Non

[(PSN)Station2D-]

En 6/9/2019 a las 10:34, Loza03 dijo:

've not played it, so I can't verify your claim.

But ask yourself this: If dynamic limbs and other Dead Space or Fallout combat tropes was the only way to make a good, complex action combat system, why do so many incredibly critically acclaimed titles not incorporate it? Including action games. 

In other words, is this suggestion objectively the best way to make a combat system, or is this the way you prefer combat systems to be handled? Because there's nothing wrong with the second one until you start demanding it be put into games where it doesn't belong. Like you're doing now

It's not the same to play checkers as chess, do you understand? Some developers think that simplicity is the answer to everything and they are very wrong, simplicity must always go hand in hand with complexity, simple combat systems are weak while that the complexes are better but the simple ones are easier to do and that is why the developers adopt it knowing the problems that entails, many complain about Saryn but she is not the problem, the problem is the combat system.

 

En 6/9/2019 a las 10:34, Loza03 dijo:

This kind of combat doesn't belong in Warframe outside of specific case scenarios. Warframe is a fast-paced game. This would immensely slow the pace down. Alternatively, it would even further push people away from precision weapons and towards explosives and AoE, and away from Melee since you can't aim your swings. It would inevitably change the game for the worse since the game wasn't built for this kind of combat.

 

En 6/9/2019 a las 10:34, Loza03 dijo:

No, it can also be affected by all the systems, and how well they gel together. For example, an incredibly fast and freeform movement system and a very precise, slow combat system that practically requires you to stop and take aim for a few seconds per shot. Those don't mix.

You are wrong, the combat systems are made to be slow-paced because otherwise they would not be entertaining and the same happens with the missions, in addition the elements of fast pace and slow pace can live together but I think that I do not have to explain, the pace of a game depends on several factors as you have said, each factor has different rhythms, some are fast-paced and others slow-paced

[Loza03]

1 minute ago, (PS4)StationOfDead said:

It's not the same to play checkers as chess, do you understand? Some developers think that simplicity is the answer to everything and they are very wrong, simplicity must always go hand in hand with complexity, simple combat systems are weak while that the complexes are better but the simple ones are easier to do and that is why the developers adopt it knowing the problems that entails, many complain about Saryn but she is not the problem, the problem is the combat system.

You're right. It IS different to play checkers as chess. We are all playing chess, you want to play checkers.

Are you quite sure this game doesn't have any complexity? Or is it buried beneath poor choices like Saryn? Because, taking the Grineer for example, there's about 21 different enemy types you're likely to encounter in a starchart mission. And let's assume that the average room has 10 enemies in it once in an alerted status. That's about 30,045,015 possible enemy combinations. Admittedly, many of those are very similar combinations, but the fact remains, that's a lot of different fights that can be had. Now, consider how Fallout or Dead Space games work. Unless dealing with a much less complex enemy, you'll typically be engaging with one or two, from what I've seen. Maybe 3 if you're in a difficult encounter. Assuming all enemies make the transition for Warframe, the number of possible encounters drops to 1771. Several orders of magnitude lower, and again, not all of those are statistically all that different. Now, that works for Dead Space and Fallout because for the former, it's a horror game designed for one playthrough, and for the latter because Combat is only a part of the overall experience.

Like I said before: Emergence. Just because individual pieces are simplistic, doesn't mean the overall product is. In Warframe's case, we must look to what's making the emergence not happen. In this case - the ability design. Not just Saryn's, either. Hell, as far as I'm aware, Saryn is the least of the worries. She generally requires more engagement than, say, Volt.

14 minutes ago, (PS4)StationOfDead said:

You are wrong, the combat systems are made to be slow-paced because otherwise they would not be entertaining and the same happens with the missions, in addition the elements of fast pace and slow pace can live together but I think that I do not have to explain, the pace of a game depends on several factors as you have said, each factor has different rhythms, some are fast-paced and others slow-paced

Individual parts yes, but two different parts of the core gameplay must be in sync. Fast movement and slow combat don't sync. The core gameplay must be well-designed and well put-together before you can deviate from the established pacing.

[(PSN)Station2D-]

En 1/10/2019 a las 6:36, Loza03 dijo:

You're right. It IS different to play checkers as chess. We are all playing chess, you want to play checkers.

Are you quite sure this game doesn't have any complexity? Or is it buried beneath poor choices like Saryn? Because, taking the Grineer for example, there's about 21 different enemy types you're likely to encounter in a starchart mission. And let's assume that the average room has 10 enemies in it once in an alerted status. That's about 30,045,015 possible enemy combinations. Admittedly, many of those are very similar combinations, but the fact remains, that's a lot of different fights that can be had. Now, consider how Fallout or Dead Space games work. Unless dealing with a much less complex enemy, you'll typically be engaging with one or two, from what I've seen. Maybe 3 if you're in a difficult encounter. Assuming all enemies make the transition for Warframe, the number of possible encounters drops to 1771. Several orders of magnitude lower, and again, not all of those are statistically all that different. Now, that works for Dead Space and Fallout because for the former, it's a horror game designed for one playthrough, and for the latter because Combat is only a part of the overall experience.

Like I said before: Emergence. Just because individual pieces are simplistic, doesn't mean the overall product is. In Warframe's case, we must look to what's making the emergence not happen. In this case - the ability design. Not just Saryn's, either. Hell, as far as I'm aware, Saryn is the least of the worries. She generally requires more engagement than, say, Volt.

