Cyberspark @ Cyberspark @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

171

Joined

2 yr. ago

That's just an endless cycle of adding new difficulties if you don't address power creep or balance.

Raiding for better gear to raid harder stuff is a cycle we've seen a lot. A broad feeling is that dropping materials to give to a crafter to get your gear slows and diminishes the reward and doesn't benefit things any. Honestly Wildstar's crafting was some of the best crafting I've seen. It was moderately skill based, made better materials important, allowed for alternate material components and allowed you to tweak the stats. So if someone wanted a specific stat distribution they could get it made that way, but a better crafter might make the stats better.

I'm still looking for a game that actually makes crafting skill-based and a good crafter better than an average one given the same gear and level or w/e. Until that happens crafters will always be an after thought.

1. I apologise, I didn't mean to insinuate that
2. I never said it was not correct.

I don't have much personal experience with games where that is the case, but it's usually pretty popular.

It's actually pretty unpopular in most games with hard end game content. Raiders want the best gear to come from the hardest content to make their efforts valuable and to feel rewarded.

SAO has a different nature to it though making a new zone and eventual escape the reward rather than focusing on gear. It also presents the idea of rare resources being better for making gear, the sort of thing that would immediately be farmed for drops so the gear can be sold off. But it also sells us on the idea that crafting takes some level of skill or at least that the results are unique enough based on skill and materials that they're usually aren't duplicates for rare crafts.

The semblance of tactics and effort in combat. Not having rote animations. Of being able to interact with anything.

The height of a boss matters, it's size, it's reach. You can run on walls. An avalanche causes physical snow not just an animation and damage numbers.

It's the little things that aren't possible with current gen tech, and might not ever be possible.

It's none of the real/explicit mechanics and all of the gaps.

Right, because I'm specifically talking about fallacies. You're currently exhibiting the fallacy fallacy, which is when you assume an argument is wrong because it's fallacious.

I have my judgement on this topic already (I'm not for or against it, but its more complicated than that too), I'm responding to people who are struggling to understand even the first fallacy that I found, which honestly makes me think this is actually really important to do.

If you can't see the flaws in the argument that "we're making the first bridge across this river, so we're your only hope for a bridge across the river". You're going to have some really tough times not being scammed.

I've spent more time in this comment section having to explain how that's a fallacious argument than I spent watching the video. This is utterly absurd that I need to explain that just because there's only one initiative doesn't mean it's the only possible initiative.

You lot are having an argument against a position I don't hold and a argument I'm not making.

It's funny I feel this way about the amount of generic Brown-haired gruff man protagonists we got about 15 years back. Without the "they used to be novel", because they've never been novel

Best, not only.

Doesn't matter, the false dichotomy is our way is the right way because no one else is trying.

It's a fallacy about creating a binary where there isn't one. Anyone else can start up another initiative. He's not the only option just because he's the only one currently trying.

For the same reasons that the YT algorithm is deliberately mysterious, Valve shouldn't be letting people know how to game systems like this.

Disclaimer: not watched it all

Starting off with a false dichotomy, conflating that no one else is trying so you're their only hope. Makes me want to sit down watch it and pick out any falacies, but let's be honest, that's not likely to happen.

Tell me you don't understand fallacies without telling me you don't understand fallacies I guess.

Yeah, that's not how game dev works.

Yes, but when's the last time you heard of firing execs as a coat cutting measure? How likely do you think it is that it's because it'll let them retain more devs versus because it's required to keep them afloat?

He must have said something right at some point, but it probably wasn't public or immediately parroted by his fan club

Maybe, but it's also something very few people were looking for. The advertising I saw was basically "the old braid looked worse than you remember". OK, but it didn't have enough replay-ability to warrant a second purchase, and that's not considering all the modern indie games it's competing with.

Then there's the $20 price point, which it hasn't quite earned. It's more expensive than the Beyond good and evil anniversary edition.

Here are some other games that are similarly priced: (steam below £16, ignoring sake price)

• Project Zomboid
• Phasmophobia
• Resident Evil 7: Biohazard
• Slay the Princess
• Fallout: New Vegas
• Noita ...

It is, but it's critical to causing the goal of SBMM being desirable on both ends

The key issue that's hard to address is making a hard fought loss feel more valuable than any other loss and not worse than any other fight.

Some games a hard fought fight can look like rushing to the point, getting a kill and a trade and then spectating either the rest of the match or the 20s respawn timer before making the 30s run back to the point, rinse and repeat. This might mean you're "playing" for less that you 10% of the time you actually spend in the match.

That's not what the paper says. This is specifically COD games that this was tested with

The loosening the skill matchmaking found players leaving from the bottom and continuing as new players found themselves at the bottom. Higher skilled players liked this as they got treated as having lower skill as lower skilled players left.

Tightening it found higher skill players leaving due to longer queue times and having less lower skill players to beat on in their matches. Lower skilled players had higher retention due to being more likely to be matched with their peers.

In other words high skill players enjoy stomping noobs more than fighting each other. Noobs don't like being stomped.

It's not entire untrue to say "everybody hated it", but it also misses the point.

Context: I'm a serial-dipper of PoE. The thing that puts me off the late-game/consistent game-loop of PoE is for sure the amount of management required between maps combined with the fact that none of the abilities feel as nice and impactful as those from the likes of D3 even. This means that running a map is walking and spamming 1-2 buttons and then when I get back spending 20x as long dealing with combing through the quantity of trash I picked up.

The spreadsheet and build/gear planning is something I typically enjoy, though with the scope of PoE I usually just follow guides. I've started to think that ARPGs just aren't for me recently, because few really seek to tackle the issue of scaling numbers and difficulty leaning towards a dead-or-not binary style of play. Dropping your entire health in less than a second because of some specific circumstances does not make for a compelling level of difficulty/challenge.

Todd has recently explicitly said he has no interest in remaking the games before fallout 3