74 replies to this topic

[Suprentus]

Imperius, on 12 September 2013 - 12:48 AM, said:

You're nicer than I am. I like a complicated game because it keeps my attention. Oversimplifying it too much and I lose interest fast. If I lose interest I won't pay money again.

That said I give this thread a whine/10

I like it to where you had to go though a button sequence to turn on your mech before battle. If you don't know your mech then it don't start. Of course then this game would actually be closer to a sim. I would like to see resupply depots with VTOL pilots that pulls from a que if people who want to fly (of course added when the game gets big enough)

Devils Advocate, on 12 September 2013 - 01:43 AM, said:

You realize that at the point where you're asking them to remove every actual mechanic they've implemented into the game you're asking for counter strike right? There are other games you can play if you'd rather be able to coast on a rail and click on enemies all day. This isn't the only game out there and I'm sure you can find one that suits your preference without rebuilding this one from the ground up and tearing out all of the work they've put into it.

I actually have an easy counter-argument to these, but ferranis beat me to it:

ferranis, on 12 September 2013 - 01:47 AM, said:

Easy to learn, hard to master. MWO is hard to learn, easy to master. As if those overcomplicated mechanics are more than a slight annoyance for veterans.

But imagine a new player trying to learn everything at the current implementation - confusing at least, downright unfair to be more exact.

My thoughts exactly. A sign of a great and smart game is one that is easy to learn, but hard to master. It should be trying to be complex, not complicated. Chess is one of the smartest games out there, and it's not complicated to play. The rules are simple, but they weave incredibly complex tapestries. That's what MWO should be.

[Suprentus]

To use a video game example from my earlier post, take some of the classic space sims like X-Wing, Tie Fighter, or Freespace.



It has a simple and easy to understand energy management system. At any time, you can divert energy back and forth between engines, lasers, and shields, as well as choosing which area to strengthen your shields, and the effects of doing so are simple. It's really easy to understand that engine power affects your speed, laser power affects your laser recharge rate, and shield power affects your shield recharge rate. Where it becomes complex is when you're constantly optimizing your energy for your current situation. In the thick of battle, you find yourself pressing buttons frantically to constantly adapt your ship to the situation. In my opinion, it actually makes the game more fun.

This system doesn't need unintuitive controls or hard to understand mathematical formulas to accomplish this effect, and it's not "oversimplified" either.

Edited by Suprentus, 12 September 2013 - 02:15 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Suprentus, on 12 September 2013 - 02:14 AM, said:

To use a video game example from my earlier post, take some of the classic space sims like X-Wing, Tie Fighter, or Freespace.



It has a simple and easy to understand energy management system. At any time, you can divert energy back and forth between engines, lasers, and shields, as well as choosing which area to strengthen your shields, and the effects of doing so are simple. It's really easy to understand that engine power affects your speed, laser power affects your laser recharge rate, and shield power affects your shield recharge rate. Where it becomes complex is when you're constantly optimizing your energy for your current situation. In the thick of battle, you find yourself pressing buttons frantically to constantly adapt your ship to the situation. In my opinion, it actually makes the game more fun.

This system doesn't need unintuitive controls or hard to understand mathematical formulas to accomplish this effect, and it's not "oversimplified" either.

Can't someone go out there and just take X-Wing and TIE Fighter and patch a new graphics engine on it?
That's really all these game need to be great again!

[ferranis]

At least Freespace has a very active modding cummunity, search for 'Blue Planet' for example.

Edited by ferranis, 12 September 2013 - 02:28 AM.

[Suprentus]

MustrumRidcully, on 12 September 2013 - 02:25 AM, said:

Can't someone go out there and just take X-Wing and TIE Fighter and patch a new graphics engine on it?
That's really all these game need to be great again!

Actually, if you like Freespace 2, they did just that. Modders completely updated the game with modern graphics, and it looks beautiful. If you're interested in that, you can find that here: http://www.hard-ligh...alling_fs2_open

[The Boz]

I'd just like to point out that the current status of FreeSpace 2 is GLORIOUS.
Thank you.

[DaZur]

Sigh... You "young gamers" make me sad.

For these old eyes, "Easy to learn and difficult to master" = Super Mario Brothers...

You guys have no frame of reference nor the patience to appreciate "good gaming". Reality is what we old-farts consider deep and satisfying gaming would make your heads explode, that assuming you could muster the fortitude to read through the included manual.

Tutorial?... LOL! We had 100 page literature that not only instructed you on game-play but also steeped you in the subject matter or built the foundation for the story line...

Depth of gameplay meant the game mechanics were deeper than a few mouse clicks...

Satisfactory gaming experience and mastery of gameplay was more robust than memorization and min/maxing...

