AFK and Crucible Marks

I don't remember if you get any crucible marks for losing games, but if you do, then this is even worse.

Normal people work for 8 hours and sleep for 8 hours. That's 16 hours a day you aren;t earning crucible marks. But you can! Destiny automatically throws you into the matchmaking queue after some number of seconds on the post game screen.

So. You enter matchmaking, then you leave and go to sleep. You wake to find your guardian has been in say, 40 games over those 8 hours. 4 of them your team won despite you not being present. Cool! 4 crucible points. Do it while you are at work, and that's 8 free points a day. If your team wins more, you get more :-p

Requiring a button press or hold to get back into the matchmaking queue wouldn't work, since you could just wedge that down.

This would suck, because if I'm playing Crucible for fun, I don't want AFKers.

Fortunately, Bungie undoubtedly will be able to detect this with their tools, and perhaps also even simple workarounds like rubber banding the analog stick so you are at least moving.

Still though, the fact this even occurred to me makes me pause. Since folks are going to want to get crucible points as fast as possible to get cool guns, and since going AFK enables this, then we have a game design in which going AFK for the times you can't play is the optimal way to do things.

That means at the core, something is wrong with the system.

locked

6810 views

IIRC, bluerunner got banned from Reach Firefight matchmaking when playing with his son due to player inactivity (his son), so I'm sure Bungie has some very elaborate piece of idle-detecting to come up with such a big false-positive.

Still though, the fact this even occurred to me makes me pause.

What? What is this "this occurred" you're talking about?

locked

5040 views

so I'm sure Bungie has some very elaborate piece of idle-detecting to come up with such a big false-positive.

Or it's not very elaborate at all, and just checks to see if you're sucking (hopefully it at least does it relative to your typical account performance).

I've been credit-banned before by having a guest who couldn't play very well.

locked

4946 views

so I'm sure Bungie has some very elaborate piece of idle-detecting to come up with such a big false-positive.

Or it's not very elaborate at all, and just checks to see if you're sucking (hopefully it at least does it relative to your typical account performance).

I've been credit-banned before by having a guest who couldn't play very well.

That's what happened to me. Did you get yours back? I seek to remember someone at Bungie telling me only two people got theirs back. Or maybe it was just two people that he knew of that got theirs back.

locked

4879 views

That's what happened to me. Did you get yours back? I seek to remember someone at Bungie telling me only two people got theirs back. Or maybe it was just two people that he knew of that got theirs back.

I didn't bother reporting it. I remember when Reach first came out and I paid any attention at all to the credit system, I had far less fun than I did once I learned to ignore it. Missing out on credits for a little while was no biggie.

(Right now I actually wouldn't mind a permanent credit ban, just to lock in my rank emblem; it goes much nicer with my colors than the higher rank emblems will/would.)

locked

4824 views

What? What is this "this occurred" you're talking about?

It's an idiom. He just means that he thought of the idea of doing this. Not that the scenario actually happened.

locked

4752 views

They'll have something in place. They had a pretty sensitive system in place in Reach. I would play then let my kid play. He was young and just learning. The system determined his playing to be rubber banding. They did an automatic credit reset for AFK abusers, but gave mine back and sent me a message saying that I was an example of the system being too sensitive. I never found out how it works, but I would assume it looks at the difference in your playing over time as one of the factors.

locked

4826 views

They'll have something in place. They had a pretty sensitive system in place in Reach. I would play then let my kid play. He was young and just learning. The system determined his playing to be rubber banding. They did an automatic credit reset for AFK abusers, but gave mine back and sent me a message saying that I was an example of the system being too sensitive. I never found out how it works, but I would assume it looks at the difference in your playing over time as one of the factors.

I'm not worried about it being detected. I'm worried that the system is set up to encourage such behaviors.

locked

4828 views

I'm not worried about it being detected. I'm worried that the system is set up to encourage such behaviors.

Players have been trying to game systems for as long as they've existed. If they're not trying to game the meta-game of stuff like gradually-accumulated in-game currencies, they're trying to game the mechanics within matches (button glitching and suchlike).

It's not really the fault of game mechanics that people seek to exploit them; that's just the nature of some players. If you're going to worry about the nature of players, then I guess… lots of luck!

locked

4798 views

It's not really the fault of game mechanics that people seek to exploit them; that's just the nature of some players.

