Community Question: Campaign Rewards and Unlocks

(tokamak) #61

And once again throwing a tantrum and restating your vacuous assertions. We know you don’t like it, we know you don’t think it’s fun. Now tell us why.

(SockDog) #62

Sigh, more deflection. In essence the RPG elements break the game each and every time, as I stated in my first posts, even ETQW suffered to some degree due to the upgrade path such as deterring new players joining a final campaign or losing team due to upgrade imbalance. I’m not the only person which has said so in this thread.

To be quite clear. I have no problem adding more complexity to the game but IMO it shouldn’t be done at the expense of the core game working. This is exactly why I threw out an alternative method to do it which addressed several of the issues. I have no vested interest in that method, tear it apart by all means but just stop acting like the existing method is without faults and that any suggestions against it are as such without merit. I’d honestly love to see you step outside your box and find a way yourself to have some sort of progress path or upgrade system without the hangups.

(tokamak) #63

Is that it? A disadvantage when joining late in a campaign that can’t last more than an hour? Say you enter in the last match, then you’ll have to endure people who had 40 minutes to build up an advantage for a whole 20 minutes. I already have a hard time seeing the issue with that as I enjoy the challenge of being the underdog myself but even if you don’t like it then I say though, be patient and make of it what you can.

In a way that’s also what my permanent layer tends to solve. By letting players shift the weights before they start playing you can afford to be handing out rewards at a faster rate as character development is more focussed and it would be impossible to have powerful masters of everything running around in the end.

(SockDog) #64

I said the impacts in ETQW were minimal, they are however still there as much as you want to view them as personally challenging. It’s quite simple that joining a campaign halfway through is going to leave you less well off than those who have been there from the start and you’ll be less capable to support your team. The other factors are encouraging grind to upgrade faster and rewarding players who perform better (or grind well) over those who don’t, which further expands on any skill/knowledge gap between the players. That doesn’t induce an environment for fun it’s playing on the old brain crack tactic.

Now Brink did as you said, sped through the upgrades pretty fast. Seems many people felt that squandered the whole value of the system. I believe even you wanted SD to continue adding value to the upgrades for fear that an end to it signaled an end to it’s value. I do wonder in part if the steep drop off of players wasn’t due in part to this system being either imposed in the first place or compromised to the point that when everyone got to the top level they saw no more value in the game. Again, if SD’s game is now making a character building RPG around an FPS then that’s fine but we do need to stop with the bull**** of pretending it’s primarily an MP Class based objective FPS.

As for shifting weights before playing, I still fail to see how this isn’t just going further to randomise the experience once you start playing and by that I mean some games you’ll have and advantage and in others you won’t depending on the opposing team. You remove the need for personal skill and replace it with a roll of the dice. Yet I understand your view may lean more towards the abilities enhancing actual skill so really it’s just a magnifying affect, yet I often see upgrades that impact the team (extra pips, quick revives etc), those choices and their impact are random when you’ve got a small 8v8. Ultimately the goal should be for you to make the best contribution to your team so that they can win, building on individual strengths via upgrades is counter-intuitive to this as you’re then expecting the team to conform, IMO that’s just backwards thinking. It’s like having a football player wearing clown shoes because it makes him +1 Happy and then expecting the team to always pass him headers.

Again. I have no problem with adding depth or an upgrade tree during a campaign or map. But do it based on the team so that anyone joining late has access to the upgrades and that any imbalance in the teams can be tweaked to some small degree. My gripe is that placing emphasis on the individual, single player RPG type stuff, in a multiplayer TEAM game is just plain damaging to the team and the experience. I would applaud SD to take a step back at look long and hard at that for their next game.

Also, what is your opinion on the many F2P FPS games on Steam? They seem to offer much of what you’re looking for in a SD game.

(DarkangelUK) #65

@tok

So make unlocks an inconvenience and a chore that need to be dealt with to get the same level as everyone else, you think that’s the ‘better’ solution? Brink having challenges for unlocks were an inconvenience for me, I didn’t want to do the challenges, but was forced to to get the weapon unlocks. Regardless of advantages or disadvantages, the chore was added because I couldn’t kit out the way I wanted unless I had the unlocks. When I play CoD, it’s an inconvenience to be forced to go through weapon challenges to get to the loadout I want… and at the end of the day, he who plays the most has the most, which is the worst way to handle unlocks I have ever seen. It requires 0 skill, just the time dedicated to getting to that point.

