So uh, splash back up, eh?

[FlyerRadio]

I was feeling the burn with the splash damage reduced. I would get a few close hits and move in for the kill, only to find my target's health still very much there.
Haven't had a chance to really play since the splash has been amped back up, but I'm looking forward to it. I agree that it is part of the game's combat dynamics; when the splash was down, i started to try for more MAs. I died a lot more and killed a lot less.

 

[Aki]

If we do end up shoving the RL's radius back down, I'm personally hoping we provide a non-damaging trajectory-shift weapon to fill in for the loss of the RL's splash impulse.

In a different thread somewhere (I'll find it later, maybe), I suggested that LR be given a small impulse at the terminus of the beam. I used the terms of a 1 meter diameter explosion with no animation to make it useful for knocking FCs around with the LR without having to burden the artists and programmers with a new effect to design and write in. Since damage of LR drops off with distance, giving it a kinetic element would make it more useful at range without generating rage toward distal damage. Keeping the impulse radius so small would also ensure that one can actually aim, thus not knocking the balance off too much.

Of course, it might be better to give HoFs some kind of very short range 'kinetic cannon' or something. Maybe a ball of energy that splashes on the ground and knocks anything with five meters away not unlike the JPs in Gorge. Or maybe a sort of hit-scan thing? Repulsor beam, maybe...? I dunno.

Personally, I haven't even noticed any changes in the splash on RL until I read this thread (and suddenly it made sense why I could never divert the grabbers at the last second, even if I hit them). I do like the idea of a damage-less kinetic weapon, though.

 

[Chi-Ro]

I'd just say what Homin said, why fix something that's not broken? The only complaints about it ever were from Omni players, and the lord knows they're not elitist at all...

I can't tell you how many people I've tried to get into Legions and they proceeded to quit because it was way too hard. There's no reason to make a hard game harder, no one new will ever join. =\

 

[Propkid]

I'd just say what Homin said, why fix something that's not broken? The only complaints about it ever were from Omni players, and the lord knows they're not elitist at all...

I can't tell you how many people I've tried to get into Legions and they proceeded to quit because it was way too hard. There's no reason to make a hard game harder, no one new will ever join. =\

It's arguable whether the game is harder now or whether it was harder before. There's a big thing broken with Legions: the learning curve. The devs have to try and try new ways to make it smoother until they succeed. THEN the 'end-game' players can be catered for (with modes! DD).

 

[Outlawl]

More pie

 

[Redvan]

another method to combat splashtasticness is increased maneuverability.

Since people have a problem with reducing the splash values (noobs will never learn etc etc (none of which I agree with anyway)), how about increasing maneuverability and keeping splash values the same.

Increased maneuverability would give people another thing to "get good at", thus upping the total amount of skill one can achieve in the game, while giving people the ability to avoid more splash.

The good players will, of course, adapt and thus have the added benefit of getting splashed less, while average joe is still getting pounded to death. Yes, this creates a skill gap between the good players and average/less than average players, but that's a good thing in a game. We're not communists, we dont need to make things so easy that everyone can expect to hop in the game and start putting up good scores. People need to expect to have to learn to play the game before being good.

This could either be implemented as a whole, every class gets an increase in maneuverability equally, or, if the idea of OD cores is ever looked at again, it could be introduced like that, a core that wouldn't let you OD, but would give you a significant increase in maneuverability.

Now, nobody go mentioning how this will only make it harder for noobs to learn the game. It won't give any significant increase to what must be learned to play the game. People tend to blow things way out of proportion when talking about this. As if there is going to be a huge drop off in player base. We already learned from the couple weeks of reduced splash that most people probably wont even notice, and then when they do, they'll still play.

also I have to mention this:

There's a big thing broken with Legions: the learning curve.

the learning curve is hardly a problem at all right now. A game with a low learning curve is a game not worth playing. And L:O isn't even close to being too high.

 

[WildFire]

the learning curve is hardly a problem at all right now. A game with a low learning curve is a game not worth playing. And L:O isn't even close to being too high.

I have to disagree with the learning curve of legions being not too high. I've been teaching my friend today, and he has found getting into legions really hard, and he is pretty decent in quake! I think what needs to happen is that the learning curve needs to be lowed somehow, but not to the point where it is too easy.

