Forum Settings
       
This thread is locked

PVP Worlds...Follow

#102 Jun 01 2013 at 1:48 PM Rating: Decent
lolgaxe wrote:
Pawkeshup, Averter of Apocalypse wrote:
Name me one FF title that you play as a villain with a storyline set of missions or has a moral choice system.
That's the only option? One group must be villains and the other must be heroes? Games with Open World PVP don't even use "villain vs hero," distinctions, and both sides are essentially "questionably good with separate ideals and goals." Again, it's a complete lack of imagination or lack of faith in the writing staff to believe that "just because it hasn't been done then it shouldn't be done because it hasn't been done!"

No, it isn't. The simple fact is that, unquestioningly, the entire franchise has had an entirely co-operative theme to it. It hasn't had "quesitonable good with separate ideals and goals"-type storylines. Ever. If they want to make an MMO like that, it would be best to do so under a new title, because this name has brand recognition and a fan base that has an expectations.

Let me put it another way: New Coke.

Now, all sodas are basically the same. Carbonation, high fructose syrup, et cetera. So why do people prefer a brand? Because when they purchase a brand they recognize, they expect it to taste a certain way. In 1985, Coca-Cola decided to change the formula of their main product, and simply label it new. It still was in the traditional red can, and if you did not look closely, you would get a sip of a product you most likely did not want. It led to it being rebranded, and eventually discontinued.

Brand recognition means something. It's not just a cutsey marketing phrase. When you have a tradition of a certain set of criteria that your product has always has, a radical departure from that can result in a major negative backlash. Like, say, making jobs tied to weapons, and those jobs not feeling unique enough to honour the tradition of the franchise. Sound familiar?

Now if the franchise had dipped its toe into those waters, or was more about internal conflict, or faction warfare like, oh, Warhammer, or Warcraft, or Star Wars... then I would expect them to include PvP and storylining to back that up. Final Fantasy never really has had too much in the way of moral ambiguity or multi-pronged storylines about warring nations. Pretty much, every story is two-sided. There are rarely even multiple factions in play, it's normally rag-tag heroes of differing backstories facing down against a unified front of unquestionable evil/destruction/malevolent intent.

FFXI did have conflict among the nations, but you see how it was handled. The writers did, in fact, put in the fact that the three nations were not on the same page, and had greatly differing ideas and methods of working. However, there was no question that the nations knew, at the end of the day, it was stand united or fall into darkness. When conflict games were introduced, it was more based, again, on teams of players rather than open PvP; PvP in the sense of taking one another out wasn't even the focus, it was about scoring goals in a game, like Blitzball. It failed mainly because it was ridiculous to join a match at times unless your server was mostly on board for it (the fact that level sync wasn't a thing back then hurt it too). However, that mechanic is more in keeping with the "game within a game" mentality you see in the series. If they had made it so groups could have started the event, rather than it be scheduled, it likely would have been a broader success.

You want to know what happens when you try to totally change ideals of a game? Chocobo Racing. You see, if they had just stripped out the racing mini-game from FFVII, layered in more content, and released it, it likely would have been somewhat more successful. What they did was buckle to investor pressure to jump on a bandwagon, and sell out the brand. Instead of trying to see the franchise through a new light, they simply dropped in a new mechanic to an existing property and expected that brand recognition alone would move product. By taking FFXIV, turning it into an Open PvP, and releasing it, it would be no less than making Chocobo Racing II. It's obvious that it is to jump on the PvP bandwagon, and try to win new fans from that experience rather than providing the experience people expect when they buy an FF game.

Again, it's not a matter of could, it's a matter of should.

Pawkeshup, Averter of the Apocalypse wrote:
So when people say "It doesn't feel like Final Fantasy", they mean "This series has never been about PvP, or playing the villain within the cannon of the story, it's always about reconciliation, redemption, and overcoming adversity by coming together, not by fighting among ourselves."
"This franchise has never been about online play." So you must agree that Final Fantasy XI, by virtue of the "doesn't feel like" argument, doesn't feel like a Final Fantasy game either. By extension then XIV doesn't feel like a Final Fantasy game either. Here's another example: "This franchise was never about mini-games." A motorcycle chase through a highway? Submarine battles? Card games? Underwater Rugby? We just eliminated 7 through 10 because they don't "feel like Final Fantasy games." I don't see the outrage over that, though. In fact, I see excitement over it, yet those mechanics are very clearly not Final Fantasy. You know what made them "work?" A writer. Arguably another writer could have made Open World PVP work as well. We can probably eliminate every Final Fantasy that isn't Final Fantasy 1 as "not feeling like a Final Fantasy game" if we bother.