You also seem to have this imaginary scenario in your head that gamers run around with this sub-conscious desire to have a mental mini-game running in the background that has to be dealt with while playing the actual game as well… when really it is just that, in your head. Yes gamers have a mind-set of how they want to play, for me I prefer the faster, silent movement, silencers etc and willing to take the lower HP. Once I get those unlocks I’m done, there’s no mental play running in my head for each map or what team I’m against… the only thing that happened was, instead of being allowed to play how I want to play from the beginning, the game made it a chore to get to that point… the mine-game in your head was actually forced upon me when it was never asked for. I’ve seen it through numerous games, and on the players I’m playing with or against… they have their set loadout and nothing changes, no little mini-game, no strategic loadouts per map, nothing… the hurdle was vaulted and it was plain running from there.

You need to come out of your head and be realistic, do you think games are being dumbed down as they are because those playing it thrive on complexity? Where are you getting that they want this subtle loadout/unlock, scenario based mini-game happening? What evidence do you have that this is required/desired/needed? Where has your conclusion come from?

(SockDog) #66

+1 @DA

To expand a little further on my post, the ability to change and adapt on the fly within a game hold far more scope for the player’s skills to shine than it would to lock them into a single configuration. You may feel most comfortable with a heavy weapon and high level armour but in a situation where the team or specific objective calls for something else the ability to shift to a different configuration and leveraging your skill and flexibility is what makes you a good player.

It seems to me that you’d like to adopt a real world loadout, one made out of physical practicalities. I’m sure if the army had a way of kitting soldiers with every weapon and support equipment they’d prefer it over making a balanced squad. Yet still that decision is made given a good deal of intelligence about the situation they will be in. Ultimately we’re playing a game and the focus, “core”, should be an environment of fun and if there is any meddling to be done it should be in the pursuit of making that fun more consistent. If I want restrictions, assumptions and gambles I’ll open my front door.

I’ll also repeat that in L4D2 I’ve found the AI director to give a good balance to the play. It works well within the confines of the difficulty level you’re playing in and provides pace changes to keep the game engaging.

(tokamak) #67

Did you guys even read my first post or any previous post? I hate weapon challenges! Anything outside the multiplayer should be purely cosmetic.

I’m not talking about making things a chore, I’m talking about the option to pre-focus the way you’re going to develop over the course of a campaign. To carve out a path in which you want to specialise yourself. Because players can put a focus on a particular style before the game has even started the reward distribution can be more generous as there’s no danger of a player obtaining everything.

There also wouldn’t be any issue with arriving later on in a game because your preset allows you to obtain your favourite upgrades as fast as possible.

You also seem to have this imaginary scenario in your head that gamers run around with this sub-conscious desire to have a mental mini-game running in the background that has to be dealt with while playing the actual game as well…

No player should feel forced to take part in this. If you don’t want to put any thought in to this you just take a well-balanced built and be on your way. Players that want to be unique and try new things should be rewarded for this however. They demonstrated the willingness to specialise and sacrifice all-roundership and that’s something that should be encouraged. A game filled with uniquely talented individuals is way more interesting and has way more replay value than a shoot-out between clones that have access to everything at any time.

the ability to change and adapt on the fly within a game hold far more scope for the player’s skills to shine than it would to lock them into a single configuration.

Approaching every situation with the right gear is a trivial skillset that can be summarised in an infographic. What takes real skill is approaching a situation for which you haven’t been ideally equipped. That’s when players will have to draw upon their resourcefulness in order to play the cards they’ve been dealt in the best way possible.

(.Chris.) #68

This happens all the time even without rewards and unlocks. Being low on ammo or health puts you in a situation you’re not ideally equipped to handle, forcing you to think carefully about the approach you are going to take, with some clever play you can get the drop on an enemy with minimal risk to yourself. Coming up against a group of soldiers with heavy weapons is another example

The body types in Brink should have made this sort of thing happen all the time but the darn maps didn’t allow it to happen, oh there’s a few heavies spamming heavy weapons on that chokepoint we are escorting the VIP through, I’m a light body type so I’ll just flank them, erm seems the other route is back where I came from, ok it may take longer but least I can get the jump on those campers, minute later oh so this is where the enemy spawns, great… (Aquarium when the VIP reaches that ramp)

Anyway, kind of agree with some what you’re trying to say though yet agree with DA and sock on other points, the view from this fence is nice.

(tokamak) #69

Only to a very superficial level. This can be far deeper than it already is. And I agree that the medium and heavy bodytypes were only there to show how fast and flashy the light bodytype was.

The point is, even if you don’t like this kind of stuff, even if you just want to play the damn game without committing to anything then still it’s fun having to deal with team-mates as well as opponents that come up with all sorts of wacky ideas.

