| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mike Poole
Kirkinen Risk Control
Caldari State
355
   |
Posted - 2013.07.22 08:22:00 -
[1] - Quote
What exactly is wrong with flavors of the month?
Isn't the basic premise that every month everyone is finding some new build that changes how the game is played? Isn't that the kind of thing you want for a game?
Lets say you had two games to choose from.
Game A has a system where every choice you make is permanent. Every bit of experience you invest stays where it is forever and ever. Everyone optimizes their time spent playing by adhering strictly to spreadsheet calculated builds. The way you play this month is nearly the same as you play next month and the month after and the month after. Any changes made to the game need to be slowly worked through over months of re-specializing with everyone complaining because it's ruined their way of playing and takes forever to adapt to.
Game B has the dreaded "respec" system where your choices aren't permanent. Every bit of experience you invest can be reallocated at a whim whenever you want. Everyone experiments with their builds, trying to find new ways of combining skills, weapons and items to find new ways to play that best suit their style and match the styles of the players they play with and against. The way you play this month can be worlds different from how you play next month or the month after. One month everyone is into tank based combat so you work on an AV build, well all of the AV builds pushed the tank users to switch to infantry builds so you decide to swap your AV setup for a tank and so on and so on and so on. Any changes made to the game are fluidly and dynamically adapted to by the entire player base with few complaints because everyone can find a way to adapt.
Which of those games sounds more fun to play? The one that punishes you when it changes or the one that lets you dynamically adapt to changes? The one that gets its longevity from a long and punishing system of grind after grind after grind or the one that gets its longevity from people finding new ways to play and enjoying the experience? |
Cosgar
ParagonX
2930
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 08:30:00 -
[2] - Quote
The problem is when the flavor of the moth is something game breaking like TAC ARs, CaLogis, Core Flaylock Pistols, LLAVS and Contact Grenades. You wind up with an army of tryhards abusing game mechanics, eliminating healthy counter play, and ruining everyone else's fun. |
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf
Seraphim Initiative.
CRONOS.
5077
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 08:30:00 -
[3] - Quote
FOTMs are not necessarily a problem in my opinion, but often times its a sign of something being OP. It doesn't always mean something is OP, ARs are the favorites of EVERY month, and I don't think they're OP. Even if they're OP, they eventually get fixed.
Game B sounds much more enjoyable. Though some people will make that "but EVE..." and "choices matter" excuse, and completely ignore the fun aspects. Restricting player freedom and flexibility does not help a game in any way. |
Bendtner92
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
771
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 08:32:00 -
[4] - Quote
Cosgar wrote:The problem is when the flavor of the moth is something game breaking like TAC ARs, CaLogis, Core Flaylock Pistols, LLAVS and Contact Grenades. You wind up with an army of tryhards abusing game mechanics, eliminating healthy counter play, and ruining everyone else's fun.
Then maybe CCP should get better at balancing? |
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf
Seraphim Initiative.
CRONOS.
5077
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 08:32:00 -
[5] - Quote
Cosgar wrote:The problem is when the flavor of the moth is something game breaking like TAC ARs, CaLogis, Core Flaylock Pistols, LLAVS and Contact Grenades. You wind up with an army of tryhards abusing game mechanics, eliminating healthy counter play, and ruining everyone else's fun.
The solution is to fix the game mechanics themselves, not limit access by restricting respecialization. |
Cosgar
ParagonX
2930
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 08:33:00 -
[6] - Quote
Bendtner92 wrote:Cosgar wrote:The problem is when the flavor of the moth is something game breaking like TAC ARs, CaLogis, Core Flaylock Pistols, LLAVS and Contact Grenades. You wind up with an army of tryhards abusing game mechanics, eliminating healthy counter play, and ruining everyone else's fun. Then maybe CCP should get better at balancing?