 

Guy, we are not talking about the types of enemies (I already talked about that in another topic), we are talking about combat mechanics, the variety of enemies is important but if the combat mechanics are simple everything will remain easy

En 1/10/2019 a las 6:36, Loza03 dijo:

Individual parts yes, but two different parts of the core gameplay must be in sync. Fast movement and slow combat don't sync. The core gameplay must be well-designed and well put-together before you can deviate from the established pacin

Do the battles with Eidolons and Thumpers not tell you something? Assault missions don't tell you something?

[Loza03]

Just now, (PS4)StationOfDead said:

Guy, we are not talking about the types of enemies (I already talked about that in another topic), we are talking about combat mechanics, the variety of enemies is important but if the combat mechanics are simple everything will remain easy

Combat mechanics are how we interact with enemies, and how they interact with us. You change one, you have to change the other. If you up the complexity of how you fight the enemies, the number of  enemies has to come down. Due to the properties of emergence, the amount of variety that can be experienced from a handful of complex enemies and a hive of simpler ones is actually of similar complexity. For example, I mentioned earlier how Monster Hunter uses altered hack-n-slash mechanics. They're altered for the sake of the fact that it's 90% boss fights. That's a very good example of where complex enemies work because you're usually fighting one of them at a time and that one foe is the main event - even multi-foe fights often come down to divide and conquer fights where you take effort to not fight more than one at a time.

The lack of difficulty isn't from the enemies, or how we interact with them. It's from the lack of interaction we have. We have at least three ways to completely ignore combat. Invisibility (and to a lesser extent, functional invulnerability from massive EHP), Nuking and mass CC. What does this system do about enemies never targeting the player in the first place?

19 minutes ago, (PS4)StationOfDead said:

Do the battles with Eidolons and Thumpers not tell you something? Assault missions don't tell you something?

Bosses =/= normal enemies. Bosses are an activity or a portion of an activity in and of themselves, whereas normal enemies are functionally game pieces.  And the one assault mission node uses regular enemies, so I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

[(PSN)Station2D-]

En 9/10/2019 a las 10:12, Loza03 dijo:

Combat mechanics are how we interact with enemies, and how they interact with us. You change one, you have to change the other. If you up the complexity of how you fight the enemies, the number of  enemies has to come down. Due to the properties of emergence, the amount of variety that can be experienced from a handful of complex enemies and a hive of simpler ones is actually of similar complexity. For example, I mentioned earlier how Monster Hunter uses altered hack-n-slash mechanics. They're altered for the sake of the fact that it's 90% boss fights. That's a very good example of where complex enemies work because you're usually fighting one of them at a time and that one foe is the main event - even multi-foe fights often come down to divide and conquer fights where you take effort to not fight more than one at a time.

 

En 9/10/2019 a las 10:12, Loza03 dijo:

Bosses =/= normal enemies. Bosses are an activity or a portion of an activity in and of themselves, whereas normal enemies are functionally game pieces.  And the one assault mission node uses regular enemies, so I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

First of all, sorry for the delay, second, you are ignorant, the corpus have a variety of enemies and yet they are easy to eliminate, why? because the combat is simple and it doesn't matter if they are hordes of enemies because it will remain easy, the hordes of enemies are good but if you mix it with a simple combat system the game will remain easy, the variety of enemies are good but if you mix it with a simple combat system the game will still be easy, do you understand? you can't mix something good with something bad, the slow-paced and fast-paced elements work together and you know it so don't say nonsense, combat systems are made to be slow-paced, movement systems can vary, rewards are made to be slow-paced, missions are made to be slow-paced, a black person and a white person cannot be together because they are different? Do you understand my point? For a segment to work with another perfectly, both have to be good, and I repeat, you can't mix something good like the variety of enemies with something bad like a simple combat system, a simple combat system will make the players get bored and complain that the game is easy and that is already happening, what a surprise ...
 

 

En 9/10/2019 a las 10:12, Loza03 dijo:

The lack of difficulty isn't from the enemies, or how we interact with them. It's from the lack of interaction we have. We have at least three ways to completely ignore combat. Invisibility (and to a lesser extent, functional invulnerability from massive EHP), Nuking and mass CC. What does this system do about enemies never targeting the player in the first place?

That is called imbalance, it is a problem that this game has long since and I want to discuss in another topic

[Loza03]

7 hours ago, (PS4)StationOfDead said:

First of all, sorry for the delay, second, you are ignorant, the corpus have a variety of enemies and yet they are easy to eliminate, why? because the combat is simple and it doesn't matter if they are hordes of enemies because it will remain easy, the hordes of enemies are good but if you mix it with a simple combat system the game will remain easy, the variety of enemies are good but if you mix it with a simple combat system the game will still be easy, do you understand? you can't mix something good with something bad, the slow-paced and fast-paced elements work together and you know it so don't say nonsense, combat systems are made to be slow-paced, movement systems can vary, rewards are made to be slow-paced, missions are made to be slow-paced, a black person and a white person cannot be together because they are different? Do you understand my point? For a segment to work with another perfectly, both have to be good, and I repeat, you can't mix something good like the variety of enemies with something bad like a simple combat system, a simple combat system will make the players get bored and complain that the game is easy and that is already happening, what a surprise ...

The corpus have a variety of enemies... which doesn't matter when you can turn them off entirely due to poor balancing. There's also a variety of other factors you've not considered, like conveyance, AI or again, the fact that you say hordes are good but none of the games that features limb-based combat systems are horde-based, because a long time to kill on one enemy and hordes of enemies are fundamentally against each other in design. The lack of balance is what kills the variety of enemies because there isn't variety in how you kill them. Adding limb damage can do that for the former, but would require a massive drop in enemy numbers and would still require abilities to be rebalanced anyway, whereas better balancing alone to prevent mindless, low-engagement playstyles would allow the variety from emergence with much fewer large-scale direction shifts.

