BUG: Snitch does not end game and wrong points

[Eforen]

Catching the snitch does not end the game and is only 30 points or something instead of 150. How did they overlook this?!

[Drusyc]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย gbuglyo:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Drusyc:

It's as intended, because seekers in the book would be an insta win in all - actually competitive - environments. Unless someone's getting their ass kicked, it makes the rest of the game pointless

By this point, I'm starting to feel like some sort of religious zealot "spreading the word" in these forums. :) But really, your opinion (probably influenced by the movies more than the books) is such a common misconception of Quidditch. So I'm just going to copy my comment on the topic from another thread.

According to HP canon, Quidditch matches often last many hours or even days in some cases. As goals build up over such a long time period, the 15-goal impact of the Snitch is not decisive unless the teams are very, very evenly matched. So most of the time, the Seeker may decide the match only if he/she manages to catch the Snitch fairly early in the game.

On another note, in a competitive league, teams are ranked by their overall score and not by the number of their victories (at least in Hogwarts). So while catching the Snitch early on ensures that the 150-point bonus goes to your team and not to the opponents, letting the game last longer benefits both teams more as far as league standings are concerned.

In the HP books, we see a case where the Seeker is advised not to catch the Snitch before a certain number of goals are scored (so that Gryffindor may secure a victory in the Inter-House Cup), and an example for the Seeker catching the Snitch but his team still losing the match (Bulgaria in the World Cup finals).

That being said, I am aware that the rules of Quidditch make it particularly difficult to balance in the context of a video game. Still, it's far from impossible, and you've got to admit that nerfing the Seeker role (thereby disrespecting the canon) must be the laziest and most uninspired way to tackle the problem. Practically any other solution could have worked so much better. I'm too lazy to copy everything here, so just check these links, please:

https://steamcommunity.com/app/2878600/discussions/0/4343238874467678259/?ctp=2#c4515506687886427382

https://steamcommunity.com/app/2878600/discussions/0/4343238874467678259/?ctp=2#c4515506834328679069

I really, sincerely, do not care what "competitive" environments you see in a fictional book. Irl, you would have to be getting your ♥♥♥♥ smashed in to be 150+ points behind. Even if you make seeking the most complex thing ever, it makes the rest of the game pointless.

[gbuglyo]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Drusyc:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย gbuglyo:

By this point, I'm starting to feel like some sort of religious zealot "spreading the word" in these forums. :) But really, your opinion (probably influenced by the movies more than the books) is such a common misconception of Quidditch. So I'm just going to copy my comment on the topic from another thread.

According to HP canon, Quidditch matches often last many hours or even days in some cases. As goals build up over such a long time period, the 15-goal impact of the Snitch is not decisive unless the teams are very, very evenly matched. So most of the time, the Seeker may decide the match only if he/she manages to catch the Snitch fairly early in the game.

On another note, in a competitive league, teams are ranked by their overall score and not by the number of their victories (at least in Hogwarts). So while catching the Snitch early on ensures that the 150-point bonus goes to your team and not to the opponents, letting the game last longer benefits both teams more as far as league standings are concerned.

In the HP books, we see a case where the Seeker is advised not to catch the Snitch before a certain number of goals are scored (so that Gryffindor may secure a victory in the Inter-House Cup), and an example for the Seeker catching the Snitch but his team still losing the match (Bulgaria in the World Cup finals).

That being said, I am aware that the rules of Quidditch make it particularly difficult to balance in the context of a video game. Still, it's far from impossible, and you've got to admit that nerfing the Seeker role (thereby disrespecting the canon) must be the laziest and most uninspired way to tackle the problem. Practically any other solution could have worked so much better. I'm too lazy to copy everything here, so just check these links, please:

https://steamcommunity.com/app/2878600/discussions/0/4343238874467678259/?ctp=2#c4515506687886427382

https://steamcommunity.com/app/2878600/discussions/0/4343238874467678259/?ctp=2#c4515506834328679069

I really, sincerely, do not care what "competitive" environments you see in a fictional book.