(DarkangelUK) #70

[QUOTE=tokamak;396258]Did you guys even read my first post or any previous post? I hate weapon challenges! Anything outside the multiplayer should be purely cosmetic.

I’m not talking about making things a chore, I’m talking about the option to pre-focus the way you’re going to develop over the course of a campaign. To carve out a path in which you want to specialise yourself. Because players can put a focus on a particular style before the game has even started the reward distribution can be more generous as there’s no danger of a player obtaining everything.

There also wouldn’t be any issue with arriving later on in a game because your preset allows you to obtain your favourite upgrades as fast as possible.
[/quote]
What pre-focus do you speak of? You’re still not getting it, there’s no DESIRE for this, there’s no need nor want for an unlock system to become more complex because in essence, it’s a chore in the 1st place. The way you’re suggesting over the course of a campaign just means it will become even more annoying as you’ll have to start all over again once the campaign ends… if it’s not wanted in the 1st place, why would players want to repeat the process over and over? Because it’s a ‘thoughtful’ thing to do? Do they need a sense of self gratification because they managed to choose some options and become better people for it? Do you want to place yourself upon a false pedestal and tell yourself “I’m a more sophisticated gamer because I thought!”? They’ll choose the same options, the same loadouts, the same unlocks to drive for and become the same pissed off gamers due to the fact they need to do this over and over again. Forcing a player into doing something they don’t want to do is a sure fire way to crush a game, regardless of how many strokes your ego gets for it.

No player should feel forced to take part in this. If you don’t want to put any thought in to this you just take a well-balanced built and be on your way. Players that want to be unique and try new things should be rewarded for this however. They demonstrated the willingness to specialise and sacrifice all-roundership and that’s something that should be encouraged. A game filled with uniquely talented individuals is way more interesting and has way more replay value than a shoot-out between clones that have access to everything at any time.

Have everything unlocked at the beginning but only allow certain combinations of loadouts, remove the chore and the inconvenience and let the player play how he wants. The games that are currently played the most work off that premise and don’t need a satirical mini-game latched onto it to consider the player ‘talented’. Forcing a player to have to unlock stuff just so they can try something unique is the complete opposite of what you want, this discourages them. As for the shoot-out between clones, got an example of this? I have 1, Clan Arena in Quake Live and that was a mod… got any more that aren’t still standing the test of time and being the most played games just now?

Approaching every situation with the right gear is a trivial skillset that can be summarised in an infographic. What takes real skill is approaching a situation for which you haven’t been ideally equipped. That’s when players will have to draw upon their resourcefulness in order to play the cards they’ve been dealt in the best way possible.

Being the underdog and paying for it is what causes frustration and attrition within a game, forcing them into that position just so they can feel better about winning in that situation won’t work, again this is something that seems to exist within your head that people yearn for this, where are you garnering this conclusion from?

(SockDog) #71

You’re leaping to an assumption that you have the ability to apply useful resourcefulness. In every situation where that is not appropriate or possible you’re back to, as you put it, “to play the cards they’ve been dealt”, a random situation more appropriate for a turn based RPG not one where shooting someone in the head is the ultimate goal. This is entirely my point in regards to making the FPS secondary to this RPGesque dice roller.

And by appropriate and possible I mean that the game world needs to allow such possibilities. What use is a speed boost ability if the game world allows people to strafe jump at the same or greater speed, the maps are open enough to allow long distance sniping or intricate enough to allow short cuts. Ultimately you’re undermining the ability or limiting it’s counter. Additionally for each item you balance* you end up designing maps with an ever more influence on balance rather than playability.

What it seems to come down to is having a Q3 style experience where a player shows their strengths and preferences through their actual skills. How well can they apply movement, what is their knowledge of the maps, which weapon are they strongest with. Compared to an RPG where your skills are limited by some selection of your perceived skills, the outcome of which is a random boost or detraction in skill.

Frankly, it seems to be yet another overly complicated, unnecessary and ultimately flawed in implementation addition to the game that does more damage than good. To repeat myself, I’d rather play a trivial fun and engaging game than a unique yet flawed one, focus on the core and if you must add stuff then do not compromise the core game to do so. Lesson in point, Brink.

*to be clear I mean balancing the additions/upgrades to validate their use, not general balancing of the map

(Humate) #72

Its manufacturing one’s in-game value through a build over developing it through practice and experience.
Thats fine for RTS. Its also fine for FPS games that want to end up in the $10 bin after the first 3 months.

(tokamak) #73

Boy is this rich!

