Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate was my first exposure to the Monster Hunter franchise, and I find it enjoyable enough. But as a newbie to it there is a lot of new information for me to process, encompassing everything from monster patterns and weaknesses to armor skills and kinsect growth, to say nothing of trying to make sense of the actual comparative strength of weapons after accounting for their listed damage values, actual damage values, dps, sharpness, and affinity. You start to get a feel for it eventually, but it's definitely overwhelming to start with.
Consequentially, one of the first things I did after choosing a main weapon to start with was look online for guides on how to use it and armor sets that would let me maximize its potential. Because I had no idea what Sharpness+1 even meant in practical terms, much less which armor pieces had the necessary points in Handicraft (or even that Handicraft was the necessary skill required to get Sharpness+1). It's been some time since then and I've gotten a decent handle on the game as a whole but I still look to templates and compare them so I can zero in easy ways to get what I need out of my equipment without hobbling myself, especially considering that I do a decent amount of multiplayer for MH4U.
Which brings me to this thread. Looking around again, I've noticed once more a certain...dismissiveness towards templates and builds, perhaps best expressed in the line "You people and your template sets/programs that put sets together for you. What happened to the people who could actually make good sets on their own?" It's not something unique to this game, mind you. I remember seeing a similar sentiment from time to time in Guild Wars, SWTOR, tabletop games, and even when people were asking for build advice for single player games like KoTOR. This got me curious as to what the general sentiment on the subject was.
So, Escapists, today I ask you about templates and builds. Do you use them yourselves, do you make a point of avoiding them? Are there some circumstances when you find them permissible and others where they are not? Inquiring minds want to know!
Templates are boring because everyone basically ends up rolling the same character.
Every game, no matter how balanced always has a certain arrangement of skills, or weapons, or armor, or a combination of all of the above which either straight up breaks encounters, or is just widely considered "the best." People who want to maximize their effectiveness at the game end up using those combinations (and why shouldn't they, they're in the game and available to everyone, why wouldn't you make the most effective character you can?), but it creates stagnation when everyone is running around with the same armor set and weapon, and it makes the game boring.
Furthermore, when you use a template to design and spec your character it's no longer your character, not really. You've just copied what someone else created. Again, it's just boring and it isn't creative.
Templates are boring because everyone basically ends up rolling the same character.
Every game, no matter how balanced always has a certain arrangement of skills, or weapons, or armor, or a combination of all of the above which either straight up breaks encounters, or is just widely considered "the best." People who want to maximize their effectiveness at the game end up using those combinations (and why shouldn't they, they're in the game and available to everyone, why wouldn't you make the most effective character you can?), but it creates stagnation when everyone is running around with the same armor set and weapon, and it makes the game boring.
Furthermore, when you use a template to design and spec your character it's no longer your character, not really. You've just copied what someone else created. Again, it's just boring and it isn't creative.
Chromehounds was an amazing online mech game. I still hope for a sequel, but one thing that sullied the end of its life was that you'd always see 3 basic mechs. The crab, the gun, and the box. Why have a build your own mech feature when its just these 3 annoying and ugly ones everyone uses? I didn't bother and had more fun trying to make unique ones. Like a mini-sniper/commander hybrid. Was it practical? Doubt it, but it was a neat idea I think.
In Guild Wars if you don't use a template build when PUGing you would often get kicked so you basically had to use them.
I don't have anything against them. Do I use them? Sometimes. If I'm not familiar with they system and there is no respec options I'll look at templates but I tend to use them more as general guideline and more for stat growth than skills. I like making builds even if I'm not good at it and I don't want to be too OP in single player.
Templates are boring because everyone basically ends up rolling the same character.
Every game, no matter how balanced always has a certain arrangement of skills, or weapons, or armor, or a combination of all of the above which either straight up breaks encounters, or is just widely considered "the best." People who want to maximize their effectiveness at the game end up using those combinations (and why shouldn't they, they're in the game and available to everyone, why wouldn't you make the most effective character you can?), but it creates stagnation when everyone is running around with the same armor set and weapon, and it makes the game boring.
Furthermore, when you use a template to design and spec your character it's no longer your character, not really. You've just copied what someone else created. Again, it's just boring and it isn't creative.
That depends entirely on the game. In Monster Hunter I love playing as a hammer user. A friend of mine loves playing as sword and shield. My play style revolves around using charge attacks and dodging. Thus I may get armour sets that give me faster charge, more stamina and probably more chance of stunning. Other hammer uses may have a different play style and end up with different sets. It also depends on what monster you are fighting. Some monsters are resistant to knockout, thus I need to change my play style and again, my armour set. So I'd say that in a well designed game your best setup is personal and situational.
OT: I don't care one way or the other actually. I had a template designed armour set in Monster Hunter 3 once, but I haven't bothered to do that more than once. I usually have more fun when I don't involve spreadsheets and macros in my games, but for those who want to do this I don't see any harm. Play the game the way you like it.
It was kinda the exception rather than the rule, I will admit. Far more often than not, people expected the templates like you say, but at the same time you'd get a minority popping up from time to time complaining about them. Though in retrospect, I suppose that could have been frustration with the way it locked people out of the system if they didn't have all the expansions, much like the "Rank 7 or higher" PUG requirements for Heroes Ascent locked out non-veterans.
Made for a bit of a paradox, really. Far more often than not, people expected the templates like you say, but at the same time you'd get a minority popping up from time to time complaining about them. Though in retrospect, I suppose that could have been frustration with the way it locked people out of the system if they didn't have all the expansions, much like the "Rank 7 or higher" PUG requirements for Heroes Ascent locked out non-veterans.
What I found kinda frustrating is that you have this game that seems built for experimenting with builds because unlike most MMOs you can change things around very easily and save builds yourself but then you get discouraged from actually doing that by the players themselves. Although that's not the fault of the templates existing.
The first is templates existing for the best thing in game. This can be designed around and all that, but if it exists... They kind of ruin games when there's one 'best' template out there. Imagine logging onto League or DotA, and there was only 1 hero everyone played because it was the best. Boring, right? That's why people hate templates.
Generally, in single player games, people don't care so much. Unless that template is required to beat the game, it doesn't matter and you can have fun doing whatever you want - people asking for such templates are generally looked down upon as, well, it often implies a lack of interest in the game itself, and more interest in just 'winning' the game, which isn't usually the point.
Multiplayer games though? Yeah, templates are hated. Why? Well, as above, everyone is the same. The further downside to this is that if you're not the same, the community itself will kick you out because you're not min/maxed to optimally grind them more gear so they can min/max harder. It leaves you in a situation where you only play with friends, or you don't play multiplayer. All the fun of experimenting with builds, or customising your character, is gone. Its replaced by a simple "Be this, or GTFO" mindset, which really kind of sucks.
Yeah, a lot of these games are pretty hard to get into sometimes, and not knowing what everything does practically is a real issue, but that's often best countered by an explanation of how they all fit together and what does what, rather than giving you the answer. Its like learning Maths. If you're friend is confused because they can't figure out what X is in 4 * X^2 = 16, you can either just tell them its 2, or you can explain to them the concept that they're missing so they can figure out the problems on their own. They get more out of it if you explain how to do something, rather than just giving them the answer, even though both will allow them to answer the question.
Hearthstone has had this problem for a long time. In the beginning, you'd see a lot of crazy deck ideas because the big name streamers were still starting out. Nowadays, every class has 1-3 deck types that you'll see on ladder, with maybe a little variation at the highest ranks because they can afford to experiment since they've already hit the top. I will admit to copying deck lists, not because I lack creativity, but because the meta has shifted in such a way that playing anything other than meta decks won't get you anywhere.
With that said, I mostly avoid using templates because I like seeing how far I can push the system to make what I want to make. I must have personally designed hundreds of Dark Souls characters for that purpose alone. The last template I used is for a Druid build in Diablo 2, but only because I had a bad experience in Path of Exile, where just winging a build meant the last act was nigh-unbeatable without mega-cheese.
Though as someone above said, the difference is between single and multi player. I don't mind using a template for the former because, in the example of MH4U, it's the skill of the player that gets you far and not only quality of gear. Use in the latter just means that there'll be a bunch of clones running around the servers, and that's no fun.
Furthermore, when you use a template to design and spec your character it's no longer your character, not really. You've just copied what someone else created. Again, it's just boring and it isn't creative.