There is no 'good' or 'bad' tools, only good or bad uses of them. And putting in a complex, limb-based, long TTK system in a horde based shooter is one such bad use, and wouldn't even fix the problems

8 hours ago, (PS4)StationOfDead said:

That is called imbalance, it is a problem that this game has long since and I want to discuss in another topic

I'm well aware, have already made numerous threads and many, many posts regarding balance.

[(PSN)Station2D-]

En 12/11/2019 a las 7:46, Loza03 dijo:

The corpus have a variety of enemies... which doesn't matter when you can turn them off entirely due to poor balancing. There's also a variety of other factors you've not considered, like conveyance, AI or again, the fact that you say hordes are good but none of the games that features limb-based combat systems are horde-based, because a long time to kill on one enemy and hordes of enemies are fundamentally against each other in design. The lack of balance is what kills the variety of enemies because there isn't variety in how you kill them. Adding limb damage can do that for the former, but would require a massive drop in enemy numbers and would still require abilities to be rebalanced anyway, whereas better balancing alone to prevent mindless, low-engagement playstyles would allow the variety from emergence with much fewer large-scale direction shifts.

There is no 'good' or 'bad' tools, only good or bad uses of them. And putting in a complex, limb-based, long TTK system in a horde based shooter is one such bad use, and wouldn't even fix the problems

The fact that Fallout 4 does not have hordes of enemies does not mean that Warframe cannot have hordes of enemies, Fallout 4 can have hordes of enemies whenever they want (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZVKVor9dVQ , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ur_FVQ6kDKE , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLtWRLoanyg), the problem of difficulty is divided into several sectors and one of those is the combat system as I said earlier: "You cannot make a simple combat system because that will make the game boring and repetitive" even if the game is balanced, developers must avoid simplicity and make complexity, a letter is not the same as a sentence, a letter (simplicity) is easy to handle and easy to understand and that makes it boring and less durable while a sentence (complexity) is difficult to handle and difficult to understand and that makes it more entertaining and more durable, look at these images: 1- Simplicity: https://imgur.com/a/BZgGvAv 2- Complexity: https://imgur.com/a/orgwOXP and now tell me which one is more difficult to understand? It is a fact that complexity is more entertaining than simplicity

 

En 12/11/2019 a las 7:46, Loza03 dijo:

I'm well aware, have already made numerous threads and many, many posts regarding balance.

If you are aware that the game is unbalanced then you should know that many things need nerfs and other things need a buff, I tell you that the characters that become invisible should not have the ability to attack or defend themselves while they are invisible, some skills need cooldowns, the slots of mods of the armament should be divided into several sections, nobody should be able to eliminate enemies in one or two hits, all the armament of the game should be viable, etc, etc, etc, the fact that the players make a tier list of a game is a way of saying that the game is unbalanced, the hierarchy may exist but hierarchy cannot damage the balance of the game because that will kill the variety of the game, it's like taking 100 photos and just choosing 5 (that's wrong), the hierarchy has to live with the balance of the game, each enemy individually should be a challenge, each mission individually should be a challenge, each map individually should be a challenge, each content individually should be special in something, the idea is to improve the variety not damage the variety, the power creep should not exist, things should be at the same level even if there is hierarchy, I'm sad and angry to see world tournaments of games that are unbalanced (Fortnite for example) and see how some developers are so ignorant, if you are aware that the game is unbalanced you must be prepared for a lot of changes and I hope that DE be aware of that

[Loza03]

2 hours ago, (PS4)StationOfDead said:

The fact that Fallout 4 does not have hordes of enemies does not mean that Warframe cannot have hordes of enemies, Fallout 4 can have hordes of enemies whenever they want (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZVKVor9dVQ , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ur_FVQ6kDKE , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLtWRLoanyg), the problem of difficulty is divided into several sectors and one of those is the combat system as I said earlier: "You cannot make a simple combat system because that will make the game boring and repetitive" even if the game is balanced, developers must avoid simplicity and make complexity, a letter is not the same as a sentence, a letter (simplicity) is easy to handle and easy to understand and that makes it boring and less durable while a sentence (complexity) is difficult to handle and difficult to understand and that makes it more entertaining and more durable, look at these images: 1- Simplicity: https://imgur.com/a/BZgGvAv 2- Complexity: https://imgur.com/a/orgwOXP and now tell me which one is more difficult to understand? It is a fact that complexity is more entertaining than simplicity

Something being more complex and difficult to understand does not make it more inherently enjoyable. Indeed, it can often make it obtuse and, well difficult to understand and process. A game that is only difficult because it's intentionally making it hard on the player to understand it and make informed decisions is a bad game. That's not enjoyable to a large number of people. It is poor conveyance. Trust me, conveyance is something Warframe struggles with already. Consider how point-and-click adventure games went out of style thanks to how utterly obtuse they could be. ^{I put as much formatting as I could on this sentence, thereby making it more complex. That does not make it more enjoyable to read, or improve its purpose - if anything it obscures it. Was it easy to tell I marked that subclause with a dash?}

Not to mention that your point about letters and sentences only proves my point. Letters, words, sentences and novels are all emergent properties. None of the individual components are complex - by your own admittance a single letter is very simple. But James Joyce's Ulysses is made up entirely of letters, numbers and punctuation marks. These complex things are made up of very simple things. Warframe can be complex, but that complexity does not need to come from how complex it is, or how long it takes to fight one enemy.

As for art? It's subjective. I personally find the simple piece prettier to look at, but I'm not particularly getting much out of either of them. You might be different. As I said before, a complex, limb-based game is absolutely not an inherently bad game. But that's not what Warframe is.

