Current Events > Nerfing OP skills in single player games. What are your opinions?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Seems unnecessary to me unless there's some form of online competition or something like that. They could just fix it in a sequel.
Nothing is going to stop the people who didn't download the update.
---

#FreeKnightEnchanter
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

TPS was too easy and incredibly boring.

I'm going to have to strongly disagree on that. The EOS fight in particular is how you SHOULD do a raid style boss: lots of mechanics in play. As for the base game, perhaps butt slams and cryo were too good at their CC abilities... but that's a minor tweak for the games going forward. I don't ever want to see the bullet sponginess of BL2's UVHM with Slag return, absolutely never.
---

Shadowtp was easily one of the worst bosses in both games, mainly due to his initial cyborg form in the final fight. He was badassasaurus rex, except you couldn't hide behind a door. His other forms were much better though.
---

I kinda feel like if it only effects single player, it should be up to the player to decide. Unless it's a glitch or something. And maybe if they don't want it implemented they can say no until a later time, but any trophy's they could get from choosing to use or abuse it would be frozen untill they agreed to it.
---

itachi15243 posted...

Unless it's a glitch or something.

What makes unbalance due to a glitch different than unbalance due to the devs just overlooking a specific combo / action
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

Shadowtp was easily one of the worst bosses in both games, mainly due to his initial cyborg form in the final fight. He was badassasaurus rex, except you couldn't hide behind a door. His other forms were much better though.

That form was pretty easy as you could stand behind the pillar arms in the arena. It only sucked for people who tried to hide at the spawning platform, as he'd rain endless volleys of missiles upon the players there.
---

A single point in anarchy really wasn't going to make her hit hard enough to make combat reasonable.

With Gaige, you either get decently high anarchy, or you use a bee, or you go home. In the endgame anyway.

And that's pretty annoying, because yeah she can deal damage with high anarchy, but she has to get there first. Mindlessly shooting the target dummy isn't always an option in all situations, and is never very appealing.

I eventually solo'd all raid bosses with her in UVHM and the giant stalker one was just the most total horse shit experience with her considering what it meant when you failed, because you can't just quickly go and get the anarchy back. And yet using a bee, Pete, Hyperious and I guess the...Dexidious or whatever its name was too, even she can deal with those.

The Bee isn't the ultimate item but what it is, is extremely powerful at doing extreme amounts of damage and is a lot more accessible than alternatives, and that's why people get driven towards getting it, especially since its high damage isn't even overpowering in UVHM, it's closer to "this feels like the damage I should normally be doing". Because it's like, I can use the Bee, or, I can...farm this boss I can't even kill for a 0.1% chance that one of the 3 components for a better build I need drops. I mean I guess the endgame of once you have all the things you want doesn't include Bee as much, but that is kind of the literal end of the game. You'll have long since maxed out, developed a build or two and played for probably over a hundred hours IN the endgame, grinding out the hardest crap there is, before that. In that stage of the endgame, it's pretty dominated by Harolds and Bees unless you're a class with some broken gimmick. Or you cheat.

This is a problem in a lot of games I've noticed with a large emphasis on grind, because people who don't need to really grind may comment on things or give "advice" from a perspective that ignores the process to get to what they're suggesting. Saying "oh you don't need to use the Bee" is speaking from either the perspective of a character who has something even more broken than it, or someone who has every single conceivable drop they'd ever need to work with. And it's like oh gee really, you don't need the Bee then? Yeah no shit. Now let's talk about the long, arduous process of getting to that point, in the endgame. You have to spend a lot of time in UVHM fighting a lot of BS to get to that point. And what are you gonna use for that long haul? Something that does no damage? Gear that you don't have because it's rare drops from some of the hardest enemies? Or an easily accessible shield that dramatically amplifies your damage in a difficulty where everything is a ridiculous damage sponge?

And so I reiterate: fuck that lot. You talk about not using the Bee like people are using it in favor of better options, when it's used out of necessity. Or do I need to now explain how shit BL2's drop rates are, how shit the fact things can drop <2 levels even when you're max level. How shit lootsplosions from raid bosses are. Because that is the bottom line. People get into UVHM, and it's a tedious uphill struggle, then they get max level, and they have to grind, grind, grind, to put together a build. The Bee is a pretty obvious choice and mainstay for that journey, in general. If someone's chosen character has something more OP, good for them. That's not gonna be everyone's experience. And you go through that tedious uphill struggle, or you cheat. A lot of people cheated. People argued with me on that board while admitting they cheated that there was nothing wrong with the drop rates or difficulty. When I finally decided to go online and do random coop, almost every single person was cheating or begging randoms to drop them cheated hacked gear.

