212 réponses à ce sujet

[whateverman7]

Cyonan wrote...

I know that you are saying that they can't encourage them to get better. I am saying that you are wrong.

Encouraging somebody to do something simply means trying to convince them to do it. It doesn't mean that you make them do it, otherwise that can no longer be called encouraging them. We call that forcing them to do it.

I'm not saying anybody is smarter than anybody else. I'm saying the thing that you say isn't possible is currently being done in Mass Effect, and that because of this you are in fact wrong in your statement that a developer can't encourage players to get better.

Go back and read the post you just replied you. Think about it carefully, especially the part where I said "The action that the player takes after this point has absolutely no relevance to if the developer has encouraged players or not. This is the point that you don't seem to be getting.".

As I said before, I am saying that you can lead the horse to water but you can't make it drink.

You are saying that because the horse might not want to drink, you can't even lead it to water.

If you don't get it at this point then I think I've about done all I can here, especially since your argument is now little more than just insulting me.

Ironically enough, this entire argument is basically me encouraging you to understand my point of the word encouragement, but you don't seem to want to. I have still encouraged it, though =P

you're not sticking to the topic...the topic/point you dont seem to get is that this whole convo/topic is about encouraging players to get better at games.....but since you seem to know something we dont, please tell me how anything in the game encourages players to get better...i'll wait....and to be clear: by get better, i dont mean try something different...since it's already being offered as you say, this should be easy

also, please stop saying i said things i didnt...not once have i said they shouldnt try to encourage players to get better....i said there is nothing they can do to actually do that without punishing the majority of players, cause getting better is all individual....

i'm not trying to insult, but you're being a smart ****** to me...you're not staying on topic, you're making up things people say, you started throwing insults, etc....you're trying so hard to look smart, that you're coming off as a ******, hence smart ******...your last statement is another example of you being a smart ******

[Cyonan]

sandboxgod wrote...
I'm not sure why a player has to play other characters to improve? Maybe my way of thinking is dead wrong. But I firmly believe a player can become the best player this game has to offer by sticking to just one class. The best players are merely the ones that have learned to exploit AI behavior. 

Back when I used to farm FBWGG I wasnt really learning anything. I hid behind a counter, never learning about spawn nuking, etc. Never learned how to kite the enemies to clutch a wave. Only learned how to grab mobs while I hid behind a counter. didn't matter what 'class' I would have used. I used them all for some variety. I'd never have learned bout AI logic til I played other maps & made more friends that could teach me better


I do think it's great to play other characters to learn their strengths & weaknesses. However, since 1 individual player can lone wolf and win a scenario I do not think it is necessary for players to expand their horizons to improve. If only we really needed each other to complete Platnium then maybe that would be different. 

You don't need to play other characters to improve, but playing one character in the same way over and over does get repetitive which a good number of people find boring. The Challenge system promotes variety in both characters and weapons, but doesn't directly encourage you to get better, except in a few cases such as Lone Wolf for certain players.

In a lot of cases however, playing another character is the encouragement. The Drell Adept is not the easiest character to play, but he deals massive damage as a reward once you can play him well. The Krogan Vanguard is easy to play, but his entire offensive capability is tied to the Reegar Carbine. The Drell Adept was an easy example, so that's what I went for to make a point.

Tactical Cloak is a good example of an ability that you can use but that rewards you for knowing the ins and outs of, and doesn't mean you need to play another character in order to do so.

Players can use TC without thinking much about it and it will boost their damage and give them some level of invisibility, but once you learn how to manage that invisibility by learning AI attack patterns, you can become truly invisible with Tactical Cloak. I'm encouraged to get better with my cloak by being rewarded for doing so in this case.

After that night I made the two threads about TC and Aggro mechanics, I noticed that my cloak seemed a lot more effective, because I knew not to cloak when the enemy was mid-burst, and I knew exactly when the enemy was going to cheat to try and see me, and how to exploit the AI so that it couldn't find me.

