Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

morello

Testers
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About morello

  • Rank
    Nestling

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Los Angeles
  1. Dedicated healers (WarPriest isn't a bad one) is an OK thing, for sure. It doesn't HAVE to break the fire hose model - the "blue healer" of pump HP into a man and keep him up. I think dedicated supports is the better goal (because we're chasing the core reasoning behind why people want healers), in which healer, when done correctly, could be one of them. Healing is a method to support, just like buffing, CC, etc. I think players get frustrated by healers, but saying "players just want to kill whoever they want" runs under the same reductive argument that "healers just want to make games suck" I think being against support classes is as silly a notion of firehose healing being a good quality in PvP - it's also pretty absolutist. The issue I think you have to solve is you can't have a force multiplier that drags the fight to a stop unless you deal with it. You can have a class that extends fight times (tanks do this too), makes it much harder to kill people (better if they have to play differently outside of just target selection decisions) or creates new challenging contexts for opponents. If that then can satisfy the needs of the player who wants to help, and they can feel impactful for doing so without reducing the mechanics to "deal with me or don't play," then you're golden.
  2. "Crowfall. This just in: mad kids are still mad."
  3. I did, for 5 years. I think I'm happy to see what has been learned in over a decade and applied to the model
  4. (OT!) I did - I played in TMM on 2.0 and later. We played in NA primarily, and largely got destroyed by FFT.
  5. This is always a tricky one on the "we think healers are great!" vs "healers suck!" The core argument is unsolvable on this axis because we're arguing direction with techniques - that is the specific mechanics that accomplish a goal, as opposed to the "why" on what healers provide that people desire. When we get to the why question, we can look past the mechanics and get to the underlying systems and psychology. There's an awesome Extra Credits episode that articulates this awesomely on the subject of genres; http://extra-credits.net/episodes/aesthetics-of-play/ So, then, why do people like healers? There's a few major reasons. These are broad patterns and generalizations, but at the "design direction" level, it's hard to zoom much closer than this. There will be exceptions on the individual level to any broad pattern. 1) Healers answer, in a clear way, a way someone can help, support or assist allies without having to do the killing themselves. This is appealing to someone who wants to define themselves as a helper. 2) Healers are traditionally the most impactful piece of an RPG, PvE or PvP. Healers are more important than non-healers overall in these games, and some people play them because they like be indispensable (and really, we'd all like to be indispensable!). 3) Healers have thematic fantasies that people have learned to love and look to for "what fits them" when they come into a new game. Reason 1 speaks to an playstyle and sense of expression. "I'm someone who helps," or "I like adding value to my group in supportive ways." I'd wager that this is the important bit - the why of healers. For this, there doesn't even have to be healing at all if you're a proper support that can act indirectly. Protection Monk in GW1 (while tuned to be 'a healer') is a model for active protection and buffing. Nami, from League of Legends, is a support whose healing is a very minor part of her kit - she focuses more on control and stat buffing. These characters are helpers, regardless of fire-hosing or not - and that focus should be the guiding principle that drives what support classes look like. I'd wager the debate largely comes from people who are worried there won't be a way to express this style, or the limited ways in which games have provided for this historically. This draw us to the conclusion of "supporting = healer", which is an understandable POV, but not the whole story. Reason 2 gets dicey. Healing doesn't need to cause this as a fire-hose, but without a new model of costs, timings, action to result, or other things that directly get you out of "MMO Priest" gameplay, these do cause problems. To make these characters feel good, they have to fulfill a role that is more important - they have to be able to save lives and prevent kills. When they do this, they take center stage and exhibit all the problems pointed out in this thread and beyond. To be balanced, they have to feel crappy, and when your job is to heal and all you do is prolong death slowly, that's a pretty flaccid feeling as a player. You end up in a lose-lose. We experimented with this on Soraka, and while it's better than