Old, overlooked firefall idea: In-depth tuning

[Beemann]

Likewise, "tracking" isn't always relegated to a pre-fight scenario(which was illustrated by my various examples in the previous post). Often the tracking component is something that happens under fire or under the threat of fire. If you're looking for a target that is also looking for you, the person who finds their target first has the advantage. There may even be other threats present during this search. In such cases, threat of harm is constant. There are many expressions of this. If an enemy is behind a wall and I get forewarning from a tracking like skill. If you have been hurt in our firefight, and are trying to escape to a safer position, being able to follow you better due to a hunter skill. Etc.
The converse of tracking would be stealth. Which, again, can have many expressions and happen in the middle of an active battle.

Beeman, bring this back to your own statements of combat being about "how long you stay alive for while completing the objective." Things like acquiring a target and evading discovery will directly affect that. It's absolutely interrelated.

But that's exactly my point. If you're talking about the in-combat portions, then you're dealing with the exact ratio I mentioned prior. You're getting into position or tracking a target because your goal is to subdue a threat, whether this comes from the total elimination of the target or a reduction of its resources to the point where it can't fight. The noncombat portions of these mechanics don't need to, and may not revolve around this ratio, but that's exactly because their goal isn't combat-focused

In other words, they aren't ways to make the core function itself more varied, they're just different factors, which is something I said prior when talking about gameplay mechanics that weren't simply hp values and dps numbers

As an aside, I'm not much of a fan of standard target marking. The decision making and tension created by having to rely on non-visual cues adds quite a lot to combat

 

[Ronyn]

But that's exactly my point....In other words, they aren't ways to make the core function itself more varied, they're just different factors, which is something I said prior when talking about gameplay mechanics that weren't simply hp values and dps numbers

As I said, this is probably an issue of how we choose to describe a thing rather than any disagreement of what is actually involved. My main concern is that the designer makes it a point to actively seek out greater variety in combat actions, actively seek out deeper expressions of a role or concept... regardless of how they choose to describe it.

As an aside, I'm not much of a fan of standard target marking. The decision making and tension created by having to rely on non-visual cues adds quite a lot to combat

I don't disagree about the decision making and tension created by having to rely on non-visual cues.
That said, I think we must be careful about how we apply overarching standards like those. They are important for sure, but it can get to the point where we end up rejecting so many outside-of-the-games-norm options for specific classes/roles that we end up limiting ourselves. In the end class/role variety can suffer. Which would lead us right back to the concerns Daynen was voicing.

Note: I'm not necessarily for or against target marking itself, that was just an illistrative example for discussion.

 

[Daynen]

"Target marking" can mean a variety of things, though; what they mean to the players involved depends on the context and framework of the game. In Firefall, target marking meant making enemies appear on radar and be visibly outlined for a few moments. It was honestly kind of useless.

Target marking can also mean deep scanning a unit to glean detailed information and transmitting that to your squadmates so they can have advantages like a lead indicator on their target reticule, highlighted weak spots, lock-ons for tracking missiles, or visibility behind terrain. This line of thinking lends itself well to the idea of "true recon" that I've mentioned in some threads, giving such players a real chance to shine as a role.

Imagine the feeling of getting a mark on your prey hiding behind cover, sticking to him while watching your squadmate unload a rack of missiles which curve around the plateau and chase him down to the thunderous tune of an explosive payload. Mission accomplished, all thanks to a skillful target marking and your ability to keep him in your sights.

Was the end output still big damage? Sure. Was it primitive and typical of shooters? Just the opposite. It was coordinated, sophisticated, and intellectually thrilling to know what kind of maneuver you and your team just pulled off. It was satisfying.

If we can allow ourselves to think of the game's technology and combat on a level like that, we open ourselves up to experiences that a great many of us have likely been craving for a long time.

...Or we could just make sure everyone's DPS is balanced and give each class a few "noncombat features."

I know which road I want to walk.

 

[Ronyn]

"Target marking" can mean a variety of things, though; what they mean to the players involved depends on the context and framework of the game....
Target marking can also mean deep scanning a unit to glean detailed information and transmitting that to your squadmates so they can have advantages like a lead indicator on their target reticule, highlighted weak spots, lock-ons for tracking missiles, or visibility behind terrain. This line of thinking lends itself well to the idea of "true recon" that I've mentioned in some threads, giving such players a real chance to shine as a role.

Imagine the feeling of getting a mark on your prey hiding behind cover, sticking to him while watching your squadmate unload a rack of missiles which curve around the plateau and chase him down to the thunderous tune of an explosive payload. Mission accomplished, all thanks to a skillful target marking and your ability to keep him in your sights.

Ah yes. These are the kind of creativity meets functionality style ideas that I like to read about and pass up the chain.

While it's true that old-school shooters that feature nothing but weapons and movement are capable of things like team coordination, intelligent gameplay, and satisfying plays, the whole point of adding abilities into the mix is to expand the players options in new and unique ways.

 

[Beemann]

"Target marking" can mean a variety of things, though; what they mean to the players involved depends on the context and framework of the game. In Firefall, target marking meant making enemies appear on radar and be visibly outlined for a few moments. It was honestly kind of useless.

Depends very much on context and how you utilize it. It was quite good in PvP when I played, given the bonus intel for very little time/effort invested.

Target marking can also mean deep scanning a unit to glean detailed information and transmitting that to your squadmates so they can have advantages like a lead indicator on their target reticule, highlighted weak spots, lock-ons for tracking missiles, or visibility behind terrain. This line of thinking lends itself well to the idea of "true recon" that I've mentioned in some threads, giving such players a real chance to shine as a role.

Visibility through walls/cover and targeting assistance are precisely what I refer to when I lament the loss of non visual intel usage.

Imagine the feeling of getting a mark on your prey hiding behind cover, sticking to him while watching your squadmate unload a rack of missiles which curve around the plateau and chase him down to the thunderous tune of an explosive payload. Mission accomplished, all thanks to a skillful target marking and your ability to keep him in your sights.

Was the end output still big damage? Sure. Was it primitive and typical of shooters? Just the opposite. It was coordinated, sophisticated, and intellectually thrilling to know what kind of maneuver you and your team just pulled off. It was satisfying.

