Jump to content

Dumbing Down The Game Vs Showing The Players A Meta


139 replies to this topic

#101 Gaan Cathal

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 2,108 posts

Posted 16 June 2013 - 01:13 PM

View Postbuttmonkey, on 16 June 2013 - 12:34 PM, said:

i would say the dumbing down comes from the ppc monster poptart builds and other builds similar (mechs are not supposed to function like that), and the removal of things like collisions (you dont even need to look where your going)


The Warhawk would like a word.

#102 Demuder

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 12:10 AM

View PostGaan Cathal, on 16 June 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:


The Warhawk would like a word.


You mean the Warhawk, in the game it was designed for, that is Battletech TT, would be able to fire all four of it's PPCs every (I'll give you that) "turn" with no fear of overheating and land all four shots at exactly the same location ? Wow.... must have been a very nice mech to play.

#103 Lykaon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,815 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 01:20 AM

View PostChavette, on 12 June 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:


Most naysayers argue it would force some cheese on all the game, and they couldn't play what they like. Its not the players' fault that some loadouts are abusively strong when used in proper coordination, its a simple game balance/design issue.



I'm confused with this little part I quoted.

Are you saying abusively strong mechs are OK and should be left alone or are you saying those same mechs are balance/design issues that need correcting?

I think the current issue with more of the same = best is not a matter of coordination it's just bring more alpha boat assaults.

If a six PPC stalker was not best suited to support a six PPC stalker then maybe I would see an argument but to be honest just bring more of the same and you will do just fine.

Some master tactician will no doubt say charge in close to six PPC stalkers and fight at it's min range.

Problem 1: Get there under fire
Problem 2 the second/third/fourth/fifth etc six PPC stalkers are not all standing in the same place so you can not be under the min range of all of them and it only takes one to kill you.

The level of coordination needed to successfully subdue the team composed of 100% alpha strike optimized assaults is far greater than the effort applied by them to execute their plan of focus fire massive alpha strikes.

#104 William Mountbank

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 671 posts
  • LocationBayern

Posted 17 June 2013 - 01:40 AM

I think mostly you guys are firing your lasers into the wind:


"We anticipate most players will play the 3PV mode leaving the hardcore mode for the those wanting a challenge. We’re going to emphasize that both view modes are essential to a well-rounded experience, with FPV being something that you use [only] if you are a true sim-head."
-Brian Ekman

Emphasis mine, but as the OP and others said here, the target audience here is not the Battletech fan who enjoys mechwarrior style combat. It's the FPS kid who has seen those Japanese games featuring giant sword wielding robots using rockets to run along walls. Not that I can blame the devs, a game that punished players for bad tactics and simplistic thinking is a game that sells as well as chessboards in the under 20s group.

Edited by William Mountbank, 17 June 2013 - 01:42 AM.


#105 Gaan Cathal

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 2,108 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 02:59 AM

View Postdimstog, on 17 June 2013 - 12:10 AM, said:

You mean the Warhawk, in the game it was designed for, that is Battletech TT, would be able to fire all four of it's PPCs every (I'll give you that) "turn" with no fear of overheating and land all four shots at exactly the same location ? Wow.... must have been a very nice mech to play.


Same as the Hunchback-4P couldn't put out 120 damage per turn without bothering with the SLAS. Same as you could get away with some mechs actually being flat out worse than others. Same as the really successful builds were boats.........oh, wait - that one's actually right.

#106 HiplyRustic

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 390 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 04:30 AM

View PostWilliam Mountbank, on 17 June 2013 - 01:40 AM, said:

I think mostly you guys are firing your lasers into the wind:


"We anticipate most players will play the 3PV mode leaving the hardcore mode for the those wanting a challenge. We’re going to emphasize that both view modes are essential to a well-rounded experience, with FPV being something that you use [only] if you are a true sim-head."
-Brian Ekman

Emphasis mine, but as the OP and others said here, the target audience here is not the Battletech fan who enjoys mechwarrior style combat. It's the FPS kid who has seen those Japanese games featuring giant sword wielding robots using rockets to run along walls. Not that I can blame the devs, a game that punished players for bad tactics and simplistic thinking is a game that sells as well as chessboards in the under 20s group.


