Αυτό το παιχνίδι είναι πλέον διαθέσιμο στο Steam!

Σας ευχαριστούμε για τη βοήθειά σας στην επιλογή αυτού του παιχνιδιού για διάθεση μέσω του Steam. Παρακάτω βρίσκονται περισσότερες πληροφορίες συμπεριλαμβανομένου και συνδέσμου για την σχετική σελίδα του καταστήματος στο Steam.

GunZ 2: The Second Duel
Ordinance 9 Ιουλ, 2013 @ 12:13πμ
The Potentially Low Skill-Cap of GunZ2 is the Real Issue Here??

DISCLAMER:: I don't side with either pro or anti "K-Style". Bloody move on with life and respect a person's choice in enjoying gaming; wether that be either casual or competitive.

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

The more I look at these pro K-Style vs. Non K-Style Debates, the more I am beginning to see that the original purpose of why people seem frustrated with GunZ 2 got lost under all the arguments of preference between causal & competitive gaming.

From what I see, the main reason that GunZ 1 veterans are becoming frustrated with GunZ2 is the drastically lower skill-cap than its predecessor. The majority of people who played GunZ 1 played it for the sake of skill mastery, since the skill-cap was only limited by a player's mechanical skill; which is something that will probably never be seen again in gaming.

In a number of cases, those who are initially good at mechanical speed based gaming are fearing that this game will become as linear as games like Hawken, where the mechanical skill-cap of the game is fairly low in comparison; the kind of game that can be mastered in a week, and then become bored with afterwards. Of course, not to say that a game like Hawken is unenjoyable(as I play it myself from time to time), but i'm thinking the BIG PICTURE here is that GunZ2 may fall short in delivering the skill mastery experience that GunZ1 had with K-Style.

The challenge of mastering a complex skill such as K-Style is what made it fun. Currently, the ONLY game to even stand up to that level of complexity for mechanical skillis S4League, and that's another story alltogether as to why that is no longer a viable option for those looking for technical mastery in pvp games. Now, seeing as the only real option for high speed mechanical skill based gameplay is pretty much shut down for good, there's no other outlets for these types of gamers to have their kind of fun with.

In conclusion, it doesn't look like the issue at hand is the lack of "K-Style" specifically in GunZ2, as it is the lack of the high-speed mechanical skill-based gmaeplay that GunZ1 was famous and loved for.

I only wish Cysote was around to better clarify what i'm trying to point out here.
Τελευταία επεξεργασία από Ordinance; 25 Ιουλ, 2013 @ 2:15μμ
Εμφάνιση 1-15 από 24 σχόλια
< >
Jyuji 9 Ιουλ, 2013 @ 12:31πμ 
From my understanding of what's going on in the Korean beta, the whole issue really isn't skill cap so much as it is player creativity as a means to completing the goal of the game mode. But if you really think about it, how complex could a third person action shooter possibly get? How much microing should the players have to do to play the game the developers want the game played? What's to say that the highest skill level techniques are the most rewarding techniques to use? Why use technique A over technique B? Why use technique A or B when I can use technique C?

It it comes down to it you're just pointing and clicking to use your gun no matter what game it is. Sword play is pretty much the same thing. It's mobility that defines the skill cap of a third person shooter/ hack 'n slash that's arena based. Are we going to be allowed to move quickly? Or is everything going to feel disjointed and clumbsy? I'd be more worried about that kind of stuff, but seeing as how MAIET only built upon what was in GunZ 1 with added mobility I don't see any cause for concern other than animations not looking pleasing to the eye and stats that are grossly underpowered or underutilized.