Except from the end user perspective (what I would refer to as the input) it was the same thing, if not easier. You tracked or selected a target (hitscan tracking and burst weapons function in the same way) and then the damage payload was applied by another player. All of the complexity of the scenario is done on the developer's part. Instead you could have a system whereby your scout determines enemy locations and allows your team to set up an ambush, and then has a player or an ability act as a decoy. In the ambush, and possibly in the decoy phase, at least one player is exposed, meaning they have to avoid incoming damage. All players have to utilize their weapons properly to dish out damage, and can synergize using crowd control abilities, buffs or healing. Some abilities might be reactive, like a short duration reflective shield to block a particularly strong attack

Alternatively, all players involved could be long range focused, and you could utilize mortars and sniper rifles in timed, coordinated strikes to take out all relevant targets before they can react. All players actually need to aim this way, and while exposure is minimal, it is minimal because players coordinated well, instead of being due to homing missiles that requires no exposure from the user to efficiently deploy

If we can allow ourselves to think of the game's technology and combat on a level like that, we open ourselves up to experiences that a great many of us have likely been craving for a long time.

Where were you when EDF, Tribes, Battlefield, etc came out? They all have lock-on or laser guided weapons, and some of them even require two people. In fact, in EDF you have to continue to track targets to get the hit in.

You could also do it HL2/Xonotic style, where you need to steer the rocket yourself, or pull a Tribes Mortar, where the goal is to correctly hit the spot where you expect the enemy is going to be with a slow high arc projectile. You could have a grenade that applies inward force on nearby projectiles, making explosive splash easier from longer range. You could make that stick to enemies or just make it area focused. Thing is though, those options require input while also having interesting output, instead of just automating portion of the process. They have a skill curve

...Or we could just make sure everyone's DPS is balanced and give each class a few "noncombat features."

Nice strawman. I may have extended this invite to you before, but if youd like me to show you exactly what I mean, Xonotic is free and Quake 3 CPM is easy to get

 

[Ronyn]

Except from the end user perspective (what I would refer to as the input) it was the same thing, if not easier.

There is a whole conversation about what skill is meant to entail for one game to another, as well as the different types of reward-for-skillful-acts systems that can be employed. But that discussion is for another time and place.

Nice strawman.

Well it is and it isn't. Are you saying that combat is just balanced dps values? No. You're certainly not.
But in all fairness. You did, originally, argue that tracking/hunting was a non-combat component.
That immediate disregarding of hunting/tracking (Which is just an example of the myriad of other possible less-than-obvious ideas) as part-of-combat is exactly what he fears the "combat boils down to X", mentality will result in. As long as it doesn't, we are all on the same page more or less.

In the end I think it's obvious that not everyone wants the same type of game play in all ways nor is everyone going to take the same path to explain general concepts. That is the nature of the beast.

 

[Beemann]

But in all fairness. You did, originally, argue that tracking/hunting was a non-combat component.

My statement was that the portions that don't feed directly into the core of combat are non-combat components. Going from A to B isn't combat, but trying to manoeuvre from one position to another for defensive or offensive purposes is. I also wouldn't generally aggrandize finding an enemy in a combat scenario by referring to it as hunting/tracking. Hunting and tracking are generally used to refer to the non-combative portions which is, as one might imagine, outside of combat

So yes, it is a strawman. His criticism explicitly pertained to statements about DPS values that I never made instead of actually addressing my points, which is also why I invited him to check out Xonotic. It's easier to show than to explain

Re: Skill
I don't see how less input for more/the same output, with all other things being equal, does not require less skill

 

[Ronyn]

My statement was that the portions that don't feed directly into the core of combat are non-combat components. Going from A to B isn't combat, but trying to manoeuvre from one position to another for defensive or offensive purposes is.

That statement, in itself, is fine.
Still, what happened happened. When the idea of a hunter having hunting/tracking abilities were brought up, you immediately placed them in the "going from A to B/non-combat" section(even after my post with practical examples). Yet they aren't necessarily just that. They are also, potentially, key elements of a classes/roles in-combat style. Maybe it's just because of what pops into your head when you see the words hunting/tracking, maybe it's something else. The question is whether or not your way of defining "the core of combat" helps you personally see the larger varieties in the way combat can play out, or if it makes it harder for you to see it. Again, as long as you see it, we are all on the same page more or less.

Let's be honest here. There are plenty of game makers who don't look much beyond the basics of a combat model when designing capabilities. Something in their design philosophies or methodologies is leading them to that. Sure, sometimes combat models don't go beyond the obvious stuff because of time or budget constraints, but I'm talking about the times when it's ultimately a matter of how they think. Why is that? I find this to be an interesting thing to think about.

Spoiler: I'll address this only once.

I also wouldn't generally aggrandize finding an enemy in a combat scenario by referring to it as hunting/tracking. Hunting and tracking are generally used to refer to the non-combative portions which is, as one might imagine, outside of combat.

Hunting/tracking, by their proper dictionary definitions, simply refer to the acts of hunting and tracking. Which has commonly used tools and tactics depending on the culture, time of history, technology and circumstance. The terms do not inherently indicate whether the prey (animal, criminal, or enemy combatant) is also a direct threat to the hunter at the time of the hunt.

Whether possibly being in danger is part of what people generally think of when they use the words hunting/tracking when referring to in real life and/or video games hinges on the circles that person travels in and particular experience they have.

Now, in a video game, whether "finding an enemy in combat" can accurately be called hunting or tracking is heavily dependent on the specific mechanics involved.

If I called something as basic as poking my head around a corner, or running into the next room after my opponent, "hunting/tracking" that would be aggrandizing. Alternatively, If I call having abilities that pseudo-mimic real life hunter/tracker type actions such as following the imprints of footsteps (something done in real life hunting/tracking) or tagging a target with some sort of technology that allows you to monitor their movements without direct line of sight (something done in real life hunting/tracking), then I am using the terms with dictionary accuracy. Obviously, I was talking about the latter.

In fact, my whole "hunter class" example was literally me saying that for a hunter class to live up the name of hunter they needed some set of capabilities that would fall under an accurate categorization of hunting, as anything less would not be accurate to call hunting.

If you'd like to discuss some better vs worse way's to achieve that, I'd be happy to.
However, I'm not arguing any further over the use of the word. If there is absolutely nothing at all that a character can have that you would feel comfortable calling "hunting/tracking" simply because it would be happening mid combat, so be it. I'm not sure what other word you would put on it but you do what works for you. I have every reason to be comfortable calling it the way I do.

Re: Skill
I don't see how less input for more/the same output, with all other things being equal, does not require less skill

As I said, that line of discussion will have to wait.