Single-player was the meat of the game and multiplayer was some tacked-on whim...

We used code-wheels to get into our games and did not require persistent online connections and didn't have to worry about DRM.

Sadly... 25 years ago MW:O in it's present state would have been considered a console port for it's simplicity and shallow gameplay...

So when I hear anyone complain about how "complicated" MW:O is or is becoming... I shudder and weep for our future.

Edited by DaZur, 12 September 2013 - 05:36 AM.

[DocBach]

Core2029, on 11 September 2013 - 07:28 PM, said:

I really like that you called out personality. This is something that people seem to throw out the window. Some mechs had well-known, perfectly acceptable loadouts that were feared and of great concern on the battlefield. Remember when people used to yell out "K2!" and it was just understood that they must die first? That's personality. With all the gimpy changes about the only thing you hear these days is "D-DC..."

So, if anything is the same threat level now, does that mean balance is being achieved where a 'Mech carrying a specific weapon load during previous metas is no longer so powerful that it needs to be singled out to die first?

[Suprentus]

DaZur, on 12 September 2013 - 05:34 AM, said:

Sigh... You "young gamers" make me sad.

For these old eyes, "Easy to learn and difficult to master" = Super Mario Brothers...

You guys have no frame of reference nor the patience to appreciate "good gaming". Reality is what we old-farts consider deep and satisfying gaming would make your heads explode, that assuming you could muster the fortitude to read through the included manual.

Tutorial?... LOL! We had 100 page literature that not only instructed you on game-play but also steeped you in the subject matter or built the foundation for the story line...

Depth of gameplay meant the game mechanics were deeper than a few mouse clicks...

Satisfactory gaming experience and mastery of gameplay was more robust than memorization and min/maxing...

Single-player was the meat of the game and multiplayer was some tacked-on whim...

We used code-wheels to get into our games and did not require persistent online connections and didn't have to worry about DRM.

Sadly... 25 years ago MW:O in it's present state would have been considered a console port for it's simplicity and shallow gameplay...

So when I hear anyone complain about how "complicated" MW:O is or is becoming... I shudder and weep for our future.

Oh, go massage your ego somewhere else. I'm an old school gamer, myself, and I even made reference to an old school game as an example to illustrate my point. Real classic games knew the difference between complex and complicated. I actually get the feeling that you didn't even bother reading what I had to say, you only wanted to grandstand as some sort of golden relic of some bygone days. If anyone's post deserves any eye-rolling over anyone else's, it's yours.

Edited by Suprentus, 12 September 2013 - 06:12 AM.

[Aeolus Drift]

The Boz, on 12 September 2013 - 04:01 AM, said:

I'd just like to point out that the current status of FreeSpace 2 is GLORIOUS.
Thank you.

By god, I love you guys. Finally people who know what Freespace is!!!!

[DaZur]

Suprentus, on 12 September 2013 - 06:10 AM, said:

Oh, go massage your ego somewhere else. I'm an old school gamer, myself, and I even made reference to an old school game as an example to illustrate my point. Real classic games knew the difference between complex and complicated. I actually get the feeling that you didn't even bother reading what I had to say, you only wanted to grandstand as some sort of golden relic of some bygone days. If anyone's post deserves any eye-rolling over anyone else's, it's yours.

Might want to back off on the roughage... it appears to be making you grumpy.

My diatribe had absolutely nothing to do with your post(s), more so the original premise that MW:O is getting "over complicated" at face value...

Your example was an excellent one in the effect that it is exemplary of game design that put depth of game-play above graphics and Multiplayer. ​That said, it is also a good example of design concessions made to mitigate switch-fiddle overload. The example of shield / energy management could have been far more robust, but for the sake of game-play over micro-management the design solution was both satisfactory and functional.

Conversely, one could argue X-Wing Rebel Alliance was not as "enjoyable" as X-wing or Tie Fighter because the developers tried to "sim" it up a bit more and as a result players used to the original iterations struggled with a slightly higher learning curve.

That said... If you feel I've in some way diminished your posts with my own... feel free to continue to grind the sand between your butt cheeks.

[Suprentus]

DaZur, on 12 September 2013 - 06:50 AM, said:

My diatribe had absolutely nothing to do with your post(s), more so the original premise that MW:O is getting "over complicated" at face value...

That's the thesis of my entire thread...

Edited by Suprentus, 12 September 2013 - 07:00 AM.

[DaZur]

Suprentus, on 12 September 2013 - 06:59 AM, said:

That's the thesis of my entire thread...

Understood... but you then, example two (X-Wing & Freespace) space-sims that exemplified complicated game-mechanics that are mitigated by conscious game-design.

You underestimate the power of knowledge. as I referenced earlier the Hot Dog paradigm... Sometimes knowing what's going on behind the scenes jades a player perception.