Um, Quidditch leagues, especially that of Hogwarts? Because fans care about them? You know, the same fans who are supposed to purchase a video game based on Quidditch?

Now on to addressing your main points.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Drusyc:

Irl, you would have to be getting your ♥♥♥♥ smashed in to be 150+ points behind.

Wrong. You see, a goal difference between two teams is produced by three factors:

1. Skill difference
2. Time elapsed
3. Pure chance which makes the goal difference fluctuate even with the first two factors staying constant

So overall, the longer a match lasts, the more goals the better team is going to lead by (on average).

Our closest real-life model to Quidditch is probably basketball. Here, after 48 minutes of playing time, the mean score difference is 10, which corresponds to 5 baskets ("goals"), as you may see here:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-score-differential-in-the-NBA

While extrapolating can be problematic, we may apply a very rough estimation assuming a linear expansion of score gaps and say that if basketball matches lasted 2 and a half hours (in effective playtime) instead of 48 minutes, the mean goal difference would fluctuate around 15 - the value of the Snitch. It's easy to come to the conclusion that when a Quidditch match lasts a lot longer than that (as they often do), the expected goal difference is higher than 15 and catching the Snitch will no longer impact the outcome in most cases. (Fatigue is probably dealt with using magical methods in matches that last that long.)

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Drusyc:

Even if you make seeking the most complex thing ever, it makes the rest of the game pointless.

Again, not necessarily. This is tricky to implement in a video game because no one wants matches lasting two and a half hours. Some ideas were mentioned in the above discussions I linked. One possibility the developers should have considered is introducing a confidence boost mechanic in which the more a team leads, the more their skills are boosted. That should affect gameplay and make them more likely to score goals, further increasing their lead, quickly turning a few goal's difference into a 20-goal lead unless the Snitch is caught before that happens. So in the end, the Seeker of the losing team would be on a race against time (and the other team's boosted Seeker) to turn the game around, while members of the losing team would be hanging on in there, trying to keep the goal difference within the limit of 15.

That's just one example, there are many other ways to handle game mechanics while staying true to the established canon. If you're interested, check out the above links.

[ViridianZe]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย gbuglyo:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Drusyc:

It's as intended, because seekers in the book would be an insta win in all - actually competitive - environments. Unless someone's getting their ass kicked, it makes the rest of the game pointless

By this point, I'm starting to feel like some sort of religious zealot "spreading the word" in these forums. :) But really, your opinion (probably influenced by the movies more than the books) is such a common misconception of Quidditch. So I'm just going to copy my comment on the topic from another thread.

According to HP canon, Quidditch matches often last many hours or even days in some cases. As goals build up over such a long time period, the 15-goal impact of the Snitch is not decisive unless the teams are very, very evenly matched. So most of the time, the Seeker may decide the match only if he/she manages to catch the Snitch fairly early in the game.

On another note, in a competitive league, teams are ranked by their overall score and not by the number of their victories (at least in Hogwarts). So while catching the Snitch early on ensures that the 150-point bonus goes to your team and not to the opponents, letting the game last longer benefits both teams more as far as league standings are concerned.

In the HP books, we see a case where the Seeker is advised not to catch the Snitch before a certain number of goals are scored (so that Gryffindor may secure a victory in the Inter-House Cup), and an example for the Seeker catching the Snitch but his team still losing the match (Bulgaria in the World Cup finals).