 

[Mk_6]

@Ronyn

Spoiler: On the non-combat tracking assumption

Assumptions are a normal thing a human does when things aren't explained well enough. In this case, I assumed that the hunting/tracking you were referring to was done before combat because of a couple things:
1) thinking about hunting in the context of Ember (many people, different classes, permanent world, and consequences of those decisions, mainly enemy placement, world scale, engagement distance, territory control, AI behavior);
2) you saying that things like traps, different ammo and pets (as in, hunter-like combat elements) are not enough to make a hunter actually hunt (now that I think about it - they can);
3) what comes to mind when I hear the words "hunter" (guy living in the woods at the edge of civilization), "hunt" (aforementioned guy finding and killing an animal) and "track" (following an animal based on its tracks - the finding part of hunting).

You have the killing part of hunting when combat starts - your prey has been located, now you need to fight it. Because it's a multiplayer game, and because the prey has been found, tracking is generally no longer necessary - everyone in the group can see their target. If you remove the ability to see the target by the rest of the group, you come against the problem of the hunter being required/necessary and good at their job in order for everyone else to have fun.

So now we're left with the combat application of tracking/marking. The first thing that comes to mind is Battlefield/Planetside 2 style of marking - 'Q' on the enemy to mark them on the HUD/minimap for your team. That's fine for a long-range game where enemies just pop out of cover for a second, are hard to see 500m away, or are sneaking around a corridor maze, but from what I gathered, Ember will be close to mid range combat against biological enemies on an uncolonized planet. I expect chaotic battles where players need to make skill-based split-second decisions, not exactly an environment where having some enemies marked would help in any way, even less so when only 1/5 of the team (at best) has the ability to do so.

Second thing that might come to mind is WoW-style ability that adds a debuff on an enemy, but that's just boring and sounds like the antithesis of what you'd want.

Another possibility is marking hard/important/tricky enemies only - a suicide enemy that's approaching, an enemy leader, a flanking enemy that's about to get to the THMPR, etc. as distinct, important targets. That, however, sounds like a fairly important task - more a role for a team leader than a hunter (at least when we're talking about a multiplayer setting with random other players). Once again, we're going back to the team requiring a good hunter to do well, and possibly forcing team leaders to play as hunters.

Spoiler: On the disconnect

You mentioned a disconnect between you and @Beemann a couple times before. I think I understand where it is now: You're talking about things from an idealized developer's perspective. "We want to make a hunter that does hunter things", "We want combat that goes outside the norms set up by other games", "We want to make the player feel like they're actually exploring an alien world" - are the things I'd expect you could say. Meanwhile I (and I think @Beemann as well) are looking at these ideas from a practical perspective - what happens when you actually apply them. The examples I give are the implementations I would expect the game to have - not overly convoluted, unique, practical - and then look at the consequences. Are they fun? Are they useful? Is there a better way to do them? Will they get boring/tedious after 1/10/100 hours?

I'm sure No Man's Sky looked great on paper. I bet I could describe it in a way that would make it sound compelling and interesting even now, without telling a single lie or half-truth. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is, the way they implemented all their ideas is just horrible. That's precisely why talking in general terms is not productive here. Why are we talking about a hypothetical hunter class with hypothetical hunting/tracking mechanics, when their implementation heavily depends on the type of game and all other elements of said game?

In the end, combat does come down to DPS in/out, or some other similar formula - from the player's perspective. You can have as complex battle/environment/physics/ability interactions in your game as you want, both combat/non-combat and anything in between, but once you let the players in and they play your game for a couple hours, they will know - to find an enemy: do X, then Y, then either A or B depending on Y's outcome, then once you find the enemy employ tactic F/G/H depending on their type, watch out for Q/R constantly.

As a developer, your main job is to make all X,Y,A,B,F,G,H,Q,R aspects fun. It doesn't matter how many aspects there are, if inventory management or hunting are one of them or not, as long as they're all fun when done repeatedly, you made a good game. @Beemann mentioned it somewhere at the start of your conversation, and has alluded to that repeatedly with his examples. What kind of aspects you put in your game will determine what players the game will attract, their implementation determines how good your game is.

Some players want a complex hunting experience, some players want to skip hunting and just have a cool hunter-themed ranged class. Which players you want to appeal to is a decision based on your personal preference, and choosing the latter doesn't make you a worse developer. "We want combat to have depth" Is a fine first decision to make, but then you have to define the areas and implementation of said depth - without that you might as well be talking about 18*10^18 unique planets.

 

[Daynen]

I think we're kind of falling into a familiar trap with this discussion: we're overly discussing character options without looking at things from the perspective of the world's demands. Talking about what functions a character/team are going to need is at best hypothetical and at worst repetitive--unless we have a clearer picture of what the game world is going to demand of us. I still think that's the underappreciated portion of designing an open world game--making a world that challenges us in ways beyond enemy lifebars.

Are enemies capable of eluding detection in some way? Does the environment interfere with our equipment somehow? Do we need to take care to avoid shooting some highly explosive mineral deposits for fear of blowing up our squad, our target, and the resources we're trying to secure? Can the terrain be damaged? Can cliff faces fall out from under us (or on our heads?) Is the dark enough of a hindrance to require instrumental detection, a la night vision? Are there random eruptions of steam (or lava) we need sensors to detect in time to dodge? Will the raging sandstorm stiffen the joints of our frame, making our movements sluggish? Do we need to bring extra heatsinks to keep from overheating and melting down while fighting near the volcano? Is the enemy (or some rampaging animal) knocking down trees in a path for us follow? If so, what could they be running from (or to?) Why is the ground shifting beneath our THMPR? Are we mining just above the lair of a giant beast (who is understandably pissed?)

Questions like these are what make life on alien planets interesting. Giving the player practical tools to answer them is what gives the player agency and engagement; making a world where answering these questions is the difference between success or failure is what gives the player challenge. Fixating on character classes and compartmentalizing everything without a lifebar as "noncombat" just seems to marginalize and potentially waste all the other wonderful opportunities for memorable adventures...

...as so many games have done, intentionally or otherwise.

THAT is what I'm afraid of.

 

[Ronyn]

@Mk_6

Spoiler: On the non-combat tracking assumption and disconnects

Assumptions are a normal thing a human does when things aren't explained well enough.

Not every person who read it necessarily felt it wasn't explained well enough, though I did offer more specific explanation when it became known to me that what I meant was unclear to someone. For the record, not every person is equally prone to assumption nor does every person jump to the same conclusions.