And somehow that's not as bad as what I saw when I tried TPS online.
---

1 point in Anarchy gives her 262% gun damage. Also, remember that she gets stacks from kills. Instead of shooting at a target dummy try running to a spot with Varkids. Tundra Express can get you to 150 stacks with just a few minutes of walking around in the Varkid spawns.

Raid bosses are a separate issue because they're terrible by design. But make them beatable without requiring all the bullet sponginess and you get the response from that other user, claiming that the game is suddenly laughably easy because you don't need to spend 20 minutes shooting one enemy as they fill the arena with nova spam. I was glad to see that style of boss left behind and absent from TPS.\

Now if you want to discuss the normal weapons for UVHM, you don't need any Legendaries at all to beat UVHM if you go into at level 50 when it is meant to start. In fact, farming for Legendaries actually makes UVHM harder in BL2 because the exponential scaling on the enemies runs away from the player with each level you gain. So instead you stick to the 'good' manufacturers and proceed through the main game, those being: Maliwan, Torgue, Hyperion, Tediore, and Jakobs. Bandit and Dahl tend to be peashooters, while Vladof runs dry on most characters after 3 enemies killed.

On the topic of drop rates, IIRC you quit before all Legendary drops were permanently tripled late in the game's lifespan. So the developers got the message on that one as well. 3x drop rates forevermore.

As for TPS online, I can't comment on playing with randoms. They're universally terrible in all games. I will say though that Wilhelm, Timothy, Aurelia, and Nisha all had builds that stomped the game silly without needing a lot of loot. The Badass Digijacks basically roflstomped everything when specced correctly. Wilhelm would compete with Wolf to see who could kill faster, as Laser Guided was an amazing skill all around. Aurelia was a CC master that kept everything frozen while she popped heads with sniper rifles; anything that so much as sneezed on her was getting frozen. Nisha started off squishy, but give her a good Maliwan Beam and her snowballing damage wrecks.
---

Dude I played enough to get the loot necessary to solo everything in UVHM as Gaige as well as get everything I wanted. I don't need advice on how to play as her or build anarchy. You're mistaking criticism of how much something sucks as "help I don't know how to do thing" - I know how to do thing I probably know how to do thing better than you. That doesn't mean it doesn't suck dick. Do you even remember the zone Voracidious is in. Do you realise what it means to try that fight as Gaige, and die, and then want to try again, and need to build anarchy again? Do you understand the problem? If you don't recall, here's a brief summary: A lot of fucking wasted time between attempts.

Also I actually did come back for awhile after the drop rate buff. It still wasn't enough but I played some with that. It's when I finally eventually got a Norfleet. Emphasis on eventually. Though I don't recall if it was actually tripled when I played. I just remember reading they fiddled a lot with drop rates over some time and I don't remember what they settled on.

I'm also not talking about simply beating UVHM, but getting to max level, and then farming up whatever you want for whatever setup(s) you want to use. I know how the level scaling in UVHM works. I'm not stupid (a fact you seem to never remember every time you talk down to me), there's no need to explain basic things to me in games I spent hundreds and hundreds of hours playing.

Hell even the start of UVHM is pretty abysmal too. Certainly was for Gaige. Could barely kill Bullymongs and the first boss I forget the name of, on that ship, was just absurdly BS. Because Gaige is a one-trick pony and sucks otherwise. There was nothing to do reasonable damage to him without nearly insta-dying from bombardment. You can't pretend like anarchy is an actual true damage increase of the stated amount because of the accuracy decrease the actual effective DPS will be lower. +x% damage isn't +x% damage if you miss far more, can get crits far less, and it also won't mean your survivability is as good as it should be since your long range options are limited to homing projectiles and telling Deathtrap to go way ahead. Like, yeah Anarchy is strong but it's not THAT strong, especially compared to other characters' damage bonuses and how they can stack to absurd levels WITHOUT drawbacks. You can't just look at the Anarchy damage bonus on paper and expect that to be what you get in practice, at least not without very specialised gear choices that aren't exactly a luxury to always call upon, especially by UVHM. It's very fortunate at least Seeker is a reliable get, and Pete is a reliable source for crystals to buy it even Gaige can farm, wiiiiiiith... *drumroll* ...Bee!

I did everything with Nisha solo so I'm well aware of how she works as well. Pretty straight forward. Activate action skill to briefly become death incarnate. Works well. Very refreshing after Gaige to play as someone whose damage output isn't "some assembly required" every time you die/load.