 

[Daphinicus]

Since people have a problem with reducing the splash values (noobs will never learn etc etc (none of which I agree with anyway))...

We're not communists, we dont need to make things so easy that everyone can expect to hop in the game and start putting up good scores.

Come on, bud, the passive aggression going on here is kinda distasteful.

Now, regarding your idea: Extra maneuverability may well be something worth looking at, especially if we do ever go with something similar to the OD core route, where it would only change in specific circumstances. In fact, it has some pretty cool possibilities! Right now, though, the concept's a little nebulous. What do you mean by "extra maneuverability"? More energy? Jets that more quickly counter the effects of inertia? Wings? Let's get some clarity going!

Whatever the case, I'm not sure that increasing maneuverability will change the game's learning curve at all, which I'm inferring from your comments as something you're going for (all the talk about creating a new skill gap, and such). Veterans will certainly have to re-learn flight or skiing or whatever, but a physics model is a physics model; whether you're a newblood learning one or a newblood learning the other, you're still learning how to move around in the game. So if you're looking for some way to make yourself even better than all the fresh faces, I'd try something else.

Which brings us to your closing comment:

the learning curve is hardly a problem at all right now. A game with a low learning curve is a game not worth playing. And L:O isn't even close to being too high.

I don't know how to respond truthfully to this without coming off kinda mean, so forgive me, but I'm going to be blunt: You are absolutely, unequivocally wrong. I don't want to beat around the bush; I want to be very, very clear, because this is important: Legions' single most pervasive fault is its learning curve.

It's easy for us to forget what it was like when we first picked up the game. The dawdling along the ground; the energy management troubles; the difficulty skiing; the craziness of having to keep track of your enemies, not just in the cardinal directions, but in any direction. If you can remember back to the first time you played an FPS+Z game, you'll almost certainly recall that it was hard, and if for some crazy reason it wasn't for you, then you're in the minority. That's wonderful, but games can't be made for the minority.

Of course, all games are hard when you step into them. Anyone should expect to get blasted to smithereens the moment they first start up a multiplayer FPS game. It's part of the deal, and all gamers have come to accept it, even if some can more quickly ascend that learning curve than others. But there's a huge difference between a game that asks you to run through items that are right in front of you to pick them up (Quake, UT3, etc.), and a game that virtually requires you to practice moving around on an empty server just to be effective (yay skiing).

Anyways, I'm sure I've already bored about 93% of the people reading this, so I'll shut up. Sorry to wax on for so long; it's a bad habit of mine.

 

[Shade]

What do you mean by "extra maneuverability"? More energy? Jets that more quickly counter the effects of inertia? Wings? Let's get some clarity going!

I imagine Van is talking about dodging, or faster strafing.

I don't know how to respond truthfully to this without coming off kinda mean, so forgive me, but I'm going to be blunt: You are absolutely, unequivocally wrong. I don't want to beat around the bush; I want to be very, very clear, because this is important: Legions' single most pervasive fault is its learning curve.

I’ve touched on this in a few posts:
“Good. A skill gap! We shouldn’t make the game easier; we should make it more user-friendly. There are many tutorials and guides, but none of them are given to a player when they first start. A new player shouldn’t have to find them—they should be offered to them on a silver platter…The lack of new players is because of the vastly different movement in Legions and the lack of user-friendliness. (No I am not arguing for easier movement; I’m arguing for tutorials given at registration and “Helpers”)”

The problem isn’t that the game’s too hard; the problem is the lack of user friendliness.

Of course, all games are hard when you step into them. Anyone should expect to get blasted to smithereens the moment they first start up a multiplayer FPS game. It's part of the deal, and all gamers have come to accept it, even if some can more quickly ascend that learning curve than others. But there's a huge difference between a game that asks you to run through items that are right in front of you to pick them up (Quake, UT3, etc.), and a game that virtually requires you to practice moving around on an empty server just to be effective (yay skiing).