Well, Brian's just full of *****. 3PV is crap, and was only essential because they thought they could squeeze more money by handing out free cheese.

#107 MaddMaxx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,911 posts
  • LocationNova Scotia, Canada

Posted 17 June 2013 - 04:36 AM

View PostKunae, on 13 June 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

An AC40, @600m does just over 15pts of damage, total. About the same as 1 gauss round, at that distance. And this assumes both AC20 rounds land, and in the same loc.


Not bad for a weapon that should have a Long range of 270m. :)

Edited by MaddMaxx, 17 June 2013 - 05:16 AM.


#108 Cybermech

    Tool

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,097 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 04:42 AM

what a pile of bull.
I'm sorry is hiding in your assault guna require some skill.
poor you.

just to educate you on what was actually dumbed down so people with no skill or coordination could do something.

Assault head hit boxes reduced so people hiding in their assaults couldn't have something to cry about.
With a little bit of thought you could easily get 3 kills a match before dying.

Ac20 heat reduction so the little girls with their dual ac20 don't have to think about heat.

PPC heat/cycle time/speed increase so those who can't put skill into getting a kill can get more kills.

If anything the direction is in the other way, get some skills or leave

#109 MustrumRidcully

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 10,644 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 04:52 AM

View PostMaddMaxx, on 17 June 2013 - 04:36 AM, said:


Not bad for a weapon that should has a Long range of 270m. :)

Well, it's "only" 38.9 % of its max damage. Gauss Rifle damage for almost twice the weight, 3 times the ammo cost and 12 times the heat. Not the most efficient weapon if used at this range.

But of course, it's infinitely more damage than the 0 damage it would inflict in the table top at this range. (And I believe even with the optional extreme range rules, it would never go beyond 540m.)

#110 MaddMaxx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,911 posts
  • LocationNova Scotia, Canada

Posted 17 June 2013 - 05:15 AM

View PostRG Notch, on 16 June 2013 - 08:57 AM, said:

Especially if you are aiming at the stupidest players available. I mean it probably requires an advanced degree to figure out where your feet are facing relative to your torso. Don't worry they are dumbing the game down for the LCD gamer with 3rd person. If you want a broad audience aim low, as stupid people are the largest demographic. Look at some of these posts. ;)


And that one might be a good example as well. What the hell do you expect PGI to do? Pander just to the Grognards and Neck-beards to keep their game afloat? Not going to happen.

If the Player base would stop just treating new players as simple pieces of ****, just because they are new, I would guess many might stay and try a bit longer. But NO!, no one wants a new player on their team as the consensus seems to be ALL new player are a waste.

It happens all the time. Despite the Dev's best efforts, the grognards and Neck-beards drive off all the potential new blood because they are to ******* lazy, or self important. to try and help a new player on the field.

So you continue your Stellar support for the new players and funds for MWO with comments like this one

Quote

"as stupid people are the largest demographic"


and surely the game will be better for it, not. :)

Edited by MaddMaxx, 17 June 2013 - 05:17 AM.


#111 Skunk Wolf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 286 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 05:24 AM

All these problems would have been avoided if they had not allowed customization, and had all the variants for sale.

Want to Boat PPC's? Get an Awesome.

Want to Boat LRMS? Get a Catapult.

Want an AC20? Get a Hunchback, Atlas or Highlander.

When they decided to make all the mechs Omni, they opened pandora's box and ruined all variety. They also screwed themselves out of selling points for the Premium Mechs.

Of COURSE people are going to use the best builds for the game, there's time and in game credits involved.

Why struggle with a stock build when everybody else is running the best optimized one to grind out more credits?

Seriously, when was the last time someone called "OH NO! It's an AWS 9m!" and everybody knew what it was loaded out with immediately?

It's still beta, and I'd love to see a rollback to that.

Maybe they will and they are just using the customization feature as a data aggregator.

Who freaking knows.

Edited by Skunk Wolf, 17 June 2013 - 05:30 AM.


