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

First Look: Confessor Powers - Official discussion thread

Recommended Posts

I keep seeing skill being mentioned as if it's some sort of self qualifying feature which has to be honored. Difficulty can be fun in the right mixture of mechanisms, but it's not universally fun for everyone, and different kinds of difficulty and emphasis are more fun to some rather than others.

 

Shooting games are not as hard as RTS, you don't have to maintain effective targeting on a moving target to suddenly deliver damage in an RTS, but you have to micro like a beast. And you know, it would be harder if you had to singularly control every single unit, and issue them specific commands to attack, or move, or hold position independently. Instead, there is group unit selection and mixed commands as well as action queing, and auto deployment, and accuracy smoothing, because it's a strategy game, where there is more than enough operational challenge in order to produce an enthralling and challenging strategy, as well as action.

 

There are ways to game a game more difficult, but they do not always result in a more fun game. even if there is a proponent of consumers who claim they'd like something more difficult, or actually would enjoy accuracy challenges more than other forms of difficulty, it doesn't qualify that it's more fun on average. Reading though this games declarations, I've seen more mention of the game identifying it'self as a strategy game than an action game. It is an Action Strategy... MMORPG, competitive... so on so forth, it is not an Arena Shooter, or a hyper shooter, or Warframe, or whatever. So don't declare that it takes more skill, and just imagine that it qualifies as an justification for manual aiming, when it's patently know that accessibility allows the game to be "fun" for more people.

 

ACE declared the basic point that Fun is more important than Realism, and in context it's obvious. I promote many realistic interactions because I feel it would create greater qualities of strategy and be more fun in a strategic manner, that doesn't mean that I blindly assume that all realism is better for the game or more fun, and it also doesn't mean that what I find fun will be universally fun for the most, or enough people. I hope that they will test certain realistic mechanisms to see if they can build a more strategic game, and hope that their fun as a result, I don't pretend to know that it will be more fun and it has to be done in order for it to be fun, because that's foolish.

 

You can promote a quality of gameplay that you like and that you think would be more fun, but if your just gonna assume that it's more fun to focus on that quality of difficulty, and discount the possibility that it may be broken with other feature priorities or unenjoyable for an adequate audience size, than so be it. Your opinion is represented, in obstinance and chauvinism, hopefully your poorly described quality will find it's way into the game through sheer happenstance, because it certainly won't turn any heads in a pragmatic setting.

 

Qualifying your opinion requires you to acknowledge and respect other peoples preferences and seek a method for the game to be enjoyable for them as well, or at least come up with an intelligent explanation as to why ACE should focus on your preferences rather than other ones, "it's more skillful and skillful gaming is better" is circular logic. Do Better.

Very well put.  The issue it trying to create a objective design parameter from a subjective thing such as "too difficulty/easy".

 

For the larger audience...Why do games cater to larger audiences and thus make them to easy?  Because in the end they have to keep the lights on and feed the starving devs.  Debates on forums about difficulty do not matter much without context, trial and error.  We need an active, hand-on-to-discussion, feedback loop more than a philosophical debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep seeing skill being mentioned as if it's some sort of self qualifying feature which has to be honored. Difficulty can be fun in the right mixture of mechanisms, but it's not universally fun for everyone, and different kinds of difficulty and emphasis are more fun to some rather than others.

 

It used to be fun to be challenged by a game, now people want situations where they are setup to win without doing anything....

 

Shooting games are not as hard as RTS, you don't have to maintain effective targeting on a moving target to suddenly deliver damage in an RTS, but you have to micro like a beast. And you know, it would be harder if you had to singularly control every single unit, and issue them specific commands to attack, or move, or hold position independently. Nope, there is group unit selection and mixed commands as well as action queing, and auto deployment, and accuracy smoothing, because it's a strategy game, where there is more than enough operational challenge in order to produce an enthralling and challenging strategy, as well as action.

 

That's the point though, the most popular RTS games make sure that they are issuing enough challenge... easy to learn hard to master.... they look at mechanical and tactical elements and try to give both a high skill ceiling. 