There's no such thing as "it doesn't feel like Final Fantasy." You know what does feel like Final Fantasy, though? The developers trying new things. That's the only true constant (besides the obvious similarly objects, named or otherwise). It's pretty hit or miss, but the alternative is stagnation which is infinitely worse. Just dismissing an (hypothetical) idea simply because it hasn't been done yet is hardly a good reason to not do something.[/quote]
You are confusing storyline and thematic tones with game mechanics. Square has always played with gameplay mechanics, and it's even known for doing it. The game has gone from turn based, to real-time combat. It has had varying leveling systems. It has had differing settings and environments. It has even played with the genre with success (Final Fantasy Tactics, Final Fantasy Dissidia, Chocobo Dungeon), even if it has failed when not trying to honour the thematic tones of the franchise. Also, their very first game in the series had a tile puzzle game embedded in it, so yea, games within games have existed as long as the series has. But it has also had unified themes. Don't believe me?

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy

Plot and themes

The central conflict in many Final Fantasy games focuses on a group of characters battling an evil, and sometimes ancient, antagonist that dominates the game's world. Stories frequently involve a sovereign state in rebellion, with the protagonists taking part in the rebellion. The heroes are often destined to defeat the evil, and occasionally gather as a direct result of the antagonist's malicious actions.[5][50] Another staple of the series is the existence of two villains; the main villain is not always who it appears to be, as the primary antagonist may actually be subservient to another character or entity.[5] The main antagonist introduced at the beginning of the game is not always the final enemy, and the characters must continue their quest beyond what appears to be the final fight.[50]
Stories in the series frequently emphasize the internal struggles, passions, and tragedies of the characters, and the main plot often recedes into the background as the focus shifts to their personal lives.[25][51] Games also explore relationships between characters, ranging from love to rivalry.[5] Other recurring situations that drive the plot include amnesia, a hero corrupted by an evil force, mistaken identity, and self-sacrifice.[5][52][53] Magical orbs and crystals are recurring in-game items that are frequently connected to the themes of the games' plots.[50] Crystals often play a central role in the creation of the world, and a majority of the Final Fantasy games link crystals and orbs to the planet's life force. As such, control over these crystals drives the main conflict.[50][54] The classical elements are also a recurring theme in the series related to the heroes, villains, and items.[50] Other common plot and setting themes include the Gaia hypothesis, an apocalypse, and conflicts between advanced technology and nature.[50][52][55]

I honestly was about to rewrite the majority of that here never having read it in this article! Just being a long-time fan of this series, you see the recurring themes. Sacrifice, devotion, teamwork, setting aside rivalry for the better good, fights against unquestioning evil. WoW, one of the major PvP games out there, is set up with warring factions since the first games in the Warcraft franchise. **** it's set in the same bloody world! It's literally the same story just seen via different mechanics.

Nowhere up there does it say that FF cannot transcend the genre of game (it has tactics-based games and even a couple of solid fighters based on it). Nowhere in that summery does it state that there are rival factions either. Changing thematic tone in a series is a dangerous thing. If done well, it can be respected, and even praised. But by and large, shifts in tone are panned. Let's look at Resident Evil.

Resident Evil started as a tense horror game, where resources were limited, the enemies seemingly endless, and where you were very much dis-empowered. It was a critically praised game, even if it had terrible dialogue. Over the course of the series, however, the horror elements have been stripped away, leaving a generic shooter game where the enemies are zombies. The plot has become utterly laughable, and the thematic tones of the series largely lost under the shift of gameplay style. Now, when they made each game, they faced a choice. Should they continue to cater to fans of horror, or should they lighten the survival elements to cater to a broader audience. They chose the latter, to the ruination of what the franchise was about.

I can fault Square for tons of things. TONS. I am not a fan of their games after XI (XII felt like offline XI, which felt terrible, XIV had major issues, and I didn't even play XIII when I heard the phrase "it gets good 18 hours in"), but one thing that I can see about those games I do treasure is that I can see the thematic reason why. Square has done an absolutely brilliant job of maintaining Final Fantasy as a brand recognized for quality stories, interesting characters, solid game mechanics and, yes, strong thematic undertones making it all feel connected. To suddenly jar that is unwelcome and unwanted. You can see I'm not alone in this. I am willing to bet that everyone who says PvP does not feel like Final Fantasy has been a long-time fan of the series.
____________________________
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/pawkeshup
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/pawkeshup
Twitch: http://www.twitch.tv/pawkeshup
Blog: http://pawkeshup.blogspot.com
Olorinus the Ludicrous wrote:
The idea of old school is way more interesting than the reality
#103 Jun 01 2013 at 2:02 PM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
So the game should be 40 hours long at best, fully voiced, and i should be able to control anybody who joins my party ?
____________________________
MUTED
#104 Jun 01 2013 at 2:06 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
262 posts
Kachi wrote:
It just allows parties to function without a WHM.


Then why ever grab a whm when you can just slap on another DD and function just fine?

Maybe you're talking way above my head here and I'm just not understanding where you're coming from, but shouldn't whm's be high value squishy targets? And pld's high value rock solid targets?

