Here's an example of what you did:
Demigan: "A game with x classes, each working with X weapons"
Breemann: "So you don't want to have any abilities, enemies or quests in the game?"
Demigan: "Yes I do want to have abilities, enemies and quests in the game. I just hoped that people would be capable of adding those idea's necessary to make things work without me having to name every single one of them litterally"
Breemann: "That's not what you said prior! You corrected yourself! It's not my faaaaaaaaaaauuuuuuuuuuuuuuuulllt!
Same goes for any idea. So why are you even thinking this is anywhere close to an argument?
All you are saying is "But but but your idea needs balancing!". Well newsflash, every idea needs balancing!
You were the one who named it a dichotomy. You are the one who claimed this dichotomy was false. I'm pointing out where you are wrong. So you now stoop so low as to try and use your own faults and try to put them on me, claiming all the while it's me who's doing just that? You filthy, filthy hipocrite.
Ahem:
Only for people who don't understand such a simple concept.
Let me make it even simpler, I'm just going to use 4 random enemy unit types. For your sake I'm going to have to tell you that these aren't necessarily the enemy unit types that I want or the only unit types that I want. The enemy types are armor, healing, speed and flying.
A player has access, in this example, to 1 weapon, 1 ability and 1 armor.
Loadout 1:
Weapon: anti-armor
Ability (armor has been chosen and can't be picked anymore): anti-flying
Armor (just speed and healing to pick from): anti-speed
Loadout 2:
Weapon: anti-speed
ability: anti-flying
armor: anti-healing
etc.
You can't min/max since you can't pick a weapon, ability and armor that make you perfect against the most enemy types. You can only pick 3 enemy types just like everyone else.
You mean the bits where I assume people have the intelligence to look at the idea rather than the litteral words and conveniently assume the worst?
Just look at this gem from you:
First of all. Any idea will have to balance the solo and group fights. This isn't something that just my idea will come across. This is one of the many moments where you are like "Gah! This will need balancing, that's baaaaaaaaaaaaaad" even though this is simply an obstacle that any system will have to overcome, even the no-options system will have to deal with this obstacle during the creation process. Now I hope you realize I'm not trying to call this a problem, since it isn't. This is just par of the course. It would be like saying "we want to create a game but we have a problem... We have to code the game! Oh gods!". It makes no sense, it's not a problem but simply something you'll have to deal with, yet you are doing it over and over again.
Second of all, do you really think that a group fight will encounter just as many enemies per-player as a solo player? So if a solo player encounter has 5 enemies per engagement then a group of 3 will encounter 15 enemies? Are you really so narrow-minded not to see the obvious solution of, you know, adding more enemies depending on the amount of players? This is what I'm talking about when discussing with you. You present it as a terrible problem, yet it's just something that no matter what you do the developers need to do something with it to balance it out. And more often than not the solution is extremely simple, if not downright already told to you. In this case: Keep in check how many players are in the area/engaging the enemy mobs, adjust the enemy count and type accordingly. This doesn't even have to mean that there need to be more enemies, but you can have more hybrids as well. Such as a flying healer. Upping the difficulty for grouped fights according to the amount of players through multiple means to ensure much more variety during combat.
Demigan: "A game with x classes, each working with X weapons"
Breemann: "So you don't want to have any abilities, enemies or quests in the game?"
Demigan: "Yes I do want to have abilities, enemies and quests in the game. I just hoped that people would be capable of adding those idea's necessary to make things work without me having to name every single one of them litterally"
Breemann: "That's not what you said prior! You corrected yourself! It's not my faaaaaaaaaaauuuuuuuuuuuuuuuulllt!
Same goes for any idea. So why are you even thinking this is anywhere close to an argument?
All you are saying is "But but but your idea needs balancing!". Well newsflash, every idea needs balancing!
You were the one who named it a dichotomy. You are the one who claimed this dichotomy was false. I'm pointing out where you are wrong. So you now stoop so low as to try and use your own faults and try to put them on me, claiming all the while it's me who's doing just that? You filthy, filthy hipocrite.
Ahem:
Only for people who don't understand such a simple concept.
