273 replies to this topic

[Skoll]

Dictations would basically turn this into Battlefield. With mechs.

[Elucid Ward]

Skoll-, on 02 November 2011 - 01:59 AM, said:

Dictations would basically turn this into Battlefield. With mechs.

More or less. If I want to gut out my Nova's ER Mediums, as well as 2 tonnes of armor in favour of an ER PPC and a UAC/5 + 1tonne ammo, and I have earned the C-Bills to pay for the parts and tech crews, why shouldn't I be able to?

[Skoll]

Because the party pooper over there won't be able to deal with the change in tactics on how to deal with you.

*** forbid you'd want to swap out an electronics package ans a SL for jumpjets...

[Skoll]

Seriously, why is g o d censored?

[Elucid Ward]

Because the board's anti profanity is set to uber sensitive. Which I think is stupid.

[Mchawkeye]

Wowzers.

I don't see the difference in game terms, between dictation and limitation. We exist, game wise, in a finite world of artificial rules. everything that exists within the game, be it from the number of rounds in a cannon to how much heat anything generates is a dictation, more of less; they all operate to impose a set of rules on how you play the game. while it all limits what you can do, someone, somewhere, dictated that those should be the limits to maintain a sense of fairness and challenge within the game

When I said "I want to dictate...blah blah blah" I was simply registering my support for those who feel that a stronger set of guidelines than, perhaps, those that exist on the table top, would be preferable to maintain game balance.

Honestly, I don't know how it should be solved. I just think it needs to be sorted out with a eye towards game play as opposed to extreme, potentially broken, customisation.

[Skoll]

I agree with you partially, that customization cannot and should not get out of hand, but if you limit things too much then you will lose a lot of strategic variety.

Edited by Skoll-, 02 November 2011 - 02:21 AM.

[Mchawkeye]

Skoll-, on 02 November 2011 - 02:20 AM, said:

I agree with you partially, that customization cannot and should not get out of hand, but if you limit things too much then you will lose a lot of strategic variety.

Absolutely.

[Elucid Ward]

Mchawkeye, on 02 November 2011 - 02:18 AM, said:

Wowzers.

Yep, you opened up a can of worms.

Mchawkeye, on 02 November 2011 - 02:18 AM, said:

I don't see the difference in game terms, between dictation and limitation.

Let me elaborate:

"Do as I say, not as I do."

A limitation, in this context, is technical and practical in nature. Thus, heat, weight and space are technical, logical and practical limitations.

A dictation, on the other hand, is simply "BECAUSE EFFIN' SAID SO". There is no reason for it, it's not practical, and it's certainly not conducive to a sense of free customisation within the bounds of what's practical.

A practical limitation here would be to make the costs involved high, so as to stave off stupid builds, as well as encourage more thoughtful modifications.

Mchawkeye, on 02 November 2011 - 02:18 AM, said:

We exist, game wise, in a finite world of artificial rules. everything that exists within the game, be it from the number of rounds in a cannon to how much heat anything generates is a dictation, more of less; they all operate to impose a set of rules on how you play the game.

You're confusing the two concepts there. A rule can be implemented because of technical limitations, physical limitations, mass limitations etc. But a rule that is effected just because you think it will balance it out in your own opinion, is not grounded in any fact or reason.

Mchawkeye, on 02 November 2011 - 02:18 AM, said:

while it all limits what you can do, someone, somewhere, dictated that those should be the limits to maintain a sense of fairness and challenge within the game

Skill should dictate the challenge, not your arbitrary opinions on how it should be played. We're not WOW kiddies. We don't need to be spoon fed gameplay. If one build is exceptionally powerful, I'm certain we can figure out a counter, and if not, THEN you can tinker with balance. But don't insult the intelligence of the player, by assuming that you know best.

Mchawkeye, on 02 November 2011 - 02:18 AM, said:

When I said "I want to dictate...blah blah blah" I was simply registering my support for those who feel that a stronger set of guidelines than, perhaps, those that exist on the table top, would be preferable to maintain game balance.

Honestly, I don't know how it should be solved. I just think it needs to be sorted out with a eye towards game play as opposed to extreme, potentially broken, customisation.

Once again, there's not reason or logic behind dictation. You're only making assumptions, without anything to back it up.

Artificial, dictated restrictions are detrimental - as I said before, look at Tribes: Ascend. That game is a royal clusterf**k because the devs decided what was best for the player base.

[Mchawkeye]

Elucid Ward, on 02 November 2011 - 02:29 AM, said:

Yep, you opened up a can of worms.



Let me elaborate:

"Do as I say, not as I do."

A limitation, in this context, is technical and practical in nature. Thus, heat, weight and space are technical, logical and practical limitations.

A dictation, on the other hand, is simply "BECAUSE EFFIN' SAID SO". There is no reason for it, it's not practical, and it's certainly not conducive to a sense of free customisation within the bounds of what's practical.

A practical limitation here would be to make the costs involved high, so as to stave off stupid builds, as well as encourage more thoughtful modifications.