2 hours ago, (PS4)StationOfDead said:

If you are aware that the game is unbalanced then you should know that many things need nerfs and other things need a buff, I tell you that the characters that become invisible should not have the ability to attack or defend themselves while they are invisible, some skills need cooldowns, the slots of mods of the armament should be divided into several sections, nobody should be able to eliminate enemies in one or two hits, all the armament of the game should be viable, etc, etc, etc, the fact that the players make a tier list of a game is a way of saying that the game is unbalanced, the hierarchy may exist but hierarchy cannot damage the balance of the game because that will kill the variety of the game, it's like taking 100 photos and just choosing 5 (that's wrong), the hierarchy has to live with the balance of the game, each enemy individually should be a challenge, each mission individually should be a challenge, each map individually should be a challenge, each content individually should be special in something, the idea is to improve the variety not damage the variety, the power creep should not exist, things should be at the same level even if there is hierarchy, I'm sad and angry to see world tournaments of games that are unbalanced (Fortnite for example) and see how some developers are so ignorant, if you are aware that the game is unbalanced you must be prepared for a lot of changes and I hope that DE be aware of that

I agree with a number of these points, and disagree on others, but many balancing elements can be implemented without making every Lancer or Crewman take as much time as a Necromorph to defeat. Necessary and sufficient terms. Declaring the game is imbalanced doesn't support your argument that there should be a dismemberment-based combat system.

[Colyeses]

4 hours ago, (PS4)StationOfDead said:

"You cannot make a simple combat system because that will make the game boring and repetitive"

This has never been true. Some of the most successful games have exceedingly simple cores with very effective execution that result in an amazing gameplay loop. Smash Bros has no gore or limb system, or anything of the sort. There's ways to complicate it, such as with items and stage hazards, and guess what? Most people turn them off. Given the choice, people choose a simple system over a complex one. 

That's not to say that some complications cannot enhance gameplay, but to say a simple system cannot be entertaining is just ignorance.

[(PSN)Station2D-]

En 8/12/2019 a las 6:19, Loza03 dijo:

Something being more complex and difficult to understand does not make it more inherently enjoyable. Indeed, it can often make it obtuse and, well difficult to understand and process. A game that is only difficult because it's intentionally making it hard on the player to understand it and make informed decisions is a bad game. That's not enjoyable to a large number of people. It is poor conveyance. Trust me, conveyance is something Warframe struggles with already. Consider how point-and-click adventure games went out of style thanks to how utterly obtuse they could be. ^{I put as much formatting as I could on this sentence, thereby making it more complex. That does not make it more enjoyable to read, or improve its purpose - if anything it obscures it. Was it easy to tell I marked that subclause with a dash?}

Not to mention that your point about letters and sentences only proves my point. Letters, words, sentences and novels are all emergent properties. None of the individual components are complex - by your own admittance a single letter is very simple. But James Joyce's Ulysses is made up entirely of letters, numbers and punctuation marks. These complex things are made up of very simple things. Warframe can be complex, but that complexity does not need to come from how complex it is, or how long it takes to fight one enemy.

As for art? It's subjective. I personally find the simple piece prettier to look at, but I'm not particularly getting much out of either of them. You might be different. As I said before, a complex, limb-based game is absolutely not an inherently bad game.

Guy, don't be a complete ignorant, it's sad, look at these images: https://imgur.com/a/NeT7naS ,  https://imgur.com/a/RSbbDYX , and now tell me which one is more interesting? Look at these images: https://imgur.com/a/2HfZKVh , https://imgur.com/a/q2yORQW , and now tell me which one is more interesting? Look at these images: https://imgur.com/a/5824tcP , https://imgur.com/a/7Xrc4jz , and now tell me which one is more interesting? simplicity is made to be easy, boring, repetitive because that is its nature while complexity is made to be difficult, entertaining, durable because that is its nature, a letter is not the same as a sentence, show a letter to an analphabet and then show a sentence and ask which one is harder to understand for him, show a letter to a language teacher and then show a sentence and ask which one is more difficult to understand for him, both of them will say that the sentence is harder to understand, why? because a sentence is more complex, a sentence is more difficult to handle, needs more attention and can confuse you, a letter is easy to handle, needs less attention and does not confuse you, this is not the same: https://imgur.com/a/mH8SsGk than this: https://imgur.com/a/RYfEPWq or this: https://imgur.com/a/Xs8V4sg that this: https://imgur.com/a/8vxjUlF , variety makes complexity and you said that too, games must avoid simplicity and make complexity, simplicity is bad for games, a simple game is bad, players need complex things, that is challenging and entertaining things, you like hordes of enemies and guess what? the hordes of enemies are complex, if you hadn't crossed out that sentence it would have been easier and less entertaining to read, ¿ʍou puɐʇsɹǝpun noʎ op

 

En 8/12/2019 a las 6:19, Loza03 dijo:

But that's not what Warframe is.

Oh yeah? And what is Warframe? Everything I'm suggesting can be added to the game and that would be nice, you're just giving stupid excuses...

En 8/12/2019 a las 6:19, Loza03 dijo:

I agree with a number of these points, and disagree on others, but many balancing elements can be implemented without making every Lancer or Crewman take as much time as a Necromorph to defeat. Necessary and sufficient terms. Declaring the game is imbalanced doesn't support your argument that there should be a dismemberment-based combat system.