DaUK, I’ll get back to you, first some studying after I’m done laughing.

(DarkangelUK) #74

[QUOTE=tokamak;396306]
DaUK, I’ll get back to you, first some studying after I’m done laughing.[/QUOTE]

No problem, i’ll prepare my face for palm placement.

(SockDog) #75

[QUOTE=tokamak;396306]Boy is this rich!

DaUK, I’ll get back to you, first some studying after I’m done laughing.[/QUOTE]

Back to the petty baiting I see, very mature. Nothing in my several posts you could respond to other than a cheap shot based on your conveniently poor reading skills?

Using Q3 as an example of players differentiating themselves through skill is nothing like wanting SD to make Q3. It illustrates that if you don’t cripple the game world to fit in upgrades, ie make it more open, then you don’t need to start a steady string of compromises, balances and restrictions to make it all work. Again, case in point, Brink.

(tokamak) #76

Jasus man, at least read my ideas before commenting. First post on the first page.

You’re still not getting it, there’s no DESIRE for this, there’s no need nor want for an unlock system to become more complex because in essence, it’s a chore in the 1st place.

Nonsense it got whole hordes of people addicted to W:ET

The way you’re suggesting over the course of a campaign just means it will become even more annoying as you’ll have to start all over again once the campaign ends…

It really sucks that you spent twenty minutes building an entire Protoss base, tech to the best units and then lose it all once the match ends :frowning:

if it’s not wanted in the 1st place, why would players want to repeat the process over and over? Because it’s a ‘thoughtful’ thing to do? Do they need a sense of self gratification because they managed to choose some options and become better people for it? Do you want to place yourself upon a false pedestal and tell yourself “I’m a more sophisticated gamer because I thought!”?

They’re better people for having put thought into a TACTICAL shooter yeah. If you don’t like the idea that thinking people might get an advantage over by all means stick to Q3 like Sock Dog.

They’ll choose the same options, the same loadouts, the same unlocks to drive for and become the same pissed off gamers due to the fact they need to do this over and over again.

It’s the job of the developer to make sure there are as many viable builds as possible.

Forcing a player into doing something they don’t want to do is a sure fire way to crush a game, regardless of how many strokes your ego gets for it.

I already entered in on this but you ignore it once again. If someone doesn’t like thinking about these builds then he can just opt for a generic one and grow in that direction over the course of a campaign. Not everyone needs to be a specialist.

Have everything unlocked at the beginning but only allow certain combinations of loadouts,

Removes any sense of creativity and personal input. It doesn’t make any sense at all.

remove the chore and the inconvenience and let the player play how he wants.

There’s nothing wrong with inconvenience. Not knowing who exactly Keyser Soze at the start of the movie is an inconvenience but it makes for a fascinating plot drawing the viewer in from the get go.

Where you see inconvenience I see path-dependency and resource-management. It creates an arms-race where a player needs to think wisely about how he’s going to spent every second of the game. It makes players work vigorously at being the most value to their team as well as growing themselves.

The games that are currently played the most work off that premise and don’t need a satirical mini-game latched onto it to consider the player ‘talented’. Forcing a player to have to unlock stuff just so they can try something unique is the complete opposite of what you want, this discourages them.

Attaching a cost to it makes them careful about how they’re going to spent their time with that item and truly commit to it. That said, I don’t see any issue with creating an item-testing simulator mini-game if that takes away your concerns.

As for the shoot-out between clones, got an example of this? I have 1, Clan Arena in Quake Live and that was a mod… got any more that aren’t still standing the test of time and being the most played games just now?

Any shooter that gives away the entire inventory from the get-go. No diversity between players as they all have access to the same thing.

Being the underdog and paying for it is what causes frustration and attrition within a game, forcing them into that position just so they can feel better about winning in that situation won’t work, again this is something that seems to exist within your head that people yearn for this, where are you garnering this conclusion from?

A being the underdog doesn’t last long, campaigns don’t last that long, the later you drop in the sooner it’s over. Every game has this problem because even if the game has a level playing field, late players will always appear low on the final score charts, and that’s what these bodycount games are all about.

(BioSnark) #77

Dystopia had the most broad example of that I’ve seen in a shooter. Body type, skill tree and weapon choice were used to define and mix a ‘class’ role and could be changed in game. Opened up the class roles to creative hybrids without any unlocking work.

(DarkangelUK) #78

I did, you basically threw some fancy rhetorics at the CoD unlock system and called it your own… worst method ever.

