It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by k11keeper But they are made that way and when people figure out the system there is optimal or not optimal. You're opposing my side of the argument by starting an entirely different argument of whether games should be designed that way or not. I agree they shouldn't be designed that way but currently they are. So currently I prefer playing optimal builds, until a game where that isn't the case is fun to me and I play it I will always play the most optimal way.
I referenced an established game with an established game mechanic.
If one will derive anything from ym commentary it's that yes there should be more like it, but you should notice that it's not just speculative suggestion.
If it's a game you never played I can give you that though.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Originally posted by Adamantine Originally posted by Emrendil Originally posted by Muke No, I like games that give me freedom as well as access to all content there is without changing my playstyle to something I don't want. In short: sandboxes.
Yep, we need more sandbox type of mmorpgs.
Actually you only need ONE game that suits you.
Am lucky enough that I found that one long ago.
Never thought I would still have fun playing it after almost 10y.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
Within the scope of available combat mechanics in any MMO, you will at most have a couple dozen viable combinations of abilities and statistics that are effective enough to allow you to actually complete the content or progress or survive a fight/encounter etc.
It's just statistics.
So it doesn't matter if you have skill based or class based really.
If you are talking sub-optimal or even sub-effective builds, than yes a skill based system would allow you all kinds of terrible builds that wouldn't allow you to complete anything in the game.
But do people REALLY count those?
I mean, yeah I could max out my manufacturing skills in EvE and then go fly a Freighter into a PvP encounter armed with a handful of tech 1 blasters and have zero tank...
But is it really worth counting as an option? No.
Even back in UO you had skills that complimented each other well, you had builds, and everyone that did PvP or higher-end PvE used 'em.
That's all class versus skill based really matters in the end - kind of prevents bad players from gimping themselves too terribly. That was the entire point of the WoW talent revamp.
There is still plenty of wiggle room for theorycrafting and maximizing rotations and stats etc.
The difference between good player and bad player using exact same build (even with exact same gear) is still a night and day difference people.
You should read my first post in this too.
It's not the only solution to skill based games and balancing build options, but it's a good example of the means to which it can be or has been done (to a degree) before.
Originally posted by Deivos
I have not played asherons call so I am not familiar with the mechanic you wrote about, sounds nice enough though. My point was that I agree with you that it would be great if the mechanics were changed to sort of "take the math out of it" but that is an entirely different question than do you like cookie cutter builds. My point was that the majority of games today and in the past are based on algorithms and with enough testing you can unravel those algorithms and find what is optimal. With that known I prefer "cookie cutter" or what I would call optimal builds.
I guess if the question was do you prefer games with mechanics that negate the need for optimal builds we would be in agreement. The problem is these are games and are not as organic and we would like but are built from the ground up with coding and mathematical rules.
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes.That way, if they get angry, they'll be a mile away... and barefoot.
Just a different stance on the build thing then. In general if a game caters too strongly to particular builds I won't enjoy it because I know any choice of personalization over performance is at a negative cost.
It's that at a basic level I don't particularly endorse metagaming. I enjoy things better when people can lay down a character concept and 'make it work' than operating within systems with wide margins of efficiency.
So the deviating point is where when you're aware the system has optimal builds you gravitate to those builds, when I see a clear margin in performance that doesn't have to do with player skill or playstyle, then I see that as a failed game and don't choose to keep playing it.
For me it's a straight up fundamental disagreement with and consequential choice to not support such games and mechanics.
There is a reason for "cookie cutter builds". But what people often ignore is that game mechanics will change during the lifetime of a single MMO. And there is an effort involved to find those so called "cookie cutter builds". Especially since a lot of MMOs offer equipment progression at some point. Then it's:
build (class/skill selection) + equipment = cookie cutter build
How do you find "cookie cutter builds"? You name it. By experimenting.
Different aspects of a game impose different requirements on a character's build. That results in different "cookie cutter builds" for different tasks. Questing has less (external) requirements. Grouping will favour specialization and roles. Raiding even more so.
