31 replies to this topic

[Teralitha]

I found this reply from an LOL developer on their forums(their devs are extremely active on their forums btw.... unlike here...)

And I believe its of significant value to competitive games and how they are developed.

Quote

It's a tricky topic, because our job is to make decisions based on what players not only want, but need. Let me explain that a bit.

Determining what players want is actually pretty simple - your most invested users tend to be very vocal and will put effort into making sure they're heard (ie; most forumers!) This is a good metric of understanding what players want, at least for high-engagement folks.

What players need is where players don't proclaim a desire for something, but it helps provide something they say they want. Many times, this is more than a single solution - it requires several steps of implementation to reach a result, or takes time to bake in many cases. Let me provide two example of want vs need, and why want cannot be the only driver for developers;

At Riot, we nerf champions. Nerfs are rarely wanted (and many times, unwanted). But, players want to have a fair experience with a variety of options. Additionally, a game without power caps and heavy power creep (something still happening faster than I'd like...) can disrupt the core game design focused around choices, decision-making, and strategy. To accomplish this, we need to nerf champions, even if players don't explicitly want us to.

To use your example, in the pattern of Burning Crusade and Wrath of the Lich King, the changes to easier raid content and more accessibility is actually informed by a want that a lot of players expressed - IE, raids were content that was exclusive from them and they wanted a piece. I respect the guys who make WoW (and its success is a testament), but this is a good example of where the developers should have recognized the core need of exclusivity and the right tuning of that, and steered away from players said they wanted. Personally, I think Burning Crusade is a sweet spot.

The above is a fantastic example of why we have to make tough choices and not always just do what players ask us to do - it's not always the right course of action.

The problem you're speaking to, in my opinion, is when developers think they always have that answer and that being a developer gives you divination into what that is. In my mind, game development isn't about having answers - it's the ways in which you find them.

Our interaction on here isn't just lip-service, it's so we can better optimize decisions around player wants - and explain what players need when they don't want it. This informs us a lot, but we make decisions based on a number of factors - player desires and feedback being one of them.

I hope this helps explain how I feel about this, and how the developer/player interaction looks to me.

Read all the lead designer responses in this topic on their forums... alot of what he says is GOLD.... PURE GOLD...
http://na.leagueofle...284673#34284673


Sifting through all the bunk on a forum is hard enough to find those few ideas that address what mechwarrior needs opposed to what a majority may want.

Every time the devs dummy proof a game feature, they are lowering the skill bar. But, also they can make some things too good for their own good, and create a huge imbalance. Like ECM for example. ECm does actually require more skill to deal with, Ill give it that, however... it also has a dummy proof side to it. Having it on your mech.

Assault mode is another example of a dummy proof feature and lowers the bar. Auto locking missles with high arcing is another example of dummy proof feature that lowers the bar. Reducing the heat production of energy weapons is another example of dummy proofing the game. (they should have just increased the damage and ranges instead and left the heat alone). The smaller bowl shaped maps is also a way of dummy proofing.


But they have also don things that increase the skill bar too. Such as Line of sight targeting and friendly fire. Knockdowns while we had them... The mech manuevering limitations like torso twist ranges and turning rates, the double reticle/convergence and using arm mounted weapons to fire at extreme angles vs your firing with your torso mounted weapons being limited. Caustic valley is the only map that raises the bar from a piloting skill and heat management viewpoint, and really lets the faster mechs have room to run.

I think these guys could learn alot from the developers at Riot games.

Edited by Teralitha, 06 February 2013 - 06:57 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Quote

Reducing the heat production of energy weapons is another example of dummy proofing the game. (they should have just increased the damage and ranges instead and left the heat alone). The smaller bowl shaped maps is also a way of dummy proofing.

That's not simply "dummy proofing". It's also about retaining the feel of Battletech. If you always increase the damage of weapons, you end up with typical configurations using 2 or 3 weapons at most, while Battletech typically features mechs with 6 or more weapons! A Hunchback 4P should be "heat-usable" with 8 medium lasers and standard heat sinks. It currently is only heat-usable with something like 7 medium lasers and double heat sinks. That's not replicating the feel of Battletech at all, and if PGI were to lower the medium laser damage and heat output, it wouldn't be dummy-proofing, it would be simply making the game more Battletech-like.