I don't see how that matters, either. If the goal is to have "your own unique character", then yeah it would. I've yet to find a game that really focuses on that, though. That can be a personal goal but, as the adjective suggests, it will not be everybody's personal goal.
Joccaren said:
Unless that template is required to beat the game, it doesn't matter and you can have fun doing whatever you want - people asking for such templates are generally looked down upon as, well, it often implies a lack of interest in the game itself, and more interest in just 'winning' the game, which isn't usually the point.
Actually, templates[footnote]as a I side note, that's actually the first time I've heard them called that. I usually see them referred to as "builds".[/footnote] are weirdly self-fulfilling. If a game is simple enough to be beatable with any strategy, they aren't really that important, if the mechanics are complex enough so templates exist, then you normally have to maintain a power to your build or you'll fall behind the curve. In other words, templates exist when there is a need for them, so if they exist it's because there is a chance that not using them may result in you "not winning".
Now, it's entirely possible that somebody uses a template for lack of interest in the game. But here is the thing - that's not automatically bad. Learning how a game works is actually hard. Or it can be, at least - depends on the game - ones with enough moving parts that require templates would definitely be on the harder side. Which leads me to the next point
Joccaren said:
Yeah, a lot of these games are pretty hard to get into sometimes, and not knowing what everything does practically is a real issue, but that's often best countered by an explanation of how they all fit together and what does what, rather than giving you the answer. Its like learning Maths. If you're friend is confused because they can't figure out what X is in 4 * X^2 = 16, you can either just tell them its 2, or you can explain to them the concept that they're missing so they can figure out the problems on their own. They get more out of it if you explain how to do something, rather than just giving them the answer, even though both will allow them to answer the question.
Yes, I can see the comparison to teaching Maths. In fact, maths is most of what you need to understand the mechanics. But here is the thing - people don't like maths. Not everybody - go and ask 10 random school children about it and I doubt you'd get 10 of them agreeing on liking the subject.
But enough with the metaphor, let's move on to other problems of just learning the game mechanics:
First, it takes time. Now, I must say, I really like doing it - I've spent dozens of hours on games without even playing them, just reading about and dissecting their mechanics. However, I would certainly not expect everybody to do that. Heck, I've dropped games because I couldn't be bothered spending the time understanding how they operate and I'd rather not play them without that knowledge. Time is a commodity. We can choose how to spend it but there is a limited amount of it. We generally prefer to spend it on stuff we like, and if people don't enjoy learning in order to actually play than, why should they?
Second, on the point of "tell them the answer" vs "explain the concept". I've covered how the latter can turn people off due to the time requirement but there is another thing - nobody may even understand the concept. Or the information may not be easily available. Point being - how specific game mechanics operate may not be something you can "just do". Or worse yet, people explaining it may not actually understand it.
Let's do two quick examples
- XCOM 2 has XP system for soldiers. In general - if they go on missions, they get XP, they get even more XP if they kill enemies. That's all well and good but how exactly does it operate? There is an upgrade that gave them bonus 25% XP, as well, so it looks like there is just some value hidden somewhere that they fill up and once the non-existent bar is full, they get a promotion. In practice that's not how it works since XP doesn't actually exist [http://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/255057/how-can-i-tell-how-many-kills-my-soldier-is-away-from-promotion/255062#255062]. This is something you wouldn't find out unless you found that StackExchange answer[footnote]Well, it might be in the Wiki now, but it wasn't last time I checked and that was a month after release[/footnote] or if you checked the code yourself. Point being, information is not always easy to come by.
- second example comes from Torchlight 2. A lot of people have been discussing the mechanics and the general consensus was that you shouldn't bother having more than 112 dexterity[footnote]or somewhere around there - it might have been 108 or 114 or so but not far off this value[/footnote] because 1. that gave you 20% dodge chance and 2. the diminishing returns started hitting hard. Now, if you look at the raw numbers, both of these are correct. If you understand the numbers, then 2. isn't. So, adding more dexterity does end up with giving you less and less bonus to dodge - if get 10->11 dex, then you get something like 0.2 dodge and if you put more points in it, it eventually starts giving you 0.1 and then below. So, diminishing returns...only not really, since dodge inherently gives you escalating returns. Every point you get in dodge protects you MORE than every previous point. There were plenty of people who didn't understand that, hence the wrong information being spread.
Now, let's get onto the next part. Above I just used two very simple isolated mechanics and how hard it could be to find the information for them. Mechanics do not work in isolation, though. This makes the entire thing harder to understan - it's good to know that dodge gives you escalating returns even if dexterity gives you flat diminishing returns on it but...what does that mean? I'll use Torchlight 2 since that's where my example was - is dodge good? Bad? should you focus on it? Or not? What about other defence mechanics? Oh sure here is an explanation [http://forums.runicgames.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=55943]. It's 3.5k words on how defences work. But that still doesn't really answer the question, you'd also need more information beyond that to just understand the defences and what the impact is. And indeed, the post in question does link to further information.
Games tend to be complex. Not only that but information on how they work may not be immediately available or it may also be wrong. Trying to grasp the concept is all well and good but it's not easy. Worse yet, the game mechanics don't even work in vacuum - in order to start understanding them you need to start from somewhere but that requires other knowledge you don't have, which in turn requires different one, etc., etc. Eventually you may find that it loops back to the first thing you were trying to get your head around as well, which is both amazing and frustrating at the same time: in order to understand A you need B which requires knowledge of C, which in turn relies on A.
Which is all to say, that I don't blame people if they have "lack of interest" in going through this process. Not to mention that if you really want to understand everything from scratch by yourself, you'd need to spend a lo-o-o-ot of time in-game trying stuff out until you can codify how each thing works. I myself usually take the "easy way" and just find what others have found and published. This still takes time and effort, though.
I think you can see how handing somebody several textbooks that cross link is not always as good as just telling them the answer.
Templates are the norm for MMO's and have been for a long time. The way these games are balanced these days, it's kind of necessary to use them most of the time. It sucks, but that's the reality. WoW used to offer enough flexibility that, outside of a few key talents, allowed for very diverse builds. Now they are so similar you may as well just look at IcyVeins guides or whatever.
For non-MMOs, I think it's fine to look at templates and guides for certain builds, but I never like following a build to the letter.
In this case you can blame my choice of terms on the game used in the example. Monster Hunter doesn't have traditional character stats or skills, it has equipment. Put your end-game character in level 1[footnote]For common reference's sake[/footnote] equipment and for all intents and purposes outside of quest availability and food ingredients they are level 1 again. As such, "[armor] template" felt more fitting than "[character] build". That said, you are right that in most cases build is the more commonly used term.
In this case you can blame my choice of terms on the game used in the example. Monster Hunter doesn't have traditional character stats or skills, it has equipment. Put your end-game character in level 1[footnote]For common reference's sake[/footnote] equipment and for all intents and purposes outside of quest availability and food ingredients they are level 1 again. As such, "[armor] template" felt more fitting than "[character] build". That said, you are right that in most cases build is the more commonly used term.
I wasn't aware of how Monster Hunter worked, so thanks for that. At any rate, I got what the term meant almost immediately, which means it's good enough. Well, when I looked at the title, I first thought it was about pre-generated character looks rather than progression but after starting to read, I got what it was about.
Template does make somewhat more sense in some cases, though - in DotA there are many "stock" configurations of items for characters which would still fit the term, yet they are called "item builds" which does stretch the definition of "build" a bit. On the other hand, I guess the terminology is just to simplify things, since you have ability builds and item builds that can both be combined to refer to a hero build. It'd be weird if you have a build a template that construct a...build? Template? Hybrid? Hence probably why both use the same term.
Ah yea that is one of the con to the MU franchise.
OT- The only time I used template/ build if on Guild Wars 2 PVP (in GW 1 I made my own build which one of them end up becoming the "perma sin". Dammit I invented that build first!).
I don't really like pvp in general but since they added decent loots in the past updates, it pretty much made me to try pvp. Since I take no pleasure from pvp, it hinder whatever creative flow I got going when it come to making a build so I went with the lazy route and look it up online!
People Who Use Templates: The wise ones that seek to learn from those who came before them and discovered some best practices. With this knowledge, they become very formidable. With their own experiments, they may even come across the next best build.