You're confusing the two concepts there. A rule can be implemented because of technical limitations, physical limitations, mass limitations etc. But a rule that is effected just because you think it will balance it out in your own opinion, is not grounded in any fact or reason.



Skill should dictate the challenge, not your arbitrary opinions on how it should be played. We're not WOW kiddies. We don't need to be spoon fed gameplay. If one build is exceptionally powerful, I'm certain we can figure out a counter, and if not, THEN you can tinker with balance. But don't insult the intelligence of the player, by assuming that you know best.



Once again, there's not reason or logic behind dictation. You're only making assumptions, without anything to back it up.

Artificial, dictated restrictions are detrimental - as I said before, look at Tribes: Ascend. That game is a royal clusterf**k because the devs decided what was best for the player base.

Well, no. Assumptions, perhaps, But they are assumptions based on 25 years of playing computer games.
I'm not confusing anything. You seem unaware of the fact that computer games are designed. Design (not just game design), could be defined as a form of dictation. The boundaries imposed by the rule set are where the challenge is; working the hardest to get the most out of what we are allowed to do.

But if you want to talk about assumptions, how about "artificial dictated restrictions are detrimental...". they may well be in Tribes. That isn't to say they would be in this, or have been in every other instance.

like it or not, not every poor spud in the game is going to be to a class A-top-alpha Mechwarrior. if anything, the vast majority aren't. in order to maintain (here's that word again) balance so that everyone can enjoy it, everyone can feel involved and in some way useful, whilst at the same time providing the depth for the people like us.

I like customisation. I like imposed restrictions.

But which is better?

[Skoll]

Logically, a degree of customization set inside a regulated system.

[Knight errant]

Not being overly knowledgeable of MW lore, wouldn't weight vs power vs centre of balance be enough to guide customisation?

[Mchawkeye]

Skoll-, on 02 November 2011 - 02:49 AM, said:

Logically, a degree of customization set inside a regulated system.

Well see now, that's what I'm talking about.

[Elucid Ward]

Mchawkeye, on 02 November 2011 - 02:46 AM, said:

Well, no. Assumptions, perhaps, But they are assumptions based on 25 years of playing computer games.

Good for you, I have slightly less time invested in games, but I don't see how 25 years of gaming means that you can posit an opinion without reasoning to back it up.

Mchawkeye, on 02 November 2011 - 02:18 AM, said:

I'm not confusing anything. You seem unaware of the fact that computer games are designed. Design (not just game design), could be defined as a form of dictation.

Incorrect. Game design is built around technical limitations for the most part. You don't choose to not include something that would add to the game unless a limitation prevents you - be it financial (reason this is F2P, and not the SP cross platform game originally announced), technical (too much under the bonnet calculations for an intricate heat and subsystem management system) or time (you simply don't have enough time in the development cycle to include it). All things being feasible, you'd choose to do all of the above.

If you could do these things, and instead did not, then that would be a dictation.

Good design is based on logic and practicality. Bad design is making someone do something in a specific way because, even though for all intents and purposes allowing the freedom to make their own decision is well within reason, you've decided that you know better, and **** the players.

Mchawkeye, on 02 November 2011 - 02:18 AM, said:

The boundaries imposed by the rule set are where the challenge is; working the hardest to get the most out of what we are allowed to do.

But if you want to talk about assumptions, how about "artificial dictated restrictions are detrimental...". they may well be in Tribes. That isn't to say they would be in this, or have been in every other instance.

And this is why I keep referring to T:A. You're starting to sound like HiRez. You're justifications follow the exact same reasoning theirs did when they artificially limited the customisation ability to simply purchasing 'loud outs'.

The parallels between what they have done (and the damage to their IP has incurred due to public backlash, and fan rage), and what you are suggesting are quite clear.

Mchawkeye, on 02 November 2011 - 02:18 AM, said:

like it or not, not every poor spud in the game is going to be to a class A-top-alpha Mechwarrior. if anything, the vast majority aren't. in order to maintain (here's that word again) balance so that everyone can enjoy it, everyone can feel involved and in some way useful, whilst at the same time providing the depth for the people like us.

I like customisation. I like imposed restrictions.

But which is better?

I don't care about catering to the lowest common denominator. ****** 'em. If they get curb stomped by someone better, then they can learn to play better - in fact you learn more in losing than you do in winning. I hate the attitude that EVERYTHING in gaming should be handed to you with a happy ending. That undermines the skill aspect of the game.

By your logic there, perhaps we should handicap Olympic Athletes so Joe Blow can keep up with them in the 100m sprint? Because let's face it, Joe Blow isn't an A grade sprinter, and most of his friends and family aren't either.

Any customisation within the bounds of the TRO and practical limitations of each chasis should be acceptable.

Here's some better ideas to control customisation (which i'm actually repeating), without actually limiting it more than the source material requires, along with reasons why.