As I said before: "the hierarchy can exist but the hierarchy cannot damage the variety of the game" when I say that everything must be at the same level, I mean that there may be things stronger than others or weaker than others in the characteristics but none may lose validity

Example:

Good:

Weapon: high damage, regular accuracy, low speed VS. Weapon: low damage, regular accuracy, high speed

Bad:

Weapon: high damage, high precision, high speed VS. Weapon: regular damage, regular accuracy, regular speed

 

Note: the game has numerous problems and that is why I did and will continue to do these topics, I will not be stand without doing anything when I have the solutions to improve the game

[(PSN)Station2D-]

En 8/12/2019 a las 8:49, Colyeses dijo:

This has never been true. Some of the most successful games have exceedingly simple cores with very effective execution that result in an amazing gameplay loop. Smash Bros has no gore or limb system, or anything of the sort. There's ways to complicate it, such as with items and stage hazards, and guess what? Most people turn them off. Given the choice, people choose a simple system over a complex one. 

That's not to say that some complications cannot enhance gameplay, but to say a simple system cannot be entertaining is just ignorance.

Wrong, Super smash contains simple elements (such as combat and damage system) and that makes it boring, super smash still alive because of the complex elements it contains such as the variety of characters, variety of movements, variety of maps, variety of modes and The Pvp which is a complex environment where you can play with thousands of players, the pvp keeps alive Super smash, Counter strike, Team fortress 2, COD, BF, etc., Team fortress 2 not even updated and players continue to play it because of the complexity of the pvp, as I said before: "complexity is more entertaining, durable and challenging than simplicity", sorry for telling you ignorant but that is what you are demonstrating

[Colyeses]

46 minutes ago, (PS4)StationOfDead said:

variety of characters, variety of movements, variety of maps, variety of modes

Pretty sure deathmatch is played almost exclusively, and the rest are comparatively threadbare levels of complexity. Maps tend to be played on battlefield mode as well, which renders them nothing more than skins. 

The core systems are still extremely simplistic and that is why it is a success.

[(PSN)Station2D-]

hace 48 minutos, Colyeses dijo:

Pretty sure deathmatch is played almost exclusively, and the rest are comparatively threadbare levels of complexity. Maps tend to be played on battlefield mode as well, which renders them nothing more than skins. 

The core systems are still extremely simplistic and that is why it is a success.

Nope, don't be more stupid than you are, simplicity is bad for games, players don't like easy, boring and repetitive things, what is needed is complexity, the success of super smash is because of the complexity but simplicity only kills the game, if Super smash were completely simple then it would be completely dead because there would be no variety, no pvp and no story mode

[Loza03]

1 hour ago, (PS4)StationOfDead said:

Guy, don't be a complete ignorant, it's sad, look at these images: https://imgur.com/a/NeT7naS ,  https://imgur.com/a/RSbbDYX , and now tell me which one is more interesting? Look at these images: https://imgur.com/a/2HfZKVh , https://imgur.com/a/q2yORQW , and now tell me which one is more interesting? Look at these images: https://imgur.com/a/5824tcP , https://imgur.com/a/7Xrc4jz , and now tell me which one is more interesting? simplicity is made to be easy, boring, repetitive because that is its nature while complexity is made to be difficult, entertaining, durable because that is its nature, a letter is not the same as a sentence, show a letter to an analphabet and then show a sentence and ask which one is harder to understand for him, show a letter to a language teacher and then show a sentence and ask which one is more difficult to understand for him, both of them will say that the sentence is harder to understand, why? because a sentence is more complex, a sentence is more difficult to handle, needs more attention and can confuse you, a letter is easy to handle, needs less attention and does not confuse you, this is not the same: https://imgur.com/a/mH8SsGk than this: https://imgur.com/a/RYfEPWq or this: https://imgur.com/a/Xs8V4sg that this: https://imgur.com/a/8vxjUlF , variety makes complexity and you said that too, games must avoid simplicity and make complexity, simplicity is bad for games, a simple game is bad, players need complex things, that is challenging and entertaining things, you like hordes of enemies and guess what? the hordes of enemies are complex, if you hadn't crossed out that sentence it would have been easier and less entertaining to read, ¿ʍou puɐʇsɹǝpun noʎ op

You're starting to descend into ad-hominem and repeating yourself.

Like I said - emergent complexity. A lot of times. A sentence is composed of many letters, a paragraph of many sentences and a novel of many paragraphs. All of which are more complex than the last, and yet all of them are made out of more simple parts. The most complex things are made out of the least. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This is so prevalent that many new characters are made for this reason: £, $, %, & for example. These are all more complex elements (Pound, Dollar, Percent, And) made more simple to allow for better communication in certain instances, usually when a more complex concept is being discussed, since it reduces the complexity of that individual part.

This dismemberment suggestion approaches the parts, failing to understand the potential negative affects it could have on the sum. The vast majority of games have simple enemies and relatively simple damage systems, because that lets you chop and change different parts to create more and more combinations. The more complexity on the micro level (individual enemies) a player has to keep track of, the less a designer can throw at them on the macro level (the combat encounter as  a whole). More complex enemies means fewer combinations, more niche uses of those enemies and overall, less variety.

Complexity is, ironically enough, not so simple of a concept that you can make something better by just adding more stuff to something.

2 hours ago, (PS4)StationOfDead said:

Oh yeah? And what is Warframe? Everything I'm suggesting can be added to the game and that would be nice, you're just giving stupid excuses...

More ad hominem, and Warframe is a fast-paced, horde-based action game.

A slow-paced, limb/dismemberment based combat systems, which works in some settings and Genres, such as RPGs or Horror, does not work in such a genre.