What is the driving force for people to play a game? A game is not like a job where you are required to have certain skills before being allowed to do the job. In general one starts playing a game and with time learns the ropes (with or without the help of others). A game is more forgiving when it comes to errors. You don't succeed in a task? Repeat that part of the game until you get better. Experiment with your in-game character. With a job it's less forgiving. If you're not up to the task you might end up getting fired.
Originally posted by k11keeper I think most of you that are so against optimal builds don't understand one thing. When it comes down to do it these are games and there is math behind the system. When said math is figured out people use spreadsheets, parses, and other tools to figure out the most optimal setup possible. Sure you can go ahead and be a unique snowflake all you want and give all kinds of BS reasons for it but I can use hard evidence to prove my build being optimal.
If you only play video games to win, optimal builds are fine but if you only play video games, by your own definition being nothing more than matha-ma-warrior number crunching, to win, can you really call it 'winning'? Who needs graphics? Who needs content? My 5 beats your 4. Spam 5 until someone shows me a 6, figure out where he got the 6 and spam 6. I've never had a driven need to be part of any I-Win gang. They ruin games for me. It's why I have come to dispise "pvp-centric" games. There are too many I-Winners. If winning was that important to me, the last thing I would be doing is wasting 4 hrs of my life daily playing video games.
Originally posted by Emrendil Originally posted by tazarconan The best way to play, is through a system that there is no such thing as best build clear. Every build u make should have strong points and weaknesses.Players should be experimenting with builds to determine what sort of build suits their playstyle better and they should be free to choose so. Jack of all trades,busrt dmg,dps,better survivalability etc etc
Well, a lot of mmos are not like that.
I know.Especially the brand names that ruled the industry the last years. One of the reasons maybe that the majority of ppl are dissapointed with mmos lately?
Lets just get one thing straight.. I might have missed this point, myself, earlier. But CC builds are not the same as FOTM builds.
CC builds are what you get when you do a little math and see how you best spend your points to do one thing or several things in some cases, so you get the most for your points.
Some of those builds get to be so popular that everyone uses them. Or they are so obvious that everyone just picks them by default.. Those are FOTM builds.. They are prone to being countered. Or if they are really hard to counter, (and even if they are not, but people dont want to adapt.) then they are prone to nerfing or "balancing".
Im sorry to put it this bluntly. But you would have to be exceptionally dense or willfully obstinate, if you either dont hit upon the build on your own or if you can ignore other peoples comments about builds and unsee the builds that are listed when you go and read about the abilities of your character in detail. I mean do you just randomize your skill points?
Or are we talking about more than skills here?. Is it items too?.. Ok if simple to get the same gear then you will be back at the same issue.. Why intentionally go with something that is not optimal?
No I dont particularly like CC builds.. I dont hate them either.. It just makes sense to build characters a certain way and not waste points on something you dont use.
I absolutly detest FOTM builds.. I might try them out sometimes, or I might already be on that build. But I rarely switch builds when everyone else does. I play the way I like and I will only switch my build when I want to change my play style. Maybe I just got this sweeeeeeeet 2h sword and its just perfect for another build. So Ill try that out for a bit... But I will be using a CC build or I will have made one of my own, if noone else thought of it first, before long.
Originally posted by free2play Originally posted by k11keeper I think most of you that are so against optimal builds don't understand one thing. When it comes down to do it these are games and there is math behind the system. When said math is figured out people use spreadsheets, parses, and other tools to figure out the most optimal setup possible. Sure you can go ahead and be a unique snowflake all you want and give all kinds of BS reasons for it but I can use hard evidence to prove my build being optimal.
It is the same with PvE though.. My 5 beats your 4 for keeping the tank alive or killing bosses faster.
Spam 5 until boss does X then spam 3 six times and then back to 5 rinse and repeat until boss is dead.
It is fairly simple.. a macro could do it.. and they do..
Only way to keep it obscure is to add lots of options, and even that is going to get solved eventually... but you would still have more variety, I think. Atleast if the some of the options had something going for them..