People Who Don't Use Templates: Ignorant fools whose hubris holds them back from discovering true power. Best case scenario is they put in needless amounts of work to reach the same template as everyone else with nothing more to brag about than their wasted time. In many cases, their only hope of contributing anything of worth to the world comes through sheer luck.
That said, I do tend to enjoy building my own character. It's just more fun for me in most games. The exception is if the game is ridiculously challenging and I risk losing all interest if I can't keep up with or beyond the power curve.
But I also understand why people may want templates. Along with making up for the common lack of real academic study in the world (seriously, how many mages are thrown blind into their journey in RPGs? It doesn't make any sense!), it can be a great time saver in the long run for people that have lives outside of gaming.
Actually, templates are weirdly self-fulfilling. If a game is simple enough to be beatable with any strategy, they aren't really that important, if the mechanics are complex enough so templates exist, then you normally have to maintain a power to your build or you'll fall behind the curve. In other words, templates exist when there is a need for them, so if they exist it's because there is a chance that not using them may result in you "not winning".
Now, it's entirely possible that somebody uses a template for lack of interest in the game. But here is the thing - that's not automatically bad. Learning how a game works is actually hard. Or it can be, at least - depends on the game - ones with enough moving parts that require templates would definitely be on the harder side. Which leads me to the next point
Again though, you see the point as "Winning" the game. For a lot of people, especially the ones who look down on templates, winning isn't the point. Enjoying the game is, the gameplay all the way through up to winning. Failing, trying something else, and continuing on. Nothing against you if your only reason for playing the game is to see the "Victory" screen at the end, but a lot of people look down on that sort of player, as they miss around 90% of what a game is trying to offer - because they look for the easy, quick answer, and then complete the game, complain it was boring with no depth, or had no challenge, and move on to something else. Because they decided they would skip 90% of the game's engagement in order to just complete it.
Yes, the more complex games get, the more you need to successfully design your strategies. There is a difference though between designing a competent strategy, and looking up and just using the 'best' strategy out there. Teaching game mechanics allows a player to make their own strategy that can be competently used, and useful hints like "You need more attack, you're going to miss most of your shots" do a whole lot more good than simply "You need your attack to be 219 for optimal min-maxing, and then you'll need 179 defence since you're not tanking, any higher and you're not optimally built...". Giving hints is better than giving an answer.
And on the "Not Winning" point a little more, again, that's something a lot of people hate about templates in multiplayer games. You can play fine and competently without using a template, but you'll often get excluded as you're not "Winning" as much as someone else using the template so they don't want to interact with you without you maxing your win stat. Naturally that leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.
DoPo said:
Yes, I can see the comparison to teaching Maths. In fact, maths is most of what you need to understand the mechanics. But here is the thing - people don't like maths. Not everybody - go and ask 10 random school children about it and I doubt you'd get 10 of them agreeing on liking the subject.
But enough with the metaphor, let's move on to other problems of just learning the game mechanics:
First, it takes time. Now, I must say, I really like doing it - I've spent dozens of hours on games without even playing them, just reading about and dissecting their mechanics. However, I would certainly not expect everybody to do that. Heck, I've dropped games because I couldn't be bothered spending the time understanding how they operate and I'd rather not play them without that knowledge. Time is a commodity. We can choose how to spend it but there is a limited amount of it. We generally prefer to spend it on stuff we like, and if people don't enjoy learning in order to actually play than, why should they?
At the same time, if you asked those kids how many diamond picks they'd need to mine out their current project in Minecraft, a number of them would probably use maths to solve that and be quite happy doing it. The problem with Maths has always been its taught in a vacuum, and it has a stigma against it because you're rarely taught how it relates to what you'll do in life until you reach university. When maths gets related to something people use in everyday life, they actually end up appreciating and liking it, finding it much easier to solve equations and grasp concepts, and liking that they now have a faster and simpler way of solving IRL problems. The issue has always been in its practicality, as opposed to its content. I mean, Chemistry. How many people like memorising the periodic table? Very few. How many like mixing baking soda and vinegar together? A lot more. Likewise few enjoy memorising and practicing wrote mathematical expressions, more enjoy calculating something they were trying to solve anyway with an easy mathematical expression. Sadly text books only half-ass this and ask you to solve the rate of change of oil spills or something, but give someone something in their life related to the math problem, and they'll become a whole lot more engaged.
Likewise its similar with game mechanics. Put them down in a block of text, everyone's going to be bored learning them. Do a Portal, and most people won't even notice.
Anyway, besides the point, that time thing is one very dependent on the game, and good game design counteracts that. See Portal. If you were to read through a tutorial on all the uses for Portals, and all related manoeuvres, it'd be boring, and take a reasonable amount of time. If you play the game and it introduces them to you organically... Technically it takes no time, as you spend it all playing the game.
Likewise, good player written tutorials are similar. They don't front-load everything on you, expect you to spend 12 hours to understand everything, and then head off and play. They'll give a bit of information that explains how things work, not necessarily go into all the details, and explain things in a guide of things you'll need to know at the time. Hell, if there is too much you need to know at the time, good ones split it like "And this is how your combat attacks work. Now, put one point from your level up into Defence, we'll explain why later", and then the next time they level up use the opportunity to explain stats without dumping it all on the player at once. A player-made tutorial/walkthrough of the first one or two levels is usually all that's required, and then drop the player off where they understand the game mechanics, and can continue on to use their understanding to enjoy the game. There are a thousand different ways of explaining the concept, and done right they require not a ton of time investment, and offer far more enjoyment and appreciation of the game than simply giving the best gear and stats right up that everyone should get because min/max.
As for not wanting to spend time learning stuff... Then a lot of the time that might not be the game for them. A lot of games have their core engagement as learning the mechanics and mastering them. A player who doesn't want to learn isn't going to enjoy that game. They're not going to get engaged. Sure, maybe they want to complete it just for the story, that's cool, more power to them. However the community that likes that game, usually for its core engagement, usually isn't going to be happy with someone just using a template to rush through the story and skip past the game, even when it doesn't affect them. Not saying this is how things should be per se, however it is a reason why templates are often looked down upon.
DoPo said:
Second, on the point of "tell them the answer" vs "explain the concept". I've covered how the latter can turn people off due to the time requirement but there is another thing - nobody may even understand the concept. Or the information may not be easily available. Point being - how specific game mechanics operate may not be something you can "just do". Or worse yet, people explaining it may not actually understand it.
Let's do two quick examples
- XCOM 2 has XP system for soldiers. In general - if they go on missions, they get XP, they get even more XP if they kill enemies. That's all well and good but how exactly does it operate? There is an upgrade that gave them bonus 25% XP, as well, so it looks like there is just some value hidden somewhere that they fill up and once the non-existent bar is full, they get a promotion. In practice that's not how it works since XP doesn't actually exist [http://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/255057/how-can-i-tell-how-many-kills-my-soldier-is-away-from-promotion/255062#255062]. This is something you wouldn't find out unless you found that StackExchange answer or if you checked the code yourself. Point being, information is not always easy to come by.
Yet finding out a simple piece of information like this is a lot less 'skip the content' than having exactly which stats on each soldier you should up spelled out for you, which missions you should do in which order and which gear you should have to min/max your way to victory. Additionally, if those 25% XP ups increase the rate at which your soldiers level up still, I'd argue you really don't need to know whether there is XP or not. Sure if you want to min/max, but again, that's usually besides the point of the game. If it increases the rate at which soldiers level up, all you need to think is "I want my soldiers to level up faster", and you can pick it, and the exact mechanics of why it works are irrelevant - it works, and that's what matters. If it doesn't, a simple notification that the perk does nothing is of the same usefulness to the general player as explaining exactly how soldiers level up is.
DoPo said:
- second example comes from Torchlight 2. A lot of people have been discussing the mechanics and the general consensus was that you shouldn't bother having more than 112 dexterity because 1. that gave you 20% dodge chance and 2. the diminishing returns started hitting hard. Now, if you look at the raw numbers, both of these are correct. If you understand the numbers, then 2. isn't. So, adding more dexterity does end up with giving you less and less bonus to dodge - if get 10->11 dex, then you get something like 0.2 dodge and if you put more points in it, it eventually starts giving you 0.1 and then below. So, diminishing returns...only not really, since dodge inherently gives you escalating returns. Every point you get in dodge protects you MORE than every previous point. There were plenty of people who didn't understand that, hence the wrong information being spread.