Let me make it even simpler, I'm just going to use 4 random enemy unit types. For your sake I'm going to have to tell you that these aren't necessarily the enemy unit types that I want or the only unit types that I want. The enemy types are armor, healing, speed and flying.
A player has access, in this example, to 1 weapon, 1 ability and 1 armor.
Loadout 1:
Weapon: anti-armor
Ability (armor has been chosen and can't be picked anymore): anti-flying
Armor (just speed and healing to pick from): anti-speed
Loadout 2:
Weapon: anti-speed
ability: anti-flying
armor: anti-healing
etc.
You can't min/max since you can't pick a weapon, ability and armor that make you perfect against the most enemy types. You can only pick 3 enemy types just like everyone else.
You mean the bits where I assume people have the intelligence to look at the idea rather than the litteral words and conveniently assume the worst?
Just look at this gem from you:
First of all. Any idea will have to balance the solo and group fights. This isn't something that just my idea will come across. This is one of the many moments where you are like "Gah! This will need balancing, that's baaaaaaaaaaaaaad" even though this is simply an obstacle that any system will have to overcome, even the no-options system will have to deal with this obstacle during the creation process. Now I hope you realize I'm not trying to call this a problem, since it isn't. This is just par of the course. It would be like saying "we want to create a game but we have a problem... We have to code the game! Oh gods!". It makes no sense, it's not a problem but simply something you'll have to deal with, yet you are doing it over and over again.
Second of all, do you really think that a group fight will encounter just as many enemies per-player as a solo player? So if a solo player encounter has 5 enemies per engagement then a group of 3 will encounter 15 enemies? Are you really so narrow-minded not to see the obvious solution of, you know, adding more enemies depending on the amount of players? This is what I'm talking about when discussing with you. You present it as a terrible problem, yet it's just something that no matter what you do the developers need to do something with it to balance it out. And more often than not the solution is extremely simple, if not downright already told to you. In this case: Keep in check how many players are in the area/engaging the enemy mobs, adjust the enemy count and type accordingly. This doesn't even have to mean that there need to be more enemies, but you can have more hybrids as well. Such as a flying healer. Upping the difficulty for grouped fights according to the amount of players through multiple means to ensure much more variety during combat.
i just fly through his and demigan's debate for courtesy's sake, but the level of "i'm right, ur not" it's getting preaty annoying
no offence ment
no offence ment
Literally not what happened at all. Go back and read it. I made a point, you summarized in the form of a dichotomy, I pointed out why that didnt make sense and called it what it was
You're not even reading what I'm saying. Unless you use a boring solution straight out of NES JRPGs your system has exponentially more factors to balance than pretty much any other system by default. If my system is 3 hybrid classes and you decide to have the same number of abilities/weapons etc (let's say 26) then unless your enemy counts, enemy behaviour, enemy stats etc are EXACTLY equal (in other words, if your type change is just a cosmetic and resistance change only) then you now have every conceivable combination of those 26 options across 3 damage types to balance.
I'm saying that if your idea isn't based around content padding, it needs far more work put into balancing than any comparable systrm
Not the whole discussion, just how you summarized my position and tried to use that in favour of your system. Please read
I've already explained why this doesn't fix the problem, but I'll repeat such a labour because you appear to have skimmed over it entirely
So you have a flying enemy, a fast enemy and a healing enemy, but you've only listed one weapon
Let's make it two. You have a shotgun and a sniper rifle (we can make it 3 if you'd prefer)
Do we split those amongst the types? Such that a sniper rifle is always strong against flying, weak against speed and normal against healing, with a complimentary setup for the shotgun? Or do we have 3 types of both. With the former, you're forcing 3 separate sets of weapons to balance. With the latter, you still have a unique set of balance considerations. Say your flying enemies are all about dive bombing. Maybe they're easy to hit, so a shotgun is good for those, good for speedy enemies, and good for healing, resistances aside. However maybe they shoot projectiles instead, and you now have a scenario where your shotgun is worthless against a particular enemy type. So now when it comes to anti flying weapons, your shotgun is worthless but your sniper rifle is great. You now have to ensure your enemies are designed to be equally easy to kill with every weapon type or you've only added that extra factor. Not only is it hard to hit a particular enemy, but with the wrong type I do less damage. This is a more considerable disadvantage than would exist in a system like the one I proposed. What's worse, you now have to balance that against the factors all 3 types present, where my system would exclude those and deal solely with one type in pure isolation. In such a system, I don't need to balance birds v shotguns because maybe the mutant birds of planet Alpha IV aren't like their Earthly counterparts and aren't easily offed by small metal pellets. In your system, it's not that every weapon *is* viable, it's that they must be to have the system work properly, otherwise you have 3 layers of minmaxing
