The thing is if Snapshot start balancing based on certain OP class-combo capabilities, then any one playing and not using those OP class-combo capabilities suddenly get punished with a much more negative experience as the difficulty has been tailored for the extreme fringes capable with specific class combinations… now that could be countered by bringing every higher level ability/skill to the same capability and turn the later parts of the game into some crazy power fantasy experience no matter what builds you’re using and the game just slowly adjusts so you’re still having singular human units performing divine-feats, they’re just doing so against equally god-like targets.
Personally I hope Snapshot don’t go down that route as it would absolutely butcher what hope I have for the game salvaging itself with further development work put into ironing out the creases… but given they already kind of already started down that route in the lead up to release, I am half expecting that’s where we’re going to end up and it is their game at the end of the day.
I just don’t agree with this POV. Game balance was clearly designed without skill combos exploits in mind; if you play without them, the game is far more tactically satisfying. This idea that “it’s there, so I’m compelled to use it” just makes no sense to me. It’s not evidence that the game is broken; it could work better, but it’s far from broken.
IMO, focusing so intently on the imperfect leads to unnecessary frustration and disappointment. It’s one thing to suggest improvements, it’s another thing entirely to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
It is pretty bad. It’s not as bad as it was at the beginning, but the game can still easily be trivialized. You have to exert quite some self restrain not to walk all over it. Limiting your own creativity while the point of the game is to overcome the challenge it poses exactly by using that creativity and the tools given to you.
I’m not saying it’s a bad idea, and people do that already - myself included. However, you cannot simply suggest that everything OP is a loophole that you shouldn’t use. Again, who is defining those loopholes, where do new players find a list of loopholes to avoid ? This is the point you don’t get. It is impossible to discern between a ‘loophole’ and clever use of game mechanics. Tinkering and theorycrafting is part of the gameplay.
The game clearly was designed without these OP loopholes in mind - and the devs have tacitly admitted this in various ways. Unfortunately, what that means is that when people discover them, use them, then publicise them on the Web, it presents a very badly unbalanced view of the game.
You’re quite right: when you play without Saving & Restarting, without resorting to ‘broken’ combos, and with a set of self-restrictions that doesn’t make Squad Skills ludicrously OP, this can be an excellent tactical game. That’s how I play. I don’t even use Rage-Bursting Snipers because I think they’re an abomination that were very clearly never intended to work the way they do (and for that refer to Keep Rage Burst as it is (Please)).
But that’s not the game that is being presented to people! The game that is being presented to people is a Power-trip of OP Superheroes that renders tactics meaningless by the time you’ve reached the mid-game.
So for this game to succeed in the long-term and find the audience it deserves, it needs to rebalance itself to become the very good tactical game it could be, rather than the comic-book mess it currently is.
Though as I have said before and I shall say again, the Genie is now so far out of the bottle in some players’ eyes that I think Snapshot will only ever be able to please everybody by providing a set of Second Wave Options that allows Player A to play like a Superhero and Player B to play like a Tactician.
The coin always has two sides. You belong on one side and I belong on the other. Unfortunately, the coin doesn’t belong to us, only the person who flips it can decide whether it’s right or wrong. I can’t hear loophole anymore, although I have played the game several times with different builds, no loophole could be detected but as I said, leave it to the developers.
So lets say that Starcraft could be designed with Siege Tanks shooting any possible units. It wasn’t planned to be so effective against airborne units, but it is. And players use it to their advantage despite it feels overpowered and quite boring and in long term unsatisfying. Do you think players wouldn’t use them because they feel overpowered? Some probably won’t, because they like challenge and don’t want to use exploits (like me and some other players on this forum), but many would, and it would be broken in terms of game and rules governing this game.
StarCraft as a bad example but I know what you wanna say, yes there are enough players who want a change and the Devs will certainly take a closer look at one or the other skill but please don’t say that all game play is broken because loopholes are possible!
Designing around potential super soldiers does have a pretty significant influence on the overall game. One could argue that you do have to break the game in order to provide sufficient challenge for those that use all the tools at their disposal. Certain type of Chiron come to mind. I am farly certain that the idea was “if the player can attain such powerful tools, so should the enemy” - and we all know not even they are powerful enough to make the literal dent while creating quite some controversy among beginners.
SnapShot is a start-up company with limited resources and what they offer is really an excellent game. We can talk about the details, but you have to be patient with the wishes. The Devs are listening to you and I am sure there will be changes, but you also have to give them time.
If it’s in the game, whether by design or oversight, one is following the rules of the game. If it’s not in the game and one uses console commands or mods, then one can say one is not following the rules of the game.
Rules can’t be broken unless one cheats. If it’s in the rule book and outside cheats aren’t used.then the rules aren’t broken. They may be bad rules, but using the rules doesn’t mean one is cheating. Change the rules, that’s okay. But until they are changed, one is playing within the rules, and nothing is broken. Or, are you saying that the rules are written to be broken. Then they are no longer rules. How can one have rules that dictate how the game is to be played, but if one uses the rules to their advantage, one breaks the rules? Rules are rules, if one uses them to their advantage, who’s at fault? I know, you say the rules. But until they are changed, no one is breaking the rules.
Is that the game that is being presented, though? Is a game defined by how the rules can be exploited? That certainly seems to be the thinking of many, but it’s not a feeling that I share. Min-maxers are always going to find ways to exploit things, and tactical gamers are going to play in a way they find enjoyable. Much of this debate seems to revolve around shaping the game to fit a particular preference.
Snapshot clearly bit off more than it could chew, but they’ve laid a foundation for what I believe will eventually be an exceptional game. The development process is definitely non-standard, but I’m actually enjoying it. Having changes implemented on an ongoing basis based on thousands of gamers beating on it is actually kind of fun. Every update brings a fresh experience.
Let’s take rage burst as an example. It’s a heavy skill, so is meant to be used with the cannon/lmg, both of which deal a truckload of damage. Is it really so different applying it to a sniper, aside from the range at which the damage is dealt? I don’t see that it is — that’s not broken; it’s a design choice. It needs tweaking more than fixing, like upping the AP and WP cost.
For me, the broken stuff is things like the AR/RC combo that enables you to recursively clear the field with a single guy.