Gaming trends that irk you

[warty goblin]

I'm rather curious Warty, which mode did you play it in? Quasi-realtime (Continuous Turnbased), Squad Turn-based or Individual Turnbased? Playing in CTB exacerbates the issues, and ITB is... no. (Especially with the freaking obfuscated turn system.)

One or another of the turn based systems. Basically what I concluded was that it was a fine - not great - game crippled by its strange devotion to the obtuse interface conventions of the RPGs. IIRC it was substantially more tedious to control than Jagged Alliance 2, which is both older and has a substantially more in depth tactical system.

[Triaxx]

Yeah, fair enough. Personally I could never get to grips with the controls on Jagged Alliance. Not a bad game, just can't make sense of the controls.

[warty goblin]

Honestly I never really fell for JA either. But between the two, I found JA's systems more interesting, and I'm enough of a simulationist at heart to think that if the entire point of a game is high-fidelity fireteam level tactics, there's something to be said for having a ballistic simulation. It is of course possible to go overboard on this, and end up with something like 7.62: High Calibre, a game with a realtime simulation so detailed it cares about whether you store your magazines on a load bearing vest or on your belt.

Though I guess whether that's going overboard or not is something of a matter of personal preference.

[Draconi Redfir]

here's one i just experienced while playing Spirit Tracks:

Quest: Find [NPC].

In search of [NPC], visit [Town A]. look around, talk to everybody, nothing important happening here. leave [Town A] and go to [Location B].

In [Location B], still do not find [NPC], but find note from [NPC]; it reads: "I am in [Town A]!"

what? but i was just there! [NPC] wasn't there!

Go to [Town A], find [NPC] who must have materialized out of nowhere. [NPC] says "Take me to [Location B]! which isn't so simple because of course we get attacked on the way, taking up more time.


So rather then be consistent and have [NPC] just be in [Town A] from the get-go, I've instead need to hop back and fourth between the two locations for no reason. thanks spirit tracks. glad to know you care.

[Traab]

Pvp quests in a pve game. This is an older example long since changed in world of warcraft but it bugged the heck out of me. The basic gist was this. Me and my horde npc buddies were going to raid a night elf encampment and kill the boss at the back. It was a surprisingly challenging but doable quest as you had a team of npcs picking fights and you just had to make sure the enemy died before they did. The downside was, they were tagged as pvp targets meaning alliance players could kill them if they felt like it as they werent that strong, which leaves me along facing a half dozen mobs at a time when in WoW, that was instantly lethal. These guys werent quest givers, vendors, or trainers, just random elves in a random outpost in the back end of the zone, so its not like I was invading a town or something, but I remember having to give up the quest because the griefing piles of garbage REFUSED TO LEAVE. They stayed there, waited till I got to the final big battle, then aoe nuked my guys and me. Forcing me to fail and have to start over. And over. And over.

I hate all quests that work like that because its nothing more than a chance for some jerks to get their jollies being an impediment to other players and there isnt anything you can do other than try to gather a group of high level players to chase them off. Its one thing if you are playing say, dark age of camelot. thats a very much so pvp centered game where fighting the other side is expected. But im playing a pve game, on a pve server, I shouldnt have to deal with griefing trash.

[Anteros]

Pvp quests in a pve game. This is an older example long since changed in world of warcraft but it bugged the heck out of me. The basic gist was this. Me and my horde npc buddies were going to raid a night elf encampment and kill the boss at the back. It was a surprisingly challenging but doable quest as you had a team of npcs picking fights and you just had to make sure the enemy died before they did. The downside was, they were tagged as pvp targets meaning alliance players could kill them if they felt like it as they werent that strong, which leaves me along facing a half dozen mobs at a time when in WoW, that was instantly lethal. These guys werent quest givers, vendors, or trainers, just random elves in a random outpost in the back end of the zone, so its not like I was invading a town or something, but I remember having to give up the quest because the griefing piles of garbage REFUSED TO LEAVE. They stayed there, waited till I got to the final big battle, then aoe nuked my guys and me. Forcing me to fail and have to start over. And over. And over.