To your itemized list-
1) All of that makes it reasonable to think that Hunting/tracking happens before combat, yet none of that implies it happens only before and not also during.
2) We might simply disagree on what specific aspects make a hunter a hunter, as different things are more or less important-to-an-identity to different people. Though, among the wide variety of cultures and timeframes of hunters with many different tools and approaches, the most common element is the ability to discern their prey's location.
3) As I eluded to before, what comes to each persons mind depends on their own personal experience. This is not the same for every person.

You have the killing part of hunting when combat starts - your prey has been located, now you need to fight it. Because it's a multiplayer game, and because the prey has been found, tracking is generally no longer necessary - everyone in the group can see their target. If you remove the ability to see the target by the rest of the group, you come against the problem of the hunter being required/necessary and good at their job in order for everyone else to have fun.

Once battle begins, line of sight on an enemy and awareness of where the enemy is, is still not a constant. This is where "hunting/tracking" offers a particular kind of advantage.

At any given time, players may disengage from the direct fight with one or more of their opponents, in hopes to retreat, re-position or regroup. The essential function of the act of hunting, is to gain,regain or retain knowledge of enemy locations despite their attempts to avoid it. This can certainly exist within the eb and flow of combat, as it exists on a game map. As my earlier examples show, in some games it absolutely does.

So now we're left with the combat application of tracking/marking. The first thing that comes to mind is...

Every concept can be implemented in multiple ways. You brought up examples that had certain types of effect on the battle, I have already brought up examples that had certain types of effect on the battle.

You mentioned a disconnect between you and @Beemann a couple times before. I think I understand where it is now: You're talking about things from an idealized developer's perspective. "We want to make a hunter that does hunter things", "We want combat that goes outside the norms set up by other games", "We want to make the player feel like they're actually exploring an alien world" - are the things I'd expect you could say. Meanwhile I (and I think @Beemann as well) are looking at these ideas from a practical perspective - what happens when you actually apply them. The examples I give are the implementations I would expect the game to have - not overly convoluted, unique, practical - and then look at the consequences. Are they fun? Are they useful? Is there a better way to do them? Will they get boring/tedious after 1/10/100 hours?

I disagree completely with the argument that I'm talking from a supposed "idealized developer perspective" verses your allegedly "practical perspective". That's entirely unfounded.
While yes, I'm sure when I speak about such things in the broad sense it may sound like a commercial to some. It's quite different when I get specific. When I present practical, illustrative examples of a feature currently functioning in other games there is nothing idealized, convoluted, or impractical about it. Those examples include both games built around the hunting concept from the ground up, and games where the hunting concept was added in later onto an existing game.

The disconnects, when they happen, stem from something else.

In the end, combat does come down to DPS in/out, or some other similar formula - from the player's perspective.

It's interesting to insist on this point, about the "players perspective", considering that there are some players here stating that their personal perspective is different. The fact that different people have different perspectives on the same thing is quite clear. Again, this would be focusing on how something is explained rather than accepting that different people explain things differently, and looking more at the factors involved.

You can have as complex battle/environment/physics/ability interactions in your game as you want, both combat/non-combat and anything in between, but once you let the players in and they play your game for a couple hours, they will know - to find an enemy: do X, then Y, then either A or B depending on Y's outcome, then once you find the enemy employ tactic F/G/H depending on their type, watch out for Q/R constantly.

As a developer, your main job is to make all X,Y,A,B,F,G,H,Q,R aspects fun. It doesn't matter how many aspects there are, if inventory management or hunting are one of them or not, as long as they're all fun when done repeatedly, you made a good game. @Beemann mentioned it somewhere at the start of your conversation, and has alluded to that repeatedly with his examples. What kind of aspects you put in your game will determine what players the game will attract, their implementation determines how good your game is.

Some players want a complex hunting experience, some players want to skip hunting and just have a cool hunter-themed ranged class. Which players you want to appeal to is a decision based on your personal preference, and choosing the latter doesn't make you a worse developer. "We want combat to have depth" Is a fine first decision to make, but then you have to define the areas and implementation of said depth - without that you might as well be talking about 18*10^18 unique planets.

I do not disagree with any of that, though bringing it up here as some sort of counter argument to what I have said or attempt to prove a point here is somewhat missing the context of this discussion.

The hunter/tracker concept was just one example of trying to capture the meaning behind the name in game. Not to say that all people want the same expression of anything, but it's best to keep in mind that not all expressions of hunting would be complex, as my examples show, some are quite simple. And, of course, I only brought it up to help illustrate what someone is asking for when they say "don't focus on dps" or "there is more to combat than doing damage to each other" etc.

I'm sure No Man's Sky looked great on paper. I bet I could describe it in a way that would make it sound compelling and interesting even now, without telling a single lie or half-truth. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is, the way they implemented all their ideas is just horrible. That's precisely why talking in general terms is not productive here. Why are we talking about a hypothetical hunter class with hypothetical hunting/tracking mechanics, when their implementation heavily depends on the type of game and all other elements of said game?

I could give a long explanation of what went wrong with how NoMansSky was talked about, and why that went poorly. I will leave that alone for now. At any rate, that is hardly relevant here. As this thread is not a press release or interview about Em-8er. It is just a conversation about what kind of stuff one player or another wants to see, with little to no statements of whether any of it will be the case in game from me.

This game is in early development, I certainly can't talk about a bunch of specifics. There is no way to accurately say how good or bad implementation will be at this stage. Likewise, since I have to avoid most claims of what will or won't be in the game at this time, I can only speak broadly or talk about how features work in other games when discussing concepts. Does this generality make this discussion unproductive? Honestly, I'd wager that depends on which participant you ask.

If you'd rather just not talk about any possible way's a feature or mechanic might play out that is ok. Other folks do. Either way is understandable. But if youre suggesting I should just not talk with the community about their ideas... that is not an option on the table.

When I can, I get to help people understand what kind of game we are making here. That, of course, is limited to information that is publicly available. Which is limited right now, so what I can say is limited. Such is the nature of things.

Ultimately I'm here to interact with the community, to gather the concerns, and listen to the ideas. At times I will seek to bridge a gap between different stances in hopes it will propel the conversation into more cooperation about expressing preferences and less competition on proving who is right or wrong. Unfortunately, that is far from an exact science. And I, like everyone else here, am far from perfect.

 

[Beemann]

I
Are enemies capable of eluding detection in some way?
Does the environment interfere with our equipment somehow?

These are already accounted for in one way or another in regular combat scenarios

Do we need to take care to avoid shooting some highly explosive mineral deposits for fear of blowing up our squad, our target, and the resources we're trying to secure?

This is just a matter of positioning and aim

Can the terrain be damaged? Can cliff faces fall out from under us (or on our heads?)