And if you want to get fancy, make use of the Tombstone skill, that can make anything crit on enemies. Including DoTs. Suffocation damage. Fall damage...pretty funny, that, actually. She can make someone gasping for air/choking get crit'd from that. Don't want to walk around coffee tables in the dark when she's around. Might just lose a toe.
---

I thought this was about single plater games. Things should obviously be decently balanced anywhere that tries to be competitive like a multiplayer versus game.
---

Tmk posted...

That doesn't mean it doesn't suck dick. Do you even remember the zone Voracidious is in. Do you realise what it means to try that fight as Gaige, and die, and then want to try again, and need to build anarchy again? Do you understand the problem?

First, LOL!

Second, Voracidious is a troll enemy. The developers explicitly stated that they designed that fight as a huge troll to players. It's not meant to be solo'ed. It's the single crappiest thing in the game, and the devs openly admit it.

So, again, you're using the lowest damage character in the game, i.e. non-Anarchy Gaige, and complaining that you "[c]ould barely kill Bullymongs and the first boss I forget the name of, on that ship" which then undermines your own claim that "I played enough to get the loot necessary to solo everything in UVHM as Gaige as well as get everything I wanted. I don't need advice on how to play as her". You got plenty of advice on how to do things back when you played.

IIRC around the time the devs tripled the drop rates they also boosted the elemental tree for Gaige. So they understood that her damage output was lagging without at least some investment into Anarchy.
---

I never said I used a non-anarchy Gaige. I said that her damage without anarchy is worthless (the "buff" to her elemental tree was garbage that did nothing of note), and there's always a process in playing between having no anarchy and getting the amount you want where gameplay sucks. The whole point was people talking about end results without considering the process to get there, and you didn't even understand that.

Like...wait, do you think I solo'd UVHM raid bosses with Gaige WITHOUT anarchy? I am pretty sure that's not even possible with some of them.

I'm not even sure why you thought that since I was talking about how annoying it was to have to restack anarchy after dying. That isn't a problem a non-anarchy Gaige would have. And as I said it's especially bad with Voracidious (or the dragons for that matter) because of the shitty walk and lack of good availability to restack it on site.

Also I got 0 advice for how to play her or "do things" I really don't understand how you have these delusions about me to this day. EVERYTHING people said was stupid, wrong and/or worthless. The community is terrible and your repeated talking down to me, not understanding what I'm saying and just general annoyingness helps reinforce that; it's a wonder after all these years you've not improved at all on how to communicate, that or you're just a subtle troll. Who knows.

I'd go to the BL2 community if I wanted hacked weapons, instructions on how to exploit glitches like weapon merging to cheat or the latest hot takes from clown shoes who have no reading or game comprehension and are content to mindlessly follow a rail. I'd never go for useful advice there.
---

A single point in the base Anarchy skill is still used on builds that don't want to focus on Anarchy. It adds 262% damage, from a single skill point. That's 3.62x damage. For perspective, on the base difficulty she can kill early bosses in 2-4 shots. Just, literally 2 shots from a sniper rifle. But you wouldn't call that an Anarchy build.

As for what I think, one only has to go back and look at the old topics to see that you ignored advice and simply railed against 'bad design' simply because you didn't like the advice and thought that you should be able to solo Raid Bosses, which are designed for a team of players. Voracidious in particular was explicitly designed as a middle finger to players. That is NOT a valid benchmark for gauging the difficulty curve of the game.

But since you're falling back on your tired 'everything you see is a delusion' and 'you don't understand simple words' statements I think this conversation has run its course.
---

Considering we didn't even really disagree on anything but you argued with me anyway out of a basis of not understanding what I said and a desire to talk down to someone, the "conversation" never should have existed in the first place.

I also like how you say 'bad design' like oh, no, developers intentionally being antagonistic to players, making broken drop rate mechanics in a loot game, making health-gate mandatory for survival in endgame which in turn creates the counter-intuitive fact that higher max health is actually less tanky, the abundant necessity of HP drain weapons, all of the attacks that do impossibly high one-shot damage no matter what to throw all sense of HP and shield balance out the window, the unavoidable nova spam, hitscan speed insta-kill rocket projectiles, complete mishandling of the slag mechanic, nonsensically overinflated HP of enemies, designing content balanced for multiplayer even when playing single player despite the game having a built in mechanism to rescale things for multiplayer leaving no excuse to make things like that in single player, yeah that stuff isn't objectively bad design.