I must be too engrained from FFXI and other games that the DD role is pretty much dime a dozen and sometimes does get left sitting around longer since there are most likely more people playing DD compared to healer and tank.
#105 Jun 01 2013 at 2:16 PM Rating: Good
****
6,899 posts
Kachi wrote:
Lack of available high value units (e.g. healers, tanks) is a widely accepted problem in most MMOs, not just my opinion.

When you have those high value units in the game, encounter balance must be tuned higher to preserve the challenge of the game. That means that parties of low value units can't clear the content. That's what results in people sitting around with their thumbs up their asses for a high value unit (like a WHM) to appear so that they can experience content.


Ah I see now. To you, EVERY game is just poorly designed. Smiley: lol Sorry to break it you, but every single MMO I've ever played has classes that are just more important or higher value than others. If they were all evenly balanced, it would be the most boring game in existence, because there would be absolutely no point in playing other classes. You can't get a tactical advantage on anyone, because everyone has the same inherent optimum ability. Sorry, that's just ridiculous.

The way a game SHOULD work is that certain classes have distinct advantages over certain other classes based on their inherent abilities, but those other classes outshine them in other ways and have advantages over other classes. Basically the rock paper scissors idea. Every mmo I've played has this.

Kachi wrote:
It's not my opinion; it's math.


Sorry dude, you lose the argument the second you can't differentiate your opinion from fact. Every single mmo in existence has classes that are more valuable than others. That's just the way it is, and if they were all balanced exactly the same, the game would completely lose its competitive edge.

Edited, Jun 1st 2013 4:27pm by BartelX
#106 Jun 01 2013 at 2:23 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
It seems to me that your argument is that a WHM for instance, matched against a SAM, should have roughly a 50% chance of winning a one-on-one battle, all things being equal i.e. talent of the player, level, equipment, etc. Before I respond I wish to ensure I'm interpreting your position on the matter correctly.


Yes, that is what I'm saying, but understanding what I'm saying and why I'm saying it are two completely separate things, as has been made apparent. It has absolutely nothing to do with PvP.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#107 Jun 01 2013 at 2:32 PM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
BartelX wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Lack of available high value units (e.g. healers, tanks) is a widely accepted problem in most MMOs, not just my opinion.

When you have those high value units in the game, encounter balance must be tuned higher to preserve the challenge of the game. That means that parties of low value units can't clear the content. That's what results in people sitting around with their thumbs up their asses for a high value unit (like a WHM) to appear so that they can experience content.


Ah I see now. To you, EVERY game is just poorly designed. Smiley: lol Sorry to break it you, but every single MMO I've ever played has classes that are just more important or higher value than others. If they were all evenly balanced, it would be the most boring game in existence, because there would be absolutely no point in playing other classes. You can't get a tactical advantage on anyone, because everyone has the same inherent optimum ability. Sorry, that's just plain dumb (not you, just the idea).

The way a game SHOULD work is that certain classes have distinct advantages over certain other classes based on their inherent abilities, but those other classes outshine them in other ways and have advantages over other classes. Basically the rock paper scissors idea. Every mmo I've played has this.

Kachi wrote:
It's not my opinion; it's math.


Sorry dude, you lose the argument the second you can't differentiate your opinion from fact. Every single mmo in existence has classes that are more valuable than others. That's just the way it is, and if they were all balanced exactly the same, the game would completely lose its competitive edge.


Not in GW2, So not every single MMO in existence follows that path, also you guys need to relax a bit before posting, and actually think on what you are commenting, you are talking about healers in the PVE sense, when kachi is talking about it in a PVP sense, of course his opinion is gonna be different, he is talking about A and you are talking about W, and yes most games are poorly designed PVP wise, classes should be balanced, not broken for the sake of "Well i am X class i should be OP" like the argument people made about death knights in WOW, "Oh they are a heroic class.. They should do 50 times the dps of a normal class" which is bogus... all dps should be balanced around each other, their only advantage should center around encounter mechanics, like in wow.
____________________________
MUTED
#108 Jun 01 2013 at 2:33 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Hatamaz wrote:
Kachi wrote:
It just allows parties to function without a WHM.


Then why ever grab a whm when you can just slap on another DD and function just fine?

Maybe you're talking way above my head here and I'm just not understanding where you're coming from, but shouldn't whm's be high value squishy targets? And pld's high value rock solid targets?

I must be too engrained from FFXI and other games that the DD role is pretty much dime a dozen and sometimes does get left sitting around longer since there are most likely more people playing DD compared to healer and tank.


Honestly I think that's a lot of what's going on here--not being able to think outside the EQ/FFXI paradigm.

You grab the WHM because they're your friend, or they're particularly good at their job. Those are the reasons you should play with someone--not because they're literally the only person on the server who is available for an artificially necessitated role.