Uhh, that's still diminishing returns. Diminishing returns doesn't mean your dodge chance will reduce when you increase the points in it, it means it'll increase, but by a lesser amount to the previous increase. The increases - or returns on point of investment - diminish as you go up the tree.
Now, why is this an issue? Opportunity cost. Lets say you're at 112 dexterity, and you can get an extra point and it'll give you 0.08 dodge. I don't play the game to know, but lets say defence gives you a flat damage reduction amount, and you're only at like 70 for it, and one point in that will give you 0.1 damage reduction. Yes, you could increase your chances of dodging by getting dodge, however that damage reduction is just flat out a better number. Whilst your dodge may increase, there are other stats you could invest in that will give you better bonuses, and that's why diminishing returns are often avoided.
Anyway, again, this is going too deep into the mechanics for what is often necessary to play the game. The average player does not need to know that they need exactly 112 dexterity, 80 defence, 130 attack - ect. in order to play and get through the game. They don't even need to know how the stats add up properly and how it all works. What they need to know is that they're playing a rogue, so pump that dexterity and attack up. Dexterity increases dodge, making you stay alive longer, and attack increases your hit, making you kill faster. All they need to know, a short 10 second explanation of how things work, and they can play the game. They won't be the BEST at that game, but again, that's usually besides the point. Example: SWTOR. Up until recently I was doing hardmode raids with other players in just a custom Jedi Knight Sentinel build. No walkthroughs, no tutorials, nothing. I didn't even understand what the stats did outside of the broadest of terms because the in-game descriptors were rubbish. I wasn't really having much trouble, and usually the only times I'd die would be when I was soloing a flashpoint instead of doing it as a group. Now, after doing all this I looked up the best builds for the sentinel because I was at the end of my capabilities for soloing 4 player group content [Not the solo flashpoints, but group flashpoints, done with only me by myself], and I wanted that extra 2% effectiveness to give me the best shot of getting through it. Up until that point? I didn't need to understand the underlying systems and how they all interplayed in order to get through the game. I didn't need to be the best. I just needed to know I'm a DPS Jedi Knight, put points in Mastery and... I've forgotten what its called TBH, haven't played in a few months.
Its similar in almost all games. Very few games have only 1 build that can get through the game, and it has to be perfectly min/maxed. Having a less optimal build is fine, and lets you play and enjoy the game fully, just without being the best. Not needing to be the best reduces the amount of time you need to learn this stuff by around 1000%. A few hints, and a brief explanation of how things work are usually all that's needed for a player to get through the game. Sometimes the game is a bit too unforgiving and more in depth hints and explanations are needed, but you never need to know it all.
As a great example of this, Pokemon. Do you know how Pokemon catch chance for each ball you throw is calculated? I sure as hell don't, looked it up once and it was this ridiculously complicated equation of NOPE. Does this mean you can't play and enjoy the game, or don't understand the pokemon catching mechanics? No, it doesn't. The pokemon catching mechanics are really simple to understand. Master Ball = 100% catch. Ultra Ball > Great Ball > Pokeball for catching. Special balls give bonuses in special circumstances. Some pokemon are harder to catch than others. Lower health makes a pokemon easier to catch. Without knowing that formula, a 5 year old child can fully equip themselves with the knowledge to not necessarily maximise their catch chance on each pokemon, but come somewhat close to it.
Same goes for things like Torchlight. Even without knowing you should or shouldn't go above 112 dexterity, you can still pump points into the stats that you see yourself needing - missing too much? More attack stat. Getting hit too much? More dexterity for evasion - and play the game quite competently.
The obsession with min/maxing is another reason templates are hated, as again its often a bunch of players 'missing the point' of the game, and just trying to math the game, rather than enjoying it in the conventional sense. Usually there's nothing wrong with this, though people dislike the idea as much as anything, but when multiplayer ends up with mandatory min/max to be allowed to compete... Yeah, people hate that.
DoPo said:
Now, let's get onto the next part. Above I just used two very simple isolated mechanics and how hard it could be to find the information for them. Mechanics do not work in isolation, though. This makes the entire thing harder to understan - it's good to know that dodge gives you escalating returns even if dexterity gives you flat diminishing returns on it but...what does that mean? I'll use Torchlight 2 since that's where my example was - is dodge good? Bad? should you focus on it? Or not? What about other defence mechanics? Oh sure here is an explanation [http://forums.runicgames.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=55943]. It's 3.5k words on how defences work. But that still doesn't really answer the question, you'd also need more information beyond that to just understand the defences and what the impact is. And indeed, the post in question does link to further information.
And again, too much focus on Min/Max. Is dodge good? Bad? Should you focus on it?
Well, what broad playstyle are you going for. Rogue? Yeah, focus on it. Is it Good/Bad to get it right now? Well, are you getting hit too much? Yes? Get it. No? Are you having other problems another stat could fix? Yes? Get that other stat.
You don't need to understand the perfect math behind everything and how it all works in order to play the game. You just need a general direction, and the rest you can figure out yourself, in very little time, and often end up enjoying the game more for it.
DoPo said:
Games tend to be complex. Not only that but information on how they work may not be immediately available or it may also be wrong. Trying to grasp the concept is all well and good but it's not easy. Worse yet, the game mechanics don't even work in vacuum - in order to start understanding them you need to start from somewhere but that requires other knowledge you don't have, which in turn requires different one, etc., etc. Eventually you may find that it loops back to the first thing you were trying to get your head around as well, which is both amazing and frustrating at the same time: in order to understand A you need B which requires knowledge of C, which in turn relies on A.
Which is all to say, that I don't blame people if they have "lack of interest" in going through this process. Not to mention that if you really want to understand everything from scratch by yourself, you'd need to spend a lo-o-o-ot of time in-game trying stuff out until you can codify how each thing works. I myself usually take the "easy way" and just find what others have found and published. This still takes time and effort, though.
Again, we'll have to take this back to Maths I think. When using Euclidean geometry, you almost never worry about the proofs. Did you know there are several books explaining how basic planar geometry works? Its stuff you take for granted when thinking about geometry, it seems just so straight forward and simple, but there is a TON of work put into the proofs for all this. I mean hell, this is the 'assumption' given for parallel lines: "The parallel postulate: "That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles.". Who the hell understands what that means? But if you say "Two parallel lines never meet", its a lot simpler, and whilst people may not grasp all the nuances of that statement, its all they need.
Yes, if you want to learn you could go through 7 textbooks worth of min/max calculations. Or, you could learn the basic version. Dodge = good, getting hit = bad. Its instinctive, yet if you want to min/max you'll actually calculate how each of them affects things as a proof and... Yeah. Bugger that.
Point is, you don't need every last bit of knowledge to play a game and enjoy it. Min/Maxing using a template quite often skips learning any knowledge, in favour of simply getting the 'best' build and using it to win the game, which usually misses the point entirely of the game. Useful hints and guides are great. Few people will complain about them. I mean, if you want to play Dwarf Fortress, the beginner's guide is a must use, otherwise you won't understand a thing that's going on - yet it doesn't tell you exactly how big your optimal storage should be, how many iron smelters you'll need to be able to outfit your military and face the hidden fun stuff, exactly how many brewers to a certain number of Dwarves you'll need, or any of that other stuff. That's left for the player to be creative, and come up with themselves. It explains in the broadest terms how things work, and what you need to do to survive and succeed, and leaves the details up to you.
That is good "Explaining how to play". It doesn't overload you with information, at least not any moreso than it needs to. It doesn't give you exact damage calculations, or the formula for how long it'll take your dwarf to mine out a piece of rock, how that ties in to its strength stat, how that has a random base and increases from doing several things including mining rock, or any other really in-depth min/max stuff. It also doesn't give you the exact answer of "Have 3 dwarfs do this, and 2 do this, and 2 do this" all the way to the end of the game. It just gives you the info you'll need to play the game, and get through it, and discover everything else yourself. You won't be optimised min/max, but you almost never need to be in any game. And especially in single player games, if you need to be, drop the difficulty to normal instead of insane.