Ideally, exploiting the mechanics should:

1. Require the player to actually play the game
2. Be enjoyable in and of itself, rather than exploiting merely for rewards.

If your game encourages either or both of these to not happen, then there is something wrong with the system.

locked

5016 views

It's not really the fault of game mechanics that people seek to exploit them; that's just the nature of some players.

Ideally, exploiting the mechanics should:

1. Require the player to actually play the game
2. Be enjoyable in and of itself, rather than exploiting merely for rewards.

If your game encourages either or both of these to not happen, then there is something wrong with the system.

You say that like it's a bad thing that the system isn't completely perfect in every way. You're overreacting and ignoring the existence of potential countermeasures as beside the point; it really seems like you're just grasping at any straws you can to voice your dislike for games that have progression systems.

locked

4735 views

…it won't bang itself, will it?

locked

4771 views

…it won't bang itself, will it?

That's what she said

locked

4711 views

- No text -

locked

4711 views

Geez Cody. You are up and down like a yo-yo.

Everything is great, everything is terrible, everything is great, everything is terrible, everything is great, everything is terrible.

Your demons must be hell.

I don't think Bungie will allow what you suggest to ruin their game. They must have people who think about these bad scenarios?

locked

4810 views

Geez Cody. You are up and down like a yo-yo.

Everything is great, everything is terrible, everything is great, everything is terrible, everything is great, everything is terrible.

My posts are about specific parts of the game. You don't think it's entirely possible to be excited for the campaign, the story, and the multiplayer, but dread the investment and progression systems?

You don't have to like or dislike every aspect of a game, and not every idea I express has to apply to the game as a whole.

locked

4728 views

Okay, so that makes some sense but from the outside, it seems very up and down.

locked

4714 views

If they do away with giving a small reward for losing (crucible mark), then whats else is left to try to prevent people in the losing team from quitting part-way through a round?

Obviously people more likely to stay if there is at least some guaranteed reward for participation. The other side of the coin is punishments for leaving. In saying that, for Destiny, I don't think Bungie wants to be the nagging negative nancy who dishes out matchmaking suspensions etc.

locked

4704 views

I put a rubber band on my controller to stay on The Moon when I needed to take care of some real life things--didn't want to go idle too long and get disconnected. It seems that my Xbox One has some kind of integrated rubber band check because my controller went to sleep anyway.

locked

4788 views

Yep, probably done in case you just pop your controller down and it lands upside-down. Power/battery saving feature?

locked

4682 views

So... with the split of the old Bungie.net(s) and the current one this was a bit harder to track down than I'd like (meaning it took three searches instead of one) but your fears of a system flawed at its core are almost certainly unfounded. Bungie has been tracking and banning or penalizing AFKers since at least Reach. For instance, a Eurogamer.net article about Reach back in 2011 notes Bungie reseting the credits of AFK boosters. Here's an official thread on Waypoint confirming that AFK boosting was detectable by automated systems and against the rules. I also seem to remember AFKing being something either fixed in Halo 3 or addressed specifically in a title update but can't find it.

Honestly though, Cody, it's like you go out of your way to think up problems with Destiny but don't spend any time checking to see if the problems have been addressed. :/

locked

4703 views

Honestly though, Cody, it's like you go out of your way to think up problems with Destiny but don't spend any time checking to see if the problems have been addressed. :/

Did you even read my post? There's no chance of it happening. But it's symptomatic of a reward system that is broken, which very much DOES impact those who play the game.

locked

4731 views

Honestly though, Cody, it's like you go out of your way to think up problems with Destiny but don't spend any time checking to see if the problems have been addressed. :/

Did you even read my post? There's no chance of it happening. But it's symptomatic of a reward system that is broken, which very much DOES impact those who play the game.

I'm terribly confused. Did you read your post? Yeah, you mentioned detecting AFK but then you just kept on going with:

Since folks are going to want to get crucible points as fast as possible to get cool guns, and since going AFK enables this, then we have a game design in which going AFK for the times you can't play is the optimal way to do things.

So... is AFKing in Destiny likely to be a problem or not??

locked

4724 views

Honestly though, Cody, it's like you go out of your way to think up problems with Destiny but don't spend any time checking to see if the problems have been addressed. :/

Did you even read my post? There's no chance of it happening. But it's symptomatic of a reward system that is broken, which very much DOES impact those who play the game.