2 hours ago, (PS4)StationOfDead said:

As I said before: "the hierarchy can exist but the hierarchy cannot damage the variety of the game" when I say that everything must be at the same level, I mean that there may be things stronger than others or weaker than others in the characteristics but none may lose validity

Example:

Good:

Weapon: high damage, regular accuracy, low speed VS. Weapon: low damage, regular accuracy, high speed

Bad:

Weapon: high damage, high precision, high speed VS. Weapon: regular damage, regular accuracy, regular speed

 

Note: the game has numerous problems and that is why I did and will continue to do these topics, I will not be stand without doing anything when I have the solutions to improve the game

Still necessary and sufficient terms.

Even if your suggestion is sufficient, there are many other paths to balance that are also sufficient.  Arguing the game needs to be balanced itself has no real support for your request for dismemberment, because dismemberment is not necessary to balance the game.

[Colyeses]

1 hour ago, (PS4)StationOfDead said:

simplicity is bad for games

Which is why games like Overcooked 2 neeeever took off, or Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes. 

[Scruffel]

3 hours ago, (PS4)StationOfDead said:

Nope, don't be more stupid than you are, simplicity is bad for games, players don't like easy, boring and repetitive things, what is needed is complexity, the success of super smash is because of the complexity but simplicity only kills the game, if Super smash were completely simple then it would be completely dead because there would be no variety, no pvp and no story mode

Ah yes, I remember Super Smash Bros Brawl, a game that tried to simplify the game so hard, it had no competitiveness or competitive scene, and no story mode at all. Oh wait...

Honestly, I don't know what range of experience you seem to be talking from, but you most certainly do have some sort of strange bias. You assume simplicity = automatically bad, complexity = always good. When that can be the complete opposite for someone else. Its pretty ignorant to say the least, as there's no need to call someone inferior because they happen to prefer something else, its so silly.

[(PSN)Station2D-]

En 10/12/2019 a las 8:44, Loza03 dijo:

You're starting to descend into ad-hominem and repeating yourself.

Like I said - emergent complexity. A lot of times. A sentence is composed of many letters, a paragraph of many sentences and a novel of many paragraphs. All of which are more complex than the last, and yet all of them are made out of more simple parts. The most complex things are made out of the least. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This is so prevalent that many new characters are made for this reason: £, $, %, & for example. These are all more complex elements (Pound, Dollar, Percent, And) made more simple to allow for better communication in certain instances, usually when a more complex concept is being discussed, since it reduces the complexity of that individual part.

This dismemberment suggestion approaches the parts, failing to understand the potential negative affects it could have on the sum. The vast majority of games have simple enemies and relatively simple damage systems, because that lets you chop and change different parts to create more and more combinations. The more complexity on the micro level (individual enemies) a player has to keep track of, the less a designer can throw at them on the macro level (the combat encounter as  a whole). More complex enemies means fewer combinations, more niche uses of those enemies and overall, less variety.

Complexity is, ironically enough, not so simple of a concept that you can make something better by just adding more stuff to something.

You are quite ignorant on this topic, how far can your ignorance go? I do not want to be arrogant, but I am correct and you cannot deny it, complexity is better than simplicity in terms of entertainment, complexity is entertaining, challenging and durable while simplicity is boring, easy and repetitive and I will keep repeating it because that is the truth, a simple combat system only makes things boring and a complex combat system does things entertaining, it is not the same going around in an infinite labyrinth (complexity) than going around in the same circle (simplicity) over and over again, with a simple combat system every fight with any enemy would be the same and that is wrong, with a complex combat system every combat with any enemy would be different and that is a good thing, a complex combat system does not decide if you want to fight with a single (individual) enemy or several enemies at the same time because you decide that, a complex combat system can have hordes of enemies while a simple combat system necessarily requires the hordes of enemies because without that the game would be more boring, how ironic, the simplicity needing complexity to be entertaining and that is because simplicity only bores players and complexity entertains players

 

En 10/12/2019 a las 8:44, Loza03 dijo:

More ad hominem, and Warframe is a fast-paced, horde-based action game.

A slow-paced, limb/dismemberment based combat systems, which works in some settings and Genres, such as RPGs or Horror, does not work in such a genre.

Bruh, don't be silly, what I am suggesting can be adapted to the game and would improve the game, the hordes of enemies would still be there as well as some fast-paced elements but keep in mind that combat is made to be slow-paced as the missions, that is not everything is made to be fast-paced, WF is not a fast-paced game at ALL, what I am suggesting can be adapted to any game that has combat, no matter if it is a horror game or a comedy game

En 10/12/2019 a las 8:44, Loza03 dijo:

Still necessary and sufficient terms.

Even if your suggestion is sufficient, there are many other paths to balance that are also sufficient.  Arguing the game needs to be balanced itself has no real support for your request for dismemberment, because dismemberment is not necessary to balance the game.

When we talk about imbalance or balance we talk about many related factors including combat, missions, etc. there are many ways to balance the game just like there are many ways to unbalance.

[(PSN)Station2D-]

En 10/12/2019 a las 9:19, Colyeses dijo:

Which is why games like Overcooked 2 neeeever took off, or Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes. 

Oh I see that you don't even know what simplicity is, Overcooked 2 has simple and complex elements, the complex makes the game entertaining but the simple makes it boring, just pay attention:

Overcooked 2:

Complexity:
Variety of maps and divisions, characters (without skills), ingredients, mixtures and preparations, obstacles, game modes, actions (cooking, washing, etc.)

Simplicity:
movement (player mobility) is always the same, interaction with objects is always the same (press only one button)

The complexity is entertaining while simplicity is boring that is something that has been known for YEARS, as I said earlier: "developers must avoid simplicity and make complexity", complexity is what makes Overcooked 2 good, I suggest you analyze things before writing.