I would expect not, considering the already large scope of the game, but terrain deformation has been done before and it doesn't change what I'm talking about

Is the dark enough of a hindrance to require instrumental detection, a la night vision?

Also been done, still a factor in the ratio

Are there random eruptions of steam (or lava) we need sensors to detect in time to dodge?

Out of curiosity, why sensors? Sure it makes contextual sense, but it's no different than a giant red telegraph or a QTE prompt at that point

Will the raging sandstorm stiffen the joints of our frame, making our movements sluggish?

This is just a slow, and still factors in

Do we need to bring extra heatsinks to keep from overheating and melting down while fighting near the volcano?

This is another resource to manage that still fits in to my equation, because it is descriptive, not prescriptive. If you lose too much coolant, you take too much damage. Your damage in increases beyond what your damage out may be able to compensate for, to give you enough time to solve the damage-in problem.

Is the enemy (or some rampaging animal) knocking down trees in a path for us follow?
If so, what could they be running from (or to?)

Not a combat scenario, but could lead to one. The non-combat portion isn't really relevant to the discussion at hand though, and at a point where you engage with an enemy in that space, the terrain factors into the equation

Why is the ground shifting beneath our THMPR? Are we mining just above the lair of a giant beast (who is understandably pissed?)

That's literally just a potential combat scenario

Questions like these are what make life on alien planets interesting. Giving the player practical tools to answer them is what gives the player agency and engagement; making a world where answering these questions is the difference between success or failure is what gives the player challenge. Fixating on character classes and compartmentalizing everything without a lifebar as "noncombat" just seems to marginalize and potentially waste all the other wonderful opportunities for memorable adventures...

You're getting upset about context in a discussion of mechanics.
Even WoW, a game you've complained about quite loudly, has contextual and non combat aspects. The WoW clones you called out earlier have their own settings and setting-influenced scenarios. What we were discussing though, and what you referenced, was the mechanical component. Bushido Blade has both mechanical components and context to those mechanics. You have characters with weapons that have properties like reach and speed. They have their own moves with advantages and disadvantages and there are better/worse spots to be in. In context though you have a series of linked levels, some with height variation and some with destructible terrain or bodies of water. These add context, but are not really necessary to bring in when discussing core combat mechanics except in the ways where they directly affect it. Essentially we're talking about the engine, the tires, etc and you're talking about the paint job and the aesthetics of the body etc.
It is an entirely different discussion. The body of the car can have an effect on its performance (wind resistance, weight, durability etc are all measurable components), but when you're discussion crunch the fluff isn't terribly relevant. I'd also argue that the fluff is basically useless without the crunch to back it, and while crunch with no fluff can get stale, you at least have a usable product, not that I would recommend avoiding context overall

 

[Ronyn]

I think we're kind of falling into a familiar trap with this discussion.....
...as so many games have done, intentionally or otherwise.
THAT is what I'm afraid of.

I understand where youre coming from, I definitely agree that the relationship between what the player can do and what the world requests of them is the right way to look at this.

context in a discussion of mechanics.

I would say he is talking about the various interactions that can occur when certain mechanics interact within a specific context.
More to that point, I do not think it's practical to develop mechanics without considering the context in which they will be used.
In very simple terms: Why would a character designer give the player the capability to do super high jumps if there is nothing high to jump on, or nothing dangerous to jump over? Likewise, why would a level designer create super high ledges and long chasms without giving the player some capability to overcome them? Either way you come at it, you need both sides of that to match up for it to work right.

If we look at Daynens "beast running through the forest, possibly being chased by something" example, the crunch of it might be that it creates a battlefield that exists only in the short distance between the wake of a moving object followed closely by another, a situation where the player's have to keep re-positioning themselves as they are caught inside the moving safe-zone found only between the forward objects movements and whatever thing it's running from. This is an interesting (and probably challenging to create) scenario from a pure crunch/gameplay perspective.

As a reminder, game designers come from a variety of educational and professional backgrounds. Where some approach design from the more technical-first standpoint, others may approach design from the more narrative-first standpoint, or the visual-first standpoint, etc. All depending on how they begin their path of creation. All styles of beginnings have their merit as long as that person knows how to hit all of the required steps on their way to the end product.

 

[Daynen]

@Beemann now see, when I posted that string of questions, I didn't really mean for you to break them down and answer them one by one right now; it was intended to be at least slightly rhetorical for the moment, taken as a "food for thought" piece. You also took many of them and simply dropped them in boxes rather than actually trying to imagine what might make those scenarios DIFFERENT than "just a slow" or "literally just a potential combat scenario." It does the vision of a game no justice when everything is so quickly labeled and compartmentalized; rather than hoping for a new, fresh take on the game, it just comes across as asking for a return to routine. I have to wonder if it's just a jaded cynicism hammered in by the last several years; I damn sure know how that feels because I share it far too often.

I feel like I'm starting to sound as if I'm painting you as the bad guy here; I'm not trying to. My main goal is just...to inspire some deeper thought and conjure up a more ambitious vision in folks, so that we end up as a community that asks for great things, rather than fooling ourselves into thinking we want things like higher level caps, more mount variations, or (shudder) lockboxes...It's just such an easy trap to fall into, and once lost, a great many people never even realize what they've done to themselves.

I did want to make a side stop and reply to one thing though.

Spoiler: combat...that isn't?

Out of curiosity, why sensors? Sure it makes contextual sense, but it's no different than a giant red telegraph or a QTE prompt at that point

the main reason for "sensors" rather than just a generic QTE or big red circle of death is agency.

This one is an important one to me, because while it's not "combat" per se, it very much is, in a way. If you're traveling over active volcanic calderas or the like, with random steam surges or lava bursts, avoiding them is going to be critical to your health. If you have no gear to give you any advance warning, it's going to be completely up to you to spot them just moments before they arrive. However, imagine this. Sensors could take readouts of the area in the form of small projectiles that stick in the ground when fired and feed you geological data, manifesting as some form of the aforementioned red warning signs a few extra seconds earlier. With this advance warning, not only do you have the potential to be nowhere near a spout when it bursts, but you might also use it to your advantage, luring enemies over it just in time to be hit or using the spout as obfuscation to enemy visuals or sensors. Just keep an eye on your little data spikes; an unfortunate surge could dislodge one, or worse, destroy it, leaving you blind in the area it covered.

