Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
Anything else is either trolling, shouting into the void, or actively trying to financially harm the game and/or its developers.
One DLC to unlock 2 legendaries, another to 3.
There! Players' frustration solved, hopefully.
yes, witcher 3 had those limitations and one of the most popular mods is the one that gets rid of them. I like being overpowered. that's why I run thru Skyrim at level 300 I earned those levels.
Difference is, the skyrim devs allow you to level as much as you want (as far as I remember), and everyone is encouraging OP and others who want unlimited legendaries to modify their game.
There's a difference between you modding witcher 3 so you can be overpowered, and you "protesting" for the devs to do it for you, and for everyone else who don't want it. No one minds anyone else being overpowered in a single player game, it doesn't affect anyone else. It starts affecting us however when people start thinking they know better than the dev and "protest" so they change the game.
I like having balance in a game. single player or not, cause my brain will automatically direct me towards being more and more powerful, is just how I, and most people play games, and at the point where I win just by holding the fire button, I stop playing. If I need to think and work very hard for smaller incremental power upgrades that aren't necessarily obvious, I'm always challenged in some way, I learn to play better, my idea of what I need changes, and ultimately, I'm playing 2000 hours making different builds and finding what works best for me.
I believe some game designers would peg the legendary limit as "protecting the player from themselves", game designers are quite aware that players will ruin their own experience to be overpowered if they give them the means to do so. Once you stop being challenged for your wins, your wins lose their meaning. For those who don't feel that, there's cheats, mods and other shenanigans, really don't need the devs to trample their creative vision at the detriment of most of their players to cater to that. That mod on witcher 3 might be one of the most popular, but its users are probably still a very, very small fraction of the entire playerbase.
To go back to skyrim, you might like going up to level 300, but at the point where am level 60, I have most of what I need, I have no challenge anymore, and I just put my playthrough down.
OK, first off, people do complain about not being able to fire all their weapons at once. That was a thread that popped up just a few days ago.
But wow I have to categorically disagree with the arguments presented here. In what world is equipping a piece of equipment the same as activating cheat codes? Perhaps the designers DO think that equipping more than one legendary would be too powerful and ruin the experience they were going for. Maybe they're correct in their assessment, but I would argue this indicates something went wrong in the balancing/design process if so.
But even if it's true, that's not the issue here. The issue is that there is no *in-universe reason* presented to the player to justify this restriction. Look at Other issues players might bring up and see how easily in-universe explanations spring forth.
Why can't we shoot all weapons at once? I want to alpha strike like MW games! The in-unverse logic is simple and obvious: Each ship only has a specific set of hardpoints that can only accept one set of weapons at a time.
Why can't we carry infinite trade goods? I hate feeling so restricted and needing to be picky about what I carry. Again, simple, each ship only has so much cargo space, and larger ships have more space, more expensive cargo modules expand your cargo space more.
Now... Why can't we equip numerous legendaries? The in-universe explanation is... uh... hmm, they just... don't work sometimes? I guess?
Unless I completely missed some Everspace lore explaining why legendaries don't work when your ship already has one equipped, it's understandably jarring to players when a piece of equipment doesn't behave like all other pieces of equipment in the game.
Luckily this can be solved easily by including some lore info in game when you acquire legendaries giving a good explanation for why they are limited. Perhaps they are items so powerful that they require their own AI unit similar to HIVE to operate and actively cooperate with other equipment on your ship - so if you equip multiple, the AI units interfere with one another.
What if it was part of the balance process ?
What if it's the solution they had access to with the resource they had ?
What if you're thinking too hard about this ?
There's arbitrary restrictions in every game.
Why do I have a timer on my kills as the impostor in Among Us ?
Balance fail, immersion broken, refund please. huehuehuehue.
But then, why do my gauss and my flak fire from different places on my ship ? Why does my flak fire from only one static hardpoint while my gauss fires from two entirely different hardpoints ? Nowhere in the game that is explained, and like, I've played other space games like freelancer where I can attach individual weapons to each hardpoints and shoot them all at once. Nowhere in the game it's explained why I can't do that.
Hope you get the point am trying to make. I understand the reasons why things work like that, developers have their creative freedom and implement the mechanics they think will make their game most interesting. I don't think "how does this make sense in the gameworld ?" when I see a limitation like this, I know there's probably purpose for it in the dev's mind, whether it be a storytelling device or a purely mechanical balance thing.