Excuse me for not taking advice like "don't play" "use a different character" "don't play solo" "literally cheat" seriously and calling it what it is: useless babble.
---

You can't wave facts away, and most of your complaints are either overstated or just wrong. E.g. healthgate and hp draining weapons aren't mandatory for normal UVHM play. But the devs did decide to roll HP recovery into the skill trees in TPS, which is a smart move. By having it in trees it normalizes the methods and makes it easier to balance around. And, yeah, if you don't get the concept of a Raid boss then that's 100% on you.

BL2 raid bosses with nova spam are stupid in terms of design though, and are almost universally recognized as such. 'Hitscan' rockets aren't a thing. If you're talking about Master Gee then that only applies when he has a Maliwan exhaust, as that boosts rocket speed. Since he doesn't attack you until you shoot you can do some recon on him.
---

When they put a shit load of attacks in the game that do such absurd damage there's no way to even not be one-shot by it, that normalises healthgate from being a nice little obscure safety net to make things less frustrating, and instead becomes the norm. They balanced damage output around making excessive use of healthgate. And since you tend to be bombarded with enemies, you need a quick way to get back over the health gate: HP drain effects.

That's a fact.

And don't pull this stupid bullshit of "herpty derp raid bosses are meant to be coop" then don't put it in the fucking single player experience. Don't release a game you can play in single player, but then make the experience overly shitty if you do. That's a failure on their part, not mine, and reflects extremely poorly on how stupid the game really is. And mysteriously, TPS didn't have this problem. What a curiosity. Even BL1 didn't really since that was back before they drank gallons of paint before designing a raid boss.

Either design a multiplayer-exclusive game, or design a single player game; if you design the latter, feel free to put in various modifiers to scale the difficulty up in relation to how many players are involved. There. Simple, balanced, not overly dumb bullshit. It's entirely on them.

Also yes hitscan rockets do exist, but thanks for further exposing yourself as ignorant of the game you arrogantly mouth off about. I'm talking about any enemy who can spawn with a rocket launcher. They can spawn with launchers whose projectiles travel so fast you don't even see them and of course the AI has perfect aim and it's fully possible for one of these enemies to spawn and fire before you can even hear them let alone see them and you are just instantly health-gated, or downed if you lacked the HP to withstand it. Because that's how UVHM is balanced: a bunch of dumb attacks that do more damage than the combined total of your shield and HP because they thought "well we have a health gate mechanic, so what does it matter just make the numbers 29483038302 damage!"

You know, I'm gonna do something I should have done a long time ago and just ignore you. You're worthless, you spout a bunch of antagonistic pissant ignorant BS and you've been very consistently insufferable like this for years, and years, and years, across every board I've had the misfortune of seeing you on. All you do is spout half-truths, arrogantly talk down to someone, not even understand what they are saying and argue over dumb shit. I'm not sure if you do all this intentionally or did you just turn out this way, but either way you're awful and never worth interacting with. Good day.
---

Tmk posted...

When they put a shit load of attacks in the game that do such absurd damage there's no way to even not be one-shot by it, that normalises healthgate from being a nice little obscure safety net to make things less frustrating, and instead becomes the norm. They balanced damage output around making excessive use of healthgate. And since you tend to be bombarded with enemies, you need a quick way to get back over the health gate: HP drain effects.

That's not true though in standard UVHM play. E.g. I've plodded through the Bloodshot Stronghold, one of the difficulty spikes in the game, with a blue rarity bolt-action Jakobs sniper rifle before. No need for Moxxi weapons.

Tmk posted...

I'm talking about any enemy who can spawn with a rocket launcher. They can spawn with launchers whose projectiles travel so fast you don't even see them

And I'm telling you that's factually inaccurate. Enemy launchers use the same flight mechanics as player launchers. You can see this any time an enemy spawns with a Torgue-barreled launcher, where you can nearly run literal circles around the rocket in flight. If the rockets are traveling fast it's because they're spawning with the speed accessory, a Maliwan exhaust, or are one of of the generally faster brands like Vladof. So you might want to reflect on your own words, specifically the words "thanks for further exposing yourself as ignorant of the game you arrogantly mouth off about".

Your last paragraph of ad hominems is also 100% baseless. But it is something you've repeated to people on Gamefaqs over and over, even as they try to help you as was the case in the Souls games years and years ago when it still had a core of helpful players that discussed more than 'git gud' memes. That's why the concept of 'projection' applies wholeheartedly in your case.
---

Single player content in a multiplayer game should be decently balanced just like any other multiplayer experience.
---

Ninja-Yatsu posted...