Originally posted by tazarconan Originally posted by Emrendil Originally posted by tazarconan The best way to play, is through a system that there is no such thing as best build clear. Every build u make should have strong points and weaknesses.Players should be experimenting with builds to determine what sort of build suits their playstyle better and they should be free to choose so. Jack of all trades,busrt dmg,dps,better survivalability etc etc
I have to say that it should take a long time for your character to reach max level (+master levels or AAs or whatever) . And it should be hard to find good gear and what you do find is of a great variety.
Then you will have people making builds from necesity that fits what they have. They might save up all their cash to buy a weapon that suits how they want to play rather than having it dictated by drops..
Hell in fact lets have randomized stats and quirks.. Then we can roleplay something we didnt pick..
But would we still put skill points into what was optimal for our character?.. I think we would..
Im not seeing anyone explain what exactly their problem with CCs are.. Is it that almost everyone builds the same way.. Well that is because everyone is trying to do the exact same thing.
Or is it that you get shit from other players for showing up for PvP or Raiding in you miss matched gear or with your homegrown solo/jackofalltrades (or ooh look a skillpoint, that skill sounds fun) spec. Well either your spec is shit and you should know better... or it is "The Shit" and you just need to hang with a better crowd of people and show everyone else how its really done...
I mean Ive taken heat for taking my solo cave magic specced shammy to RvR in WoW.. "Where is our End 4 why do you buff with End 3? Now we cant permasprint" I could have said: "Well where is you Long Wind 2?" And indeed some people had that, but I would have to prearrange the group.
So I either had to wait for a rare group, respec, play one of my other shammies or a different class, see if I could get a filler spot, or go and solo either in PvP or PvE..
Now I made that build myself.. but while looking at a build for my other shaman.. I saw that someone had come up with the exact same build.. So apparantly even CC builds get left out in the cold..
Originally posted by nariusseldon No. I prefer games that have multiple combat builds, and variations.
^^^ This, even if it take too long to master them all.
What's funny is that Turbine takes the exact opposite apporaches to two of its games: LOTRO and DDO.
LOTRO is so cookie cutter when it first came out that is was laughable. Even with the skill trees they put in a few years back, it is still cookie cutter. Turbine acknowledged this and decided to revamp the class again at the end of the year. You make a guard, and its going to be a tank pretty much for the entire game, not to say you can't fill a DPS role but lets face it you aren't going to cast a spell.
However at the other end of the spectrum they have DDO. DDO is so open ended and so builder intensive with so many options its staggering. Unless it is restricted by alignment, almost any class can do anything in that game. You control your opening stats, the classes you pick and the feats, skills, etc. That game is a race to see the flavor of the month build. The best archers used to be Rangers, then depwood rangers, then fighters, then we started mixing monks into it, heck I saw good bard and cleric archers, now its artificers or whatever.
Personally I hate the cookie cutter build. The more diversity the better the game.
Originally posted by arrgy What's funny is that Turbine takes the exact opposite apporaches to two of its games: LOTRO and DDO. LOTRO is so cookie cutter when it first came out that is was laughable. Even with the skill trees they put in a few years back, it is still cookie cutter. Turbine acknowledged this and decided to revamp the class again at the end of the year. You make a guard, and its going to be a tank pretty much for the entire game, not to say you can't fill a DPS role but lets face it you aren't going to cast a spell. However at the other end of the spectrum they have DDO. DDO is so open ended and so builder intensive with so many options its staggering. Unless it is restricted by alignment, almost any class can do anything in that game. You control your opening stats, the classes you pick and the feats, skills, etc. That game is a race to see the flavor of the month build. The best archers used to be Rangers, then depwood rangers, then fighters, then we started mixing monks into it, heck I saw good bard and cleric archers, now its artificers or whatever. Personally I hate the cookie cutter build. The more diversity the better the game.
I also believe that problem is simplicity of some modern MMOs...
Either provide such large amount of options that it takes long time to reach the optimal build. Or provide item variety, or make items variable as such that getting all items for single setup is relatively hard. I prefer more complex systems, where people have to make due with what they got. Eventually people will end in cookie cutter setups, but this might be circumvented by having different stats on same items, such as few items are the same...