Now take a minute to really play out that vision in your head. In this vision, the function (being warned of a "danger zone") becomes a piece of gear and thus a build choice. If you take one, you're using up a bit of your hardware to give yourself a knowledge boost, advance warning...and a potential combat tactic. If you're just quick on your feet (hands? Frame?) then you may just dispense with it and watch the ground carefully so you can zip away as soon as you see the last second warning sign. Perhaps you could even build your frame to broadcast the sensor data to your squad so they don't all HAVE to take the sensor gear themselves (a la my vision for a true recon class.)

None of these things involve shooting the enemy--though you probably fire the sensors at the ground in a certain spread for optimal coverage--yet they can contribute greatly to the broader definition of "combat" while adding a meaningful and interesting build choice that deals with--and takes advantage of--a very serious environmental threat, while giving you an optional piece of equipment that could have it's own quirks and challenges to work around. Playstyle, teamwork, build choice, advanced tactics, and device mastery. That's a lot of function out of such a small thing, isn't it? Those functions are all things that, when implemented with some polish, would be very memorable, challenging, yet very generous in terms of allowing the player agency. It's why people love games like Dark Souls, where the challenge may be punishing from all sides, but the player is given every tool he needs to overcome--and let me tell you, victory in a game like that is SWEET.

 

[Ronyn]

Gentleman,
In design meetings, there is often a sort of, distance, between the "high concept" direction, version of an idea and the actionable, step-by-step work required to make the idea's happen. Within that distance, much can get lost or misunderstood between people. Those speaking in high concept terms might view those speaking in step-by-step work terms as missing the point, those speaking in step-by-step work terms might view those speaking in high concept terms as missing the point. To overcome this we often have to look closer, look deeper, step outside the shadow of our own perspective and consider that the other person's point may not truly be a contradiction to our own, but can work in concert with it.

 

[Beemann]

In very simple terms: Why would a character designer give the player the capability to do super high jumps if there is nothing high to jump on, or nothing dangerous to jump over?

These are still mechanical aspects. Height differences and movement are mechanical portions of the game. When I say contextual I mean we're taking "I can jump 50 feet into the air and land on that ledge" over to "My cyborg engages his servos and leaps up onto the balcony" When you boil scenarios down, you can see how the different values and mechanics fit together and provide options (or, unfortunately in many cases, a lack thereof)

This is an interesting (and probably challenging to create) scenario from a pure crunch/gameplay perspective.

And if we look at that in the context of the discussion, I noted the mechanical application of it, and pointed out that it doesn't negate my assessment of combat

Where some approach design from the more technical-first standpoint, others may approach design from the more narrative-first standpoint, or the visual-first standpoint, etc.

I would say that such a thing depends on a large number of factors. A narrative focused game is often crippled mechanically due to its need to conformed to a set of written standards that may not be (read: are usually not) written based on how a game works, or else the mechanics create a sort of retroactive absurdity and dissonance. If a visual-first game is focused on graphical fidelity, the time and money it takes to build necessitates a drop somewhere else, and often that means a highly simplistic but pretty game. A mechanically focused game may fail at being a book or a painting, but it wont fail at being a game assuming the designer is as good as the writer on the narrative project, or the team of artists on the visually-focused project. It's not a matter of knowing how to hit all the right steps either, it's simply a matter of finite time and prioritization. A project like DOOM (1993) was driven by tech and gameplay. It had a garbage story, but that wasn't a priority. Instead that time went to building crazy inexplicable levels and solid mechanics (that still hold up better than a lot of shooters out there)

now see, when I posted that string of questions, I didn't really mean for you to break them down and answer them one by one right now; it was intended to be at least slightly rhetorical for the moment, taken as a "food for thought" piece.

Right, except if you're looking at things from a mechanical standpoint, then those things can be broken down quite easily

You also took many of them and simply dropped them in boxes rather than actually trying to imagine what might make those scenarios DIFFERENT than "just a slow" or "literally just a potential combat scenario."

You literally described a slow and a combat scenario. The context of those actions may be different (In Dragon's Dogma, you can be slowed by wind, by spells, or you can have your stamina drain increased by having more weight, which can be added by having your clothes soaked with water) but the effect to the end user is the same. They may contextualize that action, or they may not, but ultimately the effect is the same: you go slower

It does the vision of a game no justice when everything is so quickly labeled and compartmentalized; rather than hoping for a new, fresh take on the game, it just comes across as asking for a return to routine. I have to wonder if it's just a jaded cynicism hammered in by the last several years; I damn sure know how that feels because I share it far too often.

It's not cynical unless you think every game needs to be a special snowflake. The understanding of mechanics and how they fit together is what makes good games what they are.

...My main goal is just...to inspire some deeper thought and conjure up a more ambitious vision in folks... ...higher level caps, more mount variations, or (shudder) lockboxes

I'd suggest looking at Ronyn's post. Looking at things from a contextual/lore perspective is not deeper thought, it's just a different aspect of the game. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with any of the things you're mentioning, and I'm not sure why you're so fixated on WoW and modern F2P elements. To put things into perspective, my favourite games include STALKER, Dragon's Dogma, SupCom FA, Quake/Doom, and SaGa Frontier
To explain a little better, none of those have mounts or lockboxes (unless you want to count stashes that are perfectly explained within the world, and are not a monetization model) and only one has levels at all (unless you wanna count SupCom's veteran bonuses)

Spoiler: combat...that isn't?

the main reason for "sensors" rather than just a generic QTE or big red circle of death is agency.

My point is that you're not giving the player much agency when you have "CORRECT ANSWER" flashing on their screen. Lava message shows up, you move away from the spot that made it flash. On the flip side, you could have a scenario where lava appears in patterns, and erupts from spots that have a clear visual indicator that isn't just a red box, or a flashing HUD element

Sensors could take readouts of the area in the form of small projectiles that stick in the ground when fired and feed you geological data, manifesting as some form of the aforementioned red warning signs a few extra seconds earlier.

This is a solution that is ultimately equipment based. You could easily have the same system without requiring sensors everywhere, or plastering more clutter on the user's screen, and the user would have to pay attention to their surroundings and check manually rather than have their HUD tell them directly. This creates a scenario where they have to keep multiple plates spinning, which forces the use of multiple skills to greater degrees than otherwise.

Perhaps you could even build your frame to broadcast the sensor data to your squad so they don't all HAVE to take the sensor gear themselves (a la my vision for a true recon class.)