If we didn't have the skill tree changes that gave everyone a chance to respec, we wouldn't have so many people speccing into the FotM. |
Allah's Snackbar
Forty-Nine Fedayeen
Minmatar Republic
436
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 08:33:00 -
[7] - Quote
Flavours this month include Mildewy Gerkin and Dog Turd. |
Mike Poole
Kirkinen Risk Control
Caldari State
356
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 08:35:00 -
[8] - Quote
Cosgar wrote:The problem is when the flavor of the moth is something game breaking like TAC ARs, CaLogis, Core Flaylock Pistols, LLAVS and Contact Grenades. You wind up with an army of tryhards abusing game mechanics, eliminating healthy counter play, and ruining everyone else's fun.
And that is bad because we don't want CCP to learn about game breaking mechanics?
Is there any better way for a game breaking build to get noticed than when the majority of players spec into it and start utterly destroying each other in every single game?
If you're limiting how many people can take advantage of something that utterly game breaking you're limiting how often people encounter that build. Those that complain are in the minority and are told to "try harder" or "adapt or die" until enough people start abusing the build that the greater community takes notice and CCP is forced to act. |
RedRebelCork
Ahrendee Mercenaries
EoN.
169
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 08:38:00 -
[9] - Quote
The players are the lowest common denominator in any balance or FoTM discussion.
People play for fun. Winning is more fun than losing. People play to win.
If CCP release equipment without fully testing and considering how it will be dominant then the players will use that equipment. There will of course be times when very innovative players find ways of cobbling together a unique dominant fit (they do it in EVE all the time), but some of the things in Dust514 like the Core Flaylock are so blatant it beggars belief that they were ever allowed into the live build.
TL;DR - Don't blame the players for using the most blatantly obvious OP gear. |
Cosgar
ParagonX
2933
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 08:40:00 -
[10] - Quote
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote:Cosgar wrote:The problem is when the flavor of the moth is something game breaking like TAC ARs, CaLogis, Core Flaylock Pistols, LLAVS and Contact Grenades. You wind up with an army of tryhards abusing game mechanics, eliminating healthy counter play, and ruining everyone else's fun. The solution is to fix the game mechanics themselves, not limit access by restricting respecialization.
There isn't any restriction in specialization when you stick with game mechanics you like, compared to what's popular or OP. I've been playing Minmatar Logi and using a MD and SMG (in CQC maps) since Chromosome. Not because any of those 3 things are popular or OP, but because I like them and they work with my playstyle. There's always going to be a FotM no matter how balanced this game is, but instead of being able to jump into proto like everyone seems to want to do here, take the time and try out the standard, see if it's something worth investing instead of dumping all your eggs into one basket. |
|
|
ChromeBreaker
SVER True Blood
901
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 08:41:00 -
[11] - Quote
The problem is they only last a month... thats the point....
people skill into the OP weapon, it gets nerfed, and they cry their newly balanced weapon isnt good enough. AND that now it isnt OP they'd rathe be using something else... cAn ayE haVe a ResPec PLs |
Cosgar
ParagonX
2933
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 08:45:00 -
[12] - Quote
Mike Poole wrote:Cosgar wrote:The problem is when the flavor of the moth is something game breaking like TAC ARs, CaLogis, Core Flaylock Pistols, LLAVS and Contact Grenades. You wind up with an army of tryhards abusing game mechanics, eliminating healthy counter play, and ruining everyone else's fun. And that is bad because we don't want CCP to learn about game breaking mechanics? Is there any better way for a game breaking build to get noticed than when the majority of players spec into it and start utterly destroying each other in every single game? If you're limiting how many people can take advantage of something that utterly game breaking you're limiting how often people encounter that build. Those that complain are in the minority and are told to "try harder" or "adapt or die" until enough people start abusing the build that the greater community takes notice and CCP is forced to act.