I guaranteeing if MW:O was closed-door development and we were not privy to the code-twiddling, for all but the most fastidious number-crunching neckbeard grognards... all the underpinnings that everyone clings to being "overly complicated" would largely be accepted as BT universe magic and we'd be content with the product.

It's like X-Wing... no one questioned the fact that the AI could fire lasers AND lock-on torpedoes at the same time... If X-Wing was open-beta, do you believe anyone would have accepted this?

[Suprentus]

DaZur, on 12 September 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

Understood... but you then, example two (X-Wing & Freespace) space-sims that exemplified complicated game-mechanics that are mitigated by conscious game-design.

But they're not complicated, they're complex. The mechanics themselves are easy to understand, yet they add a strong dynamic layer to the game. That's my entire point.

The way I see it in game design, complicated is when mechanics artificially make the game harder to understand and play. Complex is when seemingly simple mechanics dynamically change gameplay entirely. Decisions must constantly be made to adapt to a situation. Complexity is what you get when the gameplay naturally unfolds into a multilayered experience. Complicated mechanics attempt to do that artificially and arbitrarily, and fail, imo.

DaZur, on 12 September 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

You underestimate the power of knowledge. as I referenced earlier the Hot Dog paradigm... Sometimes knowing what's going on behind the scenes jades a player perception.

I guaranteeing if MW:O was closed-door development and we were not privy to the code-twiddling, for all but the most fastidious number-crunching neckbeard grognards... all the underpinnings that everyone clings to being "overly complicated" would largely be accepted as BT universe magic and we'd be content with the product.

It's like X-Wing... no one questioned the fact that the AI could fire lasers AND lock-on torpedoes at the same time... If X-Wing was open-beta, do you believe anyone would have accepted this?

That is a good point that I can't deny. I can't say for sure, but I guess if I were coming into it blind, I'd see needlessly complicated mechanics like ghost heat and ignore them to the best of my ability. In fact, that's what I do now. I'm not going to get engrossed into how hot a weapon group becomes from the rhythm of fire, not unless I wanted to use a macro.

I can point at the UAC mechanic when I first came into the beta and say that I just wanted to steer clear of it just because of how unintuitive it was to use. My mindset was "if this weapon is supposed to be advanced lostech, then why does it suck so bad to use?" Really, I still think that way. I think my UAC idea would get rid of the complicated mess that it is, and instead make it complex by adding a dynamic new layer to combat.

So while there are some things that can color our perception because of our knowledge of the game already, there are still elements that I can relate to as if I were coming in blind. At the same time though, because of our knowledge, we've seen how good certain elements and mechanics can be.

Your hot dog paradigm makes sense, but I don't think it totally invalidates our input.

Edited by Suprentus, 12 September 2013 - 08:18 AM.

[Lostdragon]

DaZur, on 12 September 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

Understood... but you then, example two (X-Wing & Freespace) space-sims that exemplified complicated game-mechanics that are mitigated by conscious game-design.

You underestimate the power of knowledge. as I referenced earlier the Hot Dog paradigm... Sometimes knowing what's going on behind the scenes jades a player perception.

I guaranteeing if MW:O was closed-door development and we were not privy to the code-twiddling, for all but the most fastidious number-crunching neckbeard grognards... all the underpinnings that everyone clings to being "overly complicated" would largely be accepted as BT universe magic and we'd be content with the product.

It's like X-Wing... no one questioned the fact that the AI could fire lasers AND lock-on torpedoes at the same time... If X-Wing was open-beta, do you believe anyone would have accepted this?

I am all for complexity that makes sense and results in deep gameplay but ghost heat is complexity that does not make sense and ultimately failed since changing the PPC+GR meta required significant PPC nerfs and a drastic change to the GR.

If this had remained behind closed doors it would not have mattered. The players would have figured out exactly how it works even if PGI had not ever told us it was in the game. When it became understood how this ghost heat works then we would still be having this debate because it is such a ham-fisted way to accomplish the goal.

Also, to address your last point, PGI chose the model they were going to develop the game under. They chose to have a founders program and an open beta with a fully functional cash store so that means every decision they make is going to be under the microscope of the community who invested in their unfinished product. Any reasonable person would conclude it is in their interest to not **** those people off.

[MustrumRidcully]

Lostdragon, on 12 September 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

I am all for complexity that makes sense and results in deep gameplay but ghost heat is complexity that does not make sense and ultimately failed since changing the PPC+GR meta required significant PPC nerfs and a drastic change to the GR.

If this had remained behind closed doors it would not have mattered. The players would have figured out exactly how it works even if PGI had not ever told us it was in the game. When it became understood how this ghost heat works then we would still be having this debate because it is such a ham-fisted way to accomplish the goal.

