Why the ammo system is a huge step backwards

[»D1st0rt]

The ammo system adds depth, strategy, and realism to the game.

 

When you buy a new car and get all the cool gadgets for it, even if you're a wrench-head, the fun is in actually DRIVING the car. Not in filling it up with gas.

 

We want to be out killing people, not worrying about whether our guns and bombs are going to run out. When they do, having to go back to safe could make us lose any bounty we might have.

The fun in first person shooting games is in shooting people, not reloading your weapon. Why, I could even get killed mid-reload if somebody else were to shoot me. That's no fun, they should take reloading out. As Matrim said earlier (and from your own example), the notion of limited resources is everywhere. We didn't have ammo from the start because of technical limitations, and this is the first time we've gone clean slate having any experience with a component oriented item system (the first time we were pretty much winging it because we had only dealt with individual prizes).

 

Instead of making the game about skill and enjoyment, the ammo system implements the Microsoft mentality of dealing with things. Instead of giving you a system that will run great and never have to worry about fixes, they give you a system that is flawed and will break down. Then, when it breaks down they want you to pay for the upgrades and fixes so you can continue to use their product. It's built to fail, just like your ammo.

By that logic, a box of cereal is "built to fail". Ammo is not built to fail, it's built to be consumed. I also think you're misled on the subject of operating systems but that's a completely different matter altogether.

 

Instead of any benefit, the ammo system can ONLY give you a negative effect. The more ammo you buy, the more you can stay outside safe and fire your guns into the air like a train robber. Woopdee doo. That's the MOST benefit you get from having more ammo than the guy next to you. The negative effect is drastic, on the other hand, and is annoying at best.

The benefit you can gain from the ammo system is a tactical advantage over your opponent. If you're less worried about ammo you have more control over tempo and you're more free to open up some shots. If you're watching ammo, you have to be a lot more conservative and it can distract you from what's going on around you.

 

This game (Subspace/Continuum) was designed to take something away from you every time you fired your weapon. There was no limited supply of it though. No real cost to get it back. Simply wait some time and you'd be good to go again. Energy determines whether you live or die in this game, and the use of it is how you learn to strategize and play. Adding the worry of ammo is a nuisance and takes away from the fun of the game.

I think everyone would agree we are way past the original scope of the game. We are on the bleeding edge of an exciting new frontier, where traditional limitations are not as important.

 

The fun of customization and buying comes from picking how your ship will run. Not whether it will work the way you set it up or not in 30 shots from now.

Ammo usage is just another thing to take into account when customizing your ship.

 

It would seem to me that you aren't treating ammo like the first class citizen it is. We didn't get together and sit down "ok, we have all of these items planned out now how can we handicap them". Ammunition was taken into consideration from square one, and this item set was built from the ground up around it. I see where you're coming from, but I think you're looking it at the wrong way. Ammo is an enhancement, a feature that you're treating like a penalty. Use it to your advantage.

 

HS is generally a flagging zone and ammo is best suited for a sniper like zone such as Bak's paintball where the original idea came from

When was that zone created? We've had a place for ammo in the code since 2004. I think the original idea might have come from Doom or Wolfenstein or possibly real life. Also, I don't believe flagging and ammo are mutually exclusive.

[Sass]

HS is generally a flagging zone and ammo is best suited for a sniper like zone such as Bak's paintball where the original idea came from

When was that zone created? We've had a place for ammo in the code since 2004. I think the original idea might have come from Doom or Wolfenstein or possibly real life. Also, I don't believe flagging and ammo are mutually exclusive.

 

Regardless of when you 'made a spot' for ammo, you have not implemented it until now, correct?

Edited February 17, 2008 by Sass

[»D1st0rt]

Regardless of when you 'made a spot' for ammo, you have not implemented it until now. Other than asking your own sysops who subscrbe to the HS taint, there's no way of validating that claim. It is possible that you could make ammo work, but much to the chagrin of players who have been participating in the zone for several years. But brain has reminded me several times that he doesn't care about the population.