 

There are ways to game a game more difficult, but they do not always result in a more fun game. even if there is a proponent of consumers who claim they'd like something more difficult, or actually would enjoy accuracy challenges more than other forms of difficulty, it doesn't qualify that it's more fun on average. Reading though this games declarations, I've seen more mention of the game identifying it'self as a strategy game than an action game. It is an Action Strategy... MMORPG, competitive... so on so forth, it is not an Arena Shooter, or a hyper shooter, or Warframe, or whatever. So don't declare that it takes more skill, and just imagine that it qualifies as an justification for manual aiming, when it's patently know that accessibility allows the game to be "fun" for more people.

 

Sure but not all standards are created equally.  Some player used to a click to move really slow paced game might find something to be too twitch, but compared to modern gamers who are used to games like csgo, LoL, dota2, sc2 a much higher level of mechanical skill might be needed just to hit standards for modern gaming.  Perhaps you see things too black and white... there's a big difference between quake1 and WoW and between WoW and hearthstone, but perhaps some hearthstone players may find WoW to be too twitch, some WoW players may find quake to be too twitch....

 

 

ACE declared the basic point that Fun is more important than Realism, and in context it's obvious. I promote many realistic interactions because I feel it would create greater qualities of strategy and be more fun in a strategic manner, that doesn't mean that I blindly assume that all realism is better for the game or more fun, and it also doesn't mean that what I find fun will be universally fun for the most, or enough people. I hope that they will test certain realistic mechanisms to see if they can build a more strategic game, and hope that their fun as a result, I don't pretend to know that it will be more fun and it has to be done in order for it to be fun, because that's foolish.

 

Certain types of elements, like requiring mechanical skill, are fun... which is why action combat games are growing in popularity and frequency. 

 

You can promote a quality of gameplay that you like and that you think would be more fun, but if your just gonna assume that it's more fun to focus on that quality of difficulty, and discount the possibility that it may be broken with other feature priorities or unenjoyable for an adequate audience size, than so be it. Your opinion is represented, in obstinance and chauvinism, hopefully your poorly described quality will find it's way into the game through sheer happenstance, because it certainly won't turn any heads in a pragmatic setting.

 

Nothing broken about manual aiming, you just seem to be very against it... manual aiming is common in many of the most popular online games these days...  Also lay off the insults... they don't really help your cause at all.

 

Qualifying your opinion requires you to acknowledge and respect other peoples preferences and seek a method for the game to be enjoyable for them as well, or at least come up with an intelligent explanation as to why ACE should focus on your preferences rather than other ones, "it's more skillful and skillful gaming is better" is circular logic. Do Better.

 

This is simply untrue... you can not please everyone... and all ACE can do is hopefully figure out what type of players they can attract, that will bring in enough money, and also establish their game as a legitimate pvp game. 

 

People have already given plenty of explanations, you are just against manual aiming so you generally ignore the explanations. 

 

 


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm bothered by the idea of soft targeting.

 

I feel like fireballs should be the equivalent of rocket launchers.  Part of your skill is deciding whether to go for the risky direct hit (big damage) vs. shooting at the ground and getting splash damage.

 

I feel like aiming bows and arrows should be tough.  Arrows should arch down with distance, and the archer should have to manually take that into account.  I've played games like that.  It's difficult, but landing a skill shot is extremely satisfying - not to mention endlessly rewarding long term.

 

The introduction of soft targeting removes one of the fun, skill-based aspects of the game.  Focus on strategy over twitch reflexes is an option, but I would argue that including both increases the depth and endurance of the combat system.

 

As always, I'll defer final judgement until I've had a chance to play it and see how it actually feels.


Nazdar

Proud member of The Hunger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep seeing skill being mentioned as if it's some sort of self qualifying feature which has to be honored. Difficulty can be fun in the right mixture of mechanisms, but it's not universally fun for everyone, and different kinds of difficulty and emphasis are more fun to some rather than others.

 

Shooting games are not as hard as RTS, you don't have to maintain effective targeting on a moving target to suddenly deliver damage in an RTS, but you have to micro like a beast. And you know, it would be harder if you had to singularly control every single unit, and issue them specific commands to attack, or move, or hold position independently. Instead, there is group unit selection and mixed commands as well as action queing, and auto deployment, and accuracy smoothing, because it's a strategy game, where there is more than enough operational challenge in order to produce an enthralling and challenging strategy, as well as action.