BartelX wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Lack of available high value units (e.g. healers, tanks) is a widely accepted problem in most MMOs, not just my opinion.

When you have those high value units in the game, encounter balance must be tuned higher to preserve the challenge of the game. That means that parties of low value units can't clear the content. That's what results in people sitting around with their thumbs up their asses for a high value unit (like a WHM) to appear so that they can experience content.


Ah I see now. To you, EVERY game is just poorly designed. Smiley: lol Sorry to break it you, but every single MMO I've ever played has classes that are just more important or higher value than others. If they were all evenly balanced, it would be the most boring game in existence, because there would be absolutely no point in playing other classes. You can't get a tactical advantage on anyone, because everyone has the same inherent optimum ability. Sorry, that's just plain dumb (not you, just the idea).

The way a game SHOULD work is that certain classes have distinct advantages over certain other classes based on their inherent abilities, but those other classes outshine them in other ways and have advantages over other classes. Basically the rock paper scissors idea. Every mmo I've played has this.

Kachi wrote:
It's not my opinion; it's math.


Sorry dude, you lose the argument the second you can't differentiate your opinion from fact. Every single mmo in existence has classes that are more valuable than others. That's just the way it is, and if they were all balanced exactly the same, the game would completely lose its competitive edge.


Most MMOs ARE poorly designed. The players know it, and other game designers know it (even though some don't know how to solve it).

Also, this idea that evenly balancing the classes makes them boring is a complete non sequitur. So why don't you save me some time here and tell me: Why do you think that? Because it's complete nonsense, and you haven't bothered to explain why a WHM needs to be more important than a damage dealer to a party's success. To me, that just shows that you don't understand how fun works. I do, because that's what I study, so I'm happy to break this down.

Also, spare me the "declaring when the argument is won/lost." It's not really constructive to an adult discussion. If you're looking for debates to win and lose, look somewhere else. I'm here for friendly discourse.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#109 Jun 01 2013 at 2:36 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Personally I don't think GW2 is a good example or I would have raised it myself, but you're correct that it is an example of a successful MMO where classes are self-sustainable and independent. It doesn't have very good party play, but that's due to other reasons that I really didn't want to get into.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#110 Jun 01 2013 at 2:38 PM Rating: Good
****
6,899 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
It seems to me that your argument is that a WHM for instance, matched against a SAM, should have roughly a 50% chance of winning a one-on-one battle, all things being equal i.e. talent of the player, level, equipment, etc. Before I respond I wish to ensure I'm interpreting your position on the matter correctly.


Yes, that is what I'm saying, but understanding what I'm saying and why I'm saying it are two completely separate things, as has been made apparent. It has absolutely nothing to do with PvP.


Correct me if I'm wrong. You think that for some reason, if all the classes are balanced such that all classes have a 50/50 shot in PvP of beating other classes, that somehow translates into the ability to design PvE encounters that are inclusive to every class equally. Is that the jist?

If so, let me give you two huge reasons why that will not work.

1. Mobs may have completely different resistances than players, or completely different reactions to abilities that automatically throw the class balance off. Like, what if there are no classes that are weak/strong to certain types of damage or certain abilities, yet there are mobs that have that weakness/strength, thus throwing things out of balance. I'm assuming your response would be, well then don't make mobs with those weaknesses/strengths. Well now we've just dumbed down our content in order to keep class balance. Because whether you like it or not, one of the main things that raid bosses in almost all games have are strengths and weaknesses. By eliminating those, you're removing one avenue of making interesting content.

2. Mobs may use certain tactics or have certain traits and abilities that players don't. For instance, flying mobs that can only be hit by spells or ranged attacks when in the air. Unless player classes have that same trait, you've just unbalanced your classes, regardless of how balanced they are against one another. Or how about a mob that has a different attack style than all the classes? How about a mob that is in perma-hundred fists mode? Unless there's a player character that can attain that, you've just unbalanced the classes because now the classes that are best equipped to handle that become more important than others.

I could list about 100 more scenarios where your class balance idea doesn't work. And please don't tell me that developers should just develop the content to work within what the classes offer. That's lame, boring, and to quote you "bad design".

Kachi wrote:

Also, spare me the "declaring when the argument is won/lost." It's not really constructive to an adult discussion. If you're looking for debates to win and lose, look somewhere else. I'm here for friendly discourse.


When you can't even admit that what you're posting is an opinion, you have lost. Sorry, unless you're going to parenthetically site your proof to back your claims, what you are stating are opinions. Plain and simple.

Edited, Jun 1st 2013 4:41pm by BartelX
#111 Jun 01 2013 at 2:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
It seems to me that your argument is that a WHM for instance, matched against a SAM, should have roughly a 50% chance of winning a one-on-one battle, all things being equal i.e. talent of the player, level, equipment, etc. Before I respond I wish to ensure I'm interpreting your position on the matter correctly.