Templates are often looked down upon because they almost entirely ignore the idea of learning to play the game, in favour of just 'winning' with the best build, missing 90% of what a game has to offer, and also because of their obsession with being the best and min/maxing, which often has a stigma against it for the same reasons. Personally, I don't really mind what you do in a single player game, though when it gets to MMOs and PvP or multiplayer content having players say "Nope, need Min/Max", then it gets annoying. However, there are a lot of options for playing the game without a template, and learning without needing to min/max, that often focus more on how the game is trying to engage you, and gives you a more holistic experience, which a number of players will often look down on you for skipping.
Edit: Wow, that's a bigger wall of text than I'd intended
In a single player game it doesn't. In a multiplayer game it's absolutely awful. Even in coop games it starts to become a chore to play if everyone is basically rolling the same builds and you're constantly just going through the same encounters over and over again with no variation in tactics.
Dirty Hipsters said:
Furthermore, when you use a template to design and spec your character it's no longer your character, not really. You've just copied what someone else created. Again, it's just boring and it isn't creative.
I don't see how that matters, either. If the goal is to have "your own unique character", then yeah it would. I've yet to find a game that really focuses on that, though. That can be a personal goal but, as the adjective suggests, it will not be everybody's personal goal.
Again though, you see the point as "Winning" the game. For a lot of people, especially the ones who look down on templates, winning isn't the point. Enjoying the game is, the gameplay all the way through up to winning. Failing, trying something else, and continuing on.
because they look for the easy, quick answer, and then complete the game, complain it was boring with no depth, or had no challenge, and move on to something else.
Slippery slope fallacy or something? That hasn't actually come up AT ALL. It's you making a wild assumption there to defend an irrational behaviour.
Joccaren said:
Anyway, besides the point, that time thing is one very dependent on the game, and good game design counteracts that. See Portal. If you were to read through a tutorial on all the uses for Portals, and all related manoeuvres, it'd be boring, and take a reasonable amount of time. If you play the game and it introduces them to you organically... Technically it takes no time, as you spend it all playing the game.
Go play Path of Exile. Come back and explain how exactly do the game mechanics interlock. You wouldn't actually be able to, since the game doesn't explain it - not enough for an effective build, anyway. And you need that knowledge, otherwise, you'd suck at the game. Alternatively, you can pick a build and follow it and have a blast killing dudes and getting loot, without having to spend hours on how different forms of defence, weapons, skills, abilities, effects, and uniques work in different combinations. Did you know you can make your character completely useless with the wrong skill choice? Well, you can - they can literally die from a single blow, guaranteed, every time. Admittedly, it's not that easy but still possible. Some of the more effective builds essentially use (or "exploit") mechanics which you are never, ever, told how specifically they work. Damage conversion, for example, can be exploited to do a double hop, which leads to interesting interaction with bonuses.
Joccaren said:
Likewise, good player written tutorials are similar.
You're talking about good tutorials when I'm telling you they simply aren't there. Not always - sometimes not in the beginning, sometimes, not ever. If there were good tutorials this wouldn't be as much of a problem. As it stands, you need both a large player base and time to produce them - with enough people, eventually somebody would be bothered to write one. With enough people, others can also chip in and build upon it. Key word here is enough people. The number is large. The other factor is time - it would both take people time to write the tutorials and it would take time for somebody to actually start. If the player base is small, it may be well after release that somebody eventually does that. Have a look at Endgame: Singularity - that's a simple game which has been out for, like, half a decade now. How many tutorials did you find for it? Last time I checked, I found none - there was one place where somebody dumped the tech tree and that's pretty much all the user generated explanation I've found. Now, maybe the game doesn't really need that but, still - less complex games have received more user attention in the past. Difference is that they've had a larger playerbase. Let's take a different example now - Heath: the Unchosen Path. I can't find any walkthroughs, explanations, builds, tips or, really, anything for it, other than the official synopsis and a handful of reviews. Again, a very small playerbase which both resonates well with the game's subtitle and is for the greater good, anyway, since the game is awful - up there with the "classics" like Superman 64 and Ultima 9 in terms of how broken it is. Ultima 9 has 2 walkthrouhs on GameFAQs [http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/53709-ultima-ix-ascension/faqs] due to its popularity, though.
Point being, you can't expect a good well written tutorial to just exist for everything.
Joccaren said:
A lot of games have their core engagement as learning the mechanics and mastering them.
You're missing something here: for you or me. I love doing it. I also realise other people aren't me. If somebody just wants to plow through enemies and collect loot in a hack & slash RPG, then...so what? Are they not having fun? Or are they not having fun your way? I personally don't really care as long as players are having fun.
Joccaren said:
Additionally, if those 25% XP ups increase the rate at which your soldiers level up still, I'd argue you really don't need to know whether there is XP or not.
Then you have not understood how the "not XP" is not XP. The perk only affects kills, not assists.
Also, you missed the point - this is information that's simply not available - not easily, certainly not in-game. There is tons of these in games. If you want something more relevant, then take the elemental damage conversion from PoE which I mentioned above. Did you know that if you have cold damage that you deal as fire it's actually considered as both in terms of damage bonuses? If you have 20% increased cold damage, and 20% increased fire damage, you'd get both for a total of +40% increased damage in the end. Quick quiz now - does % increased elemental damage be counted once or twice in that conversion? Using only information you have in-game.
Oh, and did you know that you can also get an ability to do 30% more damage. See if you can tell me what, if any, would the difference be to 30% increased damage. Again, using only information in-game.
Joccaren said:
Uhh, that's still diminishing returns. Diminishing returns doesn't mean your dodge chance will reduce when you increase the points in it, it means it'll increase, but by a lesser amount to the previous increase. The increases - or returns on point of investment - diminish as you go up the tree.
Let's do very simple example - for the illustrative purposes, you get hit 100 times for 8 damage each.
If you get 25% dodge, you'd receive 600 damage.
If you instead have 50% dodge, you'd receive 400 damage.
However, what happens if you have 50% dodge and then get extra 25% (flat)? Let's say the same 100 blows are dealt twice with the 50%->75% change in between. First time you get 400 damage, the next time you get 200. THIS IS IMPORTANT! This means that the extra 25% dodge protected you from half the incoming damage you'd have otherwise received.
In other words:
0%->50% - twice the eHP.
50%->75% - twice the eHP.
Every point of flat dodge is worth MORE the more dodge you already have.
98%->99% twice the eHP. For getting a single flat point of dodge.
Here is a spreadsheet [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1woECYAr-L7iRWrbR_9mQe2U0ptXRR45ySswl53TLdGM/edit?usp=sharing] that I very quickly knocked together. It illustrates that dodge does inherently give you escalating returns.
Hence why getting less flat amount of it does not mean you get less value out of it. Not necessarily, anyway.
Here [http://forums.runicgames.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=39127] is a more in-depth exploration on how dodge operates in TL2. It highlights how the diminishing returns aren't really that diminishing.
Still, you're missing the point again - that point being that information given to you can be wrong. Back to XCOM 2 and levelling - there was a wide spread misconception that if a soldier gets promoted in battle, any further kills they make are wasted. Which is incorrect, as they still contribute to levelling. There is a bunch of people who have made in-depth analysis and come to the conclusion that the RNG in XCOM is broken...without realising that's how it's designed to work. Information can be wrong not only because people who've analysed it have got it wrong, they may have been mislead - sometimes by official information, as well. I've seen game guides - the one that were printed and shipped with the game - those being incorrect as of version 1.0. I've seen the guides becoming incorrect after a patch. I've seen a game not obey its own internal rules that it sets up because it's broken, I've seen it being correct AND incorrect at the same time. It's not that hard to be mislead which, in turn, leads to misleading others even if it's unintentional.
Again, point being, information can be incorrect, which makes it for a faulty teaching experience.
Joccaren said:
And again, too much focus on Min/Max. Is dodge good? Bad? Should you focus on it?
You are getting too hung up on the example ignoring what is it an example of. It's an example of how much the information can be and how daunting it could be for a newcomer to try and process it.
Or, I don't know, you may in fact be trying to prove my point because those questions you have are exactly the sort of thing a newcomer could have a problem with. It's exactly what I meant when I pointed out that information cannot exist in vacuum.