 

Question is: how long will this post last before you realize that it exposes truth that you find detrimental to your collective egos? This is why it is necessary to let players know the truth via other channels.

 

Here's what I have to validate the claim, you probably won't believe me even though I have no reason to lie to you.

 

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/8322/hscorer33ko3.png

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/3857/hscoretypesr33tx0.png

 

You could ask all none of the sysops in the zone who aren't me and they would agree. Let's not also forget that I have been playing this zone for as long as anyone else. We haven't implemented it until now for a couple of reasons. It's not a very high priority addition, especially when we are worried about the zone freezing up whenever the population gets above 35 or why it crashes any time somebody joins another arena. Adding ammo makes the system more complex, and none of us had time to sit down and plan/test/refine how everything would work so we let it slide. Over the years, I don't think there has been a single change or addition that we have made that people didn't get all upset and complain about. When we first switched from a straight prizes system to a component oriented one there was way more whining then there has been about ammo. Guess what? People got over it, and in the long run it ended up being better than if we had immediately regressed. Instead of digging your heels in, give it a chance and see the upside of all of the work that has been put into it.

 

I have no ego, I have no shame, I have no fear of you or anything you might say, and it is unfortunate that I have to spend my time here trying to clean up the mess you are creating because somebody peed in your coffee. "Spreading truth"? Give me a break. You have an axe to grind, so you are using limited observations to draw unfounded global conclusions that you are passing around here as "truth", which is laughable at best. I have tried to talk to you to get to the root of what is upsetting you. I am committed to the success of the zone so when somebody has a well founded serious complaint or suggestion I'll listen, I'm a very approachable person. All you have done however is made these vague sensationalist claims and get all evasive when I try to get you to provide anything specific or concrete. Then you accuse me of being blind to what is going on? Get a grip, man.

 

S!@#$%^&*, if you would like me to upload the unedited log of our last in-game conversation I will gladly do so. Or perhaps your ego couldn't take something like that. I don't know why I'm even offering because you'll just accuse me of tampering with it to further my secret evil plans, of which I have many.

 

 

------------------------------------------

To the disgruntled players of Hyperspace: It's easy to jump on his bandwagon because he's telling you what you want to hear. All I ask is that you stop and think for a minute before you start joining in on wild, far fetched conspiracy theories. I hope you enjoy your time in Hyperspace, you may always reach me here via pm, the "Contact Us" form on the website or through email (d1st0rter@gmail.com) which is also in the zone news file.

 

D1st0rt

Sysop, SSCE Hyperspace

[Choose Profile]

Since I found out ammo would be eventually implemented I thought it was a good idea, and now that ive given it a decent (a few days lol) shot @ using it, i like it even more. Ammo usage is just adding another dynamic to the game which makes HS all the more interesting and unique from other zones. Although many people are against the ammo system at the moment, i think in the end this system will only bolster HS's population and reputation.

 

At first I was concered about how limited ammo would effect bountying, namely base bountying. Over the last few days ive come to actually like this limited ammo during stints of bounty basing, because it makes bountying all the more interesting. This can become a nuisance once i do run out of ammo, but the emerging concepts of becoming more efficient w/ items and their usage definately make the game more entertaining.

 

 

 

And wtf is up w/ S!@#$%^&*?

Edited February 17, 2008 by Choose Profile

[rootbear75]

meh, you have your s!@#$%^&*'s in every zone... those one or 2 people that convince everybody that some item, or some person, is bad for what or who they/it is...

i can name a bunch of people like that... but im not going to... since it would be way off-topic, and i would end up pissing off a lot of people

[mij]

i can't believe no one's pointed out the irony in his username.

