Why the Actor-perk needed rebalancing

[FatalException]

When I originally posted my feedback concerning stealth here: https://steamcommunity.com/app/559100/discussions/0/1736589519991230354/
I intentionally refrained from posting any reasoning for why a change was needed, as I thought it was discussed in great detail before.
However, over the last few days I’ve seen a lot of posts continuing the argument and showing either a lack of understanding for the need to change it, or a lack of capability (and tbh willingness) to decently explain the problem.

As a long time game master of various pnp-games and currently being actively involved in designing one as well, I’ll try my best to remedy the latter, in hopes of relieving the former.


First of all: If you feel the change has “destroyed” your gaming experience, that’s fine. You’re entitled to feel that it has and I won’t judge your for it. However, from a design perspective the fact that a change could make you feel like this, is a sign of the underlying problem.


So what are perks? Perks are meant to give flavour to your characters by providing them various bonuses to different parts of the game. Some are related to the strategic layer, some are part of tactical one. Some give a bonus to combat, some to stealth and a few affect both (like HP-related perks).

The important thing to note is: Perks are meant to be minor bonuses to individual characters. They incline you to specialize the characters to whatever works best with their set of perks.

Now what was the problem with actor? It wasn’t a minor bonus. It was a playstyle defining buff. It allowed you to complete most if not all of the game with two characters. It was so powerfull, that the gameplay of some players became utterly reliant on it, to the detriment of all other systems feeding into the stealth gameplay.

As a designer you want your players to engage with all, or at least most of the systems in your game. Integrating a mechanic that by itself allows the player to bypass nearly all other mechanics at hardly any cost is not a good thing.


Lastly on the question why it was released like this, if it is so problematic:

If you design a game with a whole bunch of systems, you’re bound to get routine-blinded at some point. You know all the systems after all and you know how you intend them to be used. If in testing you encounter a situation, you know how it should be resolved and are likely to do so.
Dedicated Testers suffer from the same “disease” at some point, when they have interacted with the game for a longer time and are past the “learning stages”.

The only way to combat this problem is to bring in new testers regularly, wich is both costly and has it’s own issues, as you won’t get good results for the more in depth stuff, if people are constantly in the “learning phase” of the game.

With thousands of people learning and playing the game, things that slipped through in testing will get spotted fast and they need to be addressed. Disguised agents with the actor perk were noted in several professional reviews as a major problem making them gameplay stale and garnered critique from the fan base as well.

Strategy players in general are driven to optimize their strategic approach, having a more or less obvious best solution to a major part is a big turn off to your target demographic, making it an additional problem to you on an economic level.

[barely related side note] It’s somewhat paradoxical, essentially the strategy gamer looks for a way to make a game as predictable (thus “easy”) as possible for themselves, so you have to make sure even the easiest way is still challenging to a degree and uncovering it itself is a challenge. As a designer, this is a tough nut to crack (read: nightmare), especially if you are aware of the above mentioned routine blindness.[/side]


So in short, you have a mechanic meant to be a minor bonus turning into a playstyle-defining variable, devaluing most systems built around the stealth game and threatening your marketability towards your target audience. Bringing actor back in line was absolutely necessary.

Did they overnerf it? I think so, but they solved the major problem Actor presented. Right now it’s about finding out how “minor” a minor buff should be, to compete with other perks.

[FrappeWarrior]

this is a well written post. and i have to give you props for taking the time to write it, i couldnt. i tried to explain things in a more plain way, hopefully this will help some understand that this change wasnt done to please the "hardcore" players nor was it done becasue "people complained" about. it was done because it needed to be done.

also....good luck....

[Shirome Artiste]

While I agree -in principle- that "blatantly overpowered" skills need balancing I vehemently disagree with, at least, how it has been handled. Additionally, Actor seems to have been only a singleplayer issue. And there stems my second gripe with the change: SINGLEPLAYER.



Let me tackle the second issue first: Big changes in singleplayer titles "for balance". Balance changes for singleplayer games always offer a large risk of player outrage as it takes away from what they (In my opinion!) rightly view as "The way I want to play MY singleplayer game".