[sandboxgod]

Cyonan wrote...

sandboxgod wrote...
I'm not sure why a player has to play other characters to improve? Maybe my way of thinking is dead wrong. But I firmly believe a player can become the best player this game has to offer by sticking to just one class. The best players are merely the ones that have learned to exploit AI behavior. 

Back when I used to farm FBWGG I wasnt really learning anything. I hid behind a counter, never learning about spawn nuking, etc. Never learned how to kite the enemies to clutch a wave. Only learned how to grab mobs while I hid behind a counter. didn't matter what 'class' I would have used. I used them all for some variety. I'd never have learned bout AI logic til I played other maps & made more friends that could teach me better


I do think it's great to play other characters to learn their strengths & weaknesses. However, since 1 individual player can lone wolf and win a scenario I do not think it is necessary for players to expand their horizons to improve. If only we really needed each other to complete Platnium then maybe that would be different. 

You don't need to play other characters to improve, but playing one character in the same way over and over does get repetitive which a good number of people find boring. The Challenge system promotes variety in both characters and weapons, but doesn't directly encourage you to get better, except in a few cases such as Lone Wolf for certain players.

In a lot of cases however, playing another character is the encouragement. The Drell Adept is not the easiest character to play, but he deals massive damage as a reward once you can play him well. The Krogan Vanguard is easy to play, but his entire offensive capability is tied to the Reegar Carbine. The Drell Adept was an easy example, so that's what I went for to make a point.

Tactical Cloak is a good example of an ability that you can use but that rewards you for knowing the ins and outs of, and doesn't mean you need to play another character in order to do so.

Players can use TC without thinking much about it and it will boost their damage and give them some level of invisibility, but once you learn how to manage that invisibility by learning AI attack patterns, you can become truly invisible with Tactical Cloak. I'm encouraged to get better with my cloak by being rewarded for doing so in this case.

After that night I made the two threads about TC and Aggro mechanics, I noticed that my cloak seemed a lot more effective, because I knew not to cloak when the enemy was mid-burst, and I knew exactly when the enemy was going to cheat to try and see me, and how to exploit the AI so that it couldn't find me.

Thank you. I always enjoy reading your posts they are always well thought out. Yeah I learned a lot bout TC mechanics myself from your thread. I still think it deserves a sticky 

[Zjarcal]

sandboxgod wrote...

One last thought to leave with you guys. I used to play a PC racing sim called "iRacing" quite often. In that game, most players will encourage noobs to stick to one car for an extremely long time. This is so you learn the basics and when you are ready for a 'bigger' car you can handle it. This is what I did until I gradually improved and started winning races. After that, I was ready to move on.

This forum is basically the opposite. Many BSN members expect newbies to master all the classes as if that will magically make them awesome. But in reality, sticking to just 1 thing is how you master something. If you spread your focus, then you may never learn to get good at anything.

The only reason you might want to try out a different car or in this case, a class- is to find out if you can get better results. In the end, its probably about what can give people the best results for their time.

A player who can do well with all kits is better than one that can only do well with one kit, so yes, mastering all the classes is an actual improvement.

That you don't need to master all classes to be succesful doesn't mean being good with everything isn't a way to be a better overall player.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 22 janvier 2013 - 10:45 .

[thegamefreek78648]

I too have a post about TC >_>

[K_O_513]

upinya slayin wrote...

Rad_Rage wrote...

There is no such thing as a crutch character. You can get owned using any character. People talk so much crap about PUGs on here and then act like they've never played with a bad TGI or Kroguard.

Even funnier is that this is a co-op game. I don't care what characters my teammates use as long as they help with objectives and don't die constantly.

i odn't think its a problem of playing with a TGI, its about only using that ine class and never being able to use anything else or even enjoy the variety. for inace when i was doing teh gold and platinum sprred runs, when we had options it was always teh GI or TGI i used. the reason was they just kill thinks fast as hell. of course there were other characters in some runs we had to use. like i used a sniping infildrell for teh sniper challenge, but i think u see the point

I get what you're saying, but if that's your point then that can be applied to just about anything. If someone plays the Human Adept all the time and hardly anything else then that's a crutch character too right? But it's not. It's just preference. Sure there can be a lot of different ice cream flavors at a shop, but maybe I only like vanilla.