That being said, I am aware that the rules of Quidditch make it particularly difficult to balance in the context of a video game. Still, it's far from impossible, and you've got to admit that nerfing the Seeker role (thereby disrespecting the canon) must be the laziest and most uninspired way to tackle the problem. Practically any other solution could have worked so much better. I'm too lazy to copy everything here, so just check these links, please:

https://steamcommunity.com/app/2878600/discussions/0/4343238874467678259/?ctp=2#c4515506687886427382

https://steamcommunity.com/app/2878600/discussions/0/4343238874467678259/?ctp=2#c4515506834328679069

in that case does it matter if its 150 points or 30? like are we wanting to just chuck a skin on the point system? i dont understand what got nerfed either? it has to be designed in a way that can be played multiplayer without people dying from overstimulation it is a fast paced game

[gbuglyo]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย ViridianZe:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย gbuglyo:

By this point, I'm starting to feel like some sort of religious zealot "spreading the word" in these forums. :) But really, your opinion (probably influenced by the movies more than the books) is such a common misconception of Quidditch. So I'm just going to copy my comment on the topic from another thread.

According to HP canon, Quidditch matches often last many hours or even days in some cases. As goals build up over such a long time period, the 15-goal impact of the Snitch is not decisive unless the teams are very, very evenly matched. So most of the time, the Seeker may decide the match only if he/she manages to catch the Snitch fairly early in the game.

On another note, in a competitive league, teams are ranked by their overall score and not by the number of their victories (at least in Hogwarts). So while catching the Snitch early on ensures that the 150-point bonus goes to your team and not to the opponents, letting the game last longer benefits both teams more as far as league standings are concerned.

In the HP books, we see a case where the Seeker is advised not to catch the Snitch before a certain number of goals are scored (so that Gryffindor may secure a victory in the Inter-House Cup), and an example for the Seeker catching the Snitch but his team still losing the match (Bulgaria in the World Cup finals).

That being said, I am aware that the rules of Quidditch make it particularly difficult to balance in the context of a video game. Still, it's far from impossible, and you've got to admit that nerfing the Seeker role (thereby disrespecting the canon) must be the laziest and most uninspired way to tackle the problem. Practically any other solution could have worked so much better. I'm too lazy to copy everything here, so just check these links, please:

https://steamcommunity.com/app/2878600/discussions/0/4343238874467678259/?ctp=2#c4515506687886427382

https://steamcommunity.com/app/2878600/discussions/0/4343238874467678259/?ctp=2#c4515506834328679069

in that case does it matter if its 150 points or 30? like are we wanting to just chuck a skin on the point system? i dont understand what got nerfed either? it has to be designed in a way that can be played multiplayer without people dying from overstimulation it is a fast paced game

I don't know, maybe some people aren't bothered by it, but for me (and clearly a lot of others on these forums), it really matters.

30 points for catching the Snitch? That’s so low that the Beaters don't even bother going after the Seekers half the time since they’re better off targeting Chasers or Keepers instead. The Snitch chase should be the most epic sequence of a Quidditch game, but instead, all the drama is gone because of how it works now. The low points for the Snitch, the game dragging on after it's caught, and that weird energy bar mechanic… it just doesn’t make sense. The Seeker who is physically closer to the Snitch should be in a better position, and simply having a Seeker up close and personal with the Snitch should be enough to set off all the alarms, with the other team's Beater desperately trying to knock them out. Without that, it just... falls flat for me.

[ViridianZe]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย gbuglyo:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย ViridianZe:

in that case does it matter if its 150 points or 30? like are we wanting to just chuck a skin on the point system? i dont understand what got nerfed either? it has to be designed in a way that can be played multiplayer without people dying from overstimulation it is a fast paced game

I don't know, maybe some people aren't bothered by it, but for me (and clearly a lot of others on these forums), it really matters.

30 points for catching the Snitch? That’s so low that the Beaters don't even bother going after the Seekers half the time since they’re better off targeting Chasers or Keepers instead. The Snitch chase should be the most epic sequence of a Quidditch game, but instead, all the drama is gone because of how it works now. The low points for the Snitch, the game dragging on after it's caught, and that weird energy bar mechanic… it just doesn’t make sense. The Seeker who is physically closer to the Snitch should be in a better position, and simply having a Seeker up close and personal with the Snitch should be enough to set off all the alarms, with the other team's Beater desperately trying to knock them out. Without that, it just... falls flat for me.