 

There are ways to game a game more difficult, but they do not always result in a more fun game. even if there is a proponent of consumers who claim they'd like something more difficult, or actually would enjoy accuracy challenges more than other forms of difficulty, it doesn't qualify that it's more fun on average. Reading though this games declarations, I've seen more mention of the game identifying it'self as a strategy game than an action game. It is an Action Strategy... MMORPG, competitive... so on so forth, it is not an Arena Shooter, or a hyper shooter, or Warframe, or whatever. So don't declare that it takes more skill, and just imagine that it qualifies as an justification for manual aiming, when it's patently know that accessibility allows the game to be "fun" for more people.

 

ACE declared the basic point that Fun is more important than Realism, and in context it's obvious. I promote many realistic interactions because I feel it would create greater qualities of strategy and be more fun in a strategic manner, that doesn't mean that I blindly assume that all realism is better for the game or more fun, and it also doesn't mean that what I find fun will be universally fun for the most, or enough people. I hope that they will test certain realistic mechanisms to see if they can build a more strategic game, and hope that it is fun as a result, I don't pretend to know that it will be more fun and it has to be done in order for it to be fun, because that's foolish.

 

You can promote a quality of gameplay that you like and that you think would be more fun, but if your just gonna assume that it's more fun to focus on that quality of difficulty, and discount the possibility that it may be broken with other feature priorities or unenjoyable for an adequate audience size, than so be it. Your opinion is represented, in obstinance and chauvinism, hopefully your poorly described quality will find it's way into the game through sheer happenstance, because it certainly won't turn any heads in a pragmatic setting.

 

Qualifying your opinion requires you to acknowledge and respect other peoples preferences and seek a method for the game to be enjoyable for them as well, or at least come up with an intelligent explanation as to why ACE should focus on your preferences rather than other ones, "it's more skillful and skillful gaming is better" is circular logic. Do Better.

 

Great post! I especially liked the last paragraph, which I bolded. A lot of the responses in this thread (and really, on the entire forum) can be translated thusly:

 

"I declare without evidence that this thing I want is better than the thing(s) other people want. Therefore this game should have the thing that I declared is better, which also conveniently aligns with my personal preferences. Thanks ACE. Also people who disagree with me are dumb/secretly hate gaming."

 

 


LJBXw4x.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TL:DR

Real Life Stun doesn't make you immobile, it just slows your processing down.

 

SO,

You could implement a stun in a few ways that doesn't leave you completely immobile and unable to react in any way.

 

First option - Stun adds 1-2 second cool down timers to all spells for x amount of time.

2nd option - Stun causes your hotkeys to randomly change positions in the UI for x amount of time.

                 Let me explain this one for a second. How many of you actually look at your hotkeys after say 30 days of playing? Honestly? Probably rarely. You know what does what and in what order to maximize your damage output. Now imagine the chaos that would be caused with your button smashing if they randomly changed positions while under the stun effect. :) down right MEAN!

 

Ill get back to this. Post is getting too long!

 

I really like the ideas you have here.  I posted a similar suggestion for a character in a different game, where instead of randomly changing positions, they just did a random effect of one of your other skills.  So you push "Fireball" and you instead get some other random skill on your bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy, we're back at discussing with people that wanted tab targeting combat..

 

"tab target requires a different kind of skill!!!"

 

gj ace :lol:

Yeah. I was going to let it slide, but if you still insist on boiling down the arguments to a simple punchline, I am going to keep responding purposefully.  As always, I will state that I understand the type of skill that bears the most success in game depends on the way you set up targeting and combat.  I call the two tactical and mechanical; you might say they are: knowing what to do, and executing.  

 

Free aim combat and no/soft-targeting increases the demands on mechanical skill; that is, the execution of your plan requires more skill in the twitch and mechanical side.  Players with excellent mechanical skill, such as timing and reactions, will thrive in this environment.  Having more mechanical skill, at the expense of some tactical skill, will tend to marginally help players and make them "better" at the game.