Single player content in a multiplayer game should be decently balanced just like any other multiplayer experience.

I think so.
---

The fight with Voracidious, I cheat to beat him. I grenade hop on top of the arena walls, and walk ALL THE WAY to the end, and jump off the cliff. You won't die, but you will actually be UNDER the boss. You can hit him from under, and he can't hit you!
---

UVHM assumes the player has the requisite understanding of the game mechanics to beat it. Not long ago my friend and I did a UVHM run with Gaige and Axton, the worst combo possible. You just run with the tricks the game allows. At least UVHM lets you farm loot, you can't do that in other modes for any payoff.

Also item merging was fixed a while back. Some effects can still be use in unintended ways, but most of that is gone.
---

A lot of people think that Axton is 'the worst character'. He gets a lot of grenade damage bonuses though, which work for all weapons with splash damage too. So he does really good with Plasma Casters, Torgue weapons, and Tediore reloads. He has a fair amount of fire rate bonuses too.
---

DuneMan posted...

A lot of people think that Axton is 'the worst character'. He gets a lot of grenade damage bonuses though, which work for all weapons with splash damage too. So he does really good with Plasma Casters, Torgue weapons, and Tediore reloads. He has a fair amount of fire rate bonuses too.

Teslas are his real strength. Apparently all those grenade buffs apply to tesla damage. But he's so dependent on specific equipment sets, like Gaige, that he's useless without them unless you are doing the running really fast glitch, which even then he's bad in combat. Both character builds are difficult to make work in UVHM.
---

@ChaoticKnuckles posted...

He shouldnt really need to. Your claim is pretty outlandish. Its like saying 2+2=7 or something. Obviously a strictly single player game with no online or couch co-op elements whatsoever (such as The Witcher 3 for instance) is not a PvP game. By definition it cant be. No player is directly competing with any other player within the confines of the game. Thats what PvP means.

Speed running does not count as PvP. Its essentially a meta-game thats separate from the actual video game itself. It would be like if you and I decide to race to see who can do better in solitaire the fastest. That doesnt all of sudden make solitaire a competitive game just because you and I decided to make a competition out of it. Two people can make a competition out of practically anything, that doesnt make the activities themselves inherently competitive.

That's not what I was aiming for Duran to explain. (he seemed to be concentrated on the first point too, not what you tried to explain) Unless you can explain it. Let me re edit my reply so the reply is properly focused.

@DuranOfForcena posted...

Notti posted...

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.

what the fuck? are you serious?

Very serious.

You really didn't explain yourself much.

How does thinking "PVP should be the focus of class and skilll balance" imply a non serious reply?

Notti posted...

"But what about single player only games?"

IMO, all games are multiplayer to a degree.

High score boards. Speed running.

okay, i really refuse to believe that this is a serious post

single players games are not multiplayer games. and single player content sure as fuck shouldn't be balanced around pvp. what a fucking joke.

K.
---

DuranOfForcena posted...

wtf is this shit? don't tag me for bullshit like this

My bad. If I knew you were unable to support your opinion I wouldn't have bothered.
---

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."
---

Notti posted...

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.

That works for franchises that are known to be oriented for PVP. But you can start to see some of the messiness in games that blend a singleplayer experience with a PVP component. E.g. the Souls series. Equipment that is fine and dandy for singleplayer content gets nerfed because people complain about it effecting PVP. Even in Dark Souls 2, which specifically centered itself around PVP balance. A good early example of that was the Sun Ring, which from a PVP perspective would have punished people who swing wildly(normally considered a good thing by PVP crowds) but people whined about taking damage in a laggy environment, so it was nerfed to barely register as a tickle. In Dark Souls 3 the items and mechanics literally did function differently in PVP, without explicitly stating it to players. So people who wanted to participate in the PVP had to suss it out for themselves and put up reference utilities online for the community.

At the core balancing and creating a singleplayer experience and a multiplayer one are fundamentally different. The former is much more free form and allows the player to do a lot of things that would be unbalanced in a PVP match. E.g. if you want giant explosions that rip enemies apart, then that's fine for singleplayer. But give those explosions to one person in a PVP match and the entire mode falls apart. The kicker though is that both types of experience have merit and have a place in games. If a few publishers want to force/shoehorn a MP mode in all of their published games then so be it, the consumer should be informed of that and know what they're getting. But if all games cater to PVP then gaming as a whole will be poorer for it.
---

DuneMan posted...

Notti posted...