And on a more general note - the LoL Devs is not saying anything about "dummy proofing" or lowering the skill bar. That's your own agenda.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 06 February 2013 - 07:01 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

This isn't a competitive game.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Most people could learn a lot from a video like this and what it takes to perfectly imbalance a game:

http://www.youtube.c...d&v=e31OSVZF77w

Do you honestly believe that Riot Games got everything right the first time? That dev comment did not come without some realization that mistakes were made in their game creation and the difficulty it took to fix them.

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 06 February 2013 - 07:06 AM.

[Old Trees]

One severe downside to lowering damage values is it makes friendly fire less of a threat, a that that is needed to maintain squad based combat.

" Don't stand in front of that K2!"

"Why?"

*FADOOZ*

"That's why."

[Kylere]

Nothing new in the post by the OP, they are merely restating what people have been saying since I was coding LPCMuds.

Besides which, LOL is a kiddie game not a gamers game. I do not ask the creators of tic-tac-toe for advice on handling monopoly.

[MustrumRidcully]

Old Trees, on 06 February 2013 - 07:05 AM, said:

One severe downside to lowering damage values is it makes friendly fire less of a threat, a that that is needed to maintain squad based combat.

" Don't stand in front of that K2!"

"Why?"

*FADOOZ*

"That's why."

Well, it also makes not-friendly fire weaker, so you need either more guns or more time to deal the same damage. Which is the point - of course, if the medium laser was lowered 20 % in damage and heat, you should stop running a 6 medium laser Hunchback - upgrade to 8 medium lasers. Same heat, same (friendly fire) damage as before. But now the canonically appropriate number of weapons!

[Teralitha]

Vassago Rain, on 06 February 2013 - 07:01 AM, said:

This isn't a competitive game.

If this isnt a competitive game or heading in that direction, then its a complete waste of time to develop

MustrumRidcully, on 06 February 2013 - 07:00 AM, said:

That's not simply "dummy proofing". It's also about retaining the feel of Battletech. If you always increase the damage of weapons, you end up with typical configurations using 2 or 3 weapons at most, while Battletech typically features mechs with 6 or more weapons! A Hunchback 4P should be "heat-usable" with 8 medium lasers and standard heat sinks. It currently is only heat-usable with something like 7 medium lasers and double heat sinks. That's not replicating the feel of Battletech at all, and if PGI were to lower the medium laser damage and heat output, it wouldn't be dummy-proofing, it would be simply making the game more Battletech-like.

And on a more general note - the LoL Devs is not saying anything about "dummy proofing" or lowering the skill bar. That's your own agenda.

None of the mechwarrior games 'feel' like battletech, and thats their best quality.... as a tabletop game with dice is nothing like mechwarrior.

Its not my own agenda, its just my own words describing whats happening.

[Vassago Rain]

Teralitha, on 06 February 2013 - 07:21 AM, said:

If this isnt a competitive game or heading in that direction, then its a complete waste of time to develop



None of the mechwarrior games 'feel' like battletech, and thats their best quality.... as a tabletop game with dice is nothing like mechwarrior.

Its not my own agenda, its just my own words describing whats happening.

We've brought up the catapult since forever, and it never gets altered. Ergo, they don't intend for this to be a hardcore competitive game.

[Teralitha]

KuruptU4Fun, on 06 February 2013 - 07:02 AM, said:

Most people could learn a lot from a video like this and what it takes to perfectly imbalance a game:

http://www.youtube.c...d&v=e31OSVZF77w

Do you honestly believe that Riot Games got everything right the first time? That dev comment did not come without some realization that mistakes were made in their game creation and the difficulty it took to fix them.

No of course they didnt get it right the first time, but why not examine what IS done right to avoid making unecessary mistakes that another game has made and fixed....

Vassago Rain, on 06 February 2013 - 07:24 AM, said:

We've brought up the catapult since forever, and it never gets altered. Ergo, they don't intend for this to be a hardcore competitive game.

Whats wrong with the catapult that makes this.. 'not' a hardcore competitive game?

