He set this tone from the beginning so that he can point at it and say "Look, see, I said before we aren't interested in hyping the game or marketing the game before we are ready". MJ set the tone for low expectations and doubles down on that front whenever he is confronted with the fact that he still has an NDA and no game to show for it after 7 years. If you had any hope this game would succeed you would absolutely want to be hyping it from the get go. He always says "we're not marketing the game or trying to build hype". It's become his go to for CU as to why there is no gameplay footage (beyond the little bit they showed a year or so ago). The RvR balance comes from the people that virtually created the genre some 15 years ago, and "no PvE balance required." is not even controversial - I heard it a number of times from various developers, besides it being quite simple to grasp as a concept.This is pretty much where most people who had an interest in the game move on. Well okay, I guess I do understand the argument, I just think it's ignorant.)
Adding a new class is much more disruptive to balance and yet people don't seem to find that a problem. If you're already committed to PvP balancing, PvE balancing isn't much more of a burden because you're only adding a handful of new scenarios. If you're balancing for PvP, properly, you're considering a lot of different scenarios, and those scenarios change depending on the balancing decisions you make. (I've never understood the argument that not having to balance for PvE makes things easier. They may have a cunning plan to counter this, I don't know, but I know that this kind of PvP is extremely difficult to get right: I know of at least five games that have tried this style of PvP, more if you count games with only two factions, and I think there's really only been one, maybe two, unqualified successes. I'm also not arguing that they don't have good reason to think it's a good idea, it's just that the peculiarities of this kind of PvP means that asymmetric multiplayer is much more fragile than it is in, say, Starcraft. I have no illusions about that approach - It will be not easy, but only eased by no PvE & 1vs1 balancing: "Balancing this will be the ongoing nightmare." - Mark Jacobs, the CEO. One of my points was that they have a very good reason for somewhat painful, non-mirrored chaos of classes, and that it's actually not as silly as it might look at first glance. Tears, ragequits and forum dramas are inevitable part of that landscape.
And of course, that feedback would be only a part in decision making.
Every nerf will be the developer vendetta every buff, something they should have done a long time ago.īut of course, the "as long as all three." wasn't ment to be taken at face value It was said half jokingly and half about listenining carefully to who is actually very loud and annoyed, since all three factions are going to have vocal complainers no matter what. I'm willing to wait and see, but if one of the factions gets it into their head that they're underpowered, there's going to be no dislodging that. I think we've proved by now that just because both extremes are complaining doesn't mean you've found the happy medium. Also, horizontal leveling and no PvE gear treadmill will help a lot with eventual rerolls.įinally, perfectly balancing the Realms is, OFC, impossible but there is couple things that can be done, including zergs. People that played Mark's previous Dark Age of Camelot remember shouts such as "Hib for life!" very well =) Hard to achieve that if anybody can go anywhere and be anything, which is kind of "modern" approach. Locking people to one Realm per server, same as non-mirrored classes (and many other details), is very much connected to the Realm Pride and building the community. It will be some kind of rock-paper-scissors on the level of appropriate trios of classes (one from each realm) and somethng else on the level of Realms. Very important "detail" is that they don't have to balance, additionally, for PvE and/or 1vs1 which would make it not hard but impossible. It is good "as long as all three keep on complaining" (Andrew Meggs, CU Technical Director). Normally three-way fights eventually end up with one faction permanently locked out. I think, if you're locked to a faction, that's going to be hard to achieve.Īlso I don't know how they're going to manage keeping the teams even. One of the key reasons why asymmetric balance works is that players can play as the faction/character that beat them, and discover that they're not overpowered after all, they just suck at the game. I am looking forward to the inevitable complaints that the other faction is overpowered.
0 kommentar(er)
