Not to me. (Destiny)

by Kahzgul, Wednesday, August 02, 2017, 23:23 (2729 days ago) @ Cody Miller

You're an editor. Think about that time you got network notes asking you to add a scene back in, but that scene had a bunch of stuff in it that wasn't explained there, but was explained in another scene, so you have to add that one back in, and then there's a new character who seems important but just disappears, so you add another scene to explain what's up with that guy...

I understand what you mean, but I have not had that happen. For one… I don't deal with networks working in film. Directors and Producers are generally smart people who would understand the undertaking of what you say.

Except when it comes to Comic Book Movies.

Oh man. The show I'm on right now (for which my original contract has been extended 8 times) has had soooo many revisions just to change the style of the graphics. We're dealing with notes from:

- IP holder
- Parent company of IP holder
- Network
- Our EPs
- Parent company of our company

And most of the notes contradict one another. The final cuts of some episodes are virtually shot for shot identical to cuts five note sessions ago. And this is for a game show. TV is just a series of people who want to make a mundane note to "put their stamp on it" without actually risking the enterprise along the way. God forbid you ever work on a Bravo show; their producers have quotas for the number of notes they have to give. You know, because more is better, right? Creative decisions shouldn't be made by non-creative people, imo, but apparently if you were the CEO of any other company, and then got made CEO of a TV studio, that means you know what makes for good TV.

I have a google doc to track the notes because 30+ pages per 38 minutes of show was the norm.

I shouldn't complain - their bad decisions keep me employed since my primary function is as a fixer of messes.

Of course you can always code a solution to the problem you've just manufactured, but now you're falling into "design bloat." At some point you need to choose to streamline the systems and make things easier for your players instead of more complex. Complex interaction in gameplay? YES. Complex controls? Probably not. Complex menu system and UI? Hell no. You do not want your players to spend more time in their menus than in the actual game.

There is a huge problem as it is. PvP balance changes impact PvE. This is bad. The solution is to let you have PvP and PvE loadouts, with the flick of a tab. You wouldn't actually spend any more time in your menu than you already do now. Especially if the tab was auto selected depending on your current activity and lobby. Explain to me why you'd spend more time in your menu. In fact you would spend LESS time, since you wouldn't have to swap weapons when you enter PvP as you do now.

Now:
1. Exit PvE
2. Switch your gear. Equip the guns you want to use in crucible.
3. Enter PvP

My idea:
1. Exit PvE
2. There is no step 2 since all your PvP guns are already equipped in your PvP load out from last time.
3. Enter PvP

I see. Automatically use your assigned gear for each mode when you switch (saves time in menus) but now you have two pages of equipped gear. Does each page get its own 9 slots of backup items? Or 4.5 slots per page? Shared 9 slots which would let you equip Pve weapons on your pvp tab, etc.? Again, design bloat. All of this takes time away from deciding how to make the actual game good, and spends time coding and designing the UI. It's not a bad system, and many games (Diablo, Dragon age) use weapon tabbing to allow for alternate loadouts, so there are examples to draw from (which makes designing easier). This is better than simply having the same existing UI and two sets of gear, which is what you seemed to be initially proposing.

I have to ask though, is this where you want the team to spend their time? They've already got a single loadout system in place where the weapons work in both game modes with minor tweaks.

I know, I know, you don't think "minor tweaks" cuts it because changing the weapon for PvP (necessary to foster competition) nerfs the gun for PvE, effectively breaking it. Understood. That being said... I've long held that D1 was balanced incorrectly as a result of being designed as PvE first with PvP added later (saw that in an interview I believe, no Raga, I don't have a link). D2 benefits from the first generation here: They can balance for both at once (which means you use guardian health as your baseline for weapon damage balance, and adjust pve health and stats accordingly - the weapons do the same damage in both modes, and if a gun is too effective in pvp, it will similarly be too effective in pve, and vice versa).

And... I'd rather have the team working on unified balance rather than additional UI elements. Personal preference. I think your system as you've described it here, works as well.