[Sass]

you're the first to have said something about it. but you're right

[mij]

s!@#$%^&* i'm on your side if only bc that's one of my favorite words

[scouto2]

actually, I've also given it a try, and I've changed my mind. I still call it a nerf. I will always call it a nerf. But it is a nerf that i can live with. I honestly only have to reload maybe once every hour or so, even with basing. Its just a credit sink to keep someone from advancing that fast. Also, it would help break up the bomb lines that we all hate so in basing. I actually like it now, i only think about it when it runs out, and i think that there should actually be less ammo that you can hold, to add that tactical thing. I say nerf this a little more (seriously, not being condescending or sarcastic here (I love Firefox's spell check for condescending!)).

 

 

TO SUM THIS ALL UP (and add a little more):

1. Its a nerf, but we can live with it

2. you can shoot a while and not use it up

3. energy is still a factor here, its just now you have a limited amount of shots

4. I think that we should have less ammo for ships

5.Make smaller ships like the warbird and jav have less ammo spots that the spider or terrier. Make the lancaster able to hold alot of ammo and give ammo, since it is a CARRIER ship, and they generally have ammo that ships can stock up on.

[rootbear75]

5.Make smaller ships like the warbird and jav have less ammo spots that the spider or terrier. Make the lancaster able to hold alot of ammo and give ammo, since it is a CARRIER ship, and they generally have ammo that ships can stock up on.

and make it so you have to be "docked" or attached while restocking

[AardvarkX]

I agree with Owl too. And while I have to bow to Cerium and probably half the rest of the zone's superior "skillz", I'm not here to whine. I'm happy to work on getting better, if that's the intent of a new feature.

 

Gotta tell you, though, I had a good laugh when somebody in this thread compared Subspace to a first-person shooter. This game was designed in the spirit of the true arcade game, not a modern first person shooter, or even a sim. This was supposed to be Asteroids or Galaga, except allowing you to use the net to do it with/against all your pals over a huge map. All of you saying that it adds realism are completely missing the point. It was *Never supposed to be about realism* with this type of game - Its about the GAMEPLAY. Its supposed to be easy to pick up, get going, and have some fun. Many of us do enough managing of real things during the day, and when we pick up a game like this it just needs to be fun. Tracking ammo and coding more macros to get by just takes something away, IMO.

 

If we're going for realism, let's ditch F3 for lighting a rocket, and put an hour long checklist with a bunch of switches, because after all, that's what it takes to light a real rocket...

Edited February 18, 2008 by AardvarkX

[Gannon8]

I agree with this thread 110%

Summoner now cost 190K.

A quote from the pub. chat:

arnk is a noob who wants to kill basing.

I agree. Basing is the only real way to make money, and the whole purpose of the zone.

'Kay Edit: Okay, maybe it's not the only real way, and spamming bullets is sorta dumb. But still, the summoner needs to be lowered.

Edited February 19, 2008 by Gannon8

[Choose Profile]

I agree with Owl too. And while I have to bow to Cerium and probably half the rest of the zone's superior "skillz", I'm not here to whine. I'm happy to work on getting better, if that's the intent of a new feature.

 

Gotta tell you, though, I had a good laugh when somebody in this thread compared Subspace to a first-person shooter. This game was designed in the spirit of the true arcade game, not a modern first person shooter, or even a sim. This was supposed to be Asteroids or Galaga, except allowing you to use the net to do it with/against all your pals over a huge map. All of you saying that it adds realism are completely missing the point. It was *Never supposed to be about realism* with this type of game - Its about the GAMEPLAY. Its supposed to be easy to pick up, get going, and have some fun. Many of us do enough managing of real things during the day, and when we pick up a game like this it just needs to be fun. Tracking ammo and coding more macros to get by just takes something away, IMO.

 

If we're going for realism, let's ditch F3 for lighting a rocket, and put an hour long checklist with a bunch of switches, because after all, that's what it takes to light a real rocket...