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.

That works for franchises that are known to be oriented for PVP. But you can start to see some of the messiness in games that blend a singleplayer experience with a PVP component. E.g. the Souls series. Equipment that is fine and dandy for singleplayer content gets nerfed because people complain about it effecting PVP. Even in Dark Souls 2, which specifically centered itself around PVP balance. A good early example of that was the Sun Ring, which from a PVP perspective would have punished people who swing wildly(normally considered a good thing by PVP crowds) but people whined about taking damage in a laggy environment, so it was nerfed to barely register as a tickle. In Dark Souls 3 the items and mechanics literally did function differently in PVP, without explicitly stating it to players. So people who wanted to participate in the PVP had to suss it out for themselves and put up reference utilities online for the community.

At the core balancing and creating a singleplayer experience and a multiplayer one are fundamentally different. The former is much more free form and allows the player to do a lot of things that would be unbalanced in a PVP match. E.g. if you want giant explosions that rip enemies apart, then that's fine for singleplayer. But give those explosions to one person in a PVP match and the entire mode falls apart.

Yeah, that giant explosions example is similar to what I meant by the infinite stealth example.

A choice by the dev to allow for a skill in single player, that ends up unfair in PVP (or caters only to trolls/griefers), but that may have reasons to exist in single player.

I do agree that this is our core disagreement. I view single player balance as strictly below PVP considerations. And that it's desirable to have single player follow the same mechanics as PVP (no 2 standards)

I read up on the Sun Ring and I saw some people saying the Old Sun Ring was actually put in the game not only for single player, but specifically to counter wild swinging, and you as a player had to read and react to both the audio and visual warnings the OSR gave before it exploded.

The kicker though is that both types of experience have merit and have a place in games. If a few publishers want to force/shoehorn a MP mode in all of their published games then so be it, the consumer should be informed of that and know what they're getting. But if all games cater to PVP then gaming as a whole will be poorer for it.

Just to be clear. Those limits should and would be for games that have a direct PVP. Indirect competition (high score boards) would not limit single player that way.

You say it should be clear what people are getting into. And I agree. But from the opposite direction. So, let's put it like this, if a game values some skill or item so much for single player, I think it would be ideal for the game to build into the game explicit warnings in game. Could even do it via a leveling system.

Giant Explosion lvl 1-5 (max level 2 for pvp)

Level 1-2, pvp balanced. Level 3-5, single player easy mode unbalanced.

If we're gonna have 2 rule sets, make it explicit. Otherwise, make them identical.

DuranOfForcena posted...

wow this sure is a lot of stupid bullshit

http://i.imgurcom/Br00TCn.gif
---

DuneMan posted...

Notti posted...

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.

That works for franchises that are known to be oriented for PVP. But you can start to see some of the messiness in games that blend a singleplayer experience with a PVP component. E.g. the Souls series. Equipment that is fine and dandy for singleplayer content gets nerfed because people complain about it effecting PVP. Even in Dark Souls 2, which specifically centered itself around PVP balance. A good early example of that was the Sun Ring, which from a PVP perspective would have punished people who swing wildly(normally considered a good thing by PVP crowds) but people whined about taking damage in a laggy environment, so it was nerfed to barely register as a tickle. In Dark Souls 3 the items and mechanics literally did function differently in PVP, without explicitly stating it to players. So people who wanted to participate in the PVP had to suss it out for themselves and put up reference utilities online for the community.

At the core balancing and creating a singleplayer experience and a multiplayer one are fundamentally different. The former is much more free form and allows the player to do a lot of things that would be unbalanced in a PVP match. E.g. if you want giant explosions that rip enemies apart, then that's fine for singleplayer. But give those explosions to one person in a PVP match and the entire mode falls apart.

Yeah, that giant explosions example is similar to what I meant by the infinite stealth example.

A choice by the dev to allow for a skill in single player, that ends up unfair in PVP (or caters only to trolls/griefers), but that may have reasons to exist in single player.

I do agree that this is our core disagreement. I view single player balance as strictly below PVP considerations. And that it's desirable to have single player follow the same mechanics as PVP (no 2 standards)

I read up on the Sun Ring and I saw some people saying the Old Sun Ring was actually put in the game not only for single player, but specifically to counter wild swinging, and you as a player had to read and react to both the audio and visual warnings the OSR gave before it exploded.

The kicker though is that both types of experience have merit and have a place in games. If a few publishers want to force/shoehorn a MP mode in all of their published games then so be it, the consumer should be informed of that and know what they're getting. But if all games cater to PVP then gaming as a whole will be poorer for it

Just to be clear. Those limits should and would be for games that have a direct PVP. Indirect competition (high score boards) would not limit single player that way.

