LogFAQs > #893820491

So yeah, let me expand on each point I made.

Notti posted...

No, no.

All games should get nerfs (and buffs) as often as needed.

And, all games should balance the classes and weapons and skills around PVP exclusively.

"But what about single player campaign balance??" you ask.

Campaign should be balanced around that PVP core.

Consider most replies in this topic. Maybe 75% readily admit that balance in PVP is super important.

Consider a developer constructing his game. Should he adjust skills based on PVP? Or single player?

PVP of course, as most seem to agree.

Let's say you have a stealth skill in the game that lets you hide in shadows. In PVP all people use the skill for is to time out the match, and end the match in a draw game. In single player that doesn't matter. So the devs adjust the skill to have a weakness.

But what about the skill in single player? Well, you could have the skills operate differently in both modes, but I think both players and developers correctly see single player as basically a tutorial for pvp for players. So it hurts players who transition from single to pvp, if all the skills have all these different properties in pvp.

Bring on the nerfs! (and no, buffs shouldn't be more common than nerfs. If a house has a wooden board that is 2 inches too long, you don't alter the whole house, you cut that board down. You do nerfs and buffs as appropriate. Avoiding nerfs is bad)

"But what about single player only games?"

IMO, all games are multiplayer to a degree.

High score boards. Speed running.

Two huge ways that games that seem to be just single player, can be turned into competitive games. Not even counting the more informal types of competition between friends.

Notice I said "to a degree".

High score boards are basically indirect competition, rather than direct.

A high score board is like a primitive, indirect, form of competition. (so are lap times in race games, a bit like speed running)

For instance, let's say a game of Pac-man had some method that let you run up the score in some exploitative way that was clearly unintended, and ruin the high score boards, maxing out the scores.

Of course the dev should get in there are fix it.

Once you can see that high score systems are indirect competition, it's not much more of a leap to adjusting single player for balance issues.

And that includes things that make speed runs look awful, or even just spectating the game. If it makes the game look lame af (when players play efficient), it just seems common sense to adjust it.

And even ignoring all that, single player should encourage people to succeed with a variety of play styles. Playing an imbalanced game with some OP combination of skills and weapons that trump most other combinations just makes you feel like you're holding yourself back way too much if you don't do it. You have to play in such an artificial way sometimes to avoid the skill at times.

Fix the OP.

I feel like this also pertains to what most people find fun, to have lots of options be useable. For the unrelenting competitive player who thinks "I found this bug, it's mine! Don't take it from me!" all I can say is "If you're so good, go and find more ways to be awesome at the game. I mean, if you think you're so deserving it shouldn't be hard to find for you."
---

http://youtu.be/q2gO4DKVpa8 http://DemocraticUnderground.com/?com=latest_threads
TrumpNews http://reddit.com/r/esist/new http://reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/new