I'm terribly confused. Did you read your post? Yeah, you mentioned detecting AFK but then you just kept on going with:

Since folks are going to want to get crucible points as fast as possible to get cool guns, and since going AFK enables this, then we have a game design in which going AFK for the times you can't play is the optimal way to do things.

So... is AFKing in Destiny likely to be a problem or not??

No. But the reward system which otherwise encourages it IS.

locked

4695 views

But you didn't say that. Again, you said:

This would suck, because if I'm playing Crucible for fun, I don't want AFKers.

and:

Still though, the fact this even occurred to me makes me pause. Since folks are going to want to get crucible points as fast as possible to get cool guns, and since going AFK enables this, then we have a game design in which going AFK for the times you can't play is the optimal way to do things.

Then concluded with:

That means at the core, something is wrong with the system.

You built a conclusion based on AFKing... not based on investment systems are bad. Seriously, what is wrong with you? If you want to rant against Investment Systems again then do so. Don't lead us around with an argument you say you didn't make when you clearly did.

locked

4717 views

I think what Cody is saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that even though there may be a backend system to detect and then punish AFK-ing, there will still be those players who will either not know about said punishment/system or who will try to the AFK-ing strategy anyway. Therefore, we can possibly expect to occasionally come across AFK players on our team (which is frustrating).

The reason that people will attempt to try it in the first place is because of the rewards system that the crucible uses - I.e. you gain a crucible mark even if your team loses and (in the beta at least) the player is not required to actively do anything to continue joining match-made rounds after each one is completed.

locked

4705 views

I think what Cody is saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that even though there may be a backend system to detect and then punish AFK-ing, there will still be those players who will either not know about said punishment/system or who will try to the AFK-ing strategy anyway. Therefore, we can possibly expect to occasionally come across AFK players on our team (which is frustrating).

The reason that people will attempt to try it in the first place is because of the rewards system that the crucible uses - I.e. you gain a crucible mark even if your team loses and (in the beta at least) the player is not required to actively do anything to continue joining match-made rounds after each one is completed.

Except he didn't say that.

He talked about earning 8 free points a day. He said, "...and since going AFK enables this, then we have a game design in which going AFK for the times you can't play is the optimal way to do things." His premise, as written, was that going AFK would earn you points. It's a premise that goes against the policies and actual gameplay of at least four Halo games even to the point that sometimes false positives caught people who weren't AFK. His premise even seems to possibly go against known gameplay of Destiny itself based on other comments here. Like I said in my first post, he didn't even attempt to check to see if the potential problem was already addressed.

At best, even going from your much much better written argument for Destiny's possible encouragement of AFK abuse, the facts as we suspect them to be don't support anything near "...at the core, something is wrong with the system." Rather, Bungie likely expected AFKers and will remove them from matchmaking quickly and will significantly discourage them from AFK boosting using tools up to complete matchmaking bans.

Ultimately, there is no system except possibly one to one monitoring of players that will stop jerks from having the idea to earn rewards by going AFK. Even if we took away all currency and grinding in Destiny somebody would want the number beside their games played stat to go up or something...

locked

4680 views

I would hardly say Destiny is "Encouraging" AFK-ing, otherwise people could say that about a miriad of games.

In the end; jerks will be jerks. I will be (actually) playing the game and enjoying it. :)

locked

4680 views

I think the crux of what Cody is saying is that because the game includes a system which might encourage people to game it (by going AFK, or whatever else might work), said system is broken.

It's the same drum he's been banging for about for the past year, that player investment systems are bad and inherently ruin a game etc. But the fact is: gamers tend to enjoy them, so regardless of what how he feels I doubt it's going to be problematic for Destiny.

locked

4690 views

I'm having a hard time remembering the specifics, but I'm pretty sure that when I left the room between games to get some dinner ready, I didn't end up coming back until the next game had started and had been going for a bit. I was bumped back to Orbit due to inactivity and just rejoined my team when I came back since the lobby hadn't filled up yet. They seem to be able to tell that I was just standing around. Not sure about the people who might tie their controllers to something to keep their character moving endlessly, though.

locked

4754 views

I remember at least once I had to get up and do something during a game, and after it ended, it just pushed me out of the lobby for inactivity.

I kind of see what you're saying, Cody, about the inherent flaw in a system that might encourage that kind of behavior- giving a reward just for playing rather than some kind of action. But on the flip side, if you only got Crucible marks for winning the game or doing exceptionally well, wouldn't that just go into your "this is dumb because it's grindy" box?

locked

4705 views

if you only got Crucible marks for winning the game or doing exceptionally well, wouldn't that just go into your "this is dumb because it's grindy" box?