You say it should be clear what people are getting into. And I agree. But from the opposite direction. So, let's put it like this, if a game values some skill or item so much for single player, I think it would be ideal for the game to build into the game explicit warnings in game. Could even do it via a leveling system.

Giant Explosion lvl 1-5 (max level 2 for pvp)

Level 1-2, pvp balanced. Level 3-5, single player easy mode unbalanced.

If we're gonna have 2 rule sets, make it explicit. Otherwise, make them identical. (no sussing it out, if I play SP its to get a handle on the mechanics, not be mystified at changes)

DuranOfForcena posted...

wow this sure is a lot of stupid bullshit

---

Notti posted...

I do agree that this is our core disagreement. I view single player balance as strictly below PVP considerations. And that it's desirable to have single player follow the same mechanics as PVP (no 2 standards)

I don't want to quote your entire message, for space consideration to others, but it's nice to have a civil disagreement on what is valued.

I value single player just as much, because to me there's a richer and more vibrant tapestry to pull from for the single player experience. The possibilities are nearly limitless because the gameplay focuses on the experience of one specific player, the one at the controls.

For PVP though you have to design for all players, and all skill levels. That changes the gameplay on a fundamental level. It's also necessary. This is why, for example, shooters moved away from the older metric of having good players go 30-0 while new players would end up with 1-20. Players of varied skill levels have to feel engaged or else the player base dies out to a small dedicated cabal, which is bad for the developer and publisher in the long run. It also means that adding anything beyond flavor text/visuals has to be continually revisited and potentially tweaked. It's a very different beast to designing for single player.
---

kirbymuncher posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

I can't think on a single video game beyond arguably chess that didn't have abusible AI or abilities that were better than others.

then you obviously haven't played very many games

I dunno I don't think any game is perfectly balanced. It's just that there's an accceptable level of variation in how good things are before something is really considered unbalacned

Except we're talking about after the facting nerfing OP abilities or exploits.

Going "I dont like this so remove it as I can't play with it as an option in the game or the balance is off!" to me is like saying "I don't like having contrast controlls in the graphics menu because the game is too easy if I can, I want to have mandatory shit contrast for my challenge."

That's on you, it shouldn't be up to you to change that for others, it just makes games worse.
---

DuneMan posted...

Notti posted...

I do agree that this is our core disagreement. I view single player balance as strictly below PVP considerations. And that it's desirable to have single player follow the same mechanics as PVP (no 2 standards)

I don't want to quote your entire message, for space consideration to others, but it's nice to have a civil disagreement on what is valued.

I value single player just as much, because to me there's a richer and more vibrant tapestry to pull from for the single player experience. The possibilities are nearly limitless because the gameplay focuses on the experience of one specific player, the one at the controls.

I'm not saying SP is devalued for the general person, but for me, there are things I can never get from SP. Such as an unpredictable opponent who has creativity and adaptability.

For PVP though you have to design for all players, and all skill levels. That changes the gameplay on a fundamental level. It's also necessary. This is why, for example, shooters moved away from the older metric of having good players go 30-0 while new players would end up with 1-20. Players of varied skill levels have to feel engaged or else the player base dies out to a small dedicated cabal, which is bad for the developer and publisher in the long run.

I agree, that's why skill matching is so important.

It also means that adding anything beyond flavor text/visuals has to be continually revisited and potentially tweaked. It's a very different beast to designing for single player.

The way I see it, is by looking at this thread.

Most here want PVP to be balanced. The worst is when you get a PVP that is filled with unfairness and spam.

So what's the easiest way to accomplish this?

Build the game around PVP first, giving all the characters, builds, skills, items, whatever, a thoughtful look and make sure they are balanced for PVP. It's much harder to go the other way, and start with a single player game and then try to make that work in PVP.

It's not as hard to add PVE skills on top of PVP, especially if PVP is limited to 1v1. In those cases you can just make sure the skills added make sense for hitting tons of weak enemies, or skills that pierce boss skin (defense ignoring, players never get that much def) or high hp (skills that cut into high hp by %, players dont get that much hp ever) and make sure those skills are inefficient for PVP. (too costly in stamina/mana)

Then once you have your balanced PVP core, just build single player situations around that.

DuranOfForcena posted...

its bullshit

---

I think it's a good thing.