 

The majority of subspace zones still require no effort and very little thought, so anyone following this trend of thought can play in those places instead. On the other hand, if you would like to play in a zone that may redefine and influence all other zones in the future, stick around. HS has been recognized for its uniqueness, and ammo only adds to it. I wouldnt be surprised to see this very idea or similair ones implemented in the larger zones, such as through subgames etc. Subspace may have been designed the way you describe it, but no evolution for 10+ years will not help the game remain afloat over the continuing years. The dev work done in HS is bringing a new perspective to the game, and at least in my case, allows subspace to still remain entertaining. Without this zone I would no longer be playing subspace at all, and even though i have my differences with several (most) of the staff, i applaud the dev work done by those who put forth the effort.

 

end srs bznz/>

[Suicide_Run]

I agree. Basing is the only real way to make money, and the whole purpose of the zone.

Basing is not the only real way to make money, its just faster since it requires less brain work and since people usually run into your bullets/bombs.

 

The main problem I think is that not many people want to buy reps/burst to base. Since they dont buy those items, they cant get thru bullet+bomb lines which tends either feed defenders or cause atkers to give up.

 

But then again, not lotta time has pass.....maybe people will start using items later when they got tons of cash..........

[Bomook]

The majority of subspace zones still require no effort and very little thought, so anyone following this trend of thought can play in those places instead. On the other hand, if you would like to play in a zone that may redefine and influence all other zones in the future, stick around. HS has been recognized for its uniqueness, and ammo only adds to it. I wouldnt be surprised to see this very idea or similair ones implemented in the larger zones, such as through subgames etc. Subspace may have been designed the way you describe it, but no evolution for 10+ years will not help the game remain afloat over the continuing years. The dev work done in HS is bringing a new perspective to the game, and at least in my case, allows subspace to still remain entertaining. Without this zone I would no longer be playing subspace at all, and even though i have my differences with several (most) of the staff, i applaud the dev work done by those who put forth the effort.

I agree with CP. Hyperspace is all about its uniqueness, and without it, I doubt most of the players in the zone would be here. It is true that Sniper started out as an asteroids clone, but that doesn't mean that any changes or additions from that old formula have to be bad. I think the main problem here is that many players are too accustomed to spamming weapons/items, and find the new change difficult to adapt to.

 

While I am a fan of the ammo system, I don't necessarily think its current implementation is perfect. I think an ammo display of some form on the HUD would eliminate much of the incovenience. Even with realism aside, I do think that ammo is a step forward in terms of gameplay, as the old gameplay revolved around skill-lessly spamming every possible thing on your ship.

 

actually, I've also given it a try, and I've changed my mind. I still call it a nerf. I will always call it a nerf. But it is a nerf that i can live with. I honestly only have to reload maybe once every hour or so, even with basing. Its just a credit sink to keep someone from advancing that fast. Also, it would help break up the bomb lines that we all hate so in basing. I actually like it now, i only think about it when it runs out, and i think that there should actually be less ammo that you can hold, to add that tactical thing. I say nerf this a little more (seriously, not being condescending or sarcastic here (I love Firefox's spell check for condescending!)).

 

 

TO SUM THIS ALL UP (and add a little more):

1. Its a nerf, but we can live with it

2. you can shoot a while and not use it up

3. energy is still a factor here, its just now you have a limited amount of shots

4. I think that we should have less ammo for ships

5.Make smaller ships like the warbird and jav have less ammo spots that the spider or terrier. Make the lancaster able to hold alot of ammo and give ammo, since it is a CARRIER ship, and they generally have ammo that ships can stock up on.

I agree with these points. While inevitably it does add some unwanted inconvenience to center-ing, overall, it is a change for the better, as it is a nerf that focuses on skill-less spam. I really like the last point though, about the lancaster being a support ship. Perhaps this ability could be given in some degree to the weasel and/or terrier since the former is intended to be a support ship, while the latter is a jack-of-all trades.

 

I agree with this thread 110%

Summoner now cost 190K.

A quote from the pub. chat:

arnk is a noob who wants to kill basing.

I agree. Basing is the only real way to make money, and the whole purpose of the zone.

Basing in Hyperspace was not always about skill-lessly sitting in a bombline spamming ctrl and tab, nor skill-lessly suicide rushing while spamming every item you have. He is merely trying to change basing, and for the better. While it may kill the current "basing", I say good riddance, because it will introduce something that is more fun.