If mobility really is the issue with skill cap when commencing combat, here's what MAIET could have done to make things much more interesting while giving players a lot to chew on for technique development and refinement:

Sword comboes that compliment certain manuevers
Gun comboes that compliment certain manuevers


Here's what players have to do to increase the skill cap:

Creating their own sword comboes that suit their play style
Creating their own gun comboes that suit their play style


GunZ 2 is a very open-ended game when it comes to game mechanics and possibilities for unique techniques. That much I can confirm just by watching the Korean beta videos. The only thing that worries me is level design hampering the game play. Specifically viable tactics. And when I talk about viability and level design, look at Warframe for example. Sniper rifles are the worst weapons in the game because level design does not support it. The game was meant to be played close quarters because the level design dictates that. That's not to say sniper rifles aren't strong weapons, but their situational use is what makes them so bad.
That same doctrine can be applied to GunZ 2. What's manuevers are going to be viable? What manuevers should we not even bother with? What improves survivability?


Seeing as how K-Style was mostly all about mobility and speed with the constant spamming of butterfly, there were certain movements you really shouldn't do on certain maps. The skill cap of GunZ significantly lowered on Stairway because K-Style wasn't a very effective way to kill enemies. All you had to do was flip them over the edge. It made the game extremely easy , not accounting for the lag between players.



tl;dr Level design and the amount of mobility given to players in this already open-ended arena shooter is what is going to dictate the skill cap.
JinNJuice 9 Ιουλ, 2013 @ 12:50πμ 
Cysote is here. He would disagree with you.

Now let us continue this tediously dragged discussion.

K-Style is more command input based, not performance application based. There was no real tactical insight or variable outcome. That makes it more of a memorizing button masher, rather than a sharpminded combatting. Just hope to get lucky with your jumping, dashing, slashing, and guarding all in one moment, repeated thousands of times, or graze with a partially lucky spread shot with shotguns... or a rocket. I'd say there would be more of a mental skill requirement with revolvers.

Now, it's insulting to say that K-Style has more skill complexity than some other games out there. The learning curve for K-Style was so damned linear, it's not even funny. To make that a requirement? We can't even really look at that as a game anymore. It was more about how to do some moves, not when, where, AND how to apply moves. Slightly simplified mechanics do not necessarily mean lowered performance skills.

However, speed does contribute a massive adjustment to gameplay experience. Still, we must stop and observe the big picture: Would increased speed be an absolute necessary? In most cases, it would be yes, and that question appears too vague anyways, so that form of a question is invalid. Better to step into details with questions and answers, so let's try that instead: What would need an increased speed? Some, and that means NOT ALL, maneuvers should. The main thing to consider in correlation to speed are not only the avatars themselves, but also the weapons and their functions. There are three general types of firearms good to look at: Shotgun, sniper rifle, and machine gun. Aside from the effective range, but also correlating to the distance, one type of weapon would prove more efficient against a more agile opponent, while another would provide better use against a slower, more focused attacker/defender. Now, this is ignoring the fact that there would be sitting ducks as targets becauase... I mean, really... They're sitting ducks. Anyways, now with more variable encounters, one would no longer rely on the deceivingly simple notion of "more powerful weapons" or "ONE set of skills" to battle anymore. With this, players with more intellectual skills AND practical skills would be rewarded, not the metagamers or the mechanics mashers. A dependency on weapons should prove the lack of skills. A practice in expertise should prove lacking in proficiency. Seems more like a balance.
clownavenger 9 Ιουλ, 2013 @ 1:06πμ 
I think it may just be more like team fortress when it comes to skill. The better more experienced player still wins. Different classes have different speed and damage as well as certain scenarios that they would have an advantage. this would make the game allot more tactical in my opinion.
Ordinance 9 Ιουλ, 2013 @ 3:38πμ 
Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από JinNJuice:
Cysote is here. He would disagree with you.

Now let us continue this tediously dragged discussion.

K-Style is more command input based, not performance application based. There was no real tactical insight or variable outcome. That makes it more of a memorizing button masher, rather than a sharpminded combatting. Just hope to get lucky with your jumping, dashing, slashing, and guarding all in one moment, repeated thousands of times, or graze with a partially lucky spread shot with shotguns... or a rocket. I'd say there would be more of a mental skill requirement with revolvers.