I am not sure we would have figured this out exactly, because the system is really very abritrary with the numbers it uses. But we would have figured out it existed.

In Closed Beta, it was players that figured out that lasers with a beam duration shorter than 1 second actually generated less heat then advertised. Not an intended feature, a bug. Might have been better if we hadn't discovered this, then LPLs and MPLs might have stayed more competitive. But anyway, players figured out this tiny detail.

[Lostdragon]

MustrumRidcully, on 12 September 2013 - 09:09 AM, said:

I am not sure we would have figured this out exactly, because the system is really very abritrary with the numbers it uses. But we would have figured out it existed.

In Closed Beta, it was players that figured out that lasers with a beam duration shorter than 1 second actually generated less heat then advertised. Not an intended feature, a bug. Might have been better if we hadn't discovered this, then LPLs and MPLs might have stayed more competitive. But anyway, players figured out this tiny detail.

We would have figured out every detail eventually, it would just have taken a long time and a lot of testing and peer review/retesting. Just look at Dwarf Fortress if you have any doubts of players' ability to figure out complicated and undocumented systems.

[DaZur]

Lostdragon, on 12 September 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

Also, to address your last point, PGI chose the model they were going to develop the game under. They chose to have a founders program and an open beta with a fully functional cash store so that means every decision they make is going to be under the microscope of the community who invested in their unfinished product. Any reasonable person would conclude it is in their interest to not **** those people off.

Understood and agree to a point.

That said, and in fairness to the developers... If PGI made concerted effort to placate every community suggestion MW:O would still be "in development" the same time we actually do strap into implausible humanoid war machines.

There is a lot of great suggestions this community has to offer but at the same time PGI has to move forward with their development of MW:O and hit some landmarks, even if some of their decisions ultimately are unpopular in the grand scheme of things.

I know a lot of that sounds like white-knight apologist tripe but I've walked in similar shoes as theirs and I can state emphatically that when given a choice of re-doing a large section of development to meet consumers suggestions or falling behind in hitting your expected landmarks + exceeding budget because of it... No matter how much you internally want to take the high-road and scrap / rebuild, sometimes your hand is forced, damn the consequences...

[DaZur]

Lostdragon, on 12 September 2013 - 09:31 AM, said:

We would have figured out every detail eventually, it would just have taken a long time and a lot of testing and peer review/retesting. Just look at Dwarf Fortress if you have any doubts of players' ability to figure out complicated and undocumented systems.

I assure you... there are very few games / sims etc... that do not have some portion of data manipulated to manage / steer curtain aspects of underlying game mechanics.

What truly makes any kind of under-the-hood fudgery in MW:O difficult is due mostly to the wealth of available metrics and raw numbers to crunch against it...

Which is really hilarious for a fantasy stompy robot game...

[Lostdragon]

DaZur, on 12 September 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

Understood and agree to a point.

That said, and in fairness to the developers... If PGI made concerted effort to placate every community suggestion MW:O would still be "in development" the same time we actually do strap into implausible humanoid war machines.

There is a lot of great suggestions this community has to offer but at the same time PGI has to move forward with their development of MW:O and hit some landmarks, even if some of their decisions ultimately are unpopular in the grand scheme of things.

I know a lot of that sounds like white-knight apologist tripe but I've walked in similar shoes as theirs and I can state emphatically that when given a choice of re-doing a large section of development to meet consumers suggestions or falling behind in hitting your expected landmarks + exceeding budget because of it... No matter how much you internally want to take the high-road and scrap / rebuild, sometimes your hand is forced, damn the consequences...

I'm not saying they need to do everything the community asks for, I'm just saying when something like ghost heat or 3PV is obviously against the wishes of the majority of the community maybe they should examine whether or not what they are doing is the best thing for the game instead of saying "Damn the torpedos!" and plowing ahead. I don't pretend to have all the answers and I don't know what would have been the best alternative to ghost heat, but there are two or three ideas that were discussed quite a lot on the forums that were really, really good ideas that involved relatively simple changes and could have been tested pretty easily. Instead we got a system that made little sense to begin with and has only gotten more complicated since it was implemented (linked weapons).

DaZur, on 12 September 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

I assure you... there are very few games / sims etc... that do not have some portion of data manipulated to manage / steer curtain aspects of underlying game mechanics.

What truly makes any kind of under-the-hood fudgery in MW:O difficult is due mostly to the wealth of available metrics and raw numbers to crunch against it...

Which is really hilarious for a fantasy stompy robot game...

Show me one with a mechanic like ghost heat. Playing sims back in the '90s is what originally got me interested in game mechanics and how game design works. I've never played a game that has a "balancing" mechanic like ghost heat. I've never run across anything as unituitive.