[Sharpflame]

I like basing without the massive thor spam, and other item spam. I don't like how the defenders will always win just because they are in the back of the base. I suggest that Repels and Bursts are made more powerful. More Repel distance, push, and time. More burst bullets. This way, those who go out of their way to buy the Repels and Burst can actually be useful. This is like when the bricks were made 1-time use. They weren't very great until the life span of them was increased. Making it cheaper isn't always the best way to solve something.

 

 

One negative I've noticed lately is the amount of robotic rocket Spiders that do the same task over and over: Rocket, spam Plasma Cannon, suicide, repeat. I think Plasma Cannon aught to at least take more ammo, It's L3 Multifire Bounce. Quite a good deal for the user, but I don't think they deserve to spam it around center over the poor ships. I don't have so much of a problem with Spiders rocketing, it's how they spam the gun everywhere and don't seem to have to pay for it.

 

Another point about basing, is that I hope bases are going to be opened up more. There's gonna be less item spam. If bases are opened up a bit more, we can have a little more progress and a fun flag game. It should be challenging for the attackers if the defenders are good, not if the defenders have that tight squeeze.

[cow888]

This game was designed in the spirit of the true arcade game, not a modern first person shooter, or even a sim. This was supposed to be Asteroids or Galaga, except allowing you to use the net to do it with/against all your pals over a huge map.

Says you.

 

If you prefer a faster pace and more action to strategy and timing, open up your SubSpace client and bring up the zone list. There should be around two dozen zones in there, and only one of them uses ammunition.

[Animate Dreams]

I'd like to compliment owl for making a well articulated topic about how he feels. We're in the process of introducing some ammo-less guns, and ways to make ammo less annoying.

 

The general idea behind ammo is to stop bountying in the bases. You can't sit there spamming bullets/bombs on a bombline, hoping to make a random kill. If our next solution doesn't fix the bountying in center (but I think it will), we'll probably take out the safeties in the ammo depots.

That won't stop btying in base. The current solution to the problem you've tried to present is that someone lances beside a depot, and people one-by-one attach to ammo lance, spam their recharge macro while flying through the depot, then attaching back to base lance. Since pub freqs max out at 20, no one's going to miss two ships, not with as horribly, HORRIBLY designed these bases are. Two men and a dog can defend base 3 against a full pub freq, and that means people are going to have no problem recharging ammo.

 

That said, I find it hard to believe that ammo was impremented to stop base bountying, for two reasons. First off, it was implemented in such a way that it would in no way make bountying in base hard. Second, there is a much, much more obvious solution, were that the goal. My best guess is that someone was like, "hey, we could implement a system where you ran out of ammo", and for some reason, maybe because it seemed more "realistic"(which has NEVER had a positive effect on a game), or just because it was something else to add, it was implemented. Now, for the more obvious solution, if you want buying ammo to mean that someone loses bounty, all you'd have to do is make bounty part of the cost of ammo. It's very simple. Either you charge a pre-set amount of bounty per-reload, or you just reset a player's bounty every time they buy ammo, not have them warp out of a base to reload and hope that they spent enough time in a safe zone that they might lose some indeterminant amount of bounty. If someone were to start with a problem, "I want to reduce a player's bounty after a pre-determined amount of shots", then that's the solution someone would come up with. Not this "I'll implement bounty-loss as a by-product of having to run to the safezone to recharge, unless they find one of the many ways to cir!@#$%^&*vent bounty-loss which I don't want them to do anyway". I don't believe that the ammo system was implemented to solve this problem of "base bountying".