I hate all quests that work like that because its nothing more than a chance for some jerks to get their jollies being an impediment to other players and there isnt anything you can do other than try to gather a group of high level players to chase them off. Its one thing if you are playing say, dark age of camelot. thats a very much so pvp centered game where fighting the other side is expected. But im playing a pve game, on a pve server, I shouldnt have to deal with griefing trash.

But you don't have to deal with them. You're choosing to do that one specific quest that leads to pvp.

In general, I almost never initiate pvp. I do play on pvp servers because I enjoy the "realism" and the added challenge of opposing players, but I don't attack other players and only act in self defense.

Even so, I don't think the players in your example are griefing you. You're attacking their faction and they're responding appropriately. They shouldn't have to ignore you murdering their allies just because you're doing a quest. Since you don't enjoy pvp, why not just do one of the hundreds of other options for quests you had that didn't involve it?

I'll agree that it's bad quest design for someone like you who hates pvp, but for someone like me who loves open world pvp, these kinds of quests are my favorite.

[Velaryon]

Have I complained in this thread yet about esports leading to companies basing their balance patches on pro gamers rather than regular players? I don't remember. So I'm just gonna throw that in.

Honestly, just esports in general irk me.

[Dienekes]

Have I complained in this thread yet about esports leading to companies basing their balance patches on pro gamers rather than regular players? I don't remember. So I'm just gonna throw that in.

Honestly, just esports in general irk me.

This one I'm more ambivalent about. For competitive games the pinnacle of game design is balanced for *near* perfect play while still fun for the shlubs. But most games never really reach that pinnacle, and when push comes to shove, if there are broken exploits or high imbalances when played optimally then the game is broken. As getting better at the game will naturally revolve play around those imbalances and exploits.

Assuming the balance team is competent, anyway. Which some games I've played really make me wonder.

[The_Jackal]

I hate all quests that work like that because its nothing more than a chance for some jerks to get their jollies being an impediment to other players and there isnt anything you can do other than try to gather a group of high level players to chase them off. Its one thing if you are playing say, dark age of camelot. thats a very much so pvp centered game where fighting the other side is expected. But im playing a pve game, on a pve server, I shouldnt have to deal with griefing trash.

I agree, but I'll do you even one better: PVP in PVE games. I want to make it clear, I like and play PVP games. But fundamentally, the progression mechanics put into PVE games which make them what they are (random itemization, slot machine loot drops, gaining power power in exchange for more play-time) are fundamentally incompatible with a fair, well-designed PVP environment. Invariably this mismatch results in one conclusion: Sweats with overpowered gear farming people trying to complete their grind to catch up.

[The_Jackal]

Have I complained in this thread yet about esports leading to companies basing their balance patches on pro gamers rather than regular players? I don't remember. So I'm just gonna throw that in.

Honestly, just esports in general irk me.

I'm okay with e-Sports, I like watching them, but I want to see e-Sports games where the player skill and Hero difficulty are rewarded, which is, I believe, in complete alignment with your gripe. If you made hard to play choices competitive for the median player, then the easy-to-play choices would be largely ineffective at the top-end of the skill curve. This would not only make for a better experience for players, it would also make for more interesting games, because watching a pillowfight between two Brigitte's in Overwatch League is interesting for nobody. Watching someone playing Hanzo, Widowmaker, McCree or Hanzo go on a tear is really enjoyable. This is empirically demonstrable by looking at successful streamers playing these characters, and retaining better audiences than the League events.

[Rodin]

I agree, but I'll do you even one better: PVP in PVE games. I want to make it clear, I like and play PVP games. But fundamentally, the progression mechanics put into PVE games which make them what they are (random itemization, slot machine loot drops, gaining power power in exchange for more play-time) are fundamentally incompatible with a fair, well-designed PVP environment. Invariably this mismatch results in one conclusion: Sweats with overpowered gear farming people trying to complete their grind to catch up.

The one that really got me with WoW was after they introduced PvP gear.

At first, your ability to fight back was based on a combination of skill and PvE progression. As long as you weren't up against somebody who was clearing 40-man Raid bosses, you had a fair chance of winning a PvP fight.