Now, it's insulting to say that K-Style has more skill complexity than some other games out there. The learning curve for K-Style was so damned linear, it's not even funny. To make that a requirement? We can't even really look at that as a game anymore. It was more about how to do some moves, not when, where, AND how to apply moves. Slightly simplified mechanics do not necessarily mean lowered performance skills.

However, speed does contribute a massive adjustment to gameplay experience. Still, we must stop and observe the big picture: Would increased speed be an absolute necessary? In most cases, it would be yes, and that question appears too vague anyways, so that form of a question is invalid. Better to step into details with questions and answers, so let's try that instead: What would need an increased speed? Some, and that means NOT ALL, maneuvers should. The main thing to consider in correlation to speed are not only the avatars themselves, but also the weapons and their functions. There are three general types of firearms good to look at: Shotgun, sniper rifle, and machine gun. Aside from the effective range, but also correlating to the distance, one type of weapon would prove more efficient against a more agile opponent, while another would provide better use against a slower, more focused attacker/defender. Now, this is ignoring the fact that there would be sitting ducks as targets becauase... I mean, really... They're sitting ducks. Anyways, now with more variable encounters, one would no longer rely on the deceivingly simple notion of "more powerful weapons" or "ONE set of skills" to battle anymore. With this, players with more intellectual skills AND practical skills would be rewarded, not the metagamers or the mechanics mashers. A dependency on weapons should prove the lack of skills. A practice in expertise should prove lacking in proficiency. Seems more like a balance.

Just so you are aware, I have read your reply; and I do appreciate, understand, and even agree with a lot of your observations. Though i have my things to say, i'll say them later when it's not 4 am. I'm just glad there's not the usual bunch of non-analytical blokes that can't understand why k-style is gone forever and the likes.
coug 9 Ιουλ, 2013 @ 5:11πμ 
^^ These threads
Ryou 9 Ιουλ, 2013 @ 7:55πμ 
http://youtu.be/e31OSVZF77w?t=2m2s

This video illustrates the issues with the first game and why lowering the skill cap is actually a good thing, but to make it better, the skill cap should be put more into strategy.
♦衝撃波- Electric Shock ♦ 9 Ιουλ, 2013 @ 9:32πμ 
*Sees bunch of big wall of texts* K I'm out.
Ordinance 9 Ιουλ, 2013 @ 2:31μμ 
Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Blendi:
http://youtu.be/e31OSVZF77w?t=2m2s

This video illustrates the issues with the first game and why lowering the skill cap is actually a good thing, but to make it better, the skill cap should be put more into strategy.

I spent a few good hours mulling over a lot of these videos since they started popping up. Man, where were these guys 2 years ago in my life. OTL
Jyuji 9 Ιουλ, 2013 @ 2:54μμ 
Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Percussive Maintenance Guy:
Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Blendi:
http://youtu.be/e31OSVZF77w?t=2m2s

This video illustrates the issues with the first game and why lowering the skill cap is actually a good thing, but to make it better, the skill cap should be put more into strategy.

I spent a few good hours mulling over a lot of these videos since they started popping up. Man, where were these guys 2 years ago in my life. OTL
Nobody really knew about Extra Credits until just recently. All of their videos have relatively low amounts of views. Most of their topics don't concern the general gamer either.
Ordinance 9 Ιουλ, 2013 @ 2:59μμ 
First of all, I really appreciate your time to share with me your views on the subject. I'd definitely like to discuss on this a bit to expand on it, since you bring some good arguments to the table.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Aspari:
But if you really think about it, how complex could a third person action shooter possibly get? How much microing should the players have to do to play the game the developers want the game played? What's to say that the highest skill level techniques are the most rewarding techniques to use? Why use technique A over technique B? Why use technique A or B when I can use technique C?
I can understand your perspective as to why it would seem that there wouldn't be much to master in an arena based shooter; however, these scenarios of depth in a style based arena shooter can be deceptively complex. This can also be explained though the concept of "situational awareness" on a micro and macro level within video games, as well as observing the "Tri-Attributes" that should be present in all pvp based games.