Same as with mods, cheats, edits, whatever you want to call them: IT'S THEIR SINGLEPLAYER CAMPAIGN. I am of the opinion that if person XYZ wants to play with invisible characters and curbstomp the opposition if they want to, then by all means if it's originally offered in the game(Even if that was unintentional) then taking that option away from them is a BAD thing. It might be the correct thing in terms of how the DEVS wanted to have people to enjoy and play the game, but at the moment the method was in the game(Even if unintentional!) it gave players another way of enjoyment. One that's now defunct.

Were the change to stop a multiplayer exploit of this magnitude I would wholeheartedly support it, even if it utterly destroyed a tactic as it would have been inherently based on what would be close to edging into exploit territory. But it's a singleplayer issue. Not multiplayer. As such, I am of the opinion that changing it so drastically was the wrong way to handle it.


Which segues into my first point: Changing the skill from LOLOLOPOPOP to "Weell, pretty much garbage compared to most other skills now" in what basically could be, if one were kind, described as a fait-accompli isn't the way to go about minimizing player discontent.

I would have either taken a week or so opening discussion about the planned change's results and then either made it a toggle(Default: Changed actor, option to "buff" actor) or changed the perk nerf/change into something less drastic. This way you would at least prevent a massive power change from being dropped on people without any genuine warning beyond "Hey, we're looking into changing Actor, stay tuned!"



Now for my bit of personal rant I want to get off my chest:

Who do people think they are telling others off for being upset about the changes to GTFO, L2P or just drop the game? They were enjoying a SINGLEPLAYER EXPERIENCE in a way that gave them joy. NOBODY ELSE WAS HURT BY THEIR METHOD OF ENJOYING THEIR SINGLEPLAYER GAME. But half the threads about it devolve into pretty much namecalling and telling them to GTFO for being ungrateful scum that ought to play a singleplayer game the way SOMEONE ELSE deems they ought to play it? Please...Just stop. I applaud discussion about issues that arise, but try and keep it civil and avoid attacking others about their opinions.

Hypocritical, I know, given that last bit I just wrote, but I cannot help but be baffled over the amount of vitriol some forum users have tried to heap on people upset about the change.

[Gregorovitch]

Originally posted by Shirome Artiste:

Let me tackle the second issue first: Big changes in singleplayer titles "for balance". Balance changes for singleplayer games always offer a large risk of player outrage as it takes away from what they (In my opinion!) rightly view as "The way I want to play MY singleplayer game".

This is a common arguement brought up almost invartiably in situations like this. It sounds very reasonable on the surface. But it has a fundamental flaw. This is that it's not just existing players whose concerns need to be met, it is also new players.

People who a buy a game are entitled to expect that it does not contain game breaking features, and a grossly overpowerd ability that trivialises the game qualifies as gamebreaking becasue a new player will have no idea how OP the ability is and take it anyway thereby ruining their game and wasting their money.

For this reason devs have a duty to rebalance seriously OP abilities, items etc from their games otherwise they are to all intents and purposes deliberately ripping off their customers. Which is exactly what devs usually do and is exactly why they do it.

Now you argue that those who are already playing the game and are happy with it as is are entitled for it to remain as is, i.e. as it was when they bought it. That arguement is not entirely without merit.

But what we have here is two groups of players both of which have entitlements that in this situation conflict. And this is the fundamental flaw in your arguement: you do not recognise let alone try to balance both groups' entitlements, only one of those groups.

[FrappeWarrior]

Originally posted by Shirome Artiste:

snip

well a few points i would like address here

1 - just because its a single player game doesnt mean it doesnt need balance. the devs have a created a game which is a sum of systems/mechanics that creates the whole experience. so if one mechanic is overriding everything else then it is by default in need of a rework.

2 - the whole "people have a right to play the way they want" this is true up to a certain point. players are free to play the way they want within the boundaries of the games design. otherwise every single game would launch with an intergrated cheat engine. but they dont! its not just YOUR game, its also MINE so what makes your opinion more important than mine? well, actually its not OUR game, its the devs game, they disgned it, they made it and out of all the feedback/complaints/whatever they have the right to adjust the game the way they feel it fits their vision for it. Modding is the closest you will get and a game having mod suppost is (again) something that is completely up to the devs.