I would personally suggest more active participation, and less "loadout participation" but that's just me

None of these things involve shooting the enemy--though you probably fire the sensors at the ground in a certain spread for optimal coverage--yet they can contribute greatly to the broader definition of "combat"

It also doesn't break away from the ratio. You do X so you dont take damage. If you don't do X you take more damage, and have to dish out enough damage/avoid enough extra damage to escape the area or complete your objective there. I feel like you're attacking the idea because you don't the wording I've used to describe it, not because you have reason to believe it's inaccurate

It's why people love games like Dark Souls, where the challenge may be punishing from all sides, but the player is given every tool he needs to overcome--and let me tell you, victory in a game like that is SWEET.

Loadout-based output is the antithesis of having every tool you need to be victorious though, and your ideal recon is absolutely an example of loadout-based output. What he's meant to bring to the squad is not the ability to get through fights on his own, it's to get rid of annoyances that nobody else wants to deal with anyway, or things that they cant deal with without negating some portion of their own output. What's more, the negation of threat within a particular area through the use of more intel is, what I'd argue, acts as the bane of Souls' existence. Even DSP can beat a Souls game given a guide and enough time.

 

[Ronyn]

These are still mechanical aspects. Height differences and movement are mechanical portions of the game. When I say contextual I mean we're taking "I can jump 50 feet into the air and land on that ledge" over to "My cyborg engages his servos and leaps up onto the balcony" When you boil scenarios down, you can see how the different values and mechanics fit together and provide options (or, unfortunately in many cases, a lack thereof)

Ah, we are using the word context differently. So when you say context you refer to "lore/asthetic based explanations".
When I say context I refer to "the conditions in which something occurs". I see.

And if we look at that in the context of the discussion, I noted the mechanical application of it, and pointed out that it doesn't negate my assessment of combat

You noted it was a potential combat scenario, which is indeed accurate and also fits within your style of describing combat.
Though, I think what Daynen was looking to invite was that we would dive into that encounter as to what might make that particular combat scenario more or less interesting for the player. But I suppose there is still the debate about "what makes combat, combat" going on.

I would say that such a thing depends on a large number of factors. A narrative focused game....

Well that is an interesting line of discussion. But I wasn't talking about the focus of a game, I was talking about the personal perspective (style of description/approach in creation) of a designer.
As in, I have a freind who had a visual based profession before he became a game designer. It's been years now but I can still hear the "visual slant" in how he talks about things, and I see it in his early creation process. That doesn't mean he specifically makes visual first games, as he is just one member on a team of many, and has worked on games of very different focuses over the years. If you can follow my thought. I was talking about how different people look at things differently. And more to the point, when working together for a common goal, everyone has to be able to find common ground despite those different perspectives. In fact I personally find that everyone is all the richer for doing so.

 

[Daynen]

These are still mechanical aspects. Height differences and movement are mechanical portions of the game. When I say contextual I mean we're taking "I can jump 50 feet into the air and land on that ledge" over to "My cyborg engages his servos and leaps up onto the balcony" When you boil scenarios down, you can see how the different values and mechanics fit together and provide options (or, unfortunately in many cases, a lack thereof)

And if we look at that in the context of the discussion, I noted the mechanical application of it, and pointed out that it doesn't negate my assessment of combat

If it doesn't negate your assessment, then that means we haven't destroyed any core gameplay. Good. That doesn't mean we can't give it room to grow.

I would say that such a thing depends on a large number of factors. A narrative focused game is often crippled mechanically due to its need to conformed to a set of written standards that may not be (read: are usually not) written based on how a game works, or else the mechanics create a sort of retroactive absurdity and dissonance. If a visual-first game is focused on graphical fidelity, the time and money it takes to build necessitates a drop somewhere else, and often that means a highly simplistic but pretty game. A mechanically focused game may fail at being a book or a painting, but it wont fail at being a game assuming the designer is as good as the writer on the narrative project, or the team of artists on the visually-focused project. It's not a matter of knowing how to hit all the right steps either, it's simply a matter of finite time and prioritization. A project like DOOM (1993) was driven by tech and gameplay. It had a garbage story, but that wasn't a priority. Instead that time went to building crazy inexplicable levels and solid mechanics (that still hold up better than a lot of shooters out there)

You literally described a slow and a combat scenario. The context of those actions may be different (In Dragon's Dogma, you can be slowed by wind, by spells, or you can have your stamina drain increased by having more weight, which can be added by having your clothes soaked with water) but the effect to the end user is the same. They may contextualize that action, or they may not, but ultimately the effect is the same: you go slower

Yes and no. I described a situation that a mercenary in an omniframe would have to adapt to on the fly. It just so happened to be analogous to something that's describable in one or two words. While a lot of different effects may be all labeled as "going slower," the nuanced differences between simply having a reduced run speed and, say, having a leg occasionally seize up or having a sudden gust of wind check you and force you to hunker down for a second, can be the subtle difference that takes the game from "another MMO" to "this awesome sci-fi shooter" in a player's mind. Mechanically? Not so different. In the player's experience? It can make all the difference.

It's not cynical unless you think every game needs to be a special snowflake. The understanding of mechanics and how they fit together is what makes good games what they are.

A game can fit together well and still be special. It's the games that don't even TRY to be special that I'm wary of. There's nothing WRONG with refining a formula (hell, look at Blizzard games) but there's plenty of room to innovate, polish, and personalize too--perhaps even more so when you DO know the established formula, because you spend less time figuring out the basics and have more left to make your snowflake special.

Loadout-based output is the antithesis of having every tool you need to be victorious though, and your ideal recon is absolutely an example of loadout-based output. What he's meant to bring to the squad is not the ability to get through fights on his own, it's to get rid of annoyances that nobody else wants to deal with anyway, or things that they cant deal with without negating some portion of their own output. What's more, the negation of threat within a particular area through the use of more intel is, what I'd argue, acts as the bane of Souls' existence. Even DSP can beat a Souls game given a guide and enough time.
[/SPOILER]

Loadout-based output isn't the antithesis I would say; it's actually part of the challenge. If you can't have instant access to every move, every spell, and every weapon in your inventory at the touch of a button, you have to choose carefully before going in and make due with what you brought. While my ideas for recon aren't ideal and fully processed, they're still a far cry more involved and likely more impactful than "press F to make things glow for a few seconds." As mentioned, the true value of things like reconnaissance will depend a lot on the challenges the game world throws at us and the granularity of such loadout choices, so discussing their role at this juncture may be putting the cart before the horse after all.

Also: that's the point of a souls game. The challenge is solely dependent on the player's knowledge, reflexes and choices. Once those are all in alignment and mistakes are ironed out, victory follows. That's how a single player game is supposed to work. The game pulls no punches in it's quest to destroy you, but accepts defeat graciously and rewards you when it's truly beaten. It's a merciless opponent who shows honor in defeat. Hard to ask for much more than that from a video game. The tradeoff is repetition; handcrafted experiences in a static environment are hard to mix up at a moment's notice.