Then they introduced Battlegrounds and the Honor system, and people who liked to PvP and not PvE got to even things up with those doing high-end raid stuff. Fair enough, the gear still ran on the same rules and you still had a reasonable chance most of the time.

Then came the big change - outright PvP gear that ran on different mechanics than PvE gear. If you're wearing PvP armor, you just straight win against someone wearing PvE gear because one is dedicated to squashing monsters and the other is dedicated to murdering players. Wrong gear, you lose.

On a PvP server, this effectively meant that you never won a fight. Ever. If someone was out ganking people, they had their PvP gear on. But you couldn't do the same, because you were NOT primarily PvPing. If you wanted to fight back, you had to go back to the bank, grab your PvP gear, and then fly back out, by which time the guy has probably moved on.

It's no coincidence that it's around about this time I canceled my account and never came back.

[Anteros]

The one that really got me with WoW was after they introduced PvP gear.

At first, your ability to fight back was based on a combination of skill and PvE progression. As long as you weren't up against somebody who was clearing 40-man Raid bosses, you had a fair chance of winning a PvP fight.

Then they introduced Battlegrounds and the Honor system, and people who liked to PvP and not PvE got to even things up with those doing high-end raid stuff. Fair enough, the gear still ran on the same rules and you still had a reasonable chance most of the time.

Then came the big change - outright PvP gear that ran on different mechanics than PvE gear. If you're wearing PvP armor, you just straight win against someone wearing PvE gear because one is dedicated to squashing monsters and the other is dedicated to murdering players. Wrong gear, you lose.

On a PvP server, this effectively meant that you never won a fight. Ever. If someone was out ganking people, they had their PvP gear on. But you couldn't do the same, because you were NOT primarily PvPing. If you wanted to fight back, you had to go back to the bank, grab your PvP gear, and then fly back out, by which time the guy has probably moved on.

It's no coincidence that it's around about this time I canceled my account and never came back.

Just play on a PVE server if that's what you want to play though? It's not like that's not an option. More than half the servers are designed for people who want to play like you, and you're complaining because you intentionally picked one of the few that wasn't? That makes no sense.

Alternatively, I just kept my pvp gear in my bag and could swap it out with one click of an addon. Or just use the PVP gear all the time because it was more than good enough for anything except end-game raid content. In fact, it was usually far superior to what you'd get for questing, even for PVE. It really wasn't a huge deal except for the annoyance of losing bag space.

[Rodin]

Just play on a PVE server if that's what you want to play though? It's not like that's not an option. More than half the servers are designed for people who want to play like you, and you're complaining because you intentionally picked one of the few that wasn't? That makes no sense.

Alternatively, I just kept my pvp gear in my bag and could swap it out with one click of an addon. Or just use the PVP gear all the time because it was more than good enough for anything except end-game raid content. In fact, it was usually far superior to what you'd get for questing, even for PVE. It really wasn't a huge deal except for the annoyance of losing bag space.

Yes, restart from level 1 on a different server from the one all my friends are on because they changed the rules after many years of play. Throw away many hundreds of hours of play to start over. THAT is the sensible option.

Anyway, that was more the straw that broke the camel's back. I already hadn't liked the direction the game was taking in a number of different ways, and I found the Lich King expansion to be pretty dull. I was also just going off the idea of MMOs in general. I hit max level and finished off the solo content I was interested in, then logged out and haven't played an MMO of any kind since.

[Sloanzilla]

It seems like people are more antisocial in MMO's than they used to be, not counting guilds.

I remember making good friends in my DAOC and LOTRO days. There were people I happened to run into while doing a similar questline or whatever. We'd work together and then do a friend invite at the end. Then we'd group up later on. It was still true, to a lesser degree, in early WoW.

Now it seems like I just run solo and nobody is really interested in interacting outside of guilds. Then, when I join a guild it is mostly oldbies complaining about various changes to the game. (I know, I just need to find a better guild). I dunno, the MMORPG world just seems more lonely than it used to be. Even when I group up with people, they will just mostly do their own thing and vanish at the end.