I believe that's what he's saying. I'm going to sit back and see how this unfolds.


EDIT: I'm pretty sure the "balance" Kachi is talking about is what we see in Guild Wars 2... that game is incredibly balanced between classes... and WOEFULLY boring because of it.



Edited, Jun 1st 2013 1:44pm by Thayos
____________________________
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
#112 Jun 01 2013 at 2:47 PM Rating: Good
****
6,899 posts
Thayos wrote:
Quote:
It seems to me that your argument is that a WHM for instance, matched against a SAM, should have roughly a 50% chance of winning a one-on-one battle, all things being equal i.e. talent of the player, level, equipment, etc. Before I respond I wish to ensure I'm interpreting your position on the matter correctly.


I believe that's what he's saying. I'm going to sit back and see how this unfolds.


EDIT: I'm pretty sure the "balance" Kachi is talking about is what we see in Guild Wars 2... that game is incredibly balanced between classes... and WOEFULLY boring because of it.


And almost completely lacking in party play or any meaningful endgame content for PvE... but hey, the PvP is fun. Smiley: rolleyes
#113 Jun 01 2013 at 2:53 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
BartelX wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
It seems to me that your argument is that a WHM for instance, matched against a SAM, should have roughly a 50% chance of winning a one-on-one battle, all things being equal i.e. talent of the player, level, equipment, etc. Before I respond I wish to ensure I'm interpreting your position on the matter correctly.


Yes, that is what I'm saying, but understanding what I'm saying and why I'm saying it are two completely separate things, as has been made apparent. It has absolutely nothing to do with PvP.


Correct me if I'm wrong. You think that for some reason, if all the classes are balanced such that all classes have a 50/50 shot in PvP of beating other classes, that somehow translates into the ability to design PvE encounters that are inclusive to every class equally. Is that the jist?

If so, let me give you two huge reasons why that will not work.

1. Mobs may have completely different resistances than players, or completely different reactions to abilities that automatically throw the class balance off. Like, what if there are no classes that are weak/strong to certain types of damage or certain abilities, yet there are mobs that have that weakness/strength, thus throwing things out of balance. I'm assuming your response would be, well then don't make mobs with those weaknesses/strengths. Well now we've just dumbed down our content in order to keep class balance. Because whether you like it or not, one of the main things that raid bosses in almost all games have are strengths and weaknesses. By eliminating those, you're removing one avenue of making interesting content.

2. Mobs may use certain tactics or have certain traits and abilities that players don't. For instance, flying mobs that can only be hit by spells or ranged attacks when in the air. Unless player classes have that same trait, you've just unbalanced your classes, regardless of how balanced they are against one another. Or how about a mob that has a different attack style than all the classes? How about a mob that is in perma-hundred fists mode? Unless there's a player character that can attain that, you've just unbalanced the classes because now the classes that are best equipped to handle that become more important than others.

I could list about 100 more scenarios where your class balance idea doesn't work. And please don't tell me that developers should just develop the content to work within what the classes offer. That's lame, boring, and to quote you "bad design".

Kachi wrote:

Also, spare me the "declaring when the argument is won/lost." It's not really constructive to an adult discussion. If you're looking for debates to win and lose, look somewhere else. I'm here for friendly discourse.


When you can't even admit that what you're posting is an opinion, you have lost. Sorry, unless you're going to parenthetically site your proof to back your claims, what you are stating are opinions. Plain and simple.

Edited, Jun 1st 2013 4:41pm by BartelX


1. If there are no classes that are weak/strong to elements, that's fine. You're SUPPOSED to add those elements after you've balanced the other systems independently. That kind of system is much easier to balance on top of an already balanced system.

2. It's no problem to add abilities and such that other players don't have. Situational tactical balancing and statistical balancing are completely separate methods of balancing that occur in completely separate aspects of the development cycle. If you want to add some encounters where a certain type of class shines, fine! Now that your classes are statistically balanced, you can much more easily create other aspects of the encounter that keep everyone else engaged as well. The idea isn't to make it so that only one set of abilities is useful, afterall. It's to make people think about HOW they can be useful.

Finally, if you had interesting classes in the first place, it wouldn't really be bad design. Perhaps not optimized, but not "bad."

Like I said, statistical balancing is a matter of math. Whether or not the classes should be balanced is a matter of opinion. Whether or not the classes can be balanced, and whether doing so results in some classes getting left out, undervalued, etc., is a mathematical and psychological fact. And arguably, people aren't always even correct about their own opinion, especially in regards to game design. Like when a child is convinced they don't like a type of food, and then they try it, and they realize they were wrong--that too, is an opinion. Food tends to make for good game design analogies; see my sig.

Also: No, YOU have lost.

