43 replies to this topic

[Deathsani]

I know what fun is for me, I know why this game appeals to me intellectually. I like variety. I like finding a series of solutions to each situation and there is something that destroys this fun. Interestingly enough this problem is rather widespread and is in every multiplayer game that ever existed.

It is the trollish min/maxer, the forum copycats who will copy the best build from said troller, and the ever pleasant "snipers" that pollute fps of all types. I am not a competitive person. Numbers do not thrill me, filling bars will never cause great elation and having the best of anything has never been a goal of mine. There are people that adore this concept and I want them to be happy...but far, far away from me.

Is there a logical way to accommodate us both? Is there a way to let people break the game to their hearts content while simultaneously giving me rich, strategic game play within the boundaries of common courtesy and fair play?

[Curccu]

Deathsani, on 29 October 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

within the boundaries of common courtesy and fair play?

Not sure what do you mean by this.

[operator0]

Curccu, on 29 October 2013 - 02:46 PM, said:

Not sure what do you mean by this.

Excellent question.

[DONTOR]

I suppose private matches could be the place you speak of. Although it isnt in the game yet. Other than that I doubt there is anyway to really avoid the kinds of players you prefer to not play against.

[Krivvan]

Isn't min/maxing finding the solution to the widest variety of situations? I mean, intentionally handicapping yourself can be fun, but it isn't really finding the solution to a situation, it's just making a victory more rewarding because you were handicapped.

I like the game because I like constantly finding solutions to problems. But in my view playing something sub-optimal just isn't really fun unless most other people are playing something optimal. If everyone is doing something unpredictable, then there isn't really much to figure out.

If everyone plays completely random builds with variety, and so are you, then you aren't intellectually figuring out things to win games. You're just relying on your basic core mechanics to win games (aiming and etc.), which is boring.

Edited by Krivvan, 29 October 2013 - 03:03 PM.

[EndlessBoogie]

online-Players take it too seriously.... many think they achieve something very important if they kill/win/troll/whatever... the fun and fairplay is something unknown in onlinegames

cheating/exploiting/glitching is very popular...

[Kitane]

Elo does it, in a way.

Chronic min-maxers tend to eventually end up in matches against other chronic min-maxers, leaving only the less experienced min-maxers to pollute the general space.

[Kaijin]

Deathsani, on 29 October 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

Is there a way to let people break the game to their hearts content while simultaneously giving me rich, strategic game play

Yes there is. A stock-only mode, that runs without ghost-heat.

[Deathsani]

By fair play I mean, just because there is the build of the month, you don't take it because it is too simple. You purposefully don't use broken equipment for the sake of your own score.

Also, that stock build mode with no ghost heat sounds like a blast.

[Core2029]

Deathsani, on 29 October 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

I know what fun is for me, I know why this game appeals to me intellectually. I like variety. I like finding a series of solutions to each situation and there is something that destroys this fun. Interestingly enough this problem is rather widespread and is in every multiplayer game that ever existed.

It is the trollish min/maxer, the forum copycats who will copy the best build from said troller, and the ever pleasant "snipers" that pollute fps of all types. I am not a competitive person. Numbers do not thrill me, filling bars will never cause great elation and having the best of anything has never been a goal of mine. There are people that adore this concept and I want them to be happy...but far, far away from me.

Is there a logical way to accommodate us both? Is there a way to let people break the game to their hearts content while simultaneously giving me rich, strategic game play within the boundaries of common courtesy and fair play?

I logged in just to like your post. Well put.

[Lefty Lucy]

Kaijin, on 29 October 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

Yes there is. A stock-only mode, that runs without ghost-heat.

Nah, there'd be like 3 variants that get used by everybody. It would kill variety.

[Homeless Bill]

Deathsani, on 29 October 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

What is fun?

1. Winning
2. Flamers

[FearTheAmish]

Deathsani, on 29 October 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

I know what fun is for me, I know why this game appeals to me intellectually. I like variety. I like finding a series of solutions to each situation and there is something that destroys this fun. Interestingly enough this problem is rather widespread and is in every multiplayer game that ever existed.

It is the trollish min/maxer, the forum copycats who will copy the best build from said troller, and the ever pleasant "snipers" that pollute fps of all types. I am not a competitive person. Numbers do not thrill me, filling bars will never cause great elation and having the best of anything has never been a goal of mine. There are people that adore this concept and I want them to be happy...but far, far away from me.

Is there a logical way to accommodate us both? Is there a way to let people break the game to their hearts content while simultaneously giving me rich, strategic game play within the boundaries of common courtesy and fair play?

Its funny that you are trying to be taken seriously but start your entire thesis by calling a segment of the player population "trollish" because we chose to use the best tools for the job and you don't like that........

Edited by FearTheAmish, 29 October 2013 - 06:07 PM.

