DUST Search - Top 4 bad Game Design Issues?

Poplo Furuya wrote:

Really? That's what you're choosing? Those are all seriously small-time for 'worst game design issues'.

The first on my list would be the game modes all being critically lacking. Unfocused shared objective placeholders which don't naturally promote a wider team dynamic or much in the way of strategic plays.

Which leads into the second. Because of the match types' failings the integration of the infantry game and the vehicular game is really poor. In a game where one side was tasked with defence of something and the other with it's attack then the ability of HAVs to advance and suppress infantry, splitting them into AI and AV roles while they're at it, would open up a role for them in enabling an infantry push on the objective and the enemy force. Likewise HAVs playing defence serve as the rocks for such pushes to break themselves against. Dropships would also have a target of great strategic importance to airlift a strike force onto and a tangible frontline on the ground to bypass.

The third issue, lack of solid map design built with match objectives in mind and a clear idea of what kind of gameplay wants to be accomodated and promoted. To be fair if the map designers don't have anything to work with due to the game modes being as lacklustre as they are this isn't their fault. Map design without a proper brief on or personal understanding of the specific games battleflow is a nightmare.

An incredibly distant 4th, balance. Lots wrong here but it's just not as important as the above three things.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Prius Vecht Red and Silver Hand Amarr Empire 143	Posted - 2013.07.04 14:57:00 - [1] - Quote Contact Grenades - I could see flashbangs as contact but frags? now we have people using grenades in CQC which means someone failed game design 101. even worse they do loads of damage when most ez mode weapons only wound. Requiring grenades to be equipped for use like nanohives cant get here fast enough. Flaylock Pistols - The CPM tried to warn us after FF, CCP needs someone new to do explosive damage as they are horrible at it. Instead of rewarding aim its splash damage is almost the same as a direct hit. This cant happen in shooters. Basically a smaller more effective Mass Driver. This weapon breaks the game with its tiny CPU and PG cost, especially the core version. Every other weapon with value makes you give up something to equip it. Its a sidearm that is arguably the most devastating weapon in the game. Should be shown to designers everywhere as an example of why noob tubes are bad, because when skilled players get ahold of them all hell breaks loose. Logis - "And one suit to rule them all" An Embarassment to game design everywhere. Meant to be a support class but high CPU and PG & slots have made it the perfect weapon. Has the slot flexibility to be more resilient than the heavy, faster than a scout and all while carrying every piece of equipment it needs making it as valuable as 3 people. about the only thing it cant do is leap tall buildings in a single bound. LAVs - SMH. Showcases the horrible physics engine as 5mph impacts are instant kills when tanks cant run you over. Logi, Scout LAVs dont vary enough and stock lavs now can survive multiple adv AV grenades. utter Madness. further drives home the point that lavs should never have been free in the first place. anyone else seen anything as bad as these?
Prius Vecht Red and Silver Hand Amarr Empire 146	Posted - 2013.07.04 17:57:00 - [2] - Quote Poplo Furuya wrote: Really? That's what you're choosing? Those are all seriously small-time for 'worst game design issues'. The first on my list would be the game modes all being critically lacking. Unfocused shared objective placeholders which don't naturally promote a wider team dynamic or much in the way of strategic plays. Which leads into the second. Because of the match types' failings the integration of the infantry game and the vehicular game is really poor. In a game where one side was tasked with defence of something and the other with it's attack then the ability of HAVs to advance and suppress infantry, splitting them into AI and AV roles while they're at it, would open up a role for them in enabling an infantry push on the objective and the enemy force. Likewise HAVs playing defence serve as the rocks for such pushes to break themselves against. Dropships would also have a target of great strategic importance to airlift a strike force onto and a tangible frontline on the ground to bypass. The third issue, lack of solid map design built with match objectives in mind and a clear idea of what kind of gameplay wants to be accomodated and promoted. To be fair if the map designers don't have anything to work with due to the game modes being as lacklustre as they are this isn't their fault. Map design without a proper brief on or personal understanding of the specific games battleflow is a nightmare. An incredibly distant 4th, balance. Lots wrong here but it's just not as important as the above three things. I agree with the lack of modes but in a shooter the gunplay and combat interaction trumps variety of experience.
Prius Vecht Red and Silver Hand Amarr Empire 148	Posted - 2013.07.04 18:30:00 - [3] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Swarm launchers - Auto seeking auto aiming no skill or aiming required yet they can fire and fly invisible and also bend around corners and do 270deg turns on the spot Swarm Launchers are actually fine as they are. What is needed is counter measures (flack launchers) and a beeping sound when someone locks you. Also, damage specific resistance plating (much higher resistance, but only to one damage type. ie. Explosive) is needed for Armour Tanked HAVGÇÖs. This type of damage specific resistance plating is used in EVE. The counter measures would be a new mechanic. +1 to countermeasures. seems adding lock on & incoming swarm alarms and assets [with a cool-down] that you fire to fool swarms would be so easy.