(See how that really doesn't add anything to my argument? It just comes across as being an argumentative jackass, whether I'm right or not.)
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#114 Jun 01 2013 at 2:53 PM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
BartelX wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
It seems to me that your argument is that a WHM for instance, matched against a SAM, should have roughly a 50% chance of winning a one-on-one battle, all things being equal i.e. talent of the player, level, equipment, etc. Before I respond I wish to ensure I'm interpreting your position on the matter correctly.


Yes, that is what I'm saying, but understanding what I'm saying and why I'm saying it are two completely separate things, as has been made apparent. It has absolutely nothing to do with PvP.


Correct me if I'm wrong. You think that for some reason, if all the classes are balanced such that all classes have a 50/50 shot in PvP of beating other classes, that somehow translates into the ability to design PvE encounters that are inclusive to every class equally. Is that the jist?

If so, let me give you two huge reasons why that will not work.

1. Mobs may have completely different resistances than players, or completely different reactions to abilities that automatically throw the class balance off. Like, what if there are no classes that are weak/strong to certain types of damage or certain abilities, yet there are mobs that have that weakness/strength, thus throwing things out of balance. I'm assuming your response would be, well then don't make mobs with those weaknesses/strengths. Well now we've just dumbed down our content in order to keep class balance. Because whether you like it or not, one of the main things that raid bosses in almost all games have are strengths and weaknesses. By eliminating those, you're removing one avenue of making interesting content.

2. Mobs may use certain tactics or have certain traits and abilities that players don't. For instance, flying mobs that can only be hit by spells or ranged attacks when in the air. Unless player classes have that same trait, you've just unbalanced your classes, regardless of how balanced they are against one another. Or how about a mob that has a different attack style than all the classes? How about a mob that is in perma-hundred fists mode? Unless there's a player character that can attain that, you've just unbalanced the classes because now the classes that are best equipped to handle that become more important than others.

I could list about 100 more scenarios where your class balance idea doesn't work. And please don't tell me that developers should just develop the content to work within what the classes offer. That's lame, boring, and to quote you "bad design".

Kachi wrote:

Also, spare me the "declaring when the argument is won/lost." It's not really constructive to an adult discussion. If you're looking for debates to win and lose, look somewhere else. I'm here for friendly discourse.


When you can't even admit that what you're posting is an opinion, you have lost. Sorry, unless you're going to parenthetically site your proof to back your claims, what you are stating are opinions. Plain and simple.

Edited, Jun 1st 2013 4:41pm by BartelX


Hmm! Why are you bringing this up ? In XIV PVP and PVE are separated, as in your abilities in PVE, are not the same ones as the ones you will use in PVP, totally negates your argument, there is not balacing PVP & PVE at the same time.

I
____________________________
MUTED
#115 Jun 01 2013 at 2:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
273 posts
Kachi wrote:


Yes, that is what I'm saying, but understanding what I'm saying and why I'm saying it are two completely separate things, as has been made apparent. It has absolutely nothing to do with PvP.


Ostia wrote:


Hmm! Why are you bringing this up ? In XIV PVP and PVE are separated, as in your abilities in PVE, are not the same ones as the ones you will use in PVP, totally negates your argument, there is not balacing PVP & PVE at the same time.

I


Kachi isn't talking about PVP apparently.
____________________________
[ffxivsig]2041793[/ffxivsig]

I probably understood about 1/10th of what was discussed in this thread and I'm sober as a rope. (I don't know if that's actually a saying or not). -Kierk
#116 Jun 01 2013 at 2:58 PM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
Parathyroid wrote:
Kachi wrote:


Yes, that is what I'm saying, but understanding what I'm saying and why I'm saying it are two completely separate things, as has been made apparent. It has absolutely nothing to do with PvP.


Ostia wrote:


Hmm! Why are you bringing this up ? In XIV PVP and PVE are separated, as in your abilities in PVE, are not the same ones as the ones you will use in PVP, totally negates your argument, there is not balacing PVP & PVE at the same time.

I


Kachi isn't talking about PVP apparently.


He was, until they keept talking about healers and being left out and sad stuff like that lol
____________________________
MUTED
#117 Jun 01 2013 at 2:59 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
No, I'm talking about PvP as a method of assessing the statistical value of units/classes. If you're going to have PvP, then it's a given that you do it. Not many people realize how much more easily it makes designing balanced PvE encounters. But it's not solely my opinion; I know a couple of other people who are well-versed in game design and came to the same conclusion for the same reason, independent of one another.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#118 Jun 01 2013 at 3:09 PM Rating: Good
****
6,899 posts
Ostia wrote:
Hmm! Why are you bringing this up ? In XIV PVP and PVE are separated, as in your abilities in PVE, are not the same ones as the ones you will use in PVP, totally negates your argument, there is not balacing PVP & PVE at the same time.


Uh, because we're talking about more than just XIV at this point, and we're not even really talking about PvP other than using at as a starting point. I thought that was pretty obvious.

Kachi wrote:
Also: No, YOU have lost.