Quake and UT require map memorization. The weapons aren't "right in front of you" they're spread out over the map; a player needs to know where they are and how to use them. In Legions, players spawn with everything they need. Quake requires players to strafe jump around the twists and turns of the maps, while maintaining speed. Legions is simply maintaining speed - there aren't obstacles to worry about.

 

[Daphinicus]

The problem isn’t that the game’s too hard; the problem is the lack of user friendliness.

I agree. I thought my context worked, but I should have clarified: When I said playing the game the first time around was "hard," I was talking about the learning curve, not the game's general level of difficulty. User friendliness is a big deal; that's why I've always been a huge proponent of your Helpers. =)

Quake and UT require map memorization. The weapons aren't "right in front of you" they're spread out over the map; a player needs to know where they are and how to use them. In Legions, players spawn with everything they need. Quake requires players to strafe jump around the twists and turns of the maps, while maintaining speed. Legions is simply maintaining speed - there aren't obstacles to worry about.

Granted, I was being a little general, bud, but come now. Quake doesn't require strafe-jumping for a player to be proficient at the game. UT doesn't require map memorization to let you run until you see the next weapon, pick it up, and squeeze the trigger. Of course you need to step it up if you want to be a cut above the rest, but just to be proficient at the game? To feel comfortable moving around without feeling like you're learning to walk again? You can do that in no time -- comparatively, of course.

Basic proficiency in most FPS games comes at a greatly reduced cost compared to Legions. If you want to be proficient in Legions -- not top-notch, just proficient -- you need to put in a good deal more effort to just understanding how to move, how to read the terrain. Only then do you get into things like how to properly conserve energy, or how to improv routes. Let's not compare advanced techniques with basic survival skills, just to be contrary.

 

[Chi-Ro]

It's arguable whether the game is harder now or whether it was harder before.

In relation to the original splash damage change it wasn't arguable at all actually. The game instantly became twice as hard for new players who couldn't MA yet and only splash.

 

[RainPilot]

Also, if they are in a public game with very good players - they often get raped before they can even leave the base because they are fairly new and ski around. Then they get frustrated when they try to duel someone and get completely owned, time after time. They might also get confused when they shoot a rocket at the ground and it only deals minimal damage. I've shown the game to some people who play other competitive games and they complain that the game takes lots of skill just to ski and shoot. It's quite frustrating when you get raped and have no chance to study other players movements. Most of the things I've learned is by hiding in the back of the map and skiing and occasionally trying to duel.

 

[Mabeline]

In relation to the original splash damage change it wasn't arguable at all actually. The game instantly became twice as hard for new players who couldn't MA yet and only splash.

It also got that much harder for good players to effortlessly splash people to death. A skilled player can put huge amounts of damage on people from around corners because they know all the spots to shoot. MA's account for the minority of kills. Even a good player will only get at most 30 MAs/game as a chaser (in a 30-40 kill game). A dueler (stay at home/light offense) will probably max out around 20 mas/game in an 80 kill game, leaving 1 in 4 of their kills to an MAs.

 

[Chi-Ro]

So you nerf good players damage somewhere between 1 and 3 out of 4 kills, and a bad players damage on 100% of their kills. That doesn't even out for bad players Mabel. It's raising the learning curve...

 

[Homingun]

This is what I'm hearing.

"I'm getting bored of this game, lets make it harder to spice it up"

and

"I've reached a proficient level in this game, lets make it harder to make it more challenging"

I think we should be spending time on more important things...

 

[Mabeline]

So you nerf good players damage somewhere between 1 and 3 out of 4 kills, and a bad players damage on 100% of their kills. That doesn't even out for bad players Mabel. It's raising the learning curve...

It evens out with bad players vs. bad players which is the general case. There are like half a dozen NA players that can get a game that obscenely good, and even then it's rare. That's less than half a percent of the NA player base.

 

[Daphinicus]

After consultation, we're locking this thread. It's starting to get circular, and has a lot of folks riled up.

The simple fact is, we'll eventually need to balance the game for a far wider variety of weapons, which will be employed in situations vastly different from those we're now experiencing. To get into arguments (or heated discussions, or what have you) over every little gameplay change, without having the bigger picture in sight, is generally (and unfortunately) pretty rough on the devs' time.

Thanks for your inputs on splash, everyone. Good stuff.