Nonsense it got whole hordes of people addicted to W:ET

lol yeah, everyone stayed for the unlocks and nothing at all to do with the fact that it was a decent class based shooter… and free.

It really sucks that you spent twenty minutes building an entire Protoss base, tech to the best units and then lose it all once the match ends :frowning:

What works for one genre doesn’t work for another, though this seems to be your fallback… and complete lack of correlation but it sounds good in your head (we’re spending a lot of time if there it seems)

They’re better people for having put thought into a TACTICAL shooter yeah. If you don’t like the idea that thinking people might get an advantage over by all means stick to Q3 like Sock Dog.

Which once again doesn’t actually exist except in your little solipsistic world. But thanks for opening that can of worms, are you saying there’s no thought involved Q3 duelling? I’d LOVE to hear this one. Which shooter out there takes ‘thinking’ to new heights in your eyes and goes beyond simple shooting? Ah yes, the ‘who can get to the choke point 1st’ shooters like Ravenshield… lol @ tactical thinking.

It’s the job of the developer to make sure there are as many viable builds as possible.

You can throw a million builds into the fray, the player will still stick with what they want and know best, another mythical belief that the player sub-consciously desires a constant flux of builds… if that were the case then “Whats your favourite class/build” threads would yield the same general result… but they don’t… cos players have a set play style they want to play and stick to (oh my). Ever play ETQW or W:ET and the map requires a certain class and your team doesn’t have it and there’s constant shouting for that class?

I already entered in on this but you ignore it once again. If someone doesn’t like thinking about these builds then he can just opt for a generic one and grow in that direction over the course of a campaign. Not everyone needs to be a specialist.

That’s not entering it all, that’s throwing a personal ignorant denominator at it. We’re back to chores and inconveniences towards the masses to cater for your niche.

Removes any sense of creativity and personal input. It doesn’t make any sense at all.

Not allowing a player to play how he wants without making them jump through hoops and be forced into the mini-game makes no sense at all.

There’s nothing wrong with inconvenience. Not knowing who exactly Keyser Soze at the start of the movie is an inconvenience but it makes for a fascinating plot drawing the viewer in from the get go.

Hey look, throwing analogies around to suit your point, that’s always the path of a poor sided debate. You go to see a crime/drama/mystery movie then that’s what you expect to get, i’d say the fact it lived up to it’s classification means there was no inconvenience at all. You go to play a class-based shooter and want to specialise the way you like but can’t unless you jump through said hoops, THAT’S an inconvenience.

Where you see inconvenience I see path-dependency and resource-management. It creates an arms-race where a player needs to think wisely about how he’s going to spent every second of the game. It makes players work vigorously at being the most value to their team as well as growing themselves.

I guess all the “****ing noob tuber!” “Sorry m8, need the kills so I can unlock the next gun” were just ‘resource management’. Do you actually play the genre you preach to know a lot about? A progressional unlock game forces the player into a ‘path of least resistance’ mindset (there’s a new one for you). They’ll use the shortest route possible to get to where they want to be, if that means spamming the grenade launcher, switching to the next gun as soon as kill goal has been met, camping the spawn then they’ll do it. If the path of least resistance means they have to be an ass-hat to get there, then they will be.

Attaching a cost to it makes them careful about how they’re going to spent their time with that item and truly commit to it. That said, I don’t see any issue with creating an item-testing simulator mini-game if that takes away your concerns.

The casual player doesn’t have the time to risk making a poor choice, so they won’t… they’ll go the safe route and not venture anywhere else. Those that can dedicate the time to risking a poor choice lands right into the category of ‘he who plays the most, has the most’… the whole reason this method is a bad idea. Lose/lose.

Any shooter that gives away the entire inventory from the get-go. No diversity between players as they all have access to the same thing.

That’s a generic statement, try again.

A being the underdog doesn’t last long, campaigns don’t last that long, the later you drop in the sooner it’s over. Every game has this problem because even if the game has a level playing field, late players will always appear low on the final score charts, and that’s what these bodycount games are all about.

Did you just help my argument there by agreeing that being the underdog sucks in any game? If so, why would you force a player into that position then??

(DarkangelUK) #79

And that’s how I think it should be. Those that want to go with their play style can, those that want to experiment and hone their abilities in other areas can as well… no hoops to jump through and no being forced to play a style/class/gun that you don’t want to just because the game thinks you should.

(gold163) #80

absolutely. Unlocking and progression systems as they are used in first person shooters are artificial and contrived IMO. Games like League of Legends only get away with it because the unlocking is tied directly to the learning curve and high level play is not restricted to permanent choices. It never feels like you are being limited.