 

Tab-targeting and its parent combat system, hard-targeting relatively weights the skill demands toward tactical; that is, the execution of your plan is relatively less demanding than the knowledge of what to do in particular situations.  Players with excellent tactical skill, such as planning and intimate knowledge of the game, will thrive in this environment.  Having more tactical skill, at the expense of some mechanical skill, will tend to marginally help players and make them "better" at the game.

 

I am not arguing that both is not better than one or the other.  I tend to view game ability as a multiplicative relationship between tactical and mechanical skill, with different games weighting that multiplication differently.  In essentially every game, having zero of either means you lose.  If you have all the tactical skill in the world but your computer explodes (simulating no mechanical skill), you are going to lose.  If you have perfect mechanical skill and 100% accuracy, but you don't know that shooting and arrow into the head of your opponent does nothing to them in this game, you are going to lose.  These are meant to be hyperbole, but I hope, illustrative.

 

Finally, the idea of having these on a continuum is relatively false, I think they are likely better represented as a two-dimensional relationship, in the abstract.  In reality, however, it is very likely that either tactical or mechanical skill will be marginally more important (for the majority of players).  The discussion/debate/controversy/idiocy/whatever you personally see this conversation as is important to a lot of players with a lot of preferences.  I do not see anything wrong with stating that making the game too mechanically heavy could be to the long run detriment of the game.  Just as there is nothing wrong with saying making the game too mechanically easy could be to the long run detriment of the game.  As with most things, the key is balance.

 

My 2c.


Mic MWH, Member of Mithril Warhammers since 2003,


Hammers High! http://www.mithrilwarhammers.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Players with excellent tactical skill, such as planning and intimate knowledge of the game, will thrive in this environment.

 

This is true.

 

It's also boring.

 

Tactical play has a low skill cap. It's not hard to reach a level of gaming intelligence where you know that the mechanically optimal tactical play is in the vast majority of combat scenarios, and many players on both sides of any conflict will reach that level. That means that challenging play takes place at the strategic layer (arranging situations where the opponent has no available tactics which will lead to victory) or at the execution layer.

 

If we then get rid of the execution layer, we're left with a game where strategy alone determines outcomes. That's fun for 1 or 2 people on each side, and isn't viscerally engaging for anyone.


Official "Bad Person" of Crowfall

"I think 1/3rd of my postcount is telling people that we aren't turning into a PvE / casual / broad audience game." -

Tully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. I was going to let it slide, but if you still insist on boiling down the arguments to a simple punchline, I am going to keep responding purposefully.  As always, I will state that I understand the type of skill that bears the most success in game depends on the way you set up targeting and combat.  I call the two tactical and mechanical; you might say they are: knowing what to do, and executing.  

 

Just as there is nothing wrong with saying making the game too mechanically easy could be to the long run detriment of the game.  As with most things, the key is balance.

 

My 2c.

 

The only point that I think I would make, is that the more "assisted targeting/tab targeting/soft locking" that is introduced into CF, it doesn't raise the tactical requirement of a player to be effective in combat, but it does decrease the mechanical requirement to be effective in combat.

 

Conversely, the less "assisted targeting/tab targeting/soft locking" that is introduced into CF does not have an effect on the tactical requirement of a player being successful in PvP.

 

Therefore, the general argument is that by including those systems, they are "dumbing down" the game.

Edited by valor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah sorry I won't have this discussion again. Go read previous topics to know my opinion in detail.

 

TL;DR Mechanical skills take nothing away from strategic ones, period

 

If you're saying it than you're either trying to support your cause (meaning you lack mechanical skills) or just ignoring the facts.

Edited by Fenris DDevil

y9tj8G5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is true.

 

It's also boring.

 

Tactical play has a low skill cap. It's not hard to reach a level of gaming intelligence where you know that the mechanically optimal tactical play is in the vast majority of combat scenarios, and many players on both sides of any conflict will reach that level. That means that challenging play takes place at the strategic layer (arranging situations where the opponent has no available tactics which will lead to victory) or at the execution layer.

 

If we then get rid of the execution layer, we're left with a game where strategy alone determines outcomes. That's fun for 1 or 2 people on each side, and isn't viscerally engaging for anyone.