As for the TC's example, it sounds more like a bugfix than a balance change.
---

On the one hand, its cool to have the game's exploits fixed. On the other hand, I always find it annoying when a game I've been playing for a while keeps changing the rules.

DuranOfForcena posted...

i'm honestly being asked right now why gearing a single player game towards PVP that is nonexistent in that game is bullshit

what a time to be alive

https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/400-current-events/76140935?jumpto=35#35

Notti posted... (bolding to emphasize missed concepts) ... Post #35

<clipped previous 50% of the text about nerfs to games with direct PVP>
"But what about single player only games?"
<clipped latter 50% of the text about nerfs to games with no direct PVP>

---

Nerfing anything in SP games is basically the stupidest shit ever
---

is it something you can easily acquire and clearly breaks the game, extra points if you can acquire it early? then yes i'm ok for nerfing it, though i see it more of a bug fix really.

Is it some convoluted method that breaks the game but you need to put some sort of effort into getting it? then no.

Notti posted...

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.

Haha fucking no, get the fuck outta here with that bullshit, PvP in most games is seen as an afterthought, get your shitty minigame out of the core of the game and don't you fucking dare balance games around it.

You never fucking balance PvE around PvP or viceversa, you have to be literally braindead and want to kill your game on purpose if you do that.
---

Whoa. Better, Duran, better. You attempted an actual reply with a point for once. Almost.

DuranOfForcena posted...

yeah

No.

You don't even understand the counter point just above, let alone what my original message stated.

i've read

But you don't comprehend.

your bullshit before where you claim that single player only games with absolutely no multiplayer component are still multiplayer PVP games.

Incorrect.

In the second half of my first message, I am saying single player games can have competitive aspects, and that this is 1 of many good reasons to nerf and buff things in a single player game.

Is an online leader high score board a way for players to compete with each other? (players vs players)

I don't need to ask.

The answer is yes.

So now you've learned that game competition can exist outside strictly PVP arenas.

DuranOfForcena posted...

fuck that bullshit. what is wrong with you? what is wrong in your head? are you just a massive, ridiculous fucking troll or are you actually intellectually bankrupt enough to actually believe the stupid, incorrect, laughable, ridiculous, idiotic, crazy bullshit that have been spouting this entire time?

What is wrong here is your poor ability to comprehend what is being said, and your sloppy approach to thoughts you don't understand.


---

Heh, and to think this started with

Notti posted...

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.

Thats "IMO, all games are multiplayer to a degree."

So outrageous. ikr

Which got from you:

DuranOfForcena posted...

what the fuck? are you serious?

okay, i really refuse to believe that this is a serious post

single players games are not multiplayer games. and single player content sure as fuck shouldn't be balanced around pvp. what a fucking joke.

Let's continue the fun then.

DuranOfForcena posted...

there is no player vs player aspect in singleplayer only games. period, end of argument, if you think otherwise then you are either a dipshit or a really fucking terrible troll.

Competition, in single player games.

If I get a single player score on an online high score board, I am competing. Why else is the global score board there?

Oh, but I'm certain you can't either follow my words, so why not quote others? (bolded emphasis added in quotes)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Score_%28game%29#History

History
Sea Wolf, the first video game to use the term "high score".

The concept of a high score first achieved cultural significance with the rise in popularity of pinball machines and electro-mechanical arcade games. Players who achieve a high score are often greeted with a congratulatory message and are able to enter their initials or name into the machine. Their score and name will remain there until someone "knocks" them off the high score list by achieving a higher score. For this reason, high scores are inherently competitive and may sometimes involve one-upmanship against other players.

The astounding popularity of Space Invaders stemmed from players returning to beat the current high score, as players could now compete with each other over who had the highest score

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedrun

Players attempt speedruns mainly to challenge themselves and to entertain and compete with others.

The knowledge that the video was constructed through tedious and careful selective replaying also raised some questions about the authenticity of video game replays; after all, if it is practically impossible to tell the videos of both kinds apart, one cannot possibly know whether a run was made with or without the use of a special emulator. It was even feared that this fact would cause the downfall of competitive speedrunning

Oh damn those dipshit know nothing Wikipedians! Why did they have to contradict the dippy Duran?

"Oh, but at least solitaire can't be competitive, Notti! Haha! Solitaire vs Solitaire! Ridiculous!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdfRQjb5o9k

Uh oh. People have even turned freaking Tetris into a player vs player competive world tournament based on scores alone.

Notti posted...
.... "IMO, all games are multiplayer to a degree."

Oh well, Duran, maybe find some other topic to be ignorant about?
---