the above scenario, it's not perfect. Health costs caused people who wanted a priest (honestly, the group that you have to not satisfy to make rich PvP) disappointed when reason 3 was violated for something more akin to a martyr. So what would I like to see? Generally, just support classes that follow the guideline of something that impacts a fight by helping others be more successful without having to always make things die. Timing-based defenses, buffs, peels, or heavy-cost healing can provide this. If some also can hit enemies to do the job, you open up CC and debuffs, creating a rich tapestry of mechanics available to answer the "why" of a helper character. Chasing this design aesthetic (as opposed to the mechanics of healing) is the right approach in how to satisfy players without taking on the burden of fire-hose healing.
  6. "An expert is just someone who has had the privilege of making more mistakes than a novice." So true. I relate to this myself as I've made a number of glaring mistakes on the games I've made, but the goal is to not repeat those mistakes. If we're hungry to learn and improve, then I think games overall can get better for players.
  7. I don't have much of an opinion on CF yet because I don't know their core combat loop. If it's more like Chivalry/Dark Souls (where judging attacks is part of the gameplay for combat), then I wouldn't want telegraphs outside of AOE warnings on persisting effects where other warnings don't exist. If their game is more "action-light" targeting like a Wildstar or Diablo, then I think telegraphs are OK for that combat. I'm personally against them myself, but it's not a skill argument for me. Crowfall is a GvG city siege game, where most battles will involve larger numbers of players. Telegraphs in this environment aren't able to be read anyway, and cause additional "noise" on the battlefield, making it hard to visually parse. If telegraphs are there to provide clarity SO you can make decisions (the primary use of telegraphs), then this factor makes me not like them, but the skill argument would be something I'd want to know more about. What decisions, mechanical skill and twitch do they want to test? Those answers, to me, say how you should use telegraphs.
  8. I worked on GW2 also, and I think the probl;em you lay out is real - classes didn't have different impacts on the game, so felt the same. It also doesn't help that the combat itself doesn't have a lot of decisions to make that can add strategy or skill. I'll point to LoL here though a little, because we see only one "firehose" healer (and she has a different play pattern than a priest or anything like that), but there are distinct roles. We see they have distinct roles like Tank, Support, Ranged Damage, etc. This can add the difference I think you notice in GW2.
  9. Crazy, huh? I'm actually just happy to see the stance on fire-hose healing as it's a tough position to take. Removing it can do a lot of positives in the general game, but does make a lot of passionate players pretty sad.
  10. Excellent response. +1 to community for being reasonable on this topic also (IE not hanging him out to dry)
  11. Good analysis. Seems well-thought-out and articulate. The devs can use and act on this feedback to make CF better just through the sheer depth in this.
  12. There are a LOT of telegraphs in LoL. Lux laser was mentioned, but Brand W, Karthus and Cass Q, Ziggs ult, etc. We tend to use them when there's no missile (a different type of clarity tool!) to warn you about their location. It's not like those make LoL's combat "handholdy." Caitlyn's ult having a channel MAKES gameplay. If you use them with a purpose, telegraphs are a powerful tool for a stronger game. However, we are very specific on how to use them. In our case, we use them for area attacks that don't have any other types of warnings (missiles, channels, etc) or when the skill needs a good timing component to make decision-making clear and available. But many of our skills are .25 second cast times - making telegraphs inappropriate for those skills to bging with (if they don't have some delayed effect afterwards). Again, I'll note that telegraphs themselves are not an indicator of deep gameplay. How they're used, what skills are tested in the game, and what the mastery loops look like determine if and how they should be used in a game - CF is no exception. They do not dumb the game down, nor are they an unmitigated success.
  13. Sure - but all things aren't equal on skill. You're talking about a particular type of skill (as illustrated in camp 1) We all want mastery to be present, I think that's the easy place to agree. It's what forms of mastery are best for a GvG game that's the kicker.
  14. Dark Souls is a niche game with a LOT of sales. MOBAs are horrendously unforgiving to learn (LoL's tutorial is...not good) I think it's safe to say people like games with depth these days.
×
×
  • Create New...