By your logic, ARs would be considered OP because it's the most used weapon in the game instead of just being better because everything else was nerfed at the beginning of Uprising. I don't know about you, bud I'd rather the devs rely on collected data than a bunch of bandwagon jumpers looking for a cheap, competitive edge. |
Korvin Lomont
United Pwnage Service
RISE of LEGION
54
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 08:50:00 -
[13] - Quote
Mike Poole wrote:Cosgar wrote:The problem is when the flavor of the moth is something game breaking like TAC ARs, CaLogis, Core Flaylock Pistols, LLAVS and Contact Grenades. You wind up with an army of tryhards abusing game mechanics, eliminating healthy counter play, and ruining everyone else's fun. And that is bad because we don't want CCP to learn about game breaking mechanics? Is there any better way for a game breaking build to get noticed than when the majority of players spec into it and start utterly destroying each other in every single game? If you're limiting how many people can take advantage of something that utterly game breaking you're limiting how often people encounter that build. Those that complain are in the minority and are told to "try harder" or "adapt or die" until enough people start abusing the build that the greater community takes notice and CCP is forced to act.
In theory you are right, we want CCP to know about these gamebreaking elements the Problem ist CCPs reaction Time and the reaction itself (most of the times).
CCP takes too long to finetune weapons and by this time everyone is spamming the FOTM like crazy ruining the game experience for everyone not speccing in the FOTM. That could lead to a player drop as the game is not fun unless you go a certain route. So the long rection time forces you to follow the FOTM to be competitive.
On the other hand CCP tends to overreact when it comes down to balancing this makes some interesting and weapons simply useless and makes anyone pretty upset that has skilled into these weapons... |
Mike Poole
Kirkinen Risk Control
Caldari State
356
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 08:50:00 -
[14] - Quote
ChromeBreaker wrote:THe problem is they last a month... thats the point....
people skill into the OP weapon, it gets nerfed, and they cry their newly balanced weapon isnt good enough. AND that now it isnt OP they'd rathe be using something else... cAn ayE haVe a ResPec PLs
The problem is your reading comprehension...
If people can respec at any time and their FOTM gets nerfed or if other players learn how to counter it or new items get released or whatever happens instead of having a forum filled with people whining about wanting a respec and people whining about people wanting respecs people simply respec and continue playing. |
ChromeBreaker
SVER True Blood
901
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 09:01:00 -
[15] - Quote
Mike Poole wrote:ChromeBreaker wrote:THe problem is they last a month... thats the point....
people skill into the OP weapon, it gets nerfed, and they cry their newly balanced weapon isnt good enough. AND that now it isnt OP they'd rathe be using something else... cAn ayE haVe a ResPec PLs The problem is your reading comprehension... If people can respec at any time and their FOTM gets nerfed or if other players learn how to counter it or new items get released or whatever happens instead of having a forum filled with people whining about wanting a respec and people whining about people wanting respecs people simply respec and continue playing.
If you could have respecs whenever... well just get rid of skill points completely... just unlock equiptmaent by tears and be done with it
my readings fine.. i just didnt realise you were so short sighted... |
Ansiiis The Trustworthy
WE ARE LEGENDS
164
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 09:40:00 -
[16] - Quote
Fit of the month is bad already when a scrub can kill anyone by shooting 3 shots of flaylock at your feet, it is even worse when this is done by a caldari logi who has just got out of his LLAV and softened you up by contact nade. And the TAC AR goes somewhere in the middle. |
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
704
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 09:41:00 -
[17] - Quote
They are generally crutches which require no skill to use and are spammed by 99% of the playerbase to pad KDR or to win
|
Doshneil Antaro
SVER True Blood
95
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 10:51:00 -
[18] - Quote
FOTM at the core of it is not bad, it is just when the FOTM has something that is OP in the load out that leaves no viable counter. I always love it when a fotm is fixed, and I get to go back to destroying those no skilled fotm players with pure raw skill, and not ever stooping to there game breaking mechanics. |
KEROSIINI-TERO
Seraphim Initiative.
CRONOS.