#112 RG Notch

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 2,987 posts
  • LocationNYC

Posted 17 June 2013 - 05:46 AM

View PostMaddMaxx, on 17 June 2013 - 05:15 AM, said:


And that one might be a good example as well. What the hell do you expect PGI to do? Pander just to the Grognards and Neck-beards to keep their game afloat? Not going to happen.

If the Player base would stop just treating new players as simple pieces of ****, just because they are new, I would guess many might stay and try a bit longer. But NO!, no one wants a new player on their team as the consensus seems to be ALL new player are a waste.

It happens all the time. Despite the Dev's best efforts, the grognards and Neck-beards drive off all the potential new blood because they are to ******* lazy, or self important. to try and help a new player on the field.

So you continue your Stellar support for the new players and funds for MWO with comments like this one



and surely the game will be better for it, not. :)

Actually, this is exactly what I expect. Aim for the LCD and you can't hardly go wrong. Look at this thread, people are defending a race to the bottom. I always expect a game to aim for the broadest, and generally dumbest demographic. A fool and his money are lucky enough to come together in the first place so why not try and get some of it.
A game that aims for more than the simplest folks is immediately labeled a niche as, take a good look around, smart people are a niche audience. I just find it funny that people think it's a great idea.
When you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one. But if you work like PGI you get money up front from the niche group by promising them what they want and then gradually slide down the slippery slope of stupid to add more LCD gamers. You get millions from the niche at first with promises of depth and then string them along while trying to grab the LCD folks by draining the pool to end up at the shallow end where they reside.
I think it's positively brilliant for a quick cash grab, but it rarely lasts. Even though the core group is usually a bunch of suckers who will put up with a lot based on pure hope and love of the IP, they eventually dry up. The LCD gamers, unless you are constantly stimulating their ADHD they will move on to the next game that is hot. The key seems to be to spend the least in that time to maximize profits. Looks like PGI is scoring well on these aspects.

#113 MaddMaxx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,911 posts
  • LocationNova Scotia, Canada

Posted 17 June 2013 - 06:10 AM

View PostRG Notch, on 17 June 2013 - 05:46 AM, said:

Actually, this is exactly what I expect.
Snip


And yet you carry a Gold shield? Why did you do that, knowing what would eventually happen, as you say? I am just curious really.

#114 Lostdragon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 2,711 posts
  • LocationAlabama

Posted 17 June 2013 - 06:28 AM

View PostRG Notch, on 17 June 2013 - 05:46 AM, said:

Actually, this is exactly what I expect. Aim for the LCD and you can't hardly go wrong. Look at this thread, people are defending a race to the bottom. I always expect a game to aim for the broadest, and generally dumbest demographic. A fool and his money are lucky enough to come together in the first place so why not try and get some of it.
A game that aims for more than the simplest folks is immediately labeled a niche as, take a good look around, smart people are a niche audience. I just find it funny that people think it's a great idea.
When you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one. But if you work like PGI you get money up front from the niche group by promising them what they want and then gradually slide down the slippery slope of stupid to add more LCD gamers. You get millions from the niche at first with promises of depth and then string them along while trying to grab the LCD folks by draining the pool to end up at the shallow end where they reside.
I think it's positively brilliant for a quick cash grab, but it rarely lasts. Even though the core group is usually a bunch of suckers who will put up with a lot based on pure hope and love of the IP, they eventually dry up. The LCD gamers, unless you are constantly stimulating their ADHD they will move on to the next game that is hot. The key seems to be to spend the least in that time to maximize profits. Looks like PGI is scoring well on these aspects.


I blame WoW for this. Blizzard showed it was much more profitable to abandon anything that favors hardcore people and cater to as many casual players as possible. That is why this game will have 3rd person.

Playing to a niche can work well for a game, but there is more money to be made trying to appeal to a broader player base. What I find amusing about this whole situation is PGI keeps adding more and more convoluted rules that the average joe gamer who has never played BT or MW is going to find frustrating and confusing. They are trying to appeal to this type of player with 3rd person but then they announce they are going to add a mechanic that increases heat when you fire large groups of weapons but the definition of that changes on a per weapon basis(4 PPCs vs. 6 ML).

Edited by Lostdragon, 17 June 2013 - 06:33 AM.