This of course don't work really well with current day trends of tiered gear etc...
Nope, not that interested in cookie cutter builds. Mostly, I do concept builds...mostly. Don't care if other folks want to go there though, and the minimaxers provide a service of sorts by fine tuning things. That drive to eke out the last 3% of damage/etc is just too much hassle for me. Hell, I often try to find out what's considered the worst thing to play, and see if I can find a way to make it even vaguely viable. Fun is different things to different people.
The thing I really don't care for is gating for type or gear score, etc. Just not a team I am going to get along well with. I would prefer someone with a good sense of humor who was a complete incompetant newbie to an uptight gearhead, no matter how competant.
I also prefer games that have flexible enough systems to allow most combos of characters to do most content.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Hm, I played DDO 2 years ago, but for really short period of time. Maybe I should try it again.
Website: http://www.emrendil.comTwitchTV: http://www.twitch.tv/emrendilTwitter: https://twitter.com/Emrendil
Originally posted by znaiika Originally posted by nariusseldon No. I prefer games that have multiple combat builds, and variations.
You don't really need to master them all to have fun.
If i am sick of one build, it is good to know there is another to try.
I also prefer games with zero respec cost, so i can experiement. That is half of the fun.
Originally posted by Emrendil I was just wondering, do you like "cookie cutter" builds in MMO? Or would you like to see more diversity?
Always more diversity. In fact I wish more MMOs had classes for those that like archetypes but also had an open ended route for those that wanted to build something specialized. I honestly don't see the point of cookie cutter builds in any MMO based on numerical progression. Just show the different "roles" available for my class and automatically populate the skills so I don't have to spend time on a forum figuring the same thing out.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by znaiika Originally posted by nariusseldon No. I prefer games that have multiple combat builds, and variations.
It was pretty cool in Rift where you could have multiple roles and switch between them.
A person wanting there to exist a "best build" will actually invest his talent points into those options which he actually deems to be the best, and, if through comparison, he finds that perhaps other ways might be better, he would then actually change his build to reflect that, and keep repeating this process until he is largely settled. And when he's reached this point, he will be firmly of the opinion that his build is correct -- and I say all of this within the framework of a non-cookie cutter system.
But for the person who does not want a cookie cutter system, but is forced to exist within one: for such a person, there is no way to feel unique while viable in their experimentations, because their attempts to be different can only ever be considered objectively inferior. All the people seeking a single best build will be content, and they will view with a strange disdain that person who tries things differently.
Therefore, we notice it is possible for both the person seeking singular bests as well as the person not seeking such to be able to both be content in a non cookie cutter system, whereas only the person seeking singular bests can be content within the opposite.
It is clear that the best system for everyone is one in which there are no cookie cutter builds.
Originally posted by Kurush I guess I should clarify. Yes, tons of people use "cookie cutter" builds. In some games, almost every competent player of a given class is running around with a minor variation on the same build. But I don't think people use them because I like them. I don't believe players get up in the morning and say, "Woohoo! Another day when I can be like everybody else!" They usually pick them because they feel forced to. This is especially true in Holy Trinity-based games. That was my point.
Thats a result of poor balancing. In a well made game, every choice a player gets actually matters. Thats why I hate skillbased systems and love classbased ones: classbased systems are much easier to rebalance, and classbased systems are much easier to make in a way that different classes are actually playing substantly differently. Skillbased games sometimes introduce the fun of "offering X possible builds", but in reality no they dont.
Thats why you often have LESS actual choices with skillbased, than with classbased.
About your obligatory Trinity-bashing: meh. I dont get this newest fashion that GW2 introduced. Nobody complained about the Trinity before, the majority of complaints about Trinity arent about Trinity but about poorly designed combat, and GW2 itself actually proved that having the Trinity would have been a good idea. Unsurprising for me, apparently surprising for others. So yeah, you wanna bash the Trinity, you'll get nothing but yawning from me.
Just say "Player specialization" instead of Trinity and you might end up realizing what this is about. No player specialization, this means uniformity and lack of choices. THATS what you are demanding. Well congrats, many games are getting better at that.