[(PSN)Station2D-]

En 10/12/2019 a las 12:11, Scruffel dijo:

Ah yes, I remember Super Smash Bros Brawl, a game that tried to simplify the game so hard, it had no competitiveness or competitive scene, and no story mode at all. Oh wait...

Honestly, I don't know what range of experience you seem to be talking from, but you most certainly do have some sort of strange bias. You assume simplicity = automatically bad, complexity = always good. When that can be the complete opposite for someone else. Its pretty ignorant to say the least, as there's no need to call someone inferior because they happen to prefer something else, its so silly.

Ah, another ignorant, just pay attention, Super smash is entertained by its complex elements and is bored by its simple elements, complexity is what makes Super smash good, if Super smash didn't have a story mode the game would still be complex and simple because of the other elements that you didn't take into account, just with the fact that game has a variety of characters makes it complex and just with the fact that game has no damage system it makes it simple, players who ask for simple things are wrong while players who ask for complex things are correct, Why?, Players who ask for simple things are going to get bored for simplicity and players who ask for complex things are going to get entertained for complexity, it is not the same to go around in an endless labyrinth (complexity) than to go around in the same circle (simplicity) over and over again, if you want to entertain the players you must have to do complex things and not simple things, simplicity is not good for entertaining players, if you prefer simplicity then you are ignorant and silly because simplicity will bore you while complexity will entertain you because that is the reality, think through before saying something

[Colyeses]

2 hours ago, (PS4)StationOfDead said:

Complexity:
Variety of maps and divisions, characters (without skills), ingredients, mixtures and preparations, obstacles, game modes, actions (cooking, washing, etc.)

The maps usually make small changes that incidentally refresh the gameplay loop or slightly complicate it, or just plain make it more challenging. That's not meaningful complexity.

Characters without skills? You mean SKINS? You think that a purely visual effect adds complexity?

Ingredients... That's a base game prop! How does that make a game complex? Sure, there's multiple ingredients, but they all function largely the same.

Mixtures and Preparations: These are hardly complex. They're simple enough to make, the difficulty is in keeping track of everything that's going on.

Obstacles? You mentioned that before. That's the 'variety of maps and divisions'.

Game modes: There's two now. Two whole gamemodes. And both are driven by a flat 'cook as fast as you can' game loop. Horde mode just adds one extra piece of tactic to it, which is what to serve first.

Actions: Get object, move to station, press button. Complexity!

 

Seriously, Overcooked 2's concept is as simple as you can make it. There's next to no complexity, and the reason it works is because it is so damn simple, it's just put on multiplayer with the difficulty dialed up due to time pressure and no tools to properly communicate with one another, and no tools to track what is done and what isn't. It's a very simple concept that took off because it is that simple, any more complexity would've thinned the playerbase and actually would've hurt the overall concept of the game. It is fun precisely because it is so simple.

But hey, if you want to go so far as to think a skin is a complication of gameplay, why not take a look at the success of trivia quizzes?

 

2 hours ago, (PS4)StationOfDead said:

Super smash is entertained by its complex elements and is bored by its simple elements

Which is why the players that continue to play Smash the longest after release have a habit of making the game simpler by turning a lot of extended features off.

[Scruffel]

On 2020-01-08 at 5:54 AM, (PS4)StationOfDead said:

Super smash is entertained by its complex elements and is bored by its simple elements, complexity is what makes Super smash good

 So in that case, you must think that 1 (or 2 if you're lenient) out of the 5 games are all boring and bad because of how simple they are right? Or is there some sort other complex element that keeps them all interesting? Because as far as I am concerned, besides Melee (and again, Brawl if you're lenient), Smash is a pretty simple game. The goal of each match is to knock the opponent off screen until all their stocks are gone or you have the most points by hitting them off stage and into the blast zones. Seems simple to me.

On 2020-01-08 at 5:54 AM, (PS4)StationOfDead said:

game has a variety of characters makes it complex and just with the fact that game has no damage system it makes it simple

You must think Warframe is an extremely complex game then because it has so many weapons and Warframe options, but at the same time you call it simplistic cause of it's combat system. Just like what you're doing here, Smash Bros. is complex cause it has a lot of characters but it's simple because it has no damage system (which technically the percentage system is the damage system but whatever).... so what is it then? Is it the game bad or good now based on your standards? Or are these complex and simple elements only a fraction of what makes up a more complex or simple game? What are even your basis for a game to be complex?

You didn't even try to acknowledge my refutation of your claims, and instead went to repeat the same things over and over again, which are just personal opinions and biases trying to be framed as statistical statements. Where is your evidence? Do you just want people to agree with everything you say, or do you want an actual conversation? If you're going to respond to me a month later at least have the decency to write something coherent.

Edit: You know what. I'm not gonna even bother by actually responding to this person. They just explicitly said that they wanted us to agree with their opinion, and that's why they keep repeating the same thing over and over again. They don't want to argue anything, they don't want an actual conversation. It's pointless. I'm out of here. I'm not leaving because I can't "handle the truth" or whatever. I'm leaving because I didn't sign up for a screaming match with nothing to actually say.

Edited February 12, 2020 by Scruffel
I'm just, done.

[Loza03]

3 hours ago, (PS4)StationOfDead said:

I do not want to be arrogant, but I am correct and you cannot deny it, complexity is better than simplicity in terms of entertainment, complexity is entertaining, challenging and durable while simplicity is boring, easy and repetitive and I will keep repeating it because that is the truth,

Honestly, this pretty much just sums up this whole debate, doesn't it? You are outright refusing to acknowledge alternative viewpoints, or entertain the possibility you might be wrong.

Do you have ANY actual reasoning against emergent complexity, a concept which has handily explained or defeated all your points thus far, or are you just asserting your viewpoint despite reasoning against?