I don't think you can think of a single game that have all of the decisions behind their mechanics explained in a lore-friendly way. Like, why can I run a tank on FFXIV in a skimpy swimsuit and not get slapped ? lul.
So turn the game on Very Easy. I've tried it. You feel like a god and basically can't die. Fleets explode into shiny embers with every volley of fire. No legendary grinding needed.
This whole discussion is silly. The game is what it is and the developers explained their thoughts behind their choices. Despite the assumptions from the OP and others, there's no community consensus on the legendary issue. Plus, it's sitting at Very Positive on Steam and an 82% on Metacritic. Data says it's not an issue that bothers most players.
If you want to equip all the legendaries, wait for a mod. If you want to be overpowered, turn the difficulty down and have at it. If you want to be totally broken, go grab a CheatEngine table and crank your stats to unbelievable levels.
It's just game balance. If you dislike it, download a mod to change it (I assume such a mod exists or will soon exist).
Still though. For a single player game there is lot of nerfing. Legendaries should drop more too even on normal mode.
There's a big difference between falling 5 feet, and falling 300 feet, but not much difference between falling 300 feet and falling 2,000 feet.
It's *technically* not correct to equate enabling you to equip all legendary items with enabling godmode.
But, if this *functionally* trivializes the part of the game where you have to learn how to pilot your ship, build your ship, or approach situations, the difference between enabling cheats and allowing you to upgrade and equip all legendaries forever is mostly academic. Both trivialize the game.
And if you are pushing so hard for a power fantasy that you want to be able to use a level 16 flak for the rest of the game, I think the most honest and reasonable action is to enable cheat mode and/or mod your game, rather than try to get the entire game trivialized for everyone else. These obstacles are meant to get you to experiment with other items and engage with the crafting system -- that's part of what the game is built to appeal to. If your vision is just blowing up everything with a full legendary loadout: PLEASE don't gripe on the steam forums, just mod your game.
You are correct that games are filled with arbitrary decisions, though the best of them are decisions that gel with the game, and the worst give the players a jarring experience. What end those decisions fall under is influenced by many factors, including the genre of game. Football has "arbitrary" boundaries on the playing field, but also part of what makes the game "the game" is the challenge of executing plays within a defined area, rather than allowing players to grab the ball, jump in a car, drive to an airfield, then huck the ball into the goal from an airplane. Though that could be a fun basis for a different game, in football, there's a purpose to it.
Most importantly, however, the game's rules were not designed around a conceit that the players and their actions are occurring in some kind of football universe that is separate from our own and being simulated. ES2 is a game designed around the action taking place in its own universe, where we play the role of a specific character and our in-game actions follow around events that happen within the universe.
That's not a gameplay mechanic, though. The gameplay mechanic is that you switch from gauss to flak, and the weapon hardpoints unload the gauss weapon and load the flak weapon, allowing you to fire whichever weapons are now loaded. This is associated with in-universe descriptions and consistent across the board with how weapons function in that universe, at least for the class of ships that the player has access to during the course of the game. Whether the 3D render of the projectile is correctly aligned isn't something that affects gameplay. Now, obviously graphical fidelity might break someone's immersion, too, but that's an entirely different discussion. (Though, I'm pretty sure your flak only visually using one hardpoint is a bug. I run primarily a Stinger and when the third hardpoint comes online, my flak quite clearly begins to fire out of the third hardpoint that activated).
As for your second point, sure, ES2 mechanics are different than some other games, but it's consistent within its own universe. If in ES2, *sometimes* you were able to equip two weapons at once, but *sometimes* you could not, with no explanation, it would indeed be quite a problem.
Yes, your point is quite clear. In fact I have similar thoughts often... if it wasn't obvious from my willingness to invest far too much time writing entirely too much on random game topics like this, I care a lot about game design and can easily sympathize with the positions devs end up in. However, you describe exactly the issue at hand - at that moment you describe, the player is forced out of the game universe perspective and can only explain the behavior by "I guess it was some design limitation". There is no corresponding reality in the game world whatsoever.
If you equipped an Autocannon in-game and found that it only fired 1 round per trigger pull, meaning you had to click 60 times per second to utilize it as intended, even if you might still say in your head "there's probably purpose for it in the dev's mind", that might be hard to get past even for you. The semi-auto firing mechanism doesn't match up with the description of an Autocannon.