The concepts of these Tri- Attributes I will be referring to were written by Cysote, for a guide on S4 League. Though specifically it was for that game, I find many of the principles in here can be applied to almost any pvp game. link >> http://forums.chs5.net/topic/1105-evasive-gun-style-egs-formal-guide/

(please ctrl+f "The Tri-Attributes" on that link to read up on it if you wish, too big to spoiler)

To summarize my thoughts based of how situational awareness includes dynamics in a 'style' based pvp arena game while in observance of the Tri Attributes, concepts such as different techniques in video games having their advantages and drawbacks, as well how to practically apply them, adds many different levels of depths to a seemingly simple game mechanic. I can only hope that GunZ2 will also excersise this kind of depth as well. Though of course, it doesn't have to be the same kind of depth as K-Style itself.

In regards to having one technique having precedence over another in video games, that should not(and hopefully not) be the issue; whereas the issue is using an arsenal of techniques to outsmart an opponent, while being aware of both the individual and the opponent's capabilities in order to not over/underestimate personal potential. Instead of C being dominant over B & A, from what I gather, with the concept of "perfect imbalance" in mind, C should have drawbacks that B or A may be able to capitalize on, therefore making C not as dominant. Then the cycle should repeat when the new dominant technique has its drawbacks exploited.

On that note, I too am actually glad that K-Style, in its actual form, will no longer be used because of the scenario you layed out of Technique C being dominant over Technique A or B, and there was practically no way at this point to find a riposte for C unless it just happened to be more efficient C by someone else.

Also in regards to " How much microing should the players have to do to play the game the developers want the game played?" I would say that deviates from where focus should be, such as, "how much microing will the players end up exploiting to change the game?" My hope is, that through emergent gameplay, that GunZ2 will have a constantly evolving state, where that concept of "imperfect balance" can be excersized appropriately; that being that one discovered form of emergent gameplay will not completely take precedence over others.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Aspari:
It it comes down to it you're just pointing and clicking to use your gun no matter what game it is. Sword play is pretty much the same thing.

Sadly, I cannot agree with this due to the information I have stated above. With the presence of both principles of situational awareness the Tri Attributes within games, it becomes more than, "point and click," to be more of critical decision making with practiced technique as the means to an end; that end obviously being victory. Perhaps the best example that comes to mind is my time spent in Martial arts. I would constantly practice techniques in various ways in order to use them competitively against others. In this perspective, mere "punches and kicks" became a martial skill that was to be used with tact & cunning in order to achieve results. I can say the same for 'style' based gaming in this sense.


Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Aspari:
It's mobility that defines the skill cap of a third person shooter/ hack 'n slash that's arena based. Are we going to be allowed to move quickly? Or is everything going to feel disjointed and clumbsy? I'd be more worried about that kind of stuff, but seeing as how MAIET only built upon what was in GunZ 1 with added mobility I don't see any cause for concern other than animations not looking pleasing to the eye and stats that are grossly underpowered or underutilized.

In terms of "mobility defining" skillcap, this is an already wobbly concept to try and ellaborate on. Cysote happened to summarize a problem with a similar concept when it came to movement controls: "... a game "looking cool" and a game actually "being cool to play" are totally different ideas. Simplified controls will not make this game fun to play."

The idea I believe he was trying to convey with this, and what I am trying to relate to, is that having guided controls(regardless of speed) will not make the experience enjoyable in comparison to the emergent gameplay that GunZ1 had, that made the player sweat and toil to achieve the high mobility that dominated the pro leagues. It was the emergent gameplay, that Cysote speaks of more in detail, that caused the game to reach such such high mobility that was pro.