I agree it is boring.  The removal of mechanical skill breaks games for many gamers (but not all).  I can play some phone games like an addict that require essentially no mechanical skill, but I usually wind up hating myself.

 

I'll say that the argument that adding more (or removing some) mechanical skill does nothing to affect the tactical skill (Valor, I believe this is what you are saying, and I know Fenris is saying this) is in an absolute sense correct.  In a relative sense, it does affect it, however.  How can it not?  If you make the game more mechanically challenging then you change the weighting of the skill system.  Those who have relatively higher skill mechanically will do better, will they not?  

 

Again, I am not saying remove mechanical skill.  I'm not even claiming that no targets would be worse than soft or hard targets because that remains to be seen and will be a long term experiment for CF, as all games after this decision.  But to state outright that increasing the mechanical demands cannot possibly negatively affect someone's game experience is misleading, in my opinion. I think what you are saying is that, in general most games and more specifically, Crowfall, would benefit from increasing the mechanical skill because the balance is too far toward tactical.


Mic MWH, Member of Mithril Warhammers since 2003,


Hammers High! http://www.mithrilwarhammers.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what you are saying is that, in general most games and more specifically, Crowfall, would benefit from increasing the mechanical skill because the balance is too far toward tactical.

 

I wouldn't presume to say what the gaming industry needs. I do feel comfortable saying that my personal gaming preferences are for games where mechanical execution matters significantly more than it does in the industry-standard tab-target MMO.


Official "Bad Person" of Crowfall

"I think 1/3rd of my postcount is telling people that we aren't turning into a PvE / casual / broad audience game." -

Tully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it is boring.  The removal of mechanical skill breaks games for many gamers (but not all).  I can play some phone games like an addict that require essentially no mechanical skill, but I usually wind up hating myself.

 

I'll say that the argument that adding more (or removing some) mechanical skill does nothing to affect the tactical skill (Valor, I believe this is what you are saying, and I know Fenris is saying this) is in an absolute sense correct.  In a relative sense, it does affect it, however.  How can it not?  If you make the game more mechanically challenging then you change the weighting of the skill system.  Those who have relatively higher skill mechanically will do better, will they not?  

 

Again, I am not saying remove mechanical skill.  I'm not even claiming that no targets would be worse than soft or hard targets because that remains to be seen and will be a long term experiment for CF, as all games after this decision.  But to state outright that increasing the mechanical demands cannot possibly negatively affect someone's game experience is misleading, in my opinion. I think what you are saying is that, in general most games and more specifically, Crowfall, would benefit from increasing the mechanical skill because the balance is too far toward tactical.

Games like SC2 require a ton of both types of skill... some games require more or less of one or the other or both...

 

Yes mechanical skill can be a brick wall for some, increasing it means those that simply do not have a lot of it can not progress in that department, but having good mechanical skill requirements often increases tactical skill requirements because both play off of each other.

 

You can see this in games like CSGO and SC:BW....  The better you get mechanically, the more tactics you can embrace...  some tactics can not be executed without the mechanics, and some mechanics are pointless without understanding the tactics behind using them. 

 

If player skill is to truly matter it must embrace both... we've seen the people that lack in one department or the other, and their typical claims "omg those twitch games are so mindless and shallow" or on the other side of the spectrum "omg those tactics games players are so uncoordinated" etc etc... great games require both... great games have proven you can have both... does crowfall want player skill to matter?


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many people who are posting against target assist/soft lock for ranged attacks plan to actually play a ranged class.

Aiming generally isn't that hard, especially when the projectiles probably won't require the precision of like a railgun or a game like csgo... and it gets dramatically easier the slower the targets are, and from what we've heard of crowfall, it doesn't sound like it aims to be a very fast game. 


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aiming generally isn't that hard, especially when the projectiles probably won't require the precision of like a railgun or a game like csgo... and it gets dramatically easier the slower the targets are, and from what we've heard of crowfall, it doesn't sound like it aims to be a very fast game. 

 

Pack pigs should be quite easy targets.  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pack pigs should be quite easy targets.  :P

 

Except when they're actually wargs...


Official "Bad Person" of Crowfall

"I think 1/3rd of my postcount is telling people that we aren't turning into a PvE / casual / broad audience game." -

Tully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...