It would also incent quitting matches early if you're on the losing team, so you can find a different match with a "better" team. One mark for finishing, even if on the losing side, will deter that somewhat.

-- Steve wondered how 343 will handle that when they announced the return of Halo 2's ranking system to the upcoming Halo rerelease.

locked

4665 views

-- Steve wondered how 343 will handle that when they announced the return of Halo 2's ranking system to the upcoming Halo rerelease.

My guess: They won't, because they don't have to. At this point in time, people who care about it can get the satisfaction of 50'ing in H2 again. Those who don't can simply ignore it, because unlike back in the day when Halo 2 WAS the only thing going, currently Halo 2 is NOT the only thing going. :)

locked

4689 views

I kind of see what you're saying, Cody, about the inherent flaw in a system that might encourage that kind of behavior- giving a reward just for playing rather than some kind of action. But on the flip side, if you only got Crucible marks for winning the game or doing exceptionally well, wouldn't that just go into your "this is dumb because it's grindy" box?

Yes it would.

I think the idea of crucible and faction points, as well as exotic currency with which to buy guns or who knows what else is flawed. I'm going to go through with it and 'grind' once the game comes out specifically so I can precisely articulate why it's bad, with real examples so my arguments can't be dismissed on the basis of being theoretical.

locked

4664 views

I'm going to go through with it and 'grind' once the game comes out specifically so I can precisely articulate why it's bad, with real examples so my arguments can't be dismissed on the basis of being theoretical.

...they designed Destiny's multiplayer specifically to be fun to complain about?

locked

4642 views

I'm going to go through with it and 'grind' once the game comes out specifically so I can precisely articulate why it's bad, with real examples so my arguments can't be dismissed on the basis of being theoretical.

Just picturing you sat at home playing Destiny with a grumpy scowl on your face as you try not to have any fun whilst grinding is making me smile.

locked

4679 views

IIRC:

Each week, a player can earn a maximum of 100 crucible marks. 2 for winning and 1 for losing. If skill-matching works perfectly, players will hit the maximum in 67 games (33 wins + 34 losses). A minimum of 50 (50 straight wins), and a maximum of 100 (100 straight losses).

67 * 12 minutes (max game length) = 804 minutes (13 hours, 12 min)

So, if a player entered Crucible and played normally for less than 2 hours each night, they would hit the maximum amount. Note that not all games will go to the time limit.

If a player enough cared about Crucible Gear to want then ASAP, why wouldn't they be able, and want to, simply play 2 hours a night?

EDIT: This is not Bungie's first rodeo, and the thought occurred to me, too. But then I thought a little more and realised the above. This weekly limit was likely installed because they realised some people would consider grinding out hundreds of games a week, through whatever method. There is no point to that if it makes your 'natural' playtime 'worth less' because you don't earn any more CruMarks.

locked

4686 views

- No text -

locked

4618 views

EDIT: This is not Bungie's first rodeo, and the thought occurred to me, too. But then I thought a little more and realised the above. This weekly limit was likely installed because they realised some people would consider grinding out hundreds of games a week, through whatever method. There is no point to that if it makes your 'natural' playtime 'worth less' because you don't earn any more CruMarks.

Again, if players playing your game TOO MUCH is somehow undesirable, then the system is flawed.

Can you imagine if a Mario 64 only let you collect 30 stars a week?!

locked

4662 views

It isn't undesirable. It's just a balancing mechanism, and a means of preventing abuse. It's not like the Crucible magically becomes unfun if you can no longer earn marks.

locked

4657 views

Again, if players playing your game TOO MUCH is somehow undesirable, then the system is flawed.

Can you imagine if a Mario 64 only let you collect 30 stars a week?!

But Destiny is not Mario 64.

It's a game world which depends upon a consistently large player base. That's necessary to keep things like matchmaking queues short, to keep public events populated and to overall sell the impression that as a player you are one of many, bumping into friends and strangers alike as you go about your fun. Sometimes doing things on your own, other times as part of a group, but all the while aware that you're not playing a single player game.