[Velaryon]

I'm okay with e-Sports, I like watching them, but I want to see e-Sports games where the player skill and Hero difficulty are rewarded, which is, I believe, in complete alignment with your gripe. If you made hard to play choices competitive for the median player, then the easy-to-play choices would be largely ineffective at the top-end of the skill curve. This would not only make for a better experience for players, it would also make for more interesting games, because watching a pillowfight between two Brigitte's in Overwatch League is interesting for nobody. Watching someone playing Hanzo, Widowmaker, McCree or Hanzo go on a tear is really enjoyable. This is empirically demonstrable by looking at successful streamers playing these characters, and retaining better audiences than the League events.

I have zero interest in watching other people play video games, except for instructional purposes. I have never once in my life watched a Twitch stream (and it annoys me to no end when there are in-game rewards that can only be obtained by linking with a Twitch account, because I don't have a Twitch account and am never going to have a Twitch account), nor do I even like to watch YouTube videos of gameplay except when it's something like "where do I find [thing in game that I'm currently playing]" or "how to be better at [specific thing in game I play]"

That's fine, though. I'd be perfectly happy to live-and-let-live, except that balance changes are driven primarily by pro-level play instead of the middle of the bell curve, which IMO is where they should be balancing around. In a game like Overwatch, if a character is OP at high levels of play but not for low and mid levels, then they should get nerfed if and only if it can be done without making things worse at the lower levels. Conversely, a character that is OP in platinum and below should be nerfed even if they're considered a trash tier pick for elite players.

What you're suggesting sounds to me like a one-size-fits-all formula based on the alleged skill requirements of a character. Given that you and I can't even agree on how to even define skill in video games, I don't see how to make this work.

[Rynjin]

Balancing isn't as simple as picking a spot and sticking with it, unfortunately. Balancing for the middle is better than other options, but has some issues with making the game less accessible to new players and less rewarding for players at the very top.

The best way to do this is by making sure characters are properly skill indexed; their STATS (health, damage per shot, etc.) are balanced for the middle while leaving room for better players to grow at a base level, by increasing DPS via better than expected aim, and in esoteric strategies, by using their abilities more creatively.

A lot of modern games make the mistake of choosing to be "esports focused" instead of just making a good game and letting a competitive community naturally form around it.

[Keltest]

I don't mind E-sports myself. Heck, I enjoy StarCraft and, to a point Overwatch. But I have a problem when they design games to be fun to watch rather than fun to play. If the players aren't having a fun time, it affects the fans, especially when the groups overlap to the degree they do in E-sports. Every time I see somebody justify a "balance" change with "we think it would be more exciting", I cringe. I don't want exciting, I want fun. If the simple interaction is more fun, let it stay.

[Traab]

Yes, restart from level 1 on a different server from the one all my friends are on because they changed the rules after many years of play. Throw away many hundreds of hours of play to start over. THAT is the sensible option.

Anyway, that was more the straw that broke the camel's back. I already hadn't liked the direction the game was taking in a number of different ways, and I found the Lich King expansion to be pretty dull. I was also just going off the idea of MMOs in general. I hit max level and finished off the solo content I was interested in, then logged out and haven't played an MMO of any kind since.

At least nowadays that isnt as big of a deal as it used to be. Losing friends aside, with a combination of heirloom gear and the absurdity of how fast leveling happens, you can start from scratch and get to raid tier in very short order. But yeah, that sucks, I hadnt even thought about pvp servers balance. Mainly because I burned out on pvp in daoc so stuck primarily with pure pve afterwards. Took part in a few town raids before battlegrounds became a thing, and the best part is knowing you only have to wait a few minutes for your pvp flag to drop and leave when you are tired of getting ganked.