#115 RG Notch

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 2,987 posts
  • LocationNYC

Posted 17 June 2013 - 06:45 AM

View PostMaddMaxx, on 17 June 2013 - 06:10 AM, said:


And yet you carry a Gold shield? Why did you do that, knowing what would eventually happen, as you say? I am just curious really.

Because I enjoy a game while I can before the devs ruin it when they find their reach exceeds their grasp. Do you think the $120 I spent is a lot of money? I've blown far more money on things that have provided me far less entertainment. I'm just realistic in my expectations.
I bought the big starter package for WoT although I suspected it wouldn't amount to more than it was in beta and despite it's obvious trending to P2W. I had fun and when I got bored I moved on. Pretty much what I will do with this game. I'll have fun, get my money's worth and move on. I'll leave it to the LCD gamers and the hopeful few who imagine it will somehow be different this time.
I just wish developers would realize that making a niche game the best niche game it could be is a better long term bet than trying to make a popular game out a niche. All that ends up doing is making the niche audience mad and getting short term burst in population from the LCD F2P crowd that jumps from game to game leaving wreckage in their wake.
Anyways, like I said 3rd person is coming, other concessions to the LCD will follow as PGI chases the mythical LCD gamers that will stay and turn this niche into the next CoD. So don't worry, dumb is coming.

Edited by RG Notch, 17 June 2013 - 07:04 AM.


#116 MustrumRidcully

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 10,644 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 08:07 AM

Quote

I just wish developers would realize that making a niche game the best niche game it could be is a better long term bet than trying to make a popular game out a niche. All that ends up doing is making the niche audience mad and getting short term burst in population from the LCD F2P crowd that jumps from game to game leaving wreckage in their wake.

They'll only learn this if the latter is really true. WoW still lives. after all.
And also only if the latter means lost net money. If the short-term influx provided good profits, and you close the game down before it goes bad...

I have no idea how many online games were closed because the publisher or developers went bankrupt, vs. where only closed because they stopped making money...

#117 TheBossHammer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 240 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 08:45 AM

View PostChavette, on 12 June 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

Prolouge:

What I name "dumbing down" or "holding hands" are these examples:

-Long ranged direct fire weapons and tactics are getting nerfed so cover is less needed. If brawlers can't 1v1 out in the open against them, nobody is brawling.
-LRMs are getting nerfed/buffed back and forth, and people only use it when its strong enough to not need guidance. If the LRM isn't viable soloing, people stop using it.
-I don't even want to bring up surprising and capping against HGN poppers as they aren't too good of an example because they had too little risk involved with a popping setup(they could brawl too well for being specialized), though I'll point out nerfing a piece of equipment to fix a mechs' OPness has a slew of side effects which I'm sure you're aware of now(2.5t assault jj-s sound like a better fix, since it will mess up their loadout or make em really slow but w/e).

The post:

People will always favor the play style that requires the least effort for the highest rewards.

This might be a shocker, but for the last two months brawling was almost as effective as ever, you just had to put a little more effort into it. Coordination, element of surprise, all that good stuff the average player have no idea even existed in mwo. And I don't really blame them, they don't really have a source on how to play the game outside from a tutorial for basic controls and monkeying what other pugs do on their same elo. How should they learn from that?

On the other hand, since we are talking about LoL alot, after 15 matches players are familiar with the current meta, and try pick a team accordingly for the highest chance of winning. Same with MMOrpg game parties. They didn't all figure it out themselves, they see it from the other players, teams, and then themselves gained the experience that it indeed works. It became part of the game culture, as most people want to win, and that specific setup has is the most effective.

Most naysayers argue it would force some cheese on all the game, and they couldn't play what they like. Its not the players' fault that some loadouts are abusively strong when used in proper coordination, its a simple game balance/design issue(ie. Ecm 3L some time ago), or poppers of the highest damaging tier.

How is PGI trying to form some game culture or teamwork incentive with no player brackets, featured livestreamers, 8v8 tournament support? They have all of these neat warfare gameplay levels planned, yet they are just letting people loose the same way a deathmatch only game would.

Instead, they just nerf everything in the world so Rambo Billybob can equip random weapons of his choice, hit W at the start of the game and have an equal chance of winning against every other play style in the game.