The rest of this segment doesn't actually respond to anything I've said, so it's not worth the effort to find yet another reason or explanation on why emergent complexity is a better way to add depth or artistic value to a game. 

4 hours ago, (PS4)StationOfDead said:

Bruh, don't be silly, what I am suggesting can be adapted to the game and would improve the game, the hordes of enemies would still be there as well as some fast-paced elements but keep in mind that combat is made to be slow-paced as the missions, that is not everything is made to be fast-paced, WF is not a fast-paced game at ALL, what I am suggesting can be adapted to any game that has combat, no matter if it is a horror game or a comedy game

Just because it can be doesn't mean it should be, or that it adds value.

4 hours ago, (PS4)StationOfDead said:

When we talk about imbalance or balance we talk about many related factors including combat, missions, etc. there are many ways to balance the game just like there are many ways to unbalance.

… That still doesn't support adding dismemberment-based combat, because as you say, there are many ways to balance something, and you have yet to convince me (or seemingly anyone else here) that yours is the right course of action.

[(PSN)Station2D-]

En 8/1/2020 a las 8:21, Colyeses dijo:

Seriously, Overcooked 2's concept is as simple as you can make it. There's next to no complexity, and the reason it works is because it is so damn simple, it's just put on multiplayer with the difficulty dialed up due to time pressure and no tools to properly communicate with one another, and no tools to track what is done and what isn't. It's a very simple concept that took off because it is that simple, any more complexity would've thinned the playerbase and actually would've hurt the overall concept of the game. It is fun precisely because it is so simple.

But hey, if you want to go so far as to think a skin is a complication of gameplay, why not take a look at the success of trivia quizzes?

 

En 8/1/2020 a las 9:28, Scruffel dijo:

You must think Warframe is an extremely complex game then because it has so many weapons and Warframe options, but at the same time you call it simplistic cause of it's combat system. Just like what you're doing here, Smash Bros. is complex cause it has a lot of characters but it's simple because it has no damage system (which technically the percentage system is the damage system but whatever).... so what is it then? Is it the game bad or good now based on your standards? Or are these complex and simple elements only a fraction of what makes up a more complex or simple game? What are even your basis for a game to be complex?

You came here to feed my ego? Because that's what you seem to be doing, do you know anything about the variety and its effects? because I would not be surprised if ignorant people like you did not know what that is, in case you do not know the variety is capable of creating complexity in different areas, it is not the same to do 2 things in 10 minutes than to do 12 things in 10 minutes, and is that simplicity are those elements that do not contain variety and are repeated again and again and are easy to understand and that makes them boring and complexity are those elements that contain a lot of variety and do not repeat much and are difficult to understand and that It makes them entertaining, ask someone from human resources if it is the same to interview 1 person that 10 people in one day, simplicity is very bad to entertain players and only bores them while complexity is much better to entertain the players, have you ever played chess? have you ever played Magic: TG ?, those games contain simple and complex elements, complex elements are good but simple elements are a bad sign, developers must avoid simplicity and make complexity if they really want to entertain players and themselves, WF contains simple and complex elements like many other games but those simple elements are a disadvantage while complexity will continue to feed the entertainment and challenge in the games, why do you need me to mention something so obvious?

[(PSN)Station2D-]

En 8/1/2020 a las 8:21, Colyeses dijo:

The maps usually make small changes that incidentally refresh the gameplay loop or slightly complicate it, or just plain make it more challenging. That's not meaningful complexity.

 

En 8/1/2020 a las 8:21, Colyeses dijo:

Obstacles? You mentioned that before. That's the 'variety of maps and divisions'.

And when are you going to mention the variety of maps that exist and the variety of obstacles that exist in those maps? because that is complexity

En 8/1/2020 a las 8:21, Colyeses dijo:

Characters without skills? You mean SKINS? You think that a purely visual effect adds complexity?

The fact that there are different characters can make the game complex but the fact that they do not have different abilities or characteristics makes it simple and complex at the same time, in addition the skins are also variety

En 8/1/2020 a las 8:21, Colyeses dijo:

Ingredients... That's a base game prop! How does that make a game complex? Sure, there's multiple ingredients, but they all function largely the same.

Mixtures and Preparations: These are hardly complex. They're simple enough to make, the difficulty is in keeping track of everything that's going on.

There are multiple ingredients and mixtures, and you mentioned it...

En 8/1/2020 a las 8:21, Colyeses dijo:

Actions: Get object, move to station, press button. Complexity!

There are several actions you can do and that makes it complex, but all actions are automatic and that makes it simple thing that I mentioned earlier

En 8/1/2020 a las 8:21, Colyeses dijo:

Which is why the players that continue to play Smash the longest after release have a habit of making the game simpler by turning a lot of extended features off.

Perhaps if you were not ignorant, you would understand that players deactivate objects to have a more just or balanced battle without having to depend on objects of a random nature, why do you think objects are deactivated in official tournaments?

[(PSN)Station2D-]

En 8/1/2020 a las 9:28, Scruffel dijo:

So in that case, you must think that 1 (or 2 if you're lenient) out of the 5 games are all boring and bad because of how simple they are right? Or is there some sort other complex element that keeps them all interesting? Because as far as I am concerned, besides Melee (and again, Brawl if you're lenient), Smash is a pretty simple game. The goal of each match is to knock the opponent off screen until all their stocks are gone or you have the most points by hitting them off stage and into the blast zones. Seems simple to me.

And when you mention the variety of characters with different movements and statistics, among other things ?, you look stupid, Super Smash contains simple and complex elements, simple elements make the game boring and complex elements make the game entertaining, it's that easy