[Dienekes]

I have zero interest in watching other people play video games, except for instructional purposes. I have never once in my life watched a Twitch stream (and it annoys me to no end when there are in-game rewards that can only be obtained by linking with a Twitch account, because I don't have a Twitch account and am never going to have a Twitch account), nor do I even like to watch YouTube videos of gameplay except when it's something like "where do I find [thing in game that I'm currently playing]" or "how to be better at [specific thing in game I play]"

That's fine, though. I'd be perfectly happy to live-and-let-live, except that balance changes are driven primarily by pro-level play instead of the middle of the bell curve, which IMO is where they should be balancing around. In a game like Overwatch, if a character is OP at high levels of play but not for low and mid levels, then they should get nerfed if and only if it can be done without making things worse at the lower levels. Conversely, a character that is OP in platinum and below should be nerfed even if they're considered a trash tier pick for elite players.

What you're suggesting sounds to me like a one-size-fits-all formula based on the alleged skill requirements of a character. Given that you and I can't even agree on how to even define skill in video games, I don't see how to make this work.

Now I don't play Overwatch, so my focus ecperience with balance is pretty much limited to fighting games. But this is a terrible way to balance the game.

If something is overpowered in high level play, not just strong, but overpowered, then the more skill one acquires at the game then dramatically less options become viable. And increasing skill becomes dead ends unless they center around the overpowered something.

For the best/worst example of this I can think of. Look at For Honor. The game was designed around being a 3D over the shoulder sword swinging brawler. And at low and even medium level play it was fun. But the more skill you gained the more one realized that there were only ever two optimal options: Bashing and dodge-counter > attack. Because the game was balanced for the common player, the game became less fun and interesting the more skill the players gained. Which is the exact opposite of what you want as a reward cycle for your players. That's how you create dead games.

Now, the problem of balancing to put on a show vs playing. That's a real thing, and I also hate it. It's why mobility creep, damage creep, and jungle ganking meta became the focus of LoL and also why I stopped playing. But that's a bit different than base game balance at skill levels. Because if something is strong at low levels but weak at high levels and gets a boost to compensate it's high level weakness. Well there is already a method of dealing with that: learn to play the game better.

[Anteros]

Yes, restart from level 1 on a different server from the one all my friends are on because they changed the rules after many years of play. Throw away many hundreds of hours of play to start over. THAT is the sensible option.

Anyway, that was more the straw that broke the camel's back. I already hadn't liked the direction the game was taking in a number of different ways, and I found the Lich King expansion to be pretty dull. I was also just going off the idea of MMOs in general. I hit max level and finished off the solo content I was interested in, then logged out and haven't played an MMO of any kind since.

Well, you're losing your friends either way if you transfer servers or quit. Weren't pvp to pve server transfers a thing back then though? I thought they were.

It's been a while so maybe I'm wrong.

[Rodin]

Well, you're losing your friends either way if you transfer servers or quit. Weren't pvp to pve server transfers a thing back then though? I thought they were.

It's been a while so maybe I'm wrong.

Sure, but you're still assuming that I wanted to transfer to a PVE server.

WHICH I DIDN'T.

I did have a character on a PVE server for a while with my sister, who didn't want to PVP. I found the lack of tension in the PVP zones to be boring in comparison.

So they wrecked one of things I loved about the game (the tension of having an unexpected fair PVP fight while I'm out PVEing), and this combined with a general downturn in qualities of the game that appealed to me to make me quit.

Why is my decision to quit a game over 10 years ago so important for you to debunk? I stopped liking the game for a variety of reasons, one of which was what they did to PVP. Why do I need to justify that decision to you?

[Keltest]

Sure, but you're still assuming that I wanted to transfer to a PVE server.

WHICH I DIDN'T.

I did have a character on a PVE server for a while with my sister, who didn't want to PVP. I found the lack of tension in the PVP zones to be boring in comparison.

So they wrecked one of things I loved about the game (the tension of having an unexpected fair PVP fight while I'm out PVEing), and this combined with a general downturn in qualities of the game that appealed to me to make me quit.

Why is my decision to quit a game over 10 years ago so important for you to debunk? I stopped liking the game for a variety of reasons, one of which was what they did to PVP. Why do I need to justify that decision to you?

I'm confused now. You stopped liking the PvP, but you didn't want to switch because you liked the PvP? You don't have to justify anything here, but the way youre describing this is rather confusing.

[Anteros]

Sure, but you're still assuming that I wanted to transfer to a PVE server.