It wasn't the mobility itself that defined the skillcap, but the means to achieve it. to be simply given that speed will not define a skillcap. However, I suppose one thing that could be done is specifically how the mobility that is given could be utilized in order to raise the skillcap. However, that borders more on the utilization of situational awareness and not mechanical skill, which is more of what I want to focus on. Also to add to that note, IF there is another method that is discovered to increase mobility through some k-style esque findings, then my previous statement would be void, since the skillcap would increase to make that new form of mobility the new standard

Though in conclusion for this bit, yes, you are right. Mobility defines skillcap, however, it isn't the mobility itself. it's the emergent gameplay that achieves that mobility.

Thread w/ Cysote's post quoted: http://steamcommunity.com/workshop/filedetails/discussion/133839622/810919691126359073/#p2
*Ctrl+F Reff: Cysote Mar 25, 2013 @ 2:34pm

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Aspari:
If mobility really is the issue with skill cap when commencing combat, here's what MAIET could have done to make things much more interesting while giving players a lot to chew on for technique development and refinement:

Sword comboes that compliment certain manuevers
Gun comboes that compliment certain manuevers

Here's what players have to do to increase the skill cap:

Creating their own sword comboes that suit their play style
Creating their own gun comboes that suit their play style

Honestly, I like these ideas. :) They're all sound, and most likely what will happen in the near future here once GunZ2 hits stateside.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Aspari:
GunZ 2 is a very open-ended game when it comes to game mechanics and possibilities for unique techniques. That much I can confirm just by watching the Korean beta videos. The only thing that worries me is level design hampering the game play. Specifically viable tactics. And when I talk about viability and level design, look at Warframe for example. Sniper rifles are the worst weapons in the game because level design does not support it. The game was meant to be played close quarters because the level design dictates that. That's not to say sniper rifles aren't strong weapons, but their situational use is what makes them so bad.
That same doctrine can be applied to GunZ 2. What's manuevers are going to be viable? What manuevers should we not even bother with? What improves survivability?

Honestly, i'm glad to hear the hope for some form of "open-ended" gameplay for GunZ2, because until I can actually get my hands on playing it, i'm sitting in the same boat as Cysote when it comes to the learning curve: "I will master the controls in two days and then become bored with it." In respect, I am NOWHERE NEAR as good as emergent gaming as much as Cystoe is,(quite frankly, most people aren't) but I also understand where he comes from. I've pumped through many pvp's that suffered that same lack of dynamic play, where I master it in days and then leave out of boredom. Right now, Hawken is my latest victim of that.

I'm just desparately hoping that this game will still offer that sense of unique- yet-complex gameplay, and not loadout capitalization.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Aspari:
tl;dr Level design and the amount of mobility given to players in this already open-ended arena shooter is what is going to dictate the skill cap.

Thanks for the tl;dr, btw. helped my synopsis for my thesis before deciding to go balls off the wall with all the mess I wrote up there.

but here's my tl;dr to close this up:

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

For the most part, I agree with this; however, the mobility iself won't determine the skillcap as much as the potential emergent gameplay for mobility. If I have one problem with what I see from this so far, is that simplified mobility, compared to mobility earned through practice, will substantially decrease the enjoyment I would have with this game; unless there will be the possibility of emergent gameplay to increase the skillcap in that regard. However, I will not be able to know that till I've had time to tinker with it... And that will sadly have to wait till the actual release.

And just to note, I am with you guys in terms of looking forward to creating an entirely new form of emergent gameplay, rather than trying to replicate K-style. Only K-Style's general principle as a gaming value had worth, not the style itself.

I have my hopes up, at the very least.

JinNJuice 9 Ιουλ, 2013 @ 3:04μμ 
Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Aspari:
Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Percussive Maintenance Guy:

I spent a few good hours mulling over a lot of these videos since they started popping up. Man, where were these guys 2 years ago in my life. OTL
Nobody really knew about Extra Credits until just recently. All of their videos have relatively low amounts of views. Most of their topics don't concern the general gamer either.