The only thing that's annoying (yet hilarious) is when people act like playing a certain class makes you better (or worse) than someone else playing another. It isn't like this game requires an uber amount of skill to be good at it. The one facet of this game is most skilled based is aim, and you don't need god-like aim to be good at this game. Most of the "skill" involved is just knowledge from experience and situational awareness.

[sandboxgod]

Zjarcal wrote...

sandboxgod wrote...

One last thought to leave with you guys. I used to play a PC racing sim called "iRacing" quite often. In that game, most players will encourage noobs to stick to one car for an extremely long time. This is so you learn the basics and when you are ready for a 'bigger' car you can handle it. This is what I did until I gradually improved and started winning races. After that, I was ready to move on.

This forum is basically the opposite. Many BSN members expect newbies to master all the classes as if that will magically make them awesome. But in reality, sticking to just 1 thing is how you master something. If you spread your focus, then you may never learn to get good at anything.

The only reason you might want to try out a different car or in this case, a class- is to find out if you can get better results. In the end, its probably about what can give people the best results for their time.

A player who can do well with all kits is better than one that can only do well with one kit, so yes, mastering all the classes is an actual improvement.

That you don't need to master all classes to be succesful doesn't mean being good with everything isn't a way to be a better overall player.

How though exactly? In every other game, the specialist that masters only one thing is usually the superior player. I know in racing this is all that matters. Newbies are encouraged to stick to just 1 car for months. 

Now I agree it is healthy for players to play different classes. But I disagree 100% they are relying on a 'crutch'

[Original Twigman]

sandboxgod wrote...

• I'm not sure why a player has to play other characters to improve? Maybe my way of thinking is dead wrong. But I firmly believe a player can become the best player this game has to offer by sticking to just one class. The best players are merely the ones that have learned to exploit AI behavior. 
• Back when I used to farm FBWGG I wasnt really learning anything. I hid behind a counter, never learning about spawn nuking, etc. Never learned how to kite the enemies to clutch a wave. Only learned how to grab mobs while I hid behind a counter. didn't matter what 'class' I would have used. I used them all for some variety. I'd never have learned bout AI logic til I played other maps & made more friends that could teach me better
• I do think it's great to play other characters to learn their strengths & weaknesses. However, since 1 individual player can lone wolf and win a scenario I do not think it is necessary for players to expand their horizons to improve. If only we really needed each other to complete Platnium then maybe that would be different. 

Hmmm... I think i'll write my response to you in reverse order (3,2,1)

3. Doing a "lone wolf" challenge isn't really indicative of skill, as it can cap out if the player simply goes for completion. There is a difference of solo-ing and solo speedrunning. Understanding how to exploit the AI only goes so far if you are not able to use that understanding to eliminate the AI quickly. I am sure most "solo-ers" could do the same with most characters at lvl 1, simply through patience.

I don't think the lone wolf argument is grounded enough to eliminate argument you are trying to counter

2. You make a good point. Using a "guaranteed" stategy can limit your perspective on a game, especially when you aren't learning anything new... which is confusing, because it seems that you acknowledge the importance of diversity, albeit in a different manner, as key to improvement.

1. Its not enough to be able to exploit AI behavior. You must be able to utilize your strenghts as much as possible in order to be able to use that exploitation in as effective manner as possible. The only way you will learn to utilize your strengths as a player (while minimize your weaknesses), is to experiment with different classes, loudouts, and style. If I had simply stuck to biotics with a pistol, I would have never learned that I could do well with CQC, which is now my specialty and I am still improving my skill with different classes (N7 Shadow, Fury, valkyrie, etc.)