WHICH I DIDN'T.

I did have a character on a PVE server for a while with my sister, who didn't want to PVP. I found the lack of tension in the PVP zones to be boring in comparison.

So they wrecked one of things I loved about the game (the tension of having an unexpected fair PVP fight while I'm out PVEing), and this combined with a general downturn in qualities of the game that appealed to me to make me quit.

Why is my decision to quit a game over 10 years ago so important for you to debunk? I stopped liking the game for a variety of reasons, one of which was what they did to PVP. Why do I need to justify that decision to you?

You don't have to justify anything. I'm just trying to discuss it with you. I thought that was the whole point since it's a discussion board.

[Rodin]

I'm confused now. You stopped liking the PvP, but you didn't want to switch because you liked the PvP? You don't have to justify anything here, but the way youre describing this is rather confusing.

I liked the setup where you would be out questing, and could run into someone from an opposing faction trying for a similar quest (or competing for resources, or whatever). Because you were both in similar gear even if that person was deliberately seeking PvP, you would then have a fun but fair clash, and you then had to keep your eyes out for them coming back for revenge. Finding a nearby ally was often advisable.

Over time, this changed. Battlegrounds and Arena sucked away most of the people interested in open-world PvP, leaving the only people doing PvP as griefers who would be in high-end PvP only gear that your average PvE player couldn't compete with. Your options were to go grind PvP stuff so you had similar gear, or just accept that you were going to die repeatedly without recourse.

The only solution to that would be to go to a PVE server...which didn't really help because the PvP was entirely off, so there was no tension. You just ignored players of the opposing faction.

I'm sure I sound like an old man yelling at clouds here, but they removed what I felt was the coolest part of the game, and there was no option to get back to it.

[Resileaf]

Well to be fair, they removed PvP-only stats on gear. If you got raid gear, you're as strong as anyone can be in the world.

Not that world PvP is in a great state with warmode. World PvP is now large groups of one faction controling quest areas for hours on end.

[The_Jackal]

The one that really got me with WoW was after they introduced PvP gear.

Absolutely. The decision to basically create a completely bifucated gear progression so that PVE gear was more or less worthless in PVP, and vice-versa, was a terrible decision, and was especially pernicious on a PVP server, like the one I was one (which I specifically moved to because I was tired of being constantly griefed Horde side on my PVE server, ironically a PVP server had less PVP because the population limits were much lower).

It's no coincidence that it's around about this time I canceled my account and never came back.

I kept playing for quite a while, but pretty quickly came to the conclusion that PVP was an unfun waste of time, since there was no longer any reason to do battlegrounds, all the best rewards being locked into the horrid Arena format.

Just play on a PVE server if that's what you want to play though?

The problem is that the PVE server is a myth in WoW. I routinely receive more griefing on PvE servers than PvP servers, where you've actually got some recourse to kill someone who's making a nuisance of themselves. By the time I moved back to PvE from my PvE server, Blizzard had more or less killed the social environment of the game with aggressive use of sharding, queues, and battlegroups, and the PvP game has been long-since dead, and WoW has transitioned into being basically Farmville in between raid lockouts.

[Velaryon]

For the best/worst example of this I can think of. Look at For Honor. The game was designed around being a 3D over the shoulder sword swinging brawler. And at low and even medium level play it was fun. But the more skill you gained the more one realized that there were only ever two optimal options: Bashing and dodge-counter > attack. Because the game was balanced for the common player, the game became less fun and interesting the more skill the players gained. Which is the exact opposite of what you want as a reward cycle for your players. That's how you create dead games.

Balancing didn't even make the top three reasons for why For Honor was a bad game. First and foremost, it was a multiplayer PVP game that didn't even have dedicated servers for what, like a whole year after release? Second, the game incentivized ganging up, so if you were in any mode other than 1v1 duels the single best strategy is to run away from opponents until you can 3v1 or 4v1 opponents. The balancing factors were wholly inadequate. Finally, the faction war thing, while it sounded cool on paper, resulted in players getting an uneven and arbitrary number of rewards based on factors largely beyond their control, leading to further imbalance.