TLDR is prologue and the paragraph before the last one.

No. No No No No No No No. What you are suggesting is to take MWO towards being competitive, and that's legitimately as far from the spirit of Mechwarrior as you can possibly get. The entire point of a game set in the BattleTech Universe is to make you feel like you are in the Battletech Universe, not to allow the hardcore crowd to show off how awesome they are. The reason the game favors FOTM builds and Pubstomping right now is because it is legitimately impossible to do anything on your own, thanks to the ridiculously low level of power on smaller weapon systems. Small/Medium Lasers, SRMs of all kinds, MG's and AC/2's are all underpowered and the meta has shifted to High-Alpha builds because that's what larger weapons, such as PPC's, AC/20's, and Gauss Rifles are designed to do. The entire point of the weapon balance in Battletech is that larger weapons deal more damage per weapon, but less damage per ton with a longer maximum range than smaller weapons would have, with the exception of the Autocannon family which works in reverse, dealing way more damage per ton as the weapons get bigger but losing range at the same time. This would work fine if the smaller weapons were viable, because a Hunchback could go toe-to-toe with an Atlas at close range and have a chance at winning. Closed beta was actually more balanced in that respect, but the lack of heat penalties on alpha strikes caused those little guns to be too powerful and they got nerfed into oblivion. The result was that while smaller weapons still did huge damage, brawling still didn't work because you would get torn apart at long range and would not have enough armor to properly brawl once you got there. Once the alpha nerf happens, those weapons can be restored to about halfway between where they are and where they were and the player base will brawl again.

TL/DR:
Players will use complex builds if complex builds actually work. Fix the smaller weapons with alpha strikes nerfed, and complex builds will actually work. Therefore, fix smaller weapons and players will stop boating and start using varied weapon loadouts.

#118 Soy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,689 posts
  • Locationtrue Lord system

Posted 17 June 2013 - 08:49 AM

Battlefield 2142 had 3PV. In vehicles.

The game had mechs.

It was fun.

Much more competitive than MWO, like most BFs.

That game was not CoD, it was a squad sim.

I support 3pv for those reasons. Cuz the game was a lot of fun and it was competitive.

#119 Lostdragon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 2,711 posts
  • LocationAlabama

Posted 17 June 2013 - 09:04 AM

View PostMustrumRidcully, on 17 June 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:

They'll only learn this if the latter is really true. WoW still lives. after all.
And also only if the latter means lost net money. If the short-term influx provided good profits, and you close the game down before it goes bad...

I have no idea how many online games were closed because the publisher or developers went bankrupt, vs. where only closed because they stopped making money...


The sad thing is this is an epidemic throughout gaming, not just online gaming. Single player games used to be the place where niche games could be successful and flourish, but as soon as a niche becomes profitable publishers start trying to water it down and make it more palatable to the masses so they can move more units. Look at what happened to Bioware. They are the best example of this.

The company was founded by two doctors who decided they wanted to make video games. They set out to make the best RPG possible and with a team of only about 60 people (who had no game development experience) they created Baldur's Gate. It won multiple game of the year awards for 1998 and wound up being very successful in its niche.

BGII was developed using the same philosophies as the original but with the experience gained applied to make the game better in every way. It was a masterpiece because it had a clear focus and goal. It won more praise than the original and is to this day my favorite game of all time.

Enter Dragon Age, spiritual successor to BG. The first game was pretty good, but not as polished and flavorful as BG in my opinion. Still it was fun and brought back fond memories. It did well but the publisher decided the sequel would do even better if it had more mass appeal. So DA II was a dumbed down iteration that lost all the magic the original had and failed to conjure fond memories of past successes like BGII.

MWO has the potential to be the Baldur's Gate II of the MW series but I see the game deviating further and further from that path and moving more toward Dragon Age II.

#120 General Taskeen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,737 posts
  • LocationCircinus

Posted 17 June 2013 - 09:08 AM

[The Devs are] showing the players a [Quickdraw] meta [on 6/18] (lol).

Edited by General Taskeen, 17 June 2013 - 09:08 AM.






3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users