 

What should really be talked about is why you're trying to stop bountying in bases at all. It's a perfectly legitimate and natural extension of having bounty increase the amount of cash you get from kills. Why have bounty increase cash if you don't want players to increase their bounty? Or do you only want them to bounty in center? If that's true, it's simple enough to write a module to just... oh, I don't know, have a player's bounty constantly be reset to 10 while in bases, or when money is given, first check to see that the player is in the center before increasing the amount of cash they're given, or any number of solutions that are all far easier than designing and implementing an entire ammo system. But I don't believe it SHOULD be stopped. Players enjoy trying to bounty in base. It even takes some degree of skill - and the only things reducing the amount of skill it takes, are the poorly designed bases, not the implementation of how bounty affects cash, or the ammo system. If a player finds a spot in a base that is easy to survive in while making kills, and that player successfully survives, that player deserves the extra cash. That was the thinking behind bounty increasing cash in the first place, was it not?

 

So why is it that every time a player finds a way to make cash, or to make kills, or otherwise have fun in Hyperspace, it's immediately branded as an exploit and at the least banned, and at the worst, an entire new module or system is implemented to stop it? The only problem with the ammo system is that it's useless. It doesn't cost enough cash to be consequential, and it doesn't take any skill beyond remembering to use your recharge macro every couple hours. It doesn't add skill to the game, it doesn't add fun, it doesn't fix any existing problems, and it doesn't create any new opportunities. I don't have a problem with the ammo system. I have a problem with the game design theory behind the ammo system. It's part of the idea, "Anything that results that was not part of the developer's original vision is not part of the game and should not be used". This is a horrible idea and one of the pillars of scrubdom, and has no place in game design. It's also part of another idea that is local to Hyperspace, "Anything new and/or innovative is automatically good, and anyone who prefers the old way is simply nostalgic, and there are no other possibilities". For the past, oh, at least 4 years in Hyperspace, any time someone says they liked something better the old way, they are told they are wrong, and that "Nostalgia isn't what it used to be", as proof that the player is wrong. That is by no means a comprehensive list of the problems in HS, but that is what's REALLY wrong with the item system. I'm betting most players haven't thought it through that far, but most of them instantly realized that, all of the sudden, there was something added that does nothing but annoy them, and that's why they don't like it. Adding ammo-less guns, or making ammo less annoying, is only doing just that - making it LESS annoying. Instead of, you know, making it more fun, we're now in damage control mode, with no intent of simply correcting(read: removing) the offender. Seriously, did anyone think this through, even for a second?

[Pity.]

Ani, that was well thought out and does have a lot of points. And yes it makes me wonder, why are we even trying to stop btying? Isn't that part of the game? Also, by reducing the bty increase by half isn't that already enough?

[Arry]

'bout time I'm threw my three cents in here (yes, I have three, where many of you mortals only have two cents )

 

First off.... let's break down the ammo system into game atoms. (aka game elements). The ammo system is actually three new game elements from a player's perspective.

 

1) Firstly game atom is resource management (i.e. making sure you don't run out). And by multiplayer extension becomes a game of sucker. As in... whoever runs out of ammo in the middle of a dogfight becomes the sucker. Mastering this game atom is as simple as remembering to press a macro every life and mastering the reloading game atom (we'll talk about that in a minute). Neither of these are particularly challenging, and therefore it's only rewarding (read fun) when someone else runs out and you catch the 'sucker' with their proverbial pants down.

 

2) Second game atom added is the reloading challenge. That is, getting to a reloading zone without losing (much) of your bounty. This game atom is simply a mastery of completing a set of manuevers (button pressing) in the least amount of time possible. And frankly, I think the only people complaining about this are the people who fail at it miserably. This game atom is immediately rewarding to those who master it (ie they get to keep btying and making tons of cash).

 

3) Third game atom is an extension of the ship building system. You're trying to make the best ship you can and this now includes exploring the ammo usage of guns, both in money cost and how often you refill. (How well you've mastered game atom #2 above will determine how important time between refills will be). In geek terms this is exploring possibility spaces searching for local maxima. This is the fundamental game atom of any RPG and I find this extension to be a good addition.

 

There may be some other hidden game atoms here like the challenge of building a macro or the challenge of managing the "pants down" situation (ie, effectively running away or beating your opponent even when your ammo does run out), but the three I mentioned were the main ones.