(See how that really doesn't add anything to my argument? It just comes across as being an argumentative jackass, whether I'm right or not.)


No, what doesn't add anything to your argument is saying stuff like this:

Kachi wrote:
It's not my opinion; it's math.


What you described had nothing to do with what you were quoting, and nothing to do with math. You were quoted as saying

Kachi wrote:
If a WHM can go toe to toe with other classes, then it will be easier to design challenging, unique encounters for PvE.


Having a whm be on equal footing as a DD in a 1 on 1 battle has absolutely nothing to do with making challenging, unique encounters. Unless it's a whm solo encounter, and if that's what you meant, you're absolutely right! If you meant in a group setting, it does nothing to make designing the content easier. Having all classes balanced so that, by your own words, you can design an encounter rating of 30 and use any 6 classes with a rating of 5, doesn't work. I mentioned a couple reasons above, which you conveniently just sidestepped by saying you rebalance after the fact (which by the way you'd have to do every time you add a new encounter variable not available to classes). The insane amount of time that would waste in a development cycle alone makes it completely moot.

Perhaps I was being a jackass in saying you lost, but you come off as such an arrogant, I-can-never-be-wrong poster all the time that I felt the need to point out that if you can't even admit something you're posting is an opinion, you lose. Perhaps I was too harsh, but it's my opinion, much like everything else I'm posting.

See how that works? Smiley: grin
#119 Jun 01 2013 at 3:11 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
262 posts
Kachi wrote:
No, I'm talking about PvP as a method of assessing the statistical value of units/classes. If you're going to have PvP, then it's a given that you do it. Not many people realize how much more easily it makes designing balanced PvE encounters. But it's not solely my opinion; I know a couple of other people who are well-versed in game design and came to the same conclusion for the same reason, independent of one another.


I'm not a game designer, but as a game consumer and a FF fan and from my own personal experiences with PvP I just don't want them to force PvP down our throats and Eff up this game because of all the balancing issues.

If from what I've read from other people is correct and they have a PvP system separate from your PvE abilities and it's balanced separately from one another then by all means yes, that is a great idea.

#120 Jun 01 2013 at 3:20 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
So you inferred that I was being arrogant, and you can see my sig about that as well. That's exactly what the quote is in reference to. Honestly, your counter-arguments are not as compelling as you seem to think they are, either, and I could just as easily accuse you of the same arrogance, but since you can't seem to avoid making things personal and keep the discussion constructive, I'm just going to ignore you. You're really not leaving me an avenue of productive discourse when you just dismiss my arguments out of hand.

If anyone else would like to discuss why intraplayer statistical balancing in an MMO should be done prior to encounter balancing, I'm happy to discuss it.

____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#121 Jun 01 2013 at 3:26 PM Rating: Good
****
6,899 posts
Kachi wrote:
So you inferred that I was being arrogant, and you can see my sig about that as well. That's exactly what the quote is in reference to.


I wasn't inferring that you were being arrogant, I was telling you that you were being arrogant the moment you claimed what you were saying wasn't an opinion when it clearly, unequivocally was. And I was being an arrogant jackass for calling you on it in the matter that I did. I know that. Sorry if that offends you, I don't pull my punches, I call em like I see em... but at least I can admit my faults. Can you?
#122 Jun 01 2013 at 3:50 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
It seemed to me like you were nitpicking on my larger argument (which was not an opinion so much as a math problem) based on the way I phrased it (which I acknowledged, at least twice, was as an opinion). I apologize when I believe I've made a mistake (I think I just did so two minutes before you posted that), and I'm generally very willing to believe that I've made a mistake. The entire spirit of why I'm here is to see if I'm wrong about FFXIV.

The bottom line for me is this: I state what I think in a matter-of-fact way, just as you do, but I focus on the subject of conversation, rather than the person. If you can't do the same, we're not going to have discussions about these things, period. Whatever you think about game design, FFXIV, etc., is really not important enough for me to humor someone who can't show me that basic respect. These are not weighty matters, and I have a hard time respecting people who take these sorts of discussions so seriously that they snipe at others over them (or just don't care because, "Whatev's, it's the intrawebs"). If that bothers you, then please, just don't talk to me.

Also, you get no credit for unapologetically admitting your faults, at least not with me.

AND: You have to infer that someone is being arrogant before you can tell them that they are. Unless you're a mind reader, which I presume you're not.

Edited, Jun 1st 2013 2:51pm by Kachi
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#123 Jun 01 2013 at 4:09 PM Rating: Decent
****
6,899 posts
Kachi wrote:
AND: You have to infer that someone is being arrogant before you can tell them that they are. Unless you're a mind reader, which I presume you're not. Edited, Jun 1st 2013 2:51pm by Kachi


Look at that, you just inferred something about me. Shall I point you to the quote in your sig about it? Hehe, just kidding. You need to lighten up a bit. I called you arrogant because you made an arrogant statement. I wasn't making an inference, I was making an observation. You can infer that my observation was actually an inference... but... circular logic... blah blah, not getting anywhere. I apologize for my bluntness, it's a trait that always shows through when I'm debating something. My mom tells me I should have been a lawyer... I tell her she should have been a better mother (to be fair, she was ****** most of the time and she knows that I still love her regardless). It's just my nature to be blunt and say what I'm thinking.