I haven't had an issue targeting seekers and they play is very impactful imo maybe i just catch them more then others but i feel hella targeted when i go seeker online 30 points on a 100 point cap is a lot that's %30 of the entire score catching it once and double that if you can get it twice all this talk of lore is hilarious to me though as J.K is always changing it anyway i'd love to see how you think it could work better in a faced pace though game design isn't easy but if you have a good idea on how it could work exactly definitely preach it

[gbuglyo]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย ViridianZe:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย gbuglyo:

I don't know, maybe some people aren't bothered by it, but for me (and clearly a lot of others on these forums), it really matters.

30 points for catching the Snitch? That’s so low that the Beaters don't even bother going after the Seekers half the time since they’re better off targeting Chasers or Keepers instead. The Snitch chase should be the most epic sequence of a Quidditch game, but instead, all the drama is gone because of how it works now. The low points for the Snitch, the game dragging on after it's caught, and that weird energy bar mechanic… it just doesn’t make sense. The Seeker who is physically closer to the Snitch should be in a better position, and simply having a Seeker up close and personal with the Snitch should be enough to set off all the alarms, with the other team's Beater desperately trying to knock them out. Without that, it just... falls flat for me.

I haven't had an issue targeting seekers and they play is very impactful imo maybe i just catch them more then others but i feel hella targeted when i go seeker online 30 points on a 100 point cap is a lot that's %30 of the entire score catching it once and double that if you can get it twice all this talk of lore is hilarious to me though as J.K is always changing it anyway i'd love to see how you think it could work better in a faced pace though game design isn't easy but if you have a good idea on how it could work exactly definitely preach it

Um, can you edit that and form English sentences, please?

[ViridianZe]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย gbuglyo:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย ViridianZe:

I haven't had an issue targeting seekers and they play is very impactful imo maybe i just catch them more then others but i feel hella targeted when i go seeker online 30 points on a 100 point cap is a lot that's %30 of the entire score catching it once and double that if you can get it twice all this talk of lore is hilarious to me though as J.K is always changing it anyway i'd love to see how you think it could work better in a faced pace though game design isn't easy but if you have a good idea on how it could work exactly definitely preach it

Um, can you edit that and form English sentences, please?

Can you form a game design doc for your bad idea? it's one thing to say a bunch of things and another to actually understand how anything works. The confidence idea was hilarious

[gbuglyo]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย ViridianZe:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย gbuglyo:

Um, can you edit that and form English sentences, please?

Can you form a game design doc for your bad idea? it's one thing to say a bunch of things and another to actually understand how anything works. The confidence idea was hilarious

Sure I will, once we settle the issue of my payment. Also, can you explain why you found it hilarious? Are you capable of logical reasoning or only insults?

[ViridianZe]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย gbuglyo:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย ViridianZe:

Can you form a game design doc for your bad idea? it's one thing to say a bunch of things and another to actually understand how anything works. The confidence idea was hilarious

Sure I will, once we settle the issue of my payment. Also, can you explain why you found it hilarious? Are you capable of logical reasoning or only insults?

Nothing you have said is logical. Logic is derived from stuff that is true and factual you are way to skewed on your opinion to be logical. As for payment that's a good example of why AAA titles are designed by professionals, When money is on the line things must be done designed and completed with explanation why should anyone take your opinion on how the game should be completed when this game likely went through tests, Q and A, polls, votes prototyping all inside and outside of their studio. The confidence system was hilarious because it should have nothing to do with a magical sport where is the balance? would determination not make more sense? how would it be balanced? why do you want to drag the game out in the first place?

[gbuglyo]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย ViridianZe:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย gbuglyo:

Sure I will, once we settle the issue of my payment. Also, can you explain why you found it hilarious? Are you capable of logical reasoning or only insults?