Balancing was a distant fourth place in reasons why For Honor was a mess.

[The_Jackal]

Balancing didn't even make the top three reasons for why For Honor was a bad game. First and foremost, it was a multiplayer PVP game that didn't even have dedicated servers for what, like a whole year after release? Second, the game incentivized ganging up, so if you were in any mode other than 1v1 duels the single best strategy is to run away from opponents until you can 3v1 or 4v1 opponents. The balancing factors were wholly inadequate. Finally, the faction war thing, while it sounded cool on paper, resulted in players getting an uneven and arbitrary number of rewards based on factors largely beyond their control, leading to further imbalance.

Balancing was a distant fourth place in reasons why For Honor was a mess.

I've never played For Honor, but I'd point out that fighting games' control schemes would really struggle to handle PVP multiplayer combat well. Consider the truly excellent fighting arcade games like Tekken, Soul Calibur, Street Fighter, etc., all hinge on automating character movement and facing relative to their opponent, and single-player fighting titles like Dynasty Warriors or Assassins' Creed and their many immitators all depend on tons of mindless hordes with pronounced telegraphs to indicate what's coming in time for the player to react. I can't actually see a control scheme which would offer the necessary telegraphs for a multiplayer AC, and I can't see a way to manage the facing and target selection nightmare of a multiplayer Tekken, which pretty much dooms any effort in that direction to be a Dark Souls-style button-masher.

[Dienekes]

Balancing didn't even make the top three reasons for why For Honor was a bad game. First and foremost, it was a multiplayer PVP game that didn't even have dedicated servers for what, like a whole year after release? Second, the game incentivized ganging up, so if you were in any mode other than 1v1 duels the single best strategy is to run away from opponents until you can 3v1 or 4v1 opponents. The balancing factors were wholly inadequate. Finally, the faction war thing, while it sounded cool on paper, resulted in players getting an uneven and arbitrary number of rewards based on factors largely beyond their control, leading to further imbalance.

Balancing was a distant fourth place in reasons why For Honor was a mess.

And I am talking about duel mode. Which basically died because of the 1v1 balance issues I outlined.

I don’t really play the 4v4 modes. Don’t like people. Why would I play with a bunch of random ones?

As to the faction war. All it gave was ornaments that don’t effect balance at all. And maybe cosmetic packs that barely effect balance. Which were no different than what you got in excess just by playing. Totally honest here I’ve never opened one. Cosmetics don’t effect 1v1.

If you prefer I can do the same with the balance of Starcraft. It followed the same pattern though that has a happier outcome than the complete failure that was FHs 1v1.

If you leave overpowered moves at high level of play then you are rewarding players for not getting better at the game. And that’s bad design.

[deuterio12]

Balancing didn't even make the top three reasons for why For Honor was a bad game. First and foremost, it was a multiplayer PVP game that didn't even have dedicated servers for what, like a whole year after release? Second, the game incentivized ganging up, so if you were in any mode other than 1v1 duels the single best strategy is to run away from opponents until you can 3v1 or 4v1 opponents. The balancing factors were wholly inadequate. Finally, the faction war thing, while it sounded cool on paper, resulted in players getting an uneven and arbitrary number of rewards based on factors largely beyond their control, leading to further imbalance.

Balancing was a distant fourth place in reasons why For Honor was a mess.

Nitpick, but the whole "better to gank than try to engage in an honorable duel" is a balance issue as well.

Like if there's multiple objectives that require the players to split up to complete, so if you seek to gank then you're sacrificing objective completion and by the time your 4x1 is finished the other 3 players from their team may've won by objective points.

Or there could be a significant buff for each enemy player beyond the first near you that is cancelled if there's player allies near you, so that if you try to gank somebody they go super sayan (recall Wow doing that in some PvP instances, if your team was outnumbered you got a buff to stats to even the odds).

Or even yet something like in dominions where if more than two players meet at the same place then they take turns fighting each other so ganking effectiveness is reduced (if you go second you'll be possibly fighting a worn down opponent, but not as brutal as facing 2+enemies simultaneously).