yes, you want to slow loss as much as possible, because the people who have already purchased the game are going to be what encourages new players. But, as callous as it seems to say, you have already payed your big sum, and if you are not inclined to make further purchases you are a money sink. They have to encourage new spending (by making the current micro-transactions more appealing, and adding more options to them) as well as encouraging new players to spend. Honestly, I do see many of the points people are making, I think our main disagreement is with priorities. I think of games like SWTOR and Conan, and I see how they had great IP's, they were not great at launch, so they shifted their model and they are still alive today. Others like the matrix online did not change and failed.
Saying that none of these games are shooters is irrelevant, the point is that games can be balanced around cooperation. So dead by daylight is not a shooter, Evolve is, and follows the exact same principle. 4 people hve to work together to take down the bigger threat. I don't believe I said that was my reasoning at all, I pointed out at one point I have fun with LSM who are currently the underdogs in the meta, and that despite that I have a lot of fun (this was when I was challenged saying that it didn't matter to me because I wouldn't play Orks, and I absolutely would.) If people just play to win, we would all be playing Eldar. As for numbers, LSM have numbers now, true. But when you give people a free to play option, people will play even if its not a great game (I think this game is ok, would be even decent if proper balanced.) Will people stay around if they die over and over again? Yes, because again people tend not to care about death ratios (especiall in games where they are not listed) they care about did we win the match, and did I spend too much time waiting to spawn, both handled well with reduced spawn timers and numbers. You keep saying inferior faction, but failed to show how a faction with a 50/50 win ratio is somehow inferior. How would they be less fun? they spend the same amount of time on the battlefield, with the uneven odds their kill count would even be around the same numbers as space marines. Literally the only people I could understand complaining that this is unfair is people who consistently want to go "lone wolf", instead of actually working as a team.
I understand the OP his point of vieuw. A few years ago, when I was following the gamedev. I noticed that they wanted to make the Orcfaction a free to play faction. Right now, I love to fight against the Orc's as a LSM, especially when they show up in huge numbers. So I agree to have 1.5 more Orc's in a match, but on the other hand, let the Eldar 1.5 players less in a match. But to make it simple, what the Dev's should do is, if they wanted to make the Orc's as a free faction, is that there should be some penalty's in it. Think about SWOTOR. Game is F2P, but to join warzones or raids/dungeons, you had to pay for it to enter it. You could apply it for the Orc's and maybe for the other factions to boost up theyre population. You could for excample give them a limmited acces of the gear/mods/weapons, but for better gear/mods/weapons, they have to pay for it. Or that they never can achieve the vet. class, unless they pay for the game, things like that. Not only that, maybe they can do it for excample the Eldar's. From mine point of vieuw, I only see the Warlock, Scorpion, Swooping Hawk and the Banshee. Give the other classes that aren't popular or OP enough with the Eldarplayers, like the Fire Dragon, f2p But that is just mine thoughts Sorry for bad English, not my native language.
If this game is to survive... it needs more frequent and meaningful balance tweaks and changes. Right now it's pathetically slow.