Nothing you have said is logical. Logic is derived from stuff that is true and factual you are way to skewed on your opinion to be logical. As for payment that's a good example of why AAA titles are designed by professionals, When money is on the line things must be done designed and completed with explanation why should anyone take your opinion on how the game should be completed when this game likely went through tests, Q and A, polls, votes prototyping all inside and outside of their studio. The confidence system was hilarious because it should have nothing to do with a magical sport where is the balance? would determination not make more sense? how would it be balanced? why do you want to drag the game out in the first place?

Finally, some arguments. I can see now why you don't like that particular idea. In my opinion, balancing and game length should not be an issue but the explanation why a team is performing significantly worse when they are at a disadvantage could be tricky and would require more thought. In real-life sports, there are examples for this but also for the opposite, so magic might need to get involved at this point. (The whole discussion is theoretical of course.)

What do you think of the other ideas that were suggested?

I also admire your trust for the quality control of AAA games, personally I'm a lot more disillusioned than that. I'm just trying to maintain a rational, civil discussion here but it isn't easy with everyone getting all emotional every step of the way.

[SoyDon]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย CourtJesterCowboy:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย gbuglyo:

Haha, okay. And yet you, the serious adult, are here to spend your precious time discussing a video game based on a fictional sport you find dumb and childish. Give me a break.

At least I'm not a hypocrite. I'm a child at heart, and always will be. :)

That's the part I don't get, like obviously these glazer defender people think Quidditch is cool, or they wouldnt be playing... but they also are using Quidditch being "dumb" as a reason to change it into something that is nolonger Quidditch? I cant tell if they are trolling or not. You'd think everyone would want a less cartooney and more official AAA Quidditch experience like Hogwarts Legacy was... I dont get it.

I think the graphics and rules change were a good thing, this is an online game, if u made it look as HL, not so much people will have the hardware to run it, and if u dont change the seeker rules, not so much people will have the time to play a full game or the interest in playing another role. So in any case, u will have an empty and borign game that will end being a seeker 1v1 duel. They can be strict to the lore in a offline game like HL2, but for an online game i prefer it to be fast, fun and competitive, and its the right call, the game is a online focused game, offline is irrelevant (and i think it was no needed actually), but the game looks have soul and 3v3 is rlly fun. Let the acurate lore and epic graphics that use rtx for full offline games.

[CourtJesterCowboy]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย SoyDon:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย CourtJesterCowboy:

That's the part I don't get, like obviously these glazer defender people think Quidditch is cool, or they wouldnt be playing... but they also are using Quidditch being "dumb" as a reason to change it into something that is nolonger Quidditch? I cant tell if they are trolling or not. You'd think everyone would want a less cartooney and more official AAA Quidditch experience like Hogwarts Legacy was... I dont get it.

I think the graphics and rules change were a good thing, this is an online game, if u made it look as HL, not so much people will have the hardware to run it, and if u dont change the seeker rules, not so much people will have the time to play a full game or the interest in playing another role. So in any case, u will have an empty and borign game that will end being a seeker 1v1 duel. They can be strict to the lore in a offline game like HL2, but for an online game i prefer it to be fast, fun and competitive, and its the right call, the game is a online focused game, offline is irrelevant (and i think it was no needed actually), but the game looks have soul and 3v3 is rlly fun. Let the acurate lore and epic graphics that use rtx for full offline games.

HL isnt easy to run due to draw distance, mass HD instances, and RAM requirement being over 20 GB... We are talking about a tiny little arena game with graphics half as good as Rocket League lol They could have easily made it not look like a childs game. Also play like a childs game.

If they are going to have bots, multiple snitch catches per match, etc, just make a different game called "Aerial Shooters" or some crap and do your little game, yet they used the IP to make sales and now they arent honoring the IP. Defending that is kinda crazy, but there is always defenders. An actual good Quidditch game would be taking over right now with 95% reviews, yet here we are

[gbuglyo]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย SoyDon:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย CourtJesterCowboy:

That's the part I don't get, like obviously these glazer defender people think Quidditch is cool, or they wouldnt be playing... but they also are using Quidditch being "dumb" as a reason to change it into something that is nolonger Quidditch? I cant tell if they are trolling or not. You'd think everyone would want a less cartooney and more official AAA Quidditch experience like Hogwarts Legacy was... I dont get it.