Kachi wrote:
It seemed to me like you were nitpicking on my larger argument (which was not an opinion so much as a math problem) based on the way I phrased it (which I acknowledged, at least twice, was as an opinion). I apologize when I believe I've made a mistake (I think I just did so two minutes before you posted that), and I'm generally very willing to believe that I've made a mistake. The entire spirit of why I'm here is to see if I'm wrong about FFXIV.


I wasn't nitpicking, I was pointing out flaws in your logic, at least from my perspective. I still don't think that having balanced classes for PvP would in anyway enhance or simplify the creation of PvE encounters. Clearly you do, hence these are our opinions on the matter. It's not math, as much as you'd like to claim it is. There's too many undefined variables to make it that simple, and more would be added on a regular basis... but I digress.

Kachi wrote:
The bottom line for me is this: I state what I think in a matter-of-fact way, just as you do, but I focus on the subject of conversation, rather than the person. If you can't do the same, we're not going to have discussions about these things, period. Whatever you think about game design, FFXIV, etc., is really not important enough for me to humor someone who can't show me that basic respect.


I'm not sure how I was focusing on you, other than saying that, in my opinion, you lost the argument the minute you claimed that your thoughts were more than just an opinion. In fact, you are the one who called me a jackass before I even mentioned you being arrogant. Regardless, it doesn't bother me in the slightest because I know I can come off as a jackass. If I offended you, I apologize. It wasn't the intent, I was just trying to explain my statement.

Kachi wrote:
Also, you get no credit for unapologetically admitting your faults, at least not with me.


I never asked for credit, nor do I want it. I'm not some 12 year old in Math class looking to impress teacher. The truth of the matter is, I could really care less how you view me. Again, I realize that's a very blunt statement, but it's the truth. If I disagree with you, I'm going to tell you why. If I see you saying things that are arrogant, I'm going to let you know about it. Perhaps my tact wasn't great, but I've never really been known to show great tact. If you don't want to deal with that, fine, put me on ignore and move on. Don't worry, it won't hurt my feelings.

#124 Jun 01 2013 at 4:19 PM Rating: Excellent
If what Kachi says is really what they're teaching in game design school these days, that really helps me understand why games these days are so boring. Seriously, anyone, go play Guild Wars 2 and tell me that's really an interesting battle system. It flat-out sucks. Solo play is super easy, and there's really no point to play in parties. Even when people do play in parties, they just kind of zerg the same thing, because everyone is good at everything. There are no real strengths or weaknesses. It's like the little-league soccer of MMORPGs.

I have no doubt that Kachi's opinions on balance are based on math. That doesn't mean it's the optimal approach though. Obviously, it depends on what you want from your game; other approaches to game design will also be based on math, too.

Whichever math you choose to follow, the bottom line is that FFXIV should not be (and, thankfully, will not be) a game where a white mage can go toe-to-toe with a damage dealer. That's just not realistic, and it doesn't make any sense. A damage dealer should win that fight pretty quickly 100 percent of the time. I'm trying to imagine a real-world example of a soldier versus a field medic... the soldier wins that fight every time... but soldiers need field medics to survive.

You add "balance" to the confrontation by adding different players (or, in this case, monsters) with their own strengths and weaknesses to each side of the battle. THAT is how you encourage interesting, involved PvE battles. That's the difference between Final Fantasy (which has always emphasized party play) and everything else on the market, which is catering to the individual. That's why SE would be making a HUGE mistake to balance FFXIV on PvP principles.

Edited, Jun 1st 2013 3:54pm by Thayos
____________________________
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
#125 Jun 01 2013 at 4:33 PM Rating: Decent
If balance is so much fun, then trains are rollercoasters.
____________________________
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/pawkeshup
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/pawkeshup
Twitch: http://www.twitch.tv/pawkeshup
Blog: http://pawkeshup.blogspot.com
Olorinus the Ludicrous wrote:
The idea of old school is way more interesting than the reality
#126 Jun 01 2013 at 4:52 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,712 posts
There's also the fact that 1v1 balancing is just about the dumbest thing you can attempt.

There's no way to do it without making the classes carbon copies of each other. MMOs are meant to be played in groups. And there's a very good reason why Blizzard stopped caring about even their 2v2 arena bracket, and doesn't offer a 1v1 bracket.
____________________________
svlyons wrote:
If random outcomes aren't acceptable to you, then don't play with random people.
This thread is locked
You cannot post in a locked topic!
Recent Visitors: 105 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (105)