|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
   |
Posted - 2013.01.06 05:55:00 -
[1] - Quote
More limits in a sandbox game = totally missing the point of a sandbox game 
More seriously; your theory is flawed, if a new player is starts a match, gets crushed, has his team redlined and then pulls out a starter sniper fit (as per your post) it's not the sniper fit making the game less fun, it's the redline.
And forcing someone to run a starter assault rather than a starter sniper (after they've already gotten crushed, gone neg, and had their team redlined) isn't going to make it a more competitive match. The real result of this will be more people leaving the match or spawning in the MCC and never deploying (both of which already happen in abundance and we need less of, not more).
Now granted just going sniping because things have gone poorly isn't a good tactic, but the game shouldn't be built around the concept of mechanically preventing poor tactics, that's directly converse to a player driven sandbox experience.
The real problem is that teams getting "redlined" is too common/easy and the solution isn't going to be found in tweaking gear or fits, it's a macro problem which needs a macro solution (such as terrain resculpting, redline touch ups, and enhanced matchmaking). |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
|
Posted - 2013.01.06 07:46:00 -
[2] - Quote
Um, No?
My contention that the maps need retouched is not equivalent to saying "move the redline back". And once again you're focused on the "I don't like people doing this so let's make a rule to stop them" mentality.
I've read your other thread and can understand that it's frustrating to have a team in a random pub match full of people who don't have the wherewithal to employ effective tactics but attempting to create additional constraints to pressure them into responding to a bad situation in the way you'd desire is not an effective method of game balance.
You cannot address the macro level problems of map balance and highly risk averse and/or newer players not engaging by
removing fits in an attempt to pressure them.
Your argument doesn't hold up cohesion even within the quoted response. You state that sitting and doing nothing should have some cost but if they spawn in a starter fit in the MCC they won't be paying for anything even if that starter fit can't be a sniper. Nor will they be "paying for it" if they simply leave the match. If you want to "make them pay for it" you have to remove any starter fit option as well as the ability to leave a match. Otherwise your net effect on the "doing nothing" metric is zero and the net impact of your suggestion is actually to diminish the level of participation within the match.
As to the "starting classes" you're again missing the fundamental concept of the sandbox, and attempting to impose strictures like you'd see in other more rigid styles of gaming. In those more liner methods your initial choices pre-define your possible choices and potential within the world (even if it's an MMO or other online game which could be played for years). In the Sandbox those opening choices give you a little head start towards certain goals, they're an edge (and a minor one at that) not a restriction.
You can't force people to play the game your way, CCP knows that which is why EVE has been so successful. If you try to force people to play one way then all you accomplish is to drive everyone who plays (or wants to play) outside of whatever narrow view you espouse, to leave the game. Again that's not effective balance, and beyond that if you've "years" of observation telling you that "the problem is the players" and "there's no other way to discourage the practice" then in your own statement you're affirming the advocacy of trying to force people to play your way and I can only reiterate that it shows a fundamental lack of understanding regarding what sandbox gaming (the kind offered by participation in New Eden) is.
Quote:An open world is a type of video game level design where a player can roam freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives.
If what they're doing is ineffective they'll already be penalized by failure to earn WP leading to lessor earnings of SP/ISK.
Everyone is subject to the same rules with the sole arbiter being it's effective value in true sandbox style.
That's not a "buzz word" it's a design philosophy, but since you brought up buzz words here are a couple that do relate to your attempt to fix the problem that you identify as being the players.
Your buzz words are: Adapt or Die.
And you're right, may saying it, or not saying it, doesn't change what happens in game one iota. They'd be just as true if I'd never typed them as they are now that I have. |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 20:51:00 -
[3] - Quote
BattleCry1791 wrote:@ Cross Atu
You sure love to type but you don't bother to read do you?
Let's begin with your assessment that removing the sniper starter fit from the non sniper classes is limiting. Well, applying that logic to the rest of the game, why can't I have a starter gunnlogi? Or in EvE where's my militia Titan? That'd be silly right? That's not "limiting choice", that's how the game's built. Let's apply your "logic" to guns. Why am I "limited" to the amount of bullets I can carry? I can do this all day.