As much as that's the goal, the truth of it is that Destiny is a finite world. There are only so many places to visit, so many enemies to kill, so many strikes or raids to run; eventually you'll have seen them all, have no new goals to strive for and become bored and stop playing. When this happens to a player, that global population shrinks incrementally. If it happens fast enough, the game ceases to sell the fiction of a thriving virtual world and becomes a ghost town. A game which is inherently social without anyone to be social with is a failure.

For their part, Bungie will keep adding to the world with expansions and new content, but they don't want you to start bouncing off the unseen limits of the game — like discovering the edge of The Truman Show's set — too soon. They can't release new expansions every week, so it's absolutely imperative they put in some speed traps to stop you from getting there before they're ready to give you something new. That's one of the main purposes of gated content and other restrictions on how quickly you can zip through the game. Without them, it's likely some players (maybe even most?) would race through the content and get close to burn-out far too soon.

When you play Mario 64 you can just zip through it, but presumably you'll just finish the game and then play something else instead. You don't get burned out playing Mario 64 because it's designed to be played, finished, then put down. Bungie is intrinsically trying to build a game you don't finish and put down. Previously their attempts to do this have been restricted to competitive multiplayer which, popular though it is, isn't everyone's cup of tea. The bigger picture here is to try and create a game that everyone can keep playing and enjoying for as long as possible (and will pay for the privilege for as long as they do).

locked

4697 views

As much as that's the goal, the truth of it is that Destiny is a finite world. There are only so many places to visit, so many enemies to kill, so many strikes or raids to run; eventually you'll have seen them all, have no new goals to strive for and become bored and stop playing. When this happens to a player, that global population shrinks incrementally.

And? That means we have had our fun. Padding the amount of time we have to spend is bad. Give me 20 hours of fun, not 40 hours of shit and 20 hours of fun for a total of 60 hours.

It's dumb. The hardcore folks could blast through everything and get bored quickly. They would leave. But the casuals still have other casuals to play with who also haven't seen everything yet. There is always going to be someone at your progression to play with.

For their part, Bungie will keep adding to the world with expansions and new content, but they don't want you to start bouncing off the unseen limits of the game — like discovering the edge of The Truman Show's set — too soon. They can't release new expansions every week, so it's absolutely imperative they put in some speed traps to stop you from getting there before they're ready to give you something new.

Bullshit. Not a single person complained about House of Cards, despite the fact that many people binge watched in a day or two. It took a long time to get season 2. But you know what? People PREFERRED being able to choose how fast they view the content instead of waiting every week for a broadcast. If someone sees the ends of Destiny, they can leave and do something else or play another game until the DLC comes out. Asking them to spend more time than needed with your game by stupid time locks is dumb, and not respecting of your player's time.

That's one of the main purposes of gated content and other restrictions on how quickly you can zip through the game. Without them, it's likely some players (maybe even most?) would race through the content and get close to burn-out far too soon.

So what? What does that matter? Don't waste my time, and allow people to experience things at their own pace. If you must for whatever reason, don't put the challenges behind a grind wall: simply activate them at certain times. At least then you aren't asking your players to waste that time.

Previously their attempts to do this have been restricted to competitive multiplayer which, popular though it is, isn't everyone's cup of tea. The bigger picture here is to try and create a game that everyone can keep playing and enjoying for as long as possible (and will pay for the privilege for as long as they do).

The only way to do that is to have tons of content. Games should be AS SHORT AS POSSIBLE. They are entertainment. Every second of them should be entertaining. If you ask your player to do something boring in the name of having them play longer you have failed. If you ask players to do something repetitive in the name of having them play longer you have failed. Everything you ask them to do should be new, fun, and novel. By your logic all the boring scenes that slow down a movie should be left in, because then you can watch it longer.

Your game exists to entertain me. I don't exist to entertain your game.

locked

4746 views

And? That means we have had our fun. Padding the amount of time we have to spend is bad. Give me 20 hours of fun, not 40 hours of shit and 20 hours of fun for a total of 60 hours.

Actually, this doesn't pad time played at all; it simply stretches it out. Rather than playing 20 hours in a week, you might play 20 hours over the course of 4 weeks. At least, of certain activities; you can spend the rest of that time in other activities.

It's dumb. The hardcore folks could blast through everything and get bored quickly. They would leave. But the casuals still have other casuals to play with who also haven't seen everything yet. There is always going to be someone at your progression to play with.

You're making some pretty sweeping statements about something inherently very complex: the emergent behaviours of gaming populations of varying skill levels. Experience has taught me that this is rarely as simple, and black and white as it might seem. Keeping people of various skill levels all engaged and participating in the game is still important.