[Vassago Rain]

Teralitha, on 06 February 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

No of course they didnt get it right the first time, but why not examine what IS done right to avoid making unecessary mistakes that another game has made and fixed....



Whats wrong with the catapult that makes this.. 'not' a hardcore competitive game?

It's always the best choice for damage. Missiles are strong? Catapult can boat the most. Ballistics are strong? Catapult can boat two almost untouchable ones in the side torsos. Lasers are really good? It can boat four.

It has the best twist, the best shape, the best variants, and full access to everything you'd want.

[Teralitha]

Kylere, on 06 February 2013 - 07:07 AM, said:

Nothing new in the post by the OP, they are merely restating what people have been saying since I was coding LPCMuds.

Besides which, LOL is a kiddie game not a gamers game. I do not ask the creators of tic-tac-toe for advice on handling monopoly.

And yet, niether tic tac toe or monopoly has become an e-sport with a professional level of play. Which is where I think MWO could be some day... maybe... possibly... hopefuly....

[Lukoi Banacek]

MustrumRidcully, on 06 February 2013 - 07:00 AM, said:

That's not simply "dummy proofing". It's also about retaining the feel of Battletech. If you always increase the damage of weapons, you end up with typical configurations using 2 or 3 weapons at most, while Battletech typically features mechs with 6 or more weapons! A Hunchback 4P should be "heat-usable" with 8 medium lasers and standard heat sinks. It currently is only heat-usable with something like 7 medium lasers and double heat sinks. That's not replicating the feel of Battletech at all, and if PGI were to lower the medium laser damage and heat output, it wouldn't be dummy-proofing, it would be simply making the game more Battletech-like.

And on a more general note - the LoL Devs is not saying anything about "dummy proofing" or lowering the skill bar. That's your own agenda.

I agree except with one point.....your example is flawed in regards to the "feel of battletech." The boating of Mechs should be heat viable, yes, but not in alpha after alpha. Alpha's were not the only way to shoot in TT nor the books but ingame many pilots feel a build isn't viable unless they can spam whatever they're boating fairly non-stop or at least 4+ times before overheat....that's not within the spirit of the game for the most part (barring rare exceptions), but that's because as always the crossing point between a game based on dice/storybook lore with the reality of human coordination, precision and reaction time isn't always harmonious.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Teralitha, on 06 February 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

No of course they didnt get it right the first time, but why not examine what IS done right to avoid making unecessary mistakes that another game has made and fixed....

let's start with the difference between swords and sorcery and cannons and lasers. How does one take valid information away from it when the two are so different? Second is simply trial and error, they may be taking examples from LoL or WoT, just not explaining to you that they are because those companies would take action of such statement was made. Comparatively, if Riot Games feels that an element of MW:O was being copied directly. Riot could sue them for it. Legal battles have killed corporations before in costs alone. How quickly would PGI fold if that happened?

Teralitha, on 06 February 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

Whats wrong with the catapult that makes this.. 'not' a hardcore competitive game?

Player use makes a competitive game, once enough attention has been brought to it, then companies start to support it thru advertising and licensing.

[Teralitha]

Vassago Rain, on 06 February 2013 - 07:29 AM, said:

It's always the best choice for damage. Missiles are strong? Catapult can boat the most. Ballistics are strong? Catapult can boat two almost untouchable ones in the side torsos. Lasers are really good? It can boat four.

It has the best twist, the best shape, the best variants, and full access to everything you'd want.

Ah..... but your forgetting that the catapult also dies very easily, has a very limited torso range of motion(up and down).

I do not own any catapult varients currently, I had them in closed beta, and I found their glaring weaknesses to be a detriment, plus I have no trouble killing them in any other mech(with a few exceptions such as ssrm boat vs a light) I find the catapult to be a very balanced and versatile mech. But I would never drive one....

[MustrumRidcully]

Teralitha, on 06 February 2013 - 07:21 AM, said:

If this isnt a competitive game or heading in that direction, then its a complete waste of time to develop



None of the mechwarrior games 'feel' like battletech, and thats their best quality.... as a tabletop game with dice is nothing like mechwarrior.