Joccaren said:
You don't need to understand the perfect math behind everything and how it all works in order to play the game. You just need a general direction
Indeed, and therein lies the problem. You don't need all the maths, you do need somebody to know that maths, though, otherwise you can't get a general direction. You can be misled by the game. Sticking to TL2 and defence mechanics, the actual armor stat is nearly useless. You can't know that unless you either a) know how it works b) hear from somebody who knows how it works. Well I do, and I can tell you that it's complete crap. OK, in TL2 that doesn't really matter that much especially on lower difficulties, however, it is an example where the game does not accurately describe its mechanics to you, so you cannot prepare appropriately.
Joccaren said:
Point is, you don't need every last bit of knowledge to play a game and enjoy it.
Yes. Question is, how much do you need? And how do you KNOW how much do you need if you don't know? That's really a very philosophical question. The simple answer is: "It's really, really hard to say". For a new player that means that it may take them 10 minutes or 10 hours to pick up what they need in order to play. If playing is their way of enjoying the game, as opposed to trying to figure out how to play, I don't really see a reason why they shouldn't just use a template somebody prepared.
Do this, this, and this, and you're set - done, you can play now. Is that lack of interest in the game or just a different type of interest? I'd say it's the latter - it's interest in actually getting to the meat of the game. Does that miss some stuff? Yes. However, does that matter? Yes, no, maybe. Depends on who you ask. I'd say yes, and that's true for me. Ask somebody else, and they can say "no", and that would be equally true.
Joccaren said:
which usually misses the point entirely of the game.
Indeed, and I'll point out again something you seem to have skipped over; I am not saying I think using Templates is unacceptable, I honestly don't care until it hits multiplayer and the community forces you to template to be allowed to play. I am simply giving reasons that people dislike templates. Are they always fair or rational? No. However missing the point of the game is something that annoys many people. I'm sure there's a game, book, or movie that moved you. That you feel is really important and needs to be read. Now someone has just read the wikipedia summary of it and say they've read it and understand it, despite the summary not at all containing any of the symbolism or themes that made it important. Annoying right?
Now, more accepting people simply won't care, because its just something you find important, not that everyone does. We all know how such reason gets on the internet though. When you play simply to win, you DO miss 90% of what most games have to offer. That's not a "For you", that's an objective fact. If you play through Bioshock with no concern for the story, just finishing the final level, you'll miss its criticism of... Don't know how to spell her name's work, and its meta-shot at players who simply do play to win, and don't think about their actions with its whole "A man chooses, a slave obeys". Someone who plays Spec-Ops: The Line with the goal only of finishing the final level and 'winning', rather than learning the lessons the game is trying to teach, or trying to understand its deconstruction of the genre, has missed 90% of the point of the game. Again, this isn't a "For you" thing, that game was designed that way for a reason - and when you skip past it, you miss that reason. Doesn't mean I care that you did, but some people do, and it can't be denied that you have.
Does this apply to all games? No.
Does this apply to everyone using templates? No, some use templates to easier explore this, however its the instant reaction some have towards their use, because the template itself is focused on min/max and such in order to 'win' in most multiplayer context, and it carries that stigma across to its single player use. And additionally, there are better alternatives to simply looking up the 'win' build that allow you to experience the game and enjoy it whilst still learning it yourself.
Does this mean their template use is unacceptable? No. More power to them if they want to miss the message. As said, the internet, some don't see it that way.
Look back to my first post; right from the start "People view...", "... are seen this way..." and other such phrases used specifically to distance this from how I personally feel about templates. Please keep that in mind.
DoPo said:
Slippery slope fallacy or something? That hasn't actually come up AT ALL. It's you making a wild assumption there to defend an irrational behaviour.
See above. And it does happen occasionally, but occasionally is enough for the internet to latch onto it.
DoPo said:
Go play Path of Exile. Come back and explain how exactly do the game mechanics interlock. You wouldn't actually be able to, since the game doesn't explain it - not enough for an effective build, anyway. And you need that knowledge, otherwise, you'd suck at the game. Alternatively, you can pick a build and follow it and have a blast killing dudes and getting loot, without having to spend hours on how different forms of defence, weapons, skills, abilities, effects, and uniques work in different combinations. Did you know you can make your character completely useless with the wrong skill choice? Well, you can - they can literally die from a single blow, guaranteed, every time. Admittedly, it's not that easy but still possible. Some of the more effective builds essentially use (or "exploit") mechanics which you are never, ever, told how specifically they work. Damage conversion, for example, can be exploited to do a double hop, which leads to interesting interaction with bonuses.
Played it. Beat it. I have no idea what you're even talking about. And this is my point, that you seem to miss continually going forward. You do not need to know ANY of this to beat the game. I played up through the hardest difficulty on that... What's the server thing where you die permanently upon death? Hardcore or something? That one. My build? One hit wonder. Half a second of lag and I'd die. And I did, but I tried again because it was fun. Had ridiculous lifesteal with near 5 attacks a second, not because I calculated out how much lifesteal I'd need, but because I did the basic logic: more attacks = more lifesteal, more lifesteal = more life, more life = less death, less death = good. Now, when I say I died, yeah, it was a ton of times since I had to restart from scratch every time I did, which got really painful later in the game, but because of that I learned to play a lot more carefully, let the high health tank through first to spring any traps, stuns and disables, and then rush in to kill.
I didn't need a build calculated out. I didn't even calculate out my own build. And all the friends I was playing with were similar. We dicked around, knowing broadly which stats were probably important for each class.
It teaches you nothing, but if you can't learn yourself semi-successful builds, asking in chat "What stats should I focus on for my templar?" will most of the time get you through the game just fine, without looking up which items, skills, and stats you'll need for your prime templar of pwnageness.
And as a side note here is where I mix in my personal opinion a little. My opinion is that you'll enjoy the game more from actually learning and playing it. I'm not offended if you don't, however I feel you will if you do. It also helps explain why templates have the stigma of being there only to win rather than to allow a worse player to experience the same story; because there are other options that allow them to arguably better experience the game, without focusing on min/max to be the best and win.
DoPo said:
You're talking about good tutorials when I'm telling you they simply aren't there. Not always - sometimes not in the beginning, sometimes, not ever. If there were good tutorials this wouldn't be as much of a problem. As it stands, you need both a large player base and time to produce them - with enough people, eventually somebody would be bothered to write one. With enough people, others can also chip in and build upon it. Key word here is enough people. The number is large. The other factor is time - it would both take people time to write the tutorials and it would take time for somebody to actually start. If the player base is small, it may be well after release that somebody eventually does that. Have a look at Endgame: Singularity - that's a simple game which has been out for, like, half a decade now. How many tutorials did you find for it? Last time I checked, I found none - there was one place where somebody dumped the tech tree and that's pretty much all the user generated explanation I've found. Now, maybe the game doesn't really need that but, still - less complex games have received more user attention in the past. Difference is that they've had a larger playerbase. Let's take a different example now - Heath: the Unchosen Path. I can't find any walkthroughs, explanations, builds, tips or, really, anything for it, other than the official synopsis and a handful of reviews. Again, a very small playerbase which both resonates well with the game's subtitle and is for the greater good, anyway, since the game is awful - up there with the "classics" like Superman 64 and Ultima 9 in terms of how broken it is. Ultima 9 has 2 walkthrouhs on GameFAQs [http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/53709-ultima-ix-ascension/faqs] due to its popularity, though.
Well, since we're talking about Monster Hunter in this thread more specifically, lets look up and.... Yeah, plenty of tutorials and guides.
Additionally, you seem to not understand how small a tutorial needs to be to be effective. Go to Sunless Sea on steam and read the reviews. These aren't even the tutorials mind, just the reviews. Now tell me, do you have any idea of a potentially good way to play the game?
The reviews tell you basically this:
-Explore, it gets you lots of money and stories and items
-There do exist grind trade routes, don't do because its boring and exploring is pretty comparable anyway
-Monsters will wreck your shit, avoid them
-Lots of wacky shit happens
The basic tutorial in-game tells you everything else you need to know; don't run out of fuel, don't run out of food, don't let terror reach 100.
There exist 'templates' and guides as to which the best ship is, the best choices to make in each port, the most lucrative trade run exploits and such. You don't need them to play the game, or even win. Using that information I haven't died on my main [Installed on another PC and died just to see what happened], and I could be on the threshold of winning - were I not to have other goals. And this is a game where the intention is for you to die all the time in a roguelike fashion. Yeah, I'm a better gamer than most. That information though? Gives you all you need to know to survive if you have the skill to do so, and if you don't you'll die a couple of times and then gain that skill.