Your idea is represented by words. If you use the wrong words, it's hard to argue that it's "assuming the worst" to point out how they're false
Not every idea is based around incentivizing weapon type usage (rather than regular weapon usage first and foremost) by balancing encounters for difficulty
My comments were rather explicitly about the difficulty of balancing more factors vs less. It is easier to balance Quake than it is to balance SupCom or StarCraft, because Quake has a weapon set both players can use, and the two RTS' I named have multiple factions with a decent number of unit types and unique mechanics each. If you can accomplish the same amount of depth with fewer options, and thus create an engaging and skillful game that is, relatively speaking, easy to balance, I dont see any reason not to
Especially for a small team with a limited budget
It's more like suggesting that it's fine for the devs to build the game from scratch, or using java. You're not going to necessarily making matters easier for a small team
So we now have to create a system that dynamically scales enemy encounters in an open world game where said enemy sizes might not be appropriate on a per-area basis? Are we now to saddle the devs with creating either a flagging system for max enemy density for certain areas or creating a whole new procedural generation method for doing so (separate from any event-centric stuff they're already doing), optimizing the game for a metric asston of enemies spawning at once to fight a large group, and then additionally creating a system ON TOP OF THAT in which they have to balance multiple damage and enemy types?
This sounds like tremendous feature creep in what is already going to be a difficult project. I don't see why ambient enemies can't just be ambient enemies here, outside of the need to justify a resistances system
It's a terrible problem when you consider that you're creating an exponential increase in factors for devs to balance in order for an end user to even notice a change
The game's an open world MMO, not warframe
But my group of 15 has enough anti flying and anti healer weapons to keep it in check
It would, but your solutions to the problem require a lot of work and, as far as I can tell, have no shortcuts when it comes to functional implementation. You're asking a lot for a system that isn't needed to provide what you want (dynamic combat)
You're not even reading what I'm saying. Unless you use a boring solution straight out of NES JRPGs your system has exponentially more factors to balance than pretty much any other system by default. If my system is 3 hybrid classes and you decide to have the same number of abilities/weapons etc (let's say 26) then unless your enemy counts, enemy behaviour, enemy stats etc are EXACTLY equal (in other words, if your type change is just a cosmetic and resistance change only) then you now have every conceivable combination of those 26 options across 3 damage types to balance.
I'm saying that if your idea isn't based around content padding, it needs far more work put into balancing than any comparable systrm
Not the whole discussion, just how you summarized my position and tried to use that in favour of your system. Please read
I've already explained why this doesn't fix the problem, but I'll repeat such a labour because you appear to have skimmed over it entirely
So you have a flying enemy, a fast enemy and a healing enemy, but you've only listed one weapon
Let's make it two. You have a shotgun and a sniper rifle (we can make it 3 if you'd prefer)
Do we split those amongst the types? Such that a sniper rifle is always strong against flying, weak against speed and normal against healing, with a complimentary setup for the shotgun? Or do we have 3 types of both. With the former, you're forcing 3 separate sets of weapons to balance. With the latter, you still have a unique set of balance considerations. Say your flying enemies are all about dive bombing. Maybe they're easy to hit, so a shotgun is good for those, good for speedy enemies, and good for healing, resistances aside. However maybe they shoot projectiles instead, and you now have a scenario where your shotgun is worthless against a particular enemy type. So now when it comes to anti flying weapons, your shotgun is worthless but your sniper rifle is great. You now have to ensure your enemies are designed to be equally easy to kill with every weapon type or you've only added that extra factor. Not only is it hard to hit a particular enemy, but with the wrong type I do less damage. This is a more considerable disadvantage than would exist in a system like the one I proposed. What's worse, you now have to balance that against the factors all 3 types present, where my system would exclude those and deal solely with one type in pure isolation. In such a system, I don't need to balance birds v shotguns because maybe the mutant birds of planet Alpha IV aren't like their Earthly counterparts and aren't easily offed by small metal pellets. In your system, it's not that every weapon *is* viable, it's that they must be to have the system work properly, otherwise you have 3 layers of minmaxing