[Tex1013]

original post is an excellent question - the answer, of course, is far, far more complicated

#1 - any game with a competitive component attracts multiple mindsets. There are many, many different variations, but some of the most common include...

casual competitives - these are people that like going up against other people, but only have so much time/energy to devote to WINNING, and so they prefer game modes, objectives, builds and mechanics that support a wide variety of options with only a little variation in overall "power" between all the various options

"game as intended" players - these are people that are more than happy to devote time and effort to WINNING, but they approach the game from what they *believe* is the way the game was "intended to be played", and are *expecting* that all other players will have compete within the bounds of that expected style of gameplay

WINNERS!! - these are your most extreme min-maxers, and are generally people that approach the game with the mindset along the lines of "this game has a way to WIN, and provides all these tools to play - I am perfectly allowed to use those tools in ANY MANNER THAT I CAN CONCEIVE OF FOR THE PURPOSE OF WINNING, and to do any less is a waste"

these are the three most...rational...mindsets, in my experience. There are all manner of dedicated trolls, epeeners, douchebags, griefers and etc, but I hope that we don't design games to accommodate THOSE kinds of mindsets - at least, not generally accessible ones...


Now, in a PERFECTLY designed game, you'd be able to appease all three mindsets, to one degree or another, by carefully designing all the game-play mechanics, modes, and objectives for *winning*, along the middle mindset, more or less. This way, the min maxers would be *forced* to pick from a wide variety of options because no single option would be overwhelmingly better than the others, and the "casual" competitors would be more or less satisfied, because while the lack of time and effort they invest in the game would put them at a disadvantage, it wouldn't, again, be an overwhelmingly large disadvantage, so they can still have fun and make a good showing.

The biggest problem with the so-called min maxers, is that their drive and mindset is inherently designed to unbalance the game in general. Consistent winning is a factor of finding the most reliable, most powerful, most efficient tools and gameplay strategies, and working hard not only to use those tools as agressively as possible, but do your absolute best to FORCE every situation to play only to the strengths you've invested everything in, and AWAY from every other option and tool in the game.

I direct you to this tragically informative tool in the nature of power gaming in general...
http://www.worldofmunchkin.com/guide/

the reason people who AREN'T min-maxers HATE min-maxers so much, is because you can't really compete against min-maxers reliably, without being forced to play the game they've re-built, which is usually a game that lacks 80% or more of the game as designed.

The reason min-maxers HATE people who aren't min-maxers so much, is usually because non-min maxers are really, really dragging down a team-winning effort by playing with substandard tactics and gear, "forcing" the min-maxers to "carry the team", which is something almost nobody likes to do.

Sadly, Mechwarrior Online is so haphazardly patched together, regarding weapon balancing, game-play mechanics and criteria for "victory", that min-maxing is really quite effective - there are MANY tools in Mechwarrior online, builds, mechs, and strategies, that are just plain vastly inferior, compared to others, if done in a coordinated way with most if not all of the team participating. For example, a team of nothing but poptarts, lrm boats and a couple really good spotters will probably be able to steamroll the vast majority of pug teams or any non similar built team, as the current objective modes and gameplay mechanics means that this particular kind of setup can more-or-less reliably dominate any other build/setup/approach you can make in Mechwarrior Online, and so the only real way to reliably compete against it, is to do the same thing.

Hence, the brawler types complaining about the pop-tarters, and the multi-taskers complaining about...well, anything that's too heavy brawler or too heavy distant, and etc and etc...

no answers for you here really - sorry about that - just...got me thinking...

[Krivvan]

Deathsani, on 29 October 2013 - 03:55 PM, said:

By fair play I mean, just because there is the build of the month, you don't take it because it is too simple. You purposefully don't use broken equipment for the sake of your own score.

What defines too simple? Is a Jenner-F with 5xML too simple? Is a Jenner-D with 2 streaks too simple? Is it better for all Jenner-Ds to instead have 1 streak and 1 srm2 for the sake of variety?

Perhaps people don't make overly complicated builds not because of their own score, but because overly complicated builds can be pretty unfun. A 4xSL Atlas doesn't make any logical sense.

[Krivvan]

Clearly those evil min-maxing teams never run any kinds of fun loadouts!

[MustrumRidcully]

Well, one way to accomandate the competitive powergaming min/maxers and the casual players that just want a good stompy robot fight could be a cooperate PvE mode. You can play with friends ,and can play against NPCs. No need to compete with tricked out min/maxing powergamers. If you want, PvE could have a difficulty dial and if you need more challenge, you can get it.

Failing that, a decent lobby system might help. Maybe a group-finder function that allows you to specificy that you want to run a casual game or a competitive game.

[Thorqemada]

"Fun" comes from a good "Gameplay" - "Losing/Winning" gives "dis/satisfaction".

[KinLuu]

Thorqemada, on 30 October 2013 - 01:27 AM, said:

"Fun" comes from a good "Gameplay" - "Losing/Winning" gives "dis/satisfaction".

It is not that simple.

[Mycrus]

Farming tearz in-game and in da forumz... Only thing that keeps playing...