This is cow excrement. I ma not talking about random dice rolls, I am talking about typical weapon loadouts. There is nothing unique about real time 3D games with mouse aiming that would make it impossible to support Battletech typical weapon loadouts. You just need to set the stats so that if the table top game says "8 medium lasers with 21 standard heat sinks is a good build" is also a good build in your game. If currently 4 Medium Lasers with 21 standard heat sinks would be better, just lower the damage by half and lower the heat by a bit more so people can equip 8 medium lasers for the same damage and weight investment (accounting for heat sinks and the extray weight of the 4 extra medium lasers). It's not black magic, it doesn't require random hit locations or dice rolls or hexes.

[Teralitha]

KuruptU4Fun, on 06 February 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

let's start with the difference between swords and sorcery and cannons and lasers. How does one take valid information away from it when the two are so different? Second is simply trial and error, they may be taking examples from LoL or WoT, just not explaining to you that they are because those companies would take action of such statement was made. Comparatively, if Riot Games feels that an element of MW:O was being copied directly. Riot could sue them for it. Legal battles have killed corporations before in costs alone. How quickly would PGI fold if that happened?

We are talking philosophies here... concepts... way of thinking. Not actual parts of the game.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Teralitha, on 06 February 2013 - 07:39 AM, said:

Ah..... but your forgetting that the catapult also dies very easily, has a very limited torso range of motion(up and down).

I do not own any catapult varients currently, I had them in closed beta, and I found their glaring weaknesses to be a detriment, plus I have no trouble killing them in any other mech(with a few exceptions such as ssrm boat vs a light) I find the catapult to be a very balanced and versatile mech. But I would never drive one....

The Cat has always been a specialty (cheese) built. It has come and gone a few times as the FOTM since CB till today.

[Vassago Rain]

Teralitha, on 06 February 2013 - 07:39 AM, said:

Ah..... but your forgetting that the catapult also dies very easily, has a very limited torso range of motion(up and down).

I do not own any catapult varients currently, I had them in closed beta, and I found their glaring weaknesses to be a detriment, plus I have no trouble killing them in any other mech(with a few exceptions such as ssrm boat vs a light) I find the catapult to be a very balanced and versatile mech. But I would never drive one....

It doesn't die very easily, and since the sides are almost untouchable, you'll have to work pretty hard to kill them. Up and down movement doesn't matter.

You can spin almost 360, and do it much faster with your jump jets.

Until they start seriously balancing mechs and guns, this isn't a competitive game, but a very fun giant robot game.

[MustrumRidcully]

Lukoi, on 06 February 2013 - 07:33 AM, said:

I agree except with one point.....your example is flawed in regards to the "feel of battletech." The boating of Mechs should be heat viable, yes, but not in alpha after alpha. Alpha's were not the only way to shoot in TT nor the books but ingame many pilots feel a build isn't viable unless they can spam whatever they're boating fairly non-stop or at least 4+ times before overheat....that's not within the spirit of the game for the most part (barring rare exceptions), but that's because as always the crossing point between a game based on dice/storybook lore with the reality of human coordination, precision and reaction time isn't always harmonious.

But the Hunchback 4P is an "alpha after alpha after alpha" mech. Just like the Awesome 8Q. These are mechs designed around being able to fire their weapon load almost consantly, with only small firing pauses. Basically, the 4P can cool off by shooting only 3/4 of its weapon, the 8Q by firing only 2/3, every 3 or 4 turns.

But you could also design "hotter" mechs, if you want, that fire even larger alphas. Think of something like the Nova and Supernova, mechs that get deep into the critical heat regions after one alpha.

That's just about trade-offs. The 12 ER Medium Laser Nova with I dunno-how-many-double-heat-sinks would overheat faster than the 8 Medium Laser HBK 4P with 21 standard heat sinks, but he'd also have more damage when it alphas. That's the trade-off these buiulds. The Nova gambles more, and if it works out for him, he might kill a "cooler" mech before that mech can utilize his superior heat efficiency, potentially allowing him to take down a 2nd. But if his first strike fails, the cooler mechs will likely prevail, because he's not bogged down by extreme heat level or potentially a shut down.

This type of risk management and trade-offs is what the Battletech heat system is about.