[sandboxgod]

Interesting post Original Stikman I will have to think on that further

edit- Btw I wasn't basing my arguments on the Lone Wolf challenge though. I do think soloing helps develops skills to clutch a wave though. In regards to point #3 <-- 

Modifié par sandboxgod, 22 janvier 2013 - 11:08 .

[Zjarcal]

sandboxgod wrote...

How though exactly? In every other game, the specialist that masters only one thing is usually the superior player. I know in racing this is all that matters. Newbies are encouraged to stick to just 1 car for months. 

Now I agree it is healthy for players to play different classes. But I disagree 100% they are relying on a 'crutch'

First of all, I never mentioned crutches, for all I know someone mastered the Drell Adept and stuck to that. Certainly not a crutch player.

I'm not talking about being better in the sense of being the best at "beating the game", I'm talking about being a good all around player. If you decimate everything with the one kit you have mastered, you certainly are a good player, no doubt, but if then you're told "ok, now play something else" and you fail miserably, while another player manages to do just as well as with their specialist kit, who is gonna end up looking like the better player?

Being good at lots of thing is better than only being good at one. Even if you don't need to master all the tools to win, actually mastering them all takes more effort and more skill than just mastering one, so that's why I say a player who is good with everything is better than a player who is only good with one thing.

Now, if the player who was only good with one thing was able to perform at an unparalleled level with that one thing (i.e., a person who only plays GI and managed to solo platinum in 15 minutes with it, even if they can't even solo gold with the rest), with no other player being able to even come close to their performance with that particular kit, ok, that would be a special case. But all things being equal (performing roughly on par with everyone else even with their specialist kit), then I will always consider the one that's good at everything to be a better player.

[sandboxgod]

That makes sense Zjarcal. I guess my issue is with the point of view that TGI players are relying on a 'crutch'. I was attempting to point out that these players can still be awesome (I guess this is obvious though because the matches are going by faster).

The real crutch might be missiles honestly. All the time I see players burn a rocket on just 1 banshee, etc when its much more efficient to save that rocket for a spawn. I kind of wish there was a hardcore mode that didnt allow rockets but alas, I digress.

Good points all around

[Zjarcal]

sandboxgod wrote...

I kind of wish there was a hardcore mode that didnt allow rockets but alas, I digress.

Well you can always do that with friends. 

[Sabbatine]

sandboxgod wrote...

That makes sense Zjarcal. I guess my issue is with the point of view that TGI players are relying on a 'crutch'. I was attempting to point out that these players can still be awesome (I guess this is obvious though because the matches are going by faster).

What evidence can you present showing that these players are incapable of switching to a different kit should their current kit become unavailable or severely nerfed?

sandboxgod wrote...

The real crutch might be missiles honestly. All the time I see players burn a rocket on just 1 banshee, etc when its much more efficient to save that rocket for a spawn. I kind of wish there was a hardcore mode that didnt allow rockets but alas, I digress.

The mindset of most players when it comes to using missiles has nothing to do with efficiency, it was to do with risk.

Saving that missile for a spawn is pointless if you believe that the banshee will prevent you from seeing that spawn.  It actually becomes the more efficient thing to do if the actual risk is as great as the perceived risk because killing a spawn conventionally because you killed the banshee with your missile yields a far greater reward than not killing the banshee or the spawn because you decided to save your missile and got killed by the banshee.

When do players feel most at risk?  There are many different factors that contribute.

Can the enemy sync-kill?
How many team mates are alive?
What is the difficulty level of the game?
How familiar are you with your class?
Are you with friends or a pug?
Is your weapon good against armor? 
Do you have ammunition?
Do you have other consumables?
How close is the banshee?
Do you have a path of retreat?
What wave is this?
How far into the wave am I?
How many missiles do I have left?

If enough of these questions swing a certain way then players will take steps to reduce their perceived risk... for example a player is more likely to use a missile launcher to kill a single banshee if it is one of the last enemies on wave 9 on gold difficulty if all other players are dead because the risk that banshee poses is significant whereas that same banshee on theoretical wave 5 with many of the same conditions  wouldn't be seen the same way.