600
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 11:02:00 -
[19] - Quote
What's wrong:
- Everyone is running identical gear. There's no diversity on the battlefield
- Anyone not abusing FOTM is hopelessly outgunned - even harder for younger players
- Makes a game dull. Imagine some oldschool shooter with one basic rifle. |
Nitrobeacon
Freek Coalition
34
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 11:22:00 -
[20] - Quote
Laser rifle is the FoTM this time ^ ^, just because one guy use a crap weapon everyone will try it. |
|
|
KingBabar
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
926
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 11:30:00 -
[21] - Quote
KEROSIINI-TERO wrote:What's wrong:
- Everyone is running identical gear. There's no diversity on the battlefield
- Anyone not abusing FOTM is hopelessly outgunned - even harder for younger players
- Makes a game dull. Imagine some oldschool shooter with one basic rifle.
You mena like Dust is anyway?
With its shield tanked Duvolle AR builds being dominant?
FOTM is the result of a developer with antz in the pants.
I mean, I played Warhawk and then MAG, it took me about 5 years. FOTM was a non issues on both of these games.
CCP needs to put a game through a beta process before releasing it.... |
Panther Alpha
DarkWingsss
675
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 12:56:00 -
[22] - Quote
When the "Flavors of the Month" are; Spicy Fish Ice Cream, and Crap Soup with **** on it ...Well.. that is EXACTLY what is wrong with it. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
3362
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 13:22:00 -
[23] - Quote
There are two ways a game can have "flavour of the month" gameplay.
1. The good way, which DUST doesn't do:
As players learn to use the game, a particular build starts routinely countering most - NOT all - other options. People start using the build a lot, and the meta mostly revolves around that fitting. After a while, a few good counters emerge for this playstyle, and one of those tends to have an advantage over the others as well as the most recent FOTM. This build becomes the new FOTM, then soon finds its own counter, and so on.
Over time, it should emerge that there are some key weapons and/or suits that are being used in the majority of FOTM builds, or that are relatively common on a consistent basis without being part of the FOTM cycle, and there will be other items which emerge as being under-utilised, because their effect on gameplay isn't enough to warrant equipping them over any other options. Sometimes, these could reasonably see small nerfs and/or buffs, depending on the prevalence/rarity of the tiem, and the devs should continue watching the metagame develop after doing so.
2. The wrong way, which CCP have a habit of running with.
As people are coming to terms with the game's altered mechanics, but before the meta can start evolving, the devs notice the current FOTM fitting and nerf it into oblivion. There's always a slightly less popular, but still effective option, which is typically lined up to become the next FOTM, and often this gets a buff when the other option got nerfed, even though the traditional FOTM-based meta would have seen it on top soon enough without any improvements to its capabilities. This results in a powerful (but under-used) option becoming even more powerful, and more than secures it as the go-to option for almost everyone. Obviously, this later has to be nerfed as well, and when it does, everyone complains about the loss of their precious SP. Then they notice that with the nerf, that other gun they'd been a little worried about fighting has become a great option, skill into that, and go back to their EZMode win button on a new fitting, before the same thing happens and they come back to complain again.
Some items in this setup are not merely neglected, but actively nerfed in spite of a lack of usefulness.
A similar pattern to number 2, although worse, has been demonstrated by the Assassin's Creed series. In the multiplayer for these games, the Smoke Bomb was seen as being overly powerful in Brotherhood. Most of the playerbase relied heavily on this ability, and the devs noticed. Instead of realising it was OP, though, Ubisoft posted a public notice saying "we've noticed that Smoke Bomb is being used a lot, even though Firecrackers do the same job better". The whole community laughed at them, with many people thinking it was a joke. Until Revelations, where they BUFFED THE SMOKE BOMB AND NERFED FIRECRACKERS. And after releasing the game in this state, and seeing continued complaints about the Smoke Bomb, they decided to prove that they listen to the fans by BUFFING THE SMOKE BOMB AGAIN.
Fortunately, while CCP have been quite happy to repeatedly nerf the most underpowered vehicles in the game, they haven't resorted to excessive buffing of the latest FOTM build (yet). So there's hope for the game to continue improving instead of going steadily downhill like Assassin's Creed has done. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |