What am I missing?


(onYn) #1

Okay, so after playing some DB again I really had this one point confusing me (besides the well known ones) that I really don´t understand in therms of game design. Maybe you can help me out a little :slight_smile:

So what always threw me of when I played DB or was active on the forums, is what actually is being told to us about how the game is supposed to be etc. and how the game is actually becoming like. Besides the thing that you just slowed down the “fast paced” game, there seems to be a much bigger misunderstanding on my part.

And that is the competitive aspect of the game. From the very start a lot of communication from the side of SD made it obvious that the game is going to have a strong competitive touch to it. Some quotes that underline this are probably just a few months old. What I have seen so far however, doesn´t actually feel like this is being the case. I am not even talking about how fun or not the game is, or any judgment like this. It is just obvious that the general direction of the game is more casual oriented then actually competitive, or what I at least understand with that. Quiet often changes have been made, or not, that actually are very controversial in therms of how a bigger audience would take them. At least that´s what I feel like. At the same time the same changes have a massive impact on the competitive side of the game, and unless we are all dumb asses on those forums, they are actually very negative in most cases. And by negative I mean, that they actually take lot of depth out of the game, while actually giving nothing in return from the competitive side of things.

Famous example for that would be the classless objectives. On pub they are controversial since most of us usually remember that being an objective “n00b” was a very relieving thing to do when you were new to the game and actually struggled with the shooting and just the game overall. With proper pub matchmaking, this obviously won´t be that much of an issue anymore, what still leaves things like identification with the class/role etc. open to debate. On the other side I think they improve the pub experience to some extent. So I can imagine that when you think about this for an extended time, for pub play this may be a reasonable change.
But this absolutely 100% leaves out the competitive side of things. From a competitive point of view, this just takes away a massive amount of tactical depth. At the same time it almost “pollutes” the game making different game elements like for example the spawn system and the way how you could play with it, almost irrelevant, This could result in even more changes that actually take away even more fascinating game mechanics. As much as I want to belive, that those mechanics aren´t being removed but replaced, there is no replacement I could find right now. So in therms of competitive, just massive chunks of fun are being cut out for mostly controversial casual improvements.

For me it seems like the competitive side of the game has actually almost 0 relevance, and all the decisions are being made only based upon how a big audience may take them. I am not judging this honestly, we are living in hard times and stuff and I can´t tell if casualizing actually is something good or bad for a game (even tho my experience says that it´s quiet bad, what I think gets underlined by the top games in there respective genres right now). But I just feel trolled when someone from SD posts about how important the competitive aspect of the game is to them, and how it´s supposed to allow players to apply there indivudual skill into the game and 2 weeks past that everyone is 1/4 medic and can pick his allies up.

So the thing with most of those “controversial” changes is, that they are supposed to make the game more appealing, easier to grasp and actually allows the people to access and play which ever merc they want. Okay, so if that´s the direction we are going here, I can totally understand that. But then I see something like merc restrictions in the game, where you can only pick the 3 mercs you decide before a game and my mind is blown. So much competitive potential has been sacrificed to make this game as less limitting to the player as possible just to introduce a merc limitation of 3 per game. I remember, one of the arguments for the classless objectives was to allow people to play whatever merc they want, after all people may have payed for them and such things. So regardless if I think this is smart or not, I guess it has at least some reasoning behind it. But them comes this thing, the load out. And I just ask, what is the plan?

All of this isn´t meant in a judgmental way. I am just confused, and would appreciate some clarification about the competitive side of things, and why we have stuff limiting the mercs you can play in the game while the actual goal always seemed to be to put as few restrictions on the player as possible.

cheers,
onYn


(ToonBE) #2

hmmm

A game needs to be accesible to new players… certainly FPS… so in that regard the fact that every merc can do the obj is not bad… other mercs just need to be MUCH better at doing them then others who are not supposed to do them… this is kind of the same as objectives limited to certain mercs, but every new player can jump in and play.

I already feel a huge difference when there is team work or not… So in that respect it is competitive… team work wins and clans who think about tactics etc will be doing well…

I don’t see it as a problem that the mercs are limited to 3… at the beginning of every map you and your teammates chose the right mercs to play the map and if you chose wrong then that is your problem…

the big problem however is balance… load outs mess up everything… also aura healing station and stokers flame granade are realy overpowered as is fraggers gun

If SD can make a balanced game, give us the possibility to rent our own servers, release it on steam or just ditch the nexon game launcher, give us a good anti-cheat tool (=/record X vs X and a tool to watch it with fast forward, rewind, slow motion, pauze, timestamping, wallhack), a good anti cheat client (not the nexon one) with weekly updates and backfire bans, auto upload of cfg, a website for competitive play (or integrated in game) with open cups, eurocups, nationcups, ladders, clanpages, clientpages, a good game forum, a chatpage to search for matches, ditch the f2p model or only let people buy skins for there guns, outfits only cosmetic things but nothing like weapons and other gameplay stuff,…

If SD gives us all of that the game will be a succes imo with a big competitive scene… the skill will be in strong team work and aim which is ok.


(tokamak) #3

The only reason classless objectives exist is that mandatory classes in a pub game are disastrous. Private games don’t have that issue because both teams will ensure those classes will be available. Other than that it doesn’t have much else to do with competitive gaming.

Countless F2P (and non F2P) games have shown how accessible pubs and ranked competition can be the same thing. The veterans here have a different definition of the word ‘competitive’ and have nostalgic ideas about times where clans were much more organised and could be relied on organising the leagues themselves.

These two attitudes clash. You can’t play ranked pubs on privately controlled servers and you can’t organise your own matches within a mainstream and you can’t have a thriving online revenue-generating community without ranked pubs.

SD hasn’t really revealed much on how they plan to organise this game in that regard. It’s not easy at all but you can bet your bum on that Blizzard will work it out for Overwatch. We’re going to be seeing accessible ranked ladders just like in Starcraft and Heroes of the Storm.


(onYn) #4

The thing is, that I wasn´t trying to say that this and that is bad. The thing that I am curious about is why there are elements in the game, that heavily contradict most of the development and the argumentation that comes with it. Like the merc limitation. I am not saying that it´s bad (honestly I am not sure what to think of it yet), but that it is limiting the players, what is something that I thought SD wanted to avoid as much as possible.

At the same time, I am not saying that the game can´t be played competitively. I think that you can play everything in competitive, since people will ALLWAYS find ways to play better then there enemies, what will make it interesting enough to watch - at least for people who like it. I just feel that in therms of how exciting this competitive play can be, SD is cutting huge pieces out of it quiet frequently for mostly minor potential benefits in a casual environment. And while I can understand it, I don´t get it while we are still being made to belive, that this game is being made with a major competitive part to it, when the competitive aspects in most of the decisions seem to be irrelevant.

//EDIT:

After playing some more DB I just need to put out what I think about DB and SD right now. It seems like the different people who are responsible for the game development have very different views of the game. There seems to be a major misunderstanding within the team itself, that causes such seemingly contradictory changes. It would also explain how such maps, that apparently aren´t compatible in any single point with the game play, could ever be made.