Your idea is represented by words. If you use the wrong words, it's hard to argue that it's "assuming the worst" to point out how they're false
Not every idea is based around incentivizing weapon type usage (rather than regular weapon usage first and foremost) by balancing encounters for difficulty
My comments were rather explicitly about the difficulty of balancing more factors vs less. It is easier to balance Quake than it is to balance SupCom or StarCraft, because Quake has a weapon set both players can use, and the two RTS' I named have multiple factions with a decent number of unit types and unique mechanics each. If you can accomplish the same amount of depth with fewer options, and thus create an engaging and skillful game that is, relatively speaking, easy to balance, I dont see any reason not to
Especially for a small team with a limited budget
It's more like suggesting that it's fine for the devs to build the game from scratch, or using java. You're not going to necessarily making matters easier for a small team
So we now have to create a system that dynamically scales enemy encounters in an open world game where said enemy sizes might not be appropriate on a per-area basis? Are we now to saddle the devs with creating either a flagging system for max enemy density for certain areas or creating a whole new procedural generation method for doing so (separate from any event-centric stuff they're already doing), optimizing the game for a metric asston of enemies spawning at once to fight a large group, and then additionally creating a system ON TOP OF THAT in which they have to balance multiple damage and enemy types?
This sounds like tremendous feature creep in what is already going to be a difficult project. I don't see why ambient enemies can't just be ambient enemies here, outside of the need to justify a resistances system
It's a terrible problem when you consider that you're creating an exponential increase in factors for devs to balance in order for an end user to even notice a change
The game's an open world MMO, not warframe
But my group of 15 has enough anti flying and anti healer weapons to keep it in check
It would, but your solutions to the problem require a lot of work and, as far as I can tell, have no shortcuts when it comes to functional implementation. You're asking a lot for a system that isn't needed to provide what you want (dynamic combat)
Hmmm...maaaaaaaybe someone should start a new thread and just them to squabble over this one...
Likes:
TankHunter678 and Beerdog6
Hi everyone
So, I am really curious if any moderator (@Ronyn , @Nakiato , @PlzBanMe ) is doing notes from these discussions , because I am really lost about what they are trying to tell.
As for @Beemann and @Demigan , pls you need to also agree with some points from others posts (to some degree), and start your discussion on these ideas you share. Otherwise posting only opposite ideas (and pointing on those differences) leads to nowhere.
Don´t take me wrong, both of you (and also others ) have great ideas that are very inspiring, just be little more friendly in discussion.
Have a nice day
So, I am really curious if any moderator (@Ronyn , @Nakiato , @PlzBanMe ) is doing notes from these discussions
, because I am really lost about what they are trying to tell.As for @Beemann and @Demigan , pls you need to also agree with some points from others posts (to some degree), and start your discussion on these ideas you share. Otherwise posting only opposite ideas (and pointing on those differences) leads to nowhere.
Don´t take me wrong, both of you (and also others
) have great ideas that are very inspiring, just be little more friendly in discussion.Have a nice day
Hi everyone
So, I am really curious if any moderator (@Ronyn , @Nakiato , @PlzBanMe ) is doing notes from these discussions , because I am really lost about what they are trying to tell.
As for @Beemann and @Demigan , pls you need to also agree with some points from others posts (to some degree), and start your discussion on these ideas you share. Otherwise posting only opposite ideas (and pointing on those differences) leads to nowhere.
Don´t take me wrong, both of you (and also others ) have great ideas that are very inspiring, just be little more friendly in discussion.
Have a nice day
So, I am really curious if any moderator (@Ronyn , @Nakiato , @PlzBanMe ) is doing notes from these discussions
, because I am really lost about what they are trying to tell.As for @Beemann and @Demigan , pls you need to also agree with some points from others posts (to some degree), and start your discussion on these ideas you share. Otherwise posting only opposite ideas (and pointing on those differences) leads to nowhere.