Answer me this, though: was it not an engaging and memorable challenge? It certainly was for me.

 

[Beemann]

Went away for a bit and my updates failed me. Back to the debate

If it doesn't negate your assessment, then that means we haven't destroyed any core gameplay. Good. That doesn't mean we can't give it room to grow.

So you accept my premise for combat then? Because my statements were never about the attached lore

Yes and no. I described a situation that a mercenary in an omniframe would have to adapt to on the fly. It just so happened to be analogous to something that's describable in one or two words.

You described an in game event that has the mechanical effect of a slow. It doesn't happen to be describable in so few words, that's just the reality of it being a slow. You still have room to go crazy with the explanation for the slow effect existing, but at the end of the day, when it comes to in-game decision making, it's a slow

While a lot of different effects may be all labeled as "going slower," the nuanced differences between simply having a reduced run speed and, say, having a leg occasionally seize up or having a sudden gust of wind check you and force you to hunker down for a second, can be the subtle difference that takes the game from "another MMO" to "this awesome sci-fi shooter" in a player's mind. Mechanically? Not so different. In the player's experience? It can make all the difference.

If your legs stop moving, thats a root. Being knocked off balance would be a root or a stagger, or possibly even a stun depending on how it's handled, and players will react to it according to their experience with those mechanics. Again, the context helps justify and flesh out the mechanic, but that doesn't make the mechanic different.
You described moving slower, which is just a lesser form of CC. In all of these cases the problem is mechanical and so is the solution

A game can fit together well and still be special. It's the games that don't even TRY to be special that I'm wary of. There's nothing WRONG with refining a formula (hell, look at Blizzard games) but there's plenty of room to innovate, polish, and personalize too--perhaps even more so when you DO know the established formula, because you spend less time figuring out the basics and have more left to make your snowflake special.

My point is that every game is ultimately an amalgamation of other game mechanics, perhaps tweaked a little more, and maybe with one or two new mechanics thrown in. Polish, lore etc are all what come in once you have a solid foundation

Loadout-based output isn't the antithesis I would say; it's actually part of the challenge.

Having your efficacy based on your loadout isn't the antithesis of the idea of having all the tools you need to win? A game like Quake is one where you have all the tools needed to win, a game like Baldur's Gate is one that has certain tools required to beat other tools, certain spells that will be necessary, barring some huge power difference, to finish certain encounters etc. Even Nocturne, a game in which a resistances and weaknesses system is used, has bosses where, unless you grind, you will need a certain elemental setup, and the game doesn't necessarily guarantee you'll have it. It's on you to set it up

If you can't have instant access to every move, every spell, and every weapon in your inventory at the touch of a button, you have to choose carefully before going in and make due with what you brought.

Games that aren't randomized generally account for this. You're often pretty good to go with whatever you pick, it just might not be scaled quite as well. Bonus round: in an open world game, you won't know what you need, which is where my loadout balance argument comes from: when you don't know what you need, the tendency is to take a weapon/ability/etc that works the best for the most common or most annoying scenario, depending on how those are balanced

Also: that's the point of a souls game. The challenge is solely dependent on the player's knowledge, reflexes and choices.

I would suggest knowledge makes a far bigger impact than you're giving it credit for. Again, DSP, the man who spent two hours in HL1 on a basic platforming section, was able to cheese his way through most of Dark Souls

Once those are all in alignment and mistakes are ironed out, victory follows. That's how a single player game is supposed to work. The game pulls no punches in it's quest to destroy you, but accepts defeat graciously and rewards you when it's truly beaten. It's a merciless opponent who shows honor in defeat. Hard to ask for much more than that from a video game.

This statement sits in stark contrast to what I just pointed out

Answer me this, though: was it not an engaging and memorable challenge? It certainly was for me.

To be totally honest I got bored with it and stopped. Not a huge fan of the speed of the game, and while the setting seemed kinda neat, nothing else drew me in, especially once I realized how hard the bosses could be cheesed (which was prior to seeing DSP do it, mind you)

 

[Ronyn]

So you accept my premise for combat then? Because my statements were never about the attached lore

Despite his style of expression, I don't think his statements were ever really about the attached lore either. The lore was really an attempt to inspire deeper thoughts that might lead to fascinating mechanics combination. Just as your statements about the mechanics were an attempt to boil them down to base components for the purpose of functionality. For a good game to be made, one needs both that inspiration and that functionality.

------------------------------------------------------------

Having your efficacy based on your loadout isn't the antithesis of the idea of having all the tools you need to win?

Whether it is or isn't doesn't come down to a simple yes or no question, it depends on what amount of difference these loadouts make. If a game intends on having it so every loadout incorporates "all the tools to win", it doesn't necessarily mean it grants the player the same amount of advantage or disadvantage in every situation.

In other words: Are we talking Possible VS Impossible OR are we talking Optimal VS Sub Optimal (and to what degree)?
This is a very important thing to clarify, as simply having classes/roles/loadouts in a game does not automatically state where things fall on that scale. Having each class/role/loadout offer something unique and interesting doesn't either.

And, as we have established that player's will seek out what is optimal, a game doesn't have to go to the extremes of possible VS impossible for players to care how optimal their class/role/loadout is for any given scenerio.

Bonus round: in an open world game, you won't know what you need, which is where my loadout balance argument comes from: when you don't know what you need, the tendency is to take a weapon/ability/etc that works the best for the most common or most annoying scenario, depending on how those are balanced

True to some degree. Though depending on how those are balanced, the player's tendency is also often to take what they most enjoy/most prefer to play as/how they like to approach situations. And depending on what it takes to swap, the player's may choose to swap or not depending on how much of an advantage or disadvantage there happens to be at the time.

As a rule, if a game seeks to create "interesting choices" there has to be some amount of relevance-to-viability-per-approach-and/or-scenario based on what they choose. How big that will be depends on the game in question, but it has to exist to some level. If every choice has the same result, it isn't interesting.

So one has to ask, does the game in question intend to have interesting choices pre-combat, during-combat, or both?
If there is to be some amount of interesting choices pre-combat, there has to be some amount of situationally "better and worse" choices that can be made. While that can lead to newer player's making mistakes (worse choices), it can also lead to those players feeling they earned victory bu either overcoming a disadvantage or learning (the better choice).
Whether that experience is enjoyable or frustrating is largely a matter of how well crafted it all is.