- A way of curbing stupid boating is keeping the technology's worth canon (STUPIDLY MEGA EXPENSIVE)
- Controlling inflation - expenses and overheads through transport, fuel, repairs, maintenance, ammunition etc (so as to not trivialise the monetary system). Having enough money sinks in the game will mean that accruing vast riches will actually take hard work.
- Limiting the AMMOUNT of equipment one can possess through dropship and warehouse storage space. Too much **** and you gotta sell, or buy up some more real estate/another dropship at a stupid expensive price (money sink, inflation control mechanism).
- Try to limit inflation to a reasonable 2%, and increase costs accordingly as time goes on. That's where WOW failed - gold farming trivialised gold and caused inflation to spiral out of control, devaluing everything within the game, even though collectively, everyone was 'richer'.
- Make the cost of major work, in time and cash value, stupidly expensive - as I said before, it will lead to more thoughtful decisions.

I could go on. These are practical limitations on customisation - the ability to do what you want is still there, but there is a cost associated with everything, and thus, those that do manage to put together some unstoppable juggernaught of a Battlemech, will probably have ****** earned it when all is said and done.

[Knight errant]

Elucid Ward, on 02 November 2011 - 03:16 AM, said:

I don't care about catering to the lowest common denominator. ****** 'em. If they get curb stomped by someone better, then they can learn to play better - in fact you learn more in losing than you do in winning. I hate the attitude that EVERYTHING in gaming should be handed to you with a happy ending. That undermines the skill aspect of the game.

Agreed, but then you run the risk of having the same old faces playing each other and a slow death. While I hate to say it, catering for nubs and vets - trying to please both worlds - is probably the only way to ensure longevity. There are going to be a lot of grumpy old people here who have been gaming since the days of the VIC20 but we're going to have to learn to cater to the kiddies if we want MW to thrive.

[Elucid Ward]

We catered to the kiddies with MechAssault... yeah... that worked out REALLLLY well.

Biggest mistake ANY business can make is to alienate your core demographic and target audience by changing sh!t in an attempt to please more people.

I've seen so many things go south, both gaming wise, and business ventures in RL (including, but not limited to, some of the best club nights in my city), because people f***ed around with what already worked and ended up;

Firstly - alienating their biggest supporters...
Secondly, destroying their reputation, and...
Thirdly, shooting themselves in the foot, killing any momentum before they even got under way.

Number one rule of business - you can't please everyone, so focus on your core audience, then expand outwards. Cast your net too wide, and you risk catching nothing at all.

[Knight errant]

Yeah, I understand, really. But I also have experience with a game that catered mainly to the people who knew what they were doing and it went south anyway. They had to deal with jumped up nubs in a team game and it destroyed the experience for all concerned. Games are like clans in a way, it seems you have to cast the net wide and collect a whole lot of **** in order to find the good fish.
Without a critical mass of consumers it doesn't matter how good the product is if not enough people contribute to your bottom line to make it economical to continue supporting it.

edit: Whats wrong with C R A P as a word? Can I say Poo?
edit2: look like I can - yay..

Edited by Knight-errant, 02 November 2011 - 03:51 AM.

[Asmudius Heng]

I agree with the casting your net too wide analogy, but a game has to be at least moderatly accessable to start with for newbies.

This does not mean mech assault at all though - that game was horrible.

It just means that when new players jump into the game they feel they are contributing and not just being stomped on. If you end up at the bottom of the scoreboard but felt you were improvign and aided in a victory or at least a rally to make a bad loss into a moderate one you will feel you are playing a fun game.

Newbies just need to contribute and not get stomped on 20 times in a row and quite - that is the only requirement needed to net new players - this can be achived without dumbing things down IMO

EDIT

Poo!

cause i now know i can too

Edited by Asmudius Heng, 02 November 2011 - 03:53 AM.

[Skoll]

Knight, the forum filter is insanely sensitive.

[Elucid Ward]

Asmudius Heng, on 02 November 2011 - 03:52 AM, said:

I agree with the casting your net too wide analogy, but a game has to be at least moderatly accessable to start with for newbies.

This does not mean mech assault at all though - that game was horrible.

It just means that when new players jump into the game they feel they are contributing and not just being stomped on. If you end up at the bottom of the scoreboard but felt you were improvign and aided in a victory or at least a rally to make a bad loss into a moderate one you will feel you are playing a fun game.

Newbies just need to contribute and not get stomped on 20 times in a row and quite - that is the only requirement needed to net new players - this can be achived without dumbing things down IMO

EDIT

Poo!

cause i now know i can too

Sorry, doesn't wash with me. Most of the noobs that will be dragged across will be self entitled COD kiddies who will expect to kick a$$ and the like straight off the bat because that's what they are used to. I would actually take immense pleasure in watching them get pounded in to the ground repeatedly, whilst raging like the world's ending... It would literally be like some sort of sadistic nirvana to me.

Who knows, they might grow a set and learn to play the game, and then contribute to the greater community.

This is either going to be Mechwarrior Online.

Or it's going to be Call Of BattleTech: Future Mechwars - For Kids.

I pray for the former.