Also keep in mind, I only harp on this in particular because the game is in fact billed as an RPG (and for that matter, it has the Sim tag, but it's the roleplaying aspect involved here). I wouldn't have the same objection for a puzzle game like, say, Islanders, with no roleplaying or immersive aspect.
Overall the game is excellent in utilizing associated mechanics and avoiding disassociated mechanic pitfalls. If you were to ask Adam why has to travel to a jumpgates before he can move between systems, he has the same understanding as the player. Same goes for how encrypted messages reveal HRAs, why Ramen is worth a lot in one sector and not much in another, why someone would choose to use an Interceptor over Vindicator, or vice versa, why larger ships hold more cargo, etc, etc, etc.
But being unable to equip multiple legendaries can only be understood in the player's mind, not Adam's, and is a blaring air horn that screams "Arbitrary!" over the harmonious symphony played by the other game mechanics. And I do sympathize with the devs concluding that it's a reasonable restriction on the player to keep the game balanced, I'm not even asking them to change it. I even went as far as suggesting a nearly zero-effort solution: Having a very simple in-universe explanation in the game journal when you unlock a legendary just like there is a little explanation for the background of various sectors and factions and characters when you meet them.
If it's a topic that interests you, I'd recommend reading a great article from writer and game designer James Alexander, about dissociated vs associated mechanics[thealexandrian.net], which probably explains it a great deal better than I could.
Well, there's a reason the chainmail bikini is such a meme. It's a prime example of dissociated mechanics. That some games include particularly egregious examples doesn't lessen the adverse effects they have on player experience, which is why many complain about that and praise games that have more consistent portrayals of armor. Of course, over time game designers have also gotten savvy and upped their game. If they do include the chainmail bikini, it's often in-universe explained by the protection being magical in nature. An example even from decades ago, in D&D magical protection is added as a so-called "deflection bonus", which can be applied with the same effect to jewelry, clothing, anything, really. So go ahead, wear that bikini, it's the magic barrier deflecting blows, not some contrivance that the characters wouldn't have any explanation for.
I assure you that I read the entirety of your post, but I don't need to reply to more than this: Having my character look appealing brings way more value to my experience than having anatomically correct looking armor that would offer the protection it statistically provides, and wouldn't look "jarring" on a character that is specced to take damage. Having it explained to me why the swimsuit armor works litterally doesn't bring any value to me. In fact, with many of these mechanics, it's more appealing for me to come up with my own explanations within the gameworld, like you did with that "these items have complex systems and your ship can only handle so much". You didn't need the dev to tell you to come up with your own explanation, so why would they need to ? ;p
And I can assure you that game devs are aware of this, because while *some* games might explain swimsuit armor with arbitrary *magic wiggling of fingers*, most don't bother, and swimsuit armor has been around for at least 20 years (draconic S tier armor in lineage 2 ♥) and it's been everywhere. ;p
Some games are purely about dissociated mechanical manipulations and just have game assets like graphics that are abstracted representations, or even just whatever gets the cool factor. Don't get me wrong, I played Lineage 2 for quite some time, and also some similar games coming before and after it. They're great at doing what they set out to do, but much like the Final Fantasy games they are actively selling you a very over-the-top world with rule of cool factors, gigantic swords being wielded with the ease of lightsabers, and similar things. Though keep in mind that these games are also very internally consistent, as the whole design comes together cohesively, working towards the same goal. And associated mechanics / internal consistency does not necessary equal realism.
Chess is also purely dissociated mechanics, but it's still a great strategy game.
And then maybe even more to your core point, different customers want different types of games and have different tolerances. To take it to the extreme, it's possible that you wouldn't mind if in the ES2 tutorial, switching to a blaster causes cats to appears on your hardpoints and they shoot rainbows out of their mouths when you pulled the trigger, then when your wingman calls out that enemy ships are approaching, a bunch of T-rexes with jetpacks came flying at you, breathing fire. Heck, I'd play a game like that - I remember when War Thunder ran a limited time event where they added My Little Ponies alongside planes and it was freaking hilarious watching them dogfight WW2 era fighters - but it wouldn't be very in line thematically with what the devs apparently wanted to create. Whether you or I can or even enjoy coming up with our own theories for things really isn't relevant.
So to reiterate in different words, I'm pointing out that pretty much the entire content in ES2 follows the same general cohesive design (which includes a focus on associated game mechanics and some sim aspects) and this particular aspect of the game's design runs counter to the rest, so it really stands out.
I think ultimately, it circles back to this, yeah.