 

I think the key things here that developers need to be aware of is that A- they forcing players to play game atoms 1 and 2 and B- players will quickly master game atoms 1 and even 2, and after a while, they could get bored of being forced to play those games (er... game atoms). They will want to byp!@#$%^&* these now "boring" games in order to play the ones that are still challenging. (byp!@#$%^&*ing could be anything from relegating it to a simple keystroke with a macro, to an autobuyer/autoreloader, to higher capacity which means forcing the player to play that game atom less) The third game atom added is not being forced on players so it's not prone to the same boredom/drudgery factor (ie a player can maximize their possibility spaces any time they want to as long as they have money)

Edited February 20, 2008 by Arry

[Choose Profile]

Ani, thanks for the articulated post. I havent read it til now do to its lenght, but it has some great points. I dont have the time at the moment to discuss your ideas to any degree, but I am very interested in getting a developer or brain himself to comment on your thoughts.

[Russky]

could fix it with the fact that repels and bursts have less max items per ship, but possibly increase their effect in a certain way...

the ammo is not a terrible idea its just the fact that the bounce of the bullets... you might wanna look into the fact that you need a lot more exp to get bouncing bullets while it is quiet easy to get regular once... sure it will change basing a lot, but at least there wont be as many btyers sitting there and spraying till their heart's content... and you can make it so once the person has bought the bouncing bullets it also slows down recharge/movement/anything else it can do in the negative... there are countless number of prizes you can give people... once excellent way is to lower the bullet alive time that way the bullet lines aren't too long or no bounce on a lot of the gun you get at lower levels, but remove the ammo system altogether.

 

i think it will leave the spam that people enjoy so much but it will have a smaller effect on the attackers that way

 

especially the ships, im not saying the ship sets are bad, im saying they can all be slightly different in role for example weasel can have 2 bursts and only 1 repel while some other ship can have the opposite, so all ships have a slightly different role

Edited February 20, 2008 by Russky

[»Ceiu]

"Anything that results that was not part of the developer's original vision is not part of the game and should not be used". This is a horrible idea and one of the pillars of scrubdom' date=' and has no place in game design.[/quote']

 

You seem to be confusing a couple of mentalities here. You're looking at it entirely from a player's perspective -- and typically one who only plays static games (last gen console gaming). Sure, in the various fighting games you've played you've come to learn what's broken and what isn't and you've probably also dealt with people who think it's lame to use broken elements. Now, when dealing with a static game, it's going to come down to the type of people you play with. However, when you're dealing with a game that's in development, you can bet that if the developer sees people using something in a way they didn't intend and it's breaking the game they designed, they're going to fix it.

 

This isn't some evil plan or anything, this is just the developer fixing a mistake or oversight of theirs. Now, people abusing something they know is clearly broken to further themselves at the cost of making people quit or otherwise have less fun... that's far more "evil", in my opinion. A good example of this is the current turret situation. A solid team of terriers on a broken lanc setup = god turret. A few teams know this and have exploited it quite well and it promptly kills the population, as there isn't a decent setup that can (reliably) take it down yet.

 

In any event, ammo is not the problem here, people. I agree it's current implementation isn't the best it could be; but it's far from the worst.

[Animate Dreams]

However, when you're dealing with a game that's in development, you can bet that if the developer sees people using something in a way they didn't intend and it's breaking the game they designed, they're going to fix it.

 

This isn't some evil plan or anything...

 

It may not be an evil plan, it's just a bad one. That it is a bad idea to try and "fix" something in a game just because it isn't quite the way you envisioned it was only one part of my post. The rest was explaining that what was happening wasn't "fixing" at all, and was just making things worse. My point is, "not fitting the developer's original vision" is NOT sufficient reason to change a system. If something broken, then you can fix it. Don't "fix" something that is working fine just because you imagined it in a different way.

[»Ceiu]

I'm not going to debate something with you when you're so blind to the obvious. So, to put it simply:

 

No.