Don´t take me wrong, both of you (and also others
) have great ideas that are very inspiring, just be little more friendly in discussion.Have a nice day
You can have a perfectly productive conversation with someone you disagree with entirely. I do it all the time. It's not even as though I disagree with every user in the thread (was in agreement with most of what OP said). However I'm not going to agree with someone for the sake of doing so. The point is to be convinced of an idea's merit
No, it's just the reality of disagreement and debate. The only part I take issue with particularly is what I see as a lack of explanation and putting words in my mouth. I've had incredibly productive discussions out of disagreement concerning Tribes: Ascend (in which I was wrong, frequently), Global Agenda (in which I generally had more expertise than the person I was talking to, but that wasn't always the case) and, I would even suggest, concerning FireFall.
Sometimes I get converts, and sometimes I am swayed, but these things do not come about from forced agreement or a hesitancy to challenge ideas. In fact, challenging ideas is really the only way to test them in this instance. Neither Demigan, nor I have the time, resources and skillset necessary to create a full working proof of concept in such a short time, so the only way to defend ideas is to use logic
Sometimes this takes a while, and sometimes this includes misunderstandings that need to be cleared up before things can progress
If you don't wish to take part in that specific subset of the conversation, then don't. Address other people in the thread or throw out your own ideas. There have been a few people I agree/disagree with who I haven't commented on because as-is I find myself writing what appears to be the start of a novel to explain to Demigan why I think he's wrong every page or so.
So to;dr I guess would be
Disagreement is necessary, agreement for the sake of agreement isn't, there's other people posting their own discussions in the thread if you'd prefer to talk about that
And as an aside, if a relatively tame argument is considered worth noting for moderators, then I'm somewhat concerned about this community already. I can handle myself, and I'm sure Demigan can handle himself. It's just large volumes of words, dude.
No, it's just the reality of disagreement and debate. The only part I take issue with particularly is what I see as a lack of explanation and putting words in my mouth. I've had incredibly productive discussions out of disagreement concerning Tribes: Ascend (in which I was wrong, frequently), Global Agenda (in which I generally had more expertise than the person I was talking to, but that wasn't always the case) and, I would even suggest, concerning FireFall.
Sometimes I get converts, and sometimes I am swayed, but these things do not come about from forced agreement or a hesitancy to challenge ideas. In fact, challenging ideas is really the only way to test them in this instance. Neither Demigan, nor I have the time, resources and skillset necessary to create a full working proof of concept in such a short time, so the only way to defend ideas is to use logic
Sometimes this takes a while, and sometimes this includes misunderstandings that need to be cleared up before things can progress
If you don't wish to take part in that specific subset of the conversation, then don't. Address other people in the thread or throw out your own ideas. There have been a few people I agree/disagree with who I haven't commented on because as-is I find myself writing what appears to be the start of a novel to explain to Demigan why I think he's wrong every page or so.
So to;dr I guess would be
Disagreement is necessary, agreement for the sake of agreement isn't, there's other people posting their own discussions in the thread if you'd prefer to talk about that
And as an aside, if a relatively tame argument is considered worth noting for moderators, then I'm somewhat concerned about this community already. I can handle myself, and I'm sure Demigan can handle himself. It's just large volumes of words, dude.
Last edited:
Its the style in which you do it makes it annoying to read, and drives people to skip it.
You dismantle an argument into individual sentences, taking them out of the context of the larger whole, and then respond to each cherry picked piece. Leading to the creation of 5-10 sub arguments taking place at once. So the reader has to constantly reference what it is you are quoting to make sense of your response. As each response is not connected to each other.
It turns the argument, for the reader, into a puzzle with no real value trying to piece together.
Walls of text are easy to overcome. Disjointed walls of text that require you to piece them together across a large chain of posts to make sense of are not worth bothering.
You dismantle an argument into individual sentences, taking them out of the context of the larger whole, and then respond to each cherry picked piece. Leading to the creation of 5-10 sub arguments taking place at once. So the reader has to constantly reference what it is you are quoting to make sense of your response. As each response is not connected to each other.
It turns the argument, for the reader, into a puzzle with no real value trying to piece together.
Walls of text are easy to overcome. Disjointed walls of text that require you to piece them together across a large chain of posts to make sense of are not worth bothering.