I think the graphics and rules change were a good thing, this is an online game, if u made it look as HL, not so much people will have the hardware to run it, and if u dont change the seeker rules, not so much people will have the time to play a full game or the interest in playing another role. So in any case, u will have an empty and borign game that will end being a seeker 1v1 duel. They can be strict to the lore in a offline game like HL2, but for an online game i prefer it to be fast, fun and competitive, and its the right call, the game is a online focused game, offline is irrelevant (and i think it was no needed actually), but the game looks have soul and 3v3 is rlly fun. Let the acurate lore and epic graphics that use rtx for full offline games.

So many of you keep repeating that the devs made the right call by changing things up and not following HL's footsteps by sticking to the lore wherever possible. And yet, look at the numbers on Steam Charts. HL, a single player experience released 19 months ago, is played by 16583 players currently. QC, a fresh multiplayed release (that requires 6 people playing together for a good match!) has 1455 players right now.

You guys can defend it all day long, and point to how many more people may be playing on PS (which is probably true), but the numbers don't lie, they clearly show the game has not gained the favor of the HP fandom like HL did. I fear it will be dead in a few months unless it gets a major overhaul. A 6v6 mode with the same rules may not cut it, as it will need even more players to work well.

[CourtJesterCowboy]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย gbuglyo:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย SoyDon:

I think the graphics and rules change were a good thing, this is an online game, if u made it look as HL, not so much people will have the hardware to run it, and if u dont change the seeker rules, not so much people will have the time to play a full game or the interest in playing another role. So in any case, u will have an empty and borign game that will end being a seeker 1v1 duel. They can be strict to the lore in a offline game like HL2, but for an online game i prefer it to be fast, fun and competitive, and its the right call, the game is a online focused game, offline is irrelevant (and i think it was no needed actually), but the game looks have soul and 3v3 is rlly fun. Let the acurate lore and epic graphics that use rtx for full offline games.

So many of you keep repeating that the devs made the right call by changing things up and not following HL's footsteps by sticking to the lore wherever possible. And yet, look at the numbers on Steam Charts. HL, a single player experience released 19 months ago, is played by 16583 players currently. QC, a fresh multiplayed release (that requires 6 people playing together for a good match!) has 1455 players right now.

You guys can defend it all day long, and point to how many more people may be playing on PS (which is probably true), but the numbers don't lie, they clearly show the game has not gained the favor of the HP fandom like HL did. I fear it will be dead in a few months unless it gets a major overhaul. A 6v6 mode with the same rules may not cut it, as it will need even more players to work well.

It is really that simple. Ofcourse there are more players on PS... Its free lol. I bet HL still has more players anyway. Why? .. its a lore accurate banger of a game. They messed up by not doing Quidditch in HL fashion. It would have been amazing. Still could be. They could still do it.

[gbuglyo]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย CourtJesterCowboy:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย gbuglyo:

So many of you keep repeating that the devs made the right call by changing things up and not following HL's footsteps by sticking to the lore wherever possible. And yet, look at the numbers on Steam Charts. HL, a single player experience released 19 months ago, is played by 16583 players currently. QC, a fresh multiplayed release (that requires 6 people playing together for a good match!) has 1455 players right now.

You guys can defend it all day long, and point to how many more people may be playing on PS (which is probably true), but the numbers don't lie, they clearly show the game has not gained the favor of the HP fandom like HL did. I fear it will be dead in a few months unless it gets a major overhaul. A 6v6 mode with the same rules may not cut it, as it will need even more players to work well.

It is really that simple. Ofcourse there are more players on PS... Its free lol. I bet HL still has more players anyway. Why? .. its a lore accurate banger of a game. They messed up by not doing Quidditch in HL fashion. It would have been amazing. Still could be. They could still do it.

Fingers crossed it happens one day!