I'm sure that you can, but even if you did it still wouldn't become lucid.
You're creating an imbalanced set of choices by attempting to enforce a class system on a sandbox game.
If you were saying "there should be no starter fits" that wouldn't create the kind of mechanical limitation/imbalance as your OP does. But you're not suggesting that, you're suggesting removing one specific sub-type of starter fits because you (erroneously) have concluded that it's the source of a type of tactic that you find distasteful.
Even in your attempted comparison your reasoning fails to maintain basic internal cohesion, your attempt to draw a parallel between a militia starter fit and a Titan is ludicrous. The idea that you can lump every high meta piece of gear in New Eden into the context of starter fits by simply using "militia" as a prefix is either a straw man or the result of a lack of understanding regarding the fundamental mechanics of the game. In either case lumping together items of differing meta levels (and types, and for that matter games) is far from staying on point or even remotely addressing my post.
Quote:Video games are all about limits. The only argument is why limit this or why limit that.
So in your perception what then is sandbox gaming and how does it play out within the perspective of your advocated paradigm?
Or is your contention that the sandbox development philosophy is simply a fiction or a con? Or perhaps are you simply refusing to address this aspect which I've been bringing up since the first line of my first post?
Quote:There's really no balance issue in regards to the Starter Sniper kits. So it falls to gameplay. And I can tell you right now, letting newbs have a sniper starter kits drags down the gameplay for the reasons I've listed. I've seen it happen tens of thousands of times and that's no exaggeration. I've just been playing FPS's that freakin' long.
And let's get another thing straight. It's not a sandbox. It's a battlefield. If there's no battle going on, then it's just boring, and no one is making any ISK, SP, WP, or being challenged. And it's not "my way". It can only be "my way" if the sun coming up in the east every day is "the sun's way". It's a constant, a force of nature, whatever you want to call it. It might as well be a mathematical equation.
So you're now equating the relevance and meaning of whether or not a new player has access to a given starter fit more or less to a mathematics or a force of nature? :p And you contend that something so universal, so implacable and immutable (as "the suns way") is both A)something totally obvious and irrefutable but that multiple professional developers from more than one international gaming entity have simply completely overlooked throughout the beta prior to your post. And B) going to be fixed by limiting some new players from accessing a specific starter fit, as per your OP Quote:Request: Elimination of Starter Sniper kits for non Snipers
So what happens when guides or reviews are written about D514 wherein some tips are offered and among those tips is "select to sniper starter class to ensure access to all starter fits." What happens if this were to occur at some point prior to live launch, say for instance next build when we hit Open Beta? At that point the net effect of your OP on the state of play when we reach live is next to nothing (save having used up a bit of Dev time to make the change).
Quote:You're worrying about players that will play this for maybe a month or two and then quit for various reasons. I'm trying to prevent them from messing with the dedicated players' good time for the short duration they are here and you're just being a snarky, too smart for his own good (and don't confuse that with actually being intelligent), standard Eve mousejocky.
Presumptive much? You know who will and won't play the game and for how long, and you know this during Closed Beta with the key trait being what? Their willingness to pull out a sniper rifle while redlined? This reasoning is begging for a Wanka meme poster.
So you're worried about these players "messing with" the "dedicated players" but you don't credit these dedicated players with being able to head to FW, or Corp battles, or run in squads who can have a good time in a bad match, or counter snipe, or work around snipers, or use the opportunity of a secured field to practice new tactics, or play around with cross redline hacking, installation destruction or "death taxi" etc. In short you contend that these "dedicated players" are incapable of enjoying the game they are ostensibly dedicated too if new players (whom they are pub stomping) are allowed access to a Meta 0 starter fit for the "maybe month or two" that they're in the game? Dubious at best, self-righteous QQ'ing at worst. To be blunt I'm leaning heavily towards the latter considering that you've chosen to close your response with off topic ad hominem rhetoric.
|
|
|
| |
|