Bullshit. Not a single person complained about House of Cards, despite the fact that many people binge watched in a day or two. It took a long time to get season 2. But you know what? People PREFERRED being able to choose how fast they view the content instead of waiting every week for a broadcast. If someone sees the ends of Destiny, they can leave and do something else or play another game until the DLC comes out. Asking them to spend more time than needed with your game by stupid time locks is dumb, and not respecting of your player's time.

House of Cards is a television program. The difference in medium is massive: you can watch them all at whatever pace you want and the only person it affects is yourself (unless your SO is insisting you watch the series together, in which case you have a total watching population of two. Hardly massively-multiplayer territory).

But let's play along here and try and make an analogy. As a product, House of Cards is only one of many shows you can watch as a Netflix subscriber. What are the consequences for Netflix if their viewers watch the entirety of House of Cards in quick succession? Is there any likelihood that their subscribers will unsubscribe immediately after? Possibly a little, but it's probably true that for most subscribers, House of Cards was only one of the reasons they subscribed. And so, finishing the series doesn't mean they'll unsubscribe completely. But what if House of Cards was only one of a small number of shows on Netflix? What if you literally could exhaust all the available content in the space of a couple of months? Would you continue to subscribe? Or would you think: eh, I'll unsub until House of Cards Season 3 rolls along, and maybe they'll have some other good stuff by then?

The comparison between Destiny and other MMOs bears some consideration here, because although the revenue models are different, they're still fundamentally similar. It's just that instead of paying $10/month to subscribe, you're buying a game and then premium-rate DLC periodically, with expansions and sequels further down the road. Ultimately, it's a game franchise that is designed from the outset to extract recurring revenue from its customers over a long period of time. In this respect, Destiny is just like an MMO like World of Warcraft, and also, to Netflix.

Don't waste my time, and allow people to experience things at their own pace. If you must for whatever reason, don't put the challenges behind a grind wall: simply activate them at certain times. At least then you aren't asking your players to waste that time.

I'm confused how you feel like the game is wasting time; it's limiting how much time you can spend on a given activity in a given period. That's not wasting time; if anything it's streamlining it.

The only way to do that is to have tons of content. Games should be AS SHORT AS POSSIBLE.

You realise these two are mutually exclusive, right?

They are entertainment. Every second of them should be entertaining. If you ask your player to do something boring in the name of having them play longer you have failed. If you ask players to do something repetitive in the name of having them play longer you have failed. Everything you ask them to do should be new, fun, and novel. By your logic all the boring scenes that slow down a movie should be left in, because then you can watch it longer.

I think you may have skipped over the main point I was trying to make in the rush to beat your grinding is boring drum some more. Gating content is not asking people to repeat things until they get boring. Gating content simply means slowing down progression so that people remain engaged with the game over a longer period of time.

Now, nobody is saying you have to enjoy this kind of game. I respect your personal tastes, and they may not fit with this. But I think you're talking about this as if you understand the motivations that drive the design decisions Bungie have made, when I really don't think you do at all.

locked

4778 views

The only way to do that is to have tons of content. Games should be AS SHORT AS POSSIBLE.

You realise these two are mutually exclusive, right?

How so? When I say short as possible, I mean this:

A game asks you to master A, B, and C, in situations X, Y, and Z.

That means the game will be:

AX
AY
AZ
BX
BY
BZ
CX
CY
CZ

So the moment your player masters AX, is when they should move onto AY. Don't keep them there a second longer than that, otherwise you have boredom. It also means do not make stretches of your game that are:

AX
BX
AX
BX
Etc.

locked

4675 views

No game works like that.

locked

4668 views

- No text -

locked

4658 views

I dunno, I distinctly remember playing Halo like that.

I killed one of each enemy type with one of each weapon, and then the credits rolled. Job Done, minimum time spent, GOTY.

locked

4581 views

Bullshit. Not a single person complained about House of Cards, despite the fact that many people binge watched in a day or two. It took a long time to get season 2. But you know what? People PREFERRED being able to choose how fast they view the content instead of waiting every week for a broadcast.

Not sure what you were reading, but I saw a CRAPLOAD of complaints because of that release schedule. Stuff to the effect of "How can you release an entire season at once, and then make us wait a whole year before the next one?" That's human nature.