As I try to point out for the rest of this, tutorials don't need to be in-depth. You don't need to know the min/max secrets. You don't need the optimal build. Hell, tutorials don't even really need to exist. Go to the forums and ask "What stats should I focus my [x] character on?", or "What sorts of items should I use with [y]". You won't get the perfect game winning answer a lot of the time, but you'll get enough of a guide to help you in playing the game.
DoPo said:
You're missing something here: for you or me. I love doing it. I also realise other people aren't me. If somebody just wants to plow through enemies and collect loot in a hack & slash RPG, then...so what? Are they not having fun? Or are they not having fun your way? I personally don't really care as long as players are having fun.
No, I'm not missing anything. Games are designed with a core engagement in mind. If you're not a fan of that core engagement, you're probably not going to enjoy that game. A hack'n'slash RPG may not have its core engagement in learning the mechanics. It may. It depends on the game, and how its designed. When you skip over that core engagement, it is understandable that you're not going to get engaged by that game as much as other players - because it isn't designed to engage you. People who love CoD for its fast paced action probably aren't going to enjoy a game of Civ V, because its got a completely different core engagement. Similarly, in the games with learning and understanding the mechanics as one of their core engagements, someone going in to just hack and slash probably isn't going to enjoy it as much. In some games, both are core engagements so they may still enjoy the game overall, though again I personally feel not as much as if they were to engage both the game's engagements simultaneously, however once again, its a reason templates can be looked down on even there; they're skipping over part of a game's designed core engagement.
And I'll re-iterate, not saying that that's wrong, but some on the internet view it as such.
DoPo said:
Then you have not understood how the "not XP" is not XP. The perk only affects kills, not assists.
You're right. I have no idea, because I don't play XCOM 2. or 1. So you are saying the perk is 100% useless?
Because if its not, again, what you've just mentioned is irrelevant. Who cares if its not as effective as it says it is, or if you don't level up the way you think you do. It speeds up the levelling process - that's what matters. Big picture, not mathy details.
DoPo said:
Also, you missed the point - this is information that's simply not available - not easily, certainly not in-game. There is tons of these in games. If you want something more relevant, then take the elemental damage conversion from PoE which I mentioned above. Did you know that if you have cold damage that you deal as fire it's actually considered as both in terms of damage bonuses? If you have 20% increased cold damage, and 20% increased fire damage, you'd get both for a total of +40% increased damage in the end. Quick quiz now - does % increased elemental damage be counted once or twice in that conversion? Using only information you have in-game.
Oh, and did you know that you can also get an ability to do 30% more damage. See if you can tell me what, if any, would the difference be to 30% increased damage. Again, using only information in-game.
And again, you've missed the point. This is information you don't need. You do not need to min/max in order to play the game. As said above, you do not need to know the specifics of how that XP gain thing works, if it increases the rate at which your soldiers level up still. Yes, a min/maxer might need to know to maximise their level and... ect. The average player? They level up faster, that's all that matters.
And again, in PoE, not something I, my mage, my Templar with elemental weapons, or any other random build we made ever worried about. You focus too much on the deep math and min/maxing here, missing the point entirely.
Who cares whether that elemental damage gets counted once or twice? It increases your elemental damage, that's what matters. If you deal primarily elemental damage and its a choice between physical or elemental, go that. Even if it doesn't end up being the 'best' choice, its in all likelihood still a good one.
The average player does not need to know the exact amounts everything increases. Hell, look at Mass Effect 2 as an example. Without Googling, tell me the stats of any guns in game. Yes, you can replay the game and try them out to remember. The answer? You can't. No fucking clue. The game tells you nothing. Does that matter?
No. You find one that seems more powerful to you, use it, and hey presto, you're pretty much done. DLC weapons are OP, and that's well known, so if you have DLC weapons, always use them. You don't need to know that the Mantis Sniper has a 300% increased rate of fire but only foes 50% damage so its a net DPS decrease, but it has a larger magazine so it can do more sustained for for a sustained DPS increase [Example stats but it is pretty similar to how the snipers actually work]. You just need to know it shoots faster, has more bullets, and overall it feels like you kill things faster with it. Stats are not needed for the average player.
Ah, I had misinterpreted what you were saying, though I still broadly disagree with you, but we'll keep that to the spoilers. Overall though its a complex issue that isn't just face value. Again though, its details the average player doesn't actually need to know.
Both flat damage, and % damage, reduction matter, and TBH its actually neither of those that matter, more what provides the best gains towards whatever goal the character is built around but this gets really complicated so just sticking to the whole diminishing returns thing...
In every one of your 25% increase examples, you take 200 less straight damage. On average of course, randomness in dodge makes it unpredictable and somewhat unreliable, but on average...
So yes, that can be a 50% decrease in damage, but its still just 200 damage less.
This means that if one point gives you 20% dodge at level 1, and one point gives you 2% dodge at level 5, its still diminishing returns.
In a 100 damage over 10 hits, for simpler math, trial, level one you will take 20 damage less on average. Level 5 you will take 2 damage less on average.
Even though say levels 2-4 added up to an 90% dodge chance somehow, and that 2% dodge is actually, as a percentage, the same % damage reduction as the original 20%, it still protects you from less damage.
This is where, again, we compare it to other skills. Not playing TL2 I don't know what other stats are, however again with my example from above; you have the option of 2% dodge chance, or 3% damage reduction. The 3% damage reduction is still better.
With the above 90% pre-level up dodge chance. With the extra 2% dodge, you'll take 2 less damage [On average]. With the extra 3% damage reduction, you'll take 3 less damage on average, but even on a less than average round where your dodge fails, you'll still take less damage.
And again, this compares to other things. Say that 2 less damage helps you survive one more hit, but you could instead get an attack damage boost that will kill enemies in 2 fewer hits. That's probably the better option [Though that depends on how many hits you take ATM anyway, but you can see its a tradeoff, and the reducing flat numerical amount of damage you block doesn't always keep up with what other options that are available to you are].
Whilst yes, flat numerical numbers aren't everything, neither are % increases or decreases. Its all relative to what things already are and where they'll be. TBH, haven't looked at builds or anything and don't play TL2, so I couldn't say which is the better opinion, but there is still merit to noting diminishing returns, and that other opportunities may provide you better gains.
Overall I guess the only way to really tell who is right is to make each of those builds and run some tests on them in game. I know that's what was done for the SWTOR builds I ended up looking at, to see whether theoretical changes actually coincided with ingame effectiveness increases, not sure if its been done for the TL2 builds.
DoPo said:
Still, you're missing the point again - that point being that information given to you can be wrong. Back to XCOM 2 and levelling - there was a wide spread misconception that if a soldier gets promoted in battle, any further kills they make are wasted. Which is incorrect, as they still contribute to levelling. There is a bunch of people who have made in-depth analysis and come to the conclusion that the RNG in XCOM is broken...without realising that's how it's designed to work. Information can be wrong not only because people who've analysed it have got it wrong, they may have been mislead - sometimes by official information, as well. I've seen game guides - the one that were printed and shipped with the game - those being incorrect as of version 1.0. I've seen the guides becoming incorrect after a patch. I've seen a game not obey its own internal rules that it sets up because it's broken, I've seen it being correct AND incorrect at the same time. It's not that hard to be mislead which, in turn, leads to misleading others even if it's unintentional.
Indeed, these days things change every patch, and some people who think they're too smart for the game turn out to be a bit biased and use wrong methods of analysis, or come to wrong conclusions. That said, whenever its a major, game changing point... Usually the community catches on almost immediately. Why? Because say the whole diminishing returns thing from above would make or break your success in the game. If you got it wrong, it was damn hard to succeed, get it right, pretty easy. Everyone who got the choice wrong would quickly start complaining about how hard it was, those who got the choice right would say how easy it was, and that the others were just built wrong, a handful would be stubborn but most would try to build swap upon hearing about it, and then would get through it. When something is actually a major detriment to progress, people tend to find out, because you can very tangibly feel the difference.