That's because, for the general gamers, most games are already approachable. They're not really the kind to delve into specific details to create discussions about benefits or otherwise. They already have something that feels like it works out great. Sadly, that means for games, usually like this, which focus more on online multiplayer, which more than likely force the need to form a better understanding of the game in a more experienced field of the community, it does NOT have something that can just feel like it works out great.
Jyuji 9 Ιουλ, 2013 @ 3:15μμ 
Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από JinNJuice:
Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Aspari:
Nobody really knew about Extra Credits until just recently. All of their videos have relatively low amounts of views. Most of their topics don't concern the general gamer either.

That's because, for the general gamers, most games are already approachable. They're not really the kind to delve into specific details to create discussions about benefits or otherwise. They already have something that feels like it works out great. Sadly, that means for games, usually like this, which focus more on online multiplayer, which more than likely force the need to form a better understanding of the game in a more experienced field of the community, it does NOT have something that can just feel like it works out great.
Absolutely true.
Jyuji 9 Ιουλ, 2013 @ 3:54μμ 
Okay let's talk about a few things here in relation to GunZ 2.

From what I've seen the core formula for the original GunZ: The Duel was not drastically changed. This, in my opinion, is a good thing. GunZ was an open-ended game because its mechanics were very loose. It didn't feel like you were restricted to when and where you can do a specific manuever. The level design also advocated free reign to the players as to how they want to play the game. GunZ's biggest problem concerning gameplay is that the game was and is barebones and poorly executed at that. Most weapons had poor hit detection, the netcode was horrible, and basic sword attacks were not deadly nor pleasing to use. Animations were badly implemented as well.

So why is it good that GunZ 2 isn't straying away too far from the original's formula? GunZ 2 is basically GunZ with much more refined gun and sword play, expanded mobility, and animations that don't break from inputting a command mid-animation or exploiting certain animation frames. Down to its very core it still looks like the same game. Of course there are a lot of added content like special attacks and possibly a melee combo system that actually works well. There is also zoom and tight aim with weapons for more precise shooting. In fact the shooting segment looks like the hit boxes are pixel perfect this time around. Accuracy with all weapons seem vastly improved as well.

So now let's talk about a really touchy subject. It's not K-Style itself, but K-Style syndrome.

This is partly what K-Style syndrome is this: For the players who only started playing after K-Style was discovered didn't know what the game was like before that period. Things were stale, and that's how MAIET made the game. That part was their work. What they don't know or didn't know until later down the road is that K-Style was never a direct effort by MAIET. Rather, it was due to the faulty animation programming.

K-Style added a layer of depth that MAIET didn't intend to happen. So now that GunZ 2 is coming out, a lot of people are going to be like "Wtf where is K-Style? That made GunZ what it is!" Well first of all, it didn't make anything except more fun for people to abuse the broken animation scripting as a way to create a depth of gameplay GunZ so desperately needed. MAIET basically lucked out on that. But now it's in people's heads that K-Style is a necessity for any game that has "GunZ" in its name. That's K-Style syndrome. Whether or not K-Style was a good thing or not is neither here nor there.

tl;dr GunZ 2 is basically a vastly improved GunZ down to its very core. However, it suffers from K-Style syndrome because after seeing K-Style for so long in GunZ the average player would look at GunZ 2 and think "Wow that looks really easy to play."
[HNYB] The Nook 9 Ιουλ, 2013 @ 6:43μμ 
didn't maeit intentionly make it that way, i could swear they stated they wanteed to low the skill bar
Jyuji 9 Ιουλ, 2013 @ 6:51μμ 
Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από TTT Man of Camping:
didn't maeit intentionly make it that way, i could swear they stated they wanteed to low the skill bar
I'm not sure. I never read their AMA on Reddit.

However, if I have my terms right here, what they're really doing is lowering the skill floor to make it more approachable to everyone willing to try GunZ 2. They aren't messing with the skill cap too much.
Εμφάνιση 1-15 από 24 σχόλια
< >
Ανά σελίδα: 15 30 50