If it was the perfect solution, EVERYONE would be using it by now. It clearly works for Netflix - but nobody else has gone to that model. There's no one-size-fits-all solution that's ideal - not in TV distribution, not in game development. No matter how much you believe you know what the RIGHT way of doing things is, there are always going to be folks who disagree with you... and they're going to be right to do so, much of the time.

locked

4679 views

Not sure what you were reading, but I saw a CRAPLOAD of complaints because of that release schedule. Stuff to the effect of "How can you release an entire season at once, and then make us wait a whole year before the next one?" That's human nature.

That's more an endorsement of the quality of the show. WE WANT MORE NOW.

If it was the perfect solution, EVERYONE would be using it by now. It clearly works for Netflix - but nobody else has gone to that model.

Netflix is the only one who can. Broadcasters have time slots. That's the nature of broadcasting.

If you WANT to watch one per week, you are absolutely free to do so. If you want to binge, you can. I simply do not see a downside, since everyone can tailor it to their own wants and habits.

But let's say that Netflix (for whatever reason) wants people to be watching the show longer. They have 3 choices:

1. Stagger the release like broadcasters do. This is equivalent to a time lock on content in a game. The vault of glass will open 4 weeks after launch.

2. Make more content. You could simply make more episodes. This would be Bungie putting more areas and missions into the game at ship.

3. You can make each episode longer. You can make each episode 2 hours instead of 1. That's bad, because you already have a story you told, so stretching it out thinner just makes it worse. Like a soap opera, you watch for days and not much really happens. This is what progression or investment based systems do, and it's a time waster.

locked

4667 views

See, number three doesn't hold water. It's a false comparison, Bungie isn't stretching out their story. Shows are enjoyed passively, games actively.

locked

4626 views

The only way to do that is to have tons of content. Games should be AS SHORT AS POSSIBLE. They are entertainment. Every second of them should be entertaining. If you ask your player to do something boring in the name of having them play longer you have failed. If you ask players to do something repetitive in the name of having them play longer you have failed. Everything you ask them to do should be new, fun, and novel.

Some people love investment systems, sometimes it's the only reason they enjoy playing a particular game. I was talking with someone the other day about various games, and he said, "That game doesn't really interest me. I don't like games that don't have progression systems. If I'm not earning XP and ranking up, I feel like there's nothing left for me to do."

I felt like talking about how many thousands of games of Halo 2 I played online with no investment system, but it would have been as useful as telling him what flavor of ice cream I like.

Some people love the investment systems. That's why they keep coming back. Those are the kind of people Bungie is looking to hook with their system here.

locked

4597 views

EDIT: This is not Bungie's first rodeo, and the thought occurred to me, too. But then I thought a little more and realised the above. This weekly limit was likely installed because they realised some people would consider grinding out hundreds of games a week, through whatever method. There is no point to that if it makes your 'natural' playtime 'worth less' because you don't earn any more CruMarks.

Again, if players playing your game TOO MUCH is somehow undesirable, then the system is flawed.

Once they hit the limit, players can no longer use the justification 'I want to earn more CruMarks for that sweet helm'. Instead, they have to use the justification 'I want to shoot more people in the face because it's fun' - surely that's desirable?

Besides, at a certain point, playing a game, any game, too much is undesirable (see also: definition of 'too much'). Peeps need sleep. They need fresh air. Food. Exercise.

locked

4679 views

Peeps need sleep. They need fresh air. Food. Exercise.

I disagree. :p

locked

4649 views

Maybe they are hoping the crucible mark cap will encourage players to try out some of the other activities in Destiny?

locked

4653 views

EDIT: This is not Bungie's first rodeo, and the thought occurred to me, too. But then I thought a little more and realised the above. This weekly limit was likely installed because they realised some people would consider grinding out hundreds of games a week, through whatever method. There is no point to that if it makes your 'natural' playtime 'worth less' because you don't earn any more CruMarks.

This is how Blizzard deals with the currency systems used to purchase rewards in World of Warcraft too, incidentally: you have a weekly ‘cap’ on how much of each currency you can earn, and there are lots of ways to reach that cap quite quickly in a single week. Dedicated players will hit it very quickly, whilst the more moderate (but still committed) players will hit it around the end of each week, meaning that it doesn't slow their progress down.

locked

4703 views

Back to the forum index

RSS Feed of thread

DBO Forums

AFK and Crucible Marks (Destiny)