Any further kills made in battle are wasted in XCOM? Again, not having played the game, but I'm going to take a guess that over the entire playthrough that might add up to 2 levels or W/E per XCOM that you're trying to level. And in some ways, its not even a bad thing as you'll kill with other troops, and keep the level of the squad at reasonable parity. Sure, its probably a slight but noticeable difference, I severely doubt its a difference that is going to prevent someone from being able to finish the game.
Again, back to Sunless Sea... There's a misconception that you need to grind to win. It isn't true, and you can win just fine through a ton of methods not related to grinding, and especially in the early to mid game before all the options properly open to you you progress much faster without grinding. Doesn't mean those that do grind can't finish the game, they simply don't have the optimal strategy to get the most money quick.
Most of the information that players NEED to finish the game won't be wrong. MOST. Sometimes it will be, however if it is that core to actually finishing a game, players are usually intelligent enough to figure it out. Its when you go deeper and try to min/max and find the way to be the best at the game that you run into more wrong information, and that you get trapped in its loops. Again though, its not something needed for a player to play and enjoy a given game.
DoPo said:
You are getting too hung up on the example ignoring what is it an example of. It's an example of how much the information can be and how daunting it could be for a newcomer to try and process it.
Or, I don't know, you may in fact be trying to prove my point because those questions you have are exactly the sort of thing a newcomer could have a problem with. It's exactly what I meant when I pointed out that information cannot exist in vacuum.
Well, I've got to say come up with a better example then, because those questions have an immensely simple answer that you don't need to min/max to understand. Not the BEST answer of all time, but a simple and passable one still. And that's what matters. Not being right all the time, being the best all the time, but getting to a stage where you can play the game.
Those questions I asked, are immensely simple ones to answer. Is that player trying to play a rogue? That's a question most games ask at the character creation screen. If the player doesn't even know that, they honestly can't even use a template because templates exist based on different character goals, like Rogue and that, and how on Earth could they tell which template to use if they can't answer this question?
Do you want to be hit less? Again, a damn simple question to answer. No calculation required. Just play, and if you think "Damn I'm low on health quite often", the answer is yes. ANYBODY can take that simple logical step. Maybe they need to ask "What stat should I take to get hit less?", but connecting getting higher defence to better survivability is a basic concept that if they can't grasp, honestly, not even a template can help them; they won't have the basic gameplay skill to make it through the game, and would definitely be served better via some education than an answer.
Are you having problems another stat could fix is simply a broad catch all phrase for "Do you want to kill things faster? Get strength", "Do you want to cast more spells? Get Intelligence" and other such things. It is as simple a connection as survivability, and again the only question that needs to be asked is "What stat will increase my damage".
These aren't things a newcomer would have a problem with. Unless they are, to quote Yahtzee, pants on head retarded. If you can't comprehend that taking less damage means you'll die less often, or that dealing more damage means you'll kill more often - you really probably can't even play that game, build or no. I doubt we're talking about people like that though. I think, again, you are reading too deep into it, and expecting them to come to the perfect, correct, right answer at the start, and saying that that's hard for newcomers.
Well yeah, no shit. They don't need that answer though. They need "Good enough". Which is very easy to do as a newcomer.
DoPo said:
Indeed, and therein lies the problem. You don't need all the maths, you do need somebody to know that maths, though, otherwise you can't get a general direction. You can be misled by the game. Sticking to TL2 and defence mechanics, the actual armor stat is nearly useless. You can't know that unless you either a) know how it works b) hear from somebody who knows how it works. Well I do, and I can tell you that it's complete crap. OK, in TL2 that doesn't really matter that much especially on lower difficulties, however, it is an example where the game does not accurately describe its mechanics to you, so you cannot prepare appropriately.
As stated above, you seem to be thinking "General direction" means making the right choice all the time always. It doesn't. Maybe the newcomer will put 190 points into dodge, when 150 is the point of best returns, and will only have 100 attack, instead of the 140 optimal. So what? They can still play the game.
Yeah, you need some BASIC math skill to be able to get a general direction. By basic I mean "As X goes up, Y goes up" level of understanding, honestly not something you can even call math IMO. This is because its a general direction. It isn't meant to guide you to the best build. It isn't meant to give you hints that let you be the strongest character you can be. Its mean to point you in the direction of a usable character, even if there are so many stupid build choices there you would never take it into PvP. So long as its capable of playing the game, that's all that matters.
DoPo said:
Yes. Question is, how much do you need? And how do you KNOW how much do you need if you don't know? That's really a very philosophical question. The simple answer is: "It's really, really hard to say". For a new player that means that it may take them 10 minutes or 10 hours to pick up what they need in order to play.
Its actually a really simple question to answer, and honestly its those who think to much that struggle to answer it. Are you having trouble with the game?
Yes? You need more info on the part you're having trouble with, and a general guide as to how to not have trouble with it.
Say you're dying too much in TL2. You need someone to say "Raising evasion will mean you die less". You don't need to know that 112 is the optimal dexterity rating, and you should have X item to raise it by Y amount, and whilst playing it should never be higher than 5 x character level - 3 or else you're wasting potential... You just need to know how to not die so much, and the answer is raising evasion.
Not having trouble? You don't need to know any more then. You're playing the game fine.
Its not some big "What do I need to know before I play" existential question that you ask before every game and spend a year studying it. You get the game, chuck it on, and see what flies. Need help? Look up help, or ask in the chat. Generally though, you'll find you're able to play fine, even if you're not min/maxed, if you follow basic logical premises and instructions the game gives you.
DoPo said:
If playing is their way of enjoying the game, as opposed to trying to figure out how to play, I don't really see a reason why they shouldn't just use a template somebody prepared.
Do this, this, and this, and you're set - done, you can play now. Is that lack of interest in the game or just a different type of interest? I'd say it's the latter - it's interest in actually getting to the meat of the game. Does that miss some stuff? Yes. However, does that matter? Yes, no, maybe. Depends on who you ask. I'd say yes, and that's true for me. Ask somebody else, and they can say "no", and that would be equally true.
Again, I have no problem if someone chooses to use a template personally, though I feel they will always miss out on something, but you seem to be stuck in the headspace of games like WoW where the gameplay is outside of the levelling system and such. Its a side concern to the core engagement of the game. This isn't always the case. Take Dwarf Fortress. The core engagement of that game IS that discovery, and the creativity of creating your own things, and trying to have your fort survive. That is the whole gameplay. There's a saying in that game; Dying is fun. And its true. If you play the game safe and stable by a "Build" or template, you'll be bored out of your mind, as its monotonous boring work with nothing interesting happening. If you fuck around and start to lose, things get funny. Amazing miracles happen. Horrible tragedies. You discover new things that are entertaining as hell that you'd never have known about if you had of just played safe. You'll try crazy shit that you don't know whether it will work or not. And that's the whole engagement and fun of the game. The rest of it? Boring busy work to get to that stage. No 'build' can get you there, as exactly what you want to do each stage is different.
There are some games, like DF, where the point isn't to win, the point is to lose. That's where the game is designed to be fun. Or the game tries to teach you something through its mechanics. Darkest Dungeon. Haven't played it, but through its mechanics it tries to get you engaged and feeling the horror that a party of dungeon divers would feel through repeatedly facing eldritch monstrosities. If you just roll with an optimised build that takes away that side of the game, you're missing out on most of what it has to offer - and that community from what I understand hates people like that, because they kept pushing to make the game harder because they used optimal builds and found it too easy, which has led the game to be build-centric to make progress and just not as fun anymore, or, at least those were the complaints last time I'd looked at it.
Again, I have no problem if someone decides to use a build to just get through these games. More power to them. In a lot of games though, a 'build' defeats the purpose of the mechanics, and leads to a decreased engagement and enjoyment of the game, as the game is designed to engage through failure or the challenges, rather than through success that is dependent on builds.
DoPo said:
Let me repeat something I said earlier - it misses the point for you or me. If somebody doesn't engage the game the same way you do, then
And I'll repeat what I've said earlier; a lot of games are designed with a specific point in mind, and it can be missed by builds. That's not a 'for you or me' thing. You can just miss the point of the game.
And you know what? Cool, more power to you. Its fine to miss the point of the game, though it is possible to miss it. People do get annoyed by that though, especially if you complain about the game afterwards because you missed the point. All games don't appeal to everyone. They are designed to appeal to certain types of players. Its just how things are.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