3 - the oppression thing. no one is being oppressed. the same way you feel players against the nerf are being "forced" to play a way they dont want, same way players in favor of the nerf would have been "forced" to play in way they dont want if it hadnt taken place. would you have taken their side if that was the case? so i wish people would stop using this argument, it goes both ways and the reason its being overused here is because a)the nerfed happened and b)the lack of actual gameplay reasons for why Actor should have stayed as it was.

4 - the new actor is not "useless/garbage/waste of a perk.ect ect" if you have played the game and learned its mechanincs you know that just isnt true. its an exaggeration in an effort to support a point, but its wrong. its not the "be all end all" it used to be and thats good, thats what balance is.

[Shirome Artiste]

Originally posted by Gregorovitch:

-snip-

It seems to me that you just cherrypicked there and disregarded everything else. If I am wrong forgive me for it, but your post, to me, comes across as condescending and cherrypicking.


I specifically called out that the way to have the cake and eat it too was for the devs to not have jumped the proverbial gun and instead should have gone full disclosure and involved all affected parties before making a final decision(Which did not happen).



A second thing from your post I would highlight is your idea that Actor as it was is "game-breaking". Game-trivializing? Yes. No doubt about it.

However the game in no way becomes unplayable. It becomes laughably easy, yes. HOWEVER pretty much every singleplayer game one can care to name allows "legal" cheating to (sometimes) massive extents. From XCOM to Skyrim and everything in between. The only difference between most singleplayer games is how "hard" it is to access the inherent means to cheat almost any and all singleplayer games posess.


To me the idea that potential customers would be turned off by optional means to cheat in a singleplayer game is ludicrous. People would skip 95% of existing singleplayer games if they would truly feel that cheats and/or exploits(Or just overpowered abilities) were detrimental to their fun. Remember here: Singleplayer games are about each individual's choice of play. Just because I -can- cheat, minmax, savescum, pick OP strats and whathaveyou does not mean that I -must-. On the other hand, closing those avenues after the game is released already (Even with provably good intentions) means that rather than me having the choice to "indulge in cheating/minmaxing/whatever" the choice is (in this case, merely partially) made for me later down the line. And that's poor salesmanship.


True, actor was an overpowered perk. Changing it like this was, arguably, the worst way to go about it. Making a change to the perk? Fine(In my opinion).



But as my previous post stated: The devs should have been FAR better at conveying their intentions and planned changes rather than just dropping it on people afterwards. A lesson learned for next time, perchance?


Now. This is at about as far as I'm willing to go in replying to quotes, lest this (d)evolves into a back and forth and wholly derail a topic that hasn't yet succumbed to personal attacks and namecalling.

[Dorok]

Originally posted by Shirome Artiste:

True, actor was an overpowered perk. Changing it like this was, arguably, the worst way to go about it. Making a change to the perk? Fine(In my opinion).

Worst way? Fix it and release it? Looks like the standard way.

Originally posted by Shirome Artiste:

But as my previous post stated: The devs should have been FAR better at conveying their intentions and planned changes rather than just dropping it on people afterwards. A lesson learned for next time, perchance?

I have seen plenty nerf released in plenty games, and none made big deal com about it. All dev know nerf will generate arguing and some people will complain. Com about it hardly help.

So I wonder what you imagined. If you had in mind a players vote, I'd say no way.

[ZenMonkey]

Originally posted by Gregorovitch:

Originally posted by Shirome Artiste:

Let me tackle the second issue first: Big changes in singleplayer titles "for balance". Balance changes for singleplayer games always offer a large risk of player outrage as it takes away from what they (In my opinion!) rightly view as "The way I want to play MY singleplayer game".

This is a common arguement brought up almost invartiably in situations like this. It sounds very reasonable on the surface. But it has a fundamental flaw. This is that it's not just existing players whose concerns need to be met, it is also new players.

People who a buy a game are entitled to expect that it does not contain game breaking features, and a grossly overpowerd ability that trivialises the game qualifies as gamebreaking becasue a new player will have no idea how OP the ability is and take it anyway thereby ruining their game and wasting their money.

For this reason devs have a duty to rebalance seriously OP abilities, items etc from their games otherwise they are to all intents and purposes deliberately ripping off their customers. Which is exactly what devs usually do and is exactly why they do it.

Now you argue that those who are already playing the game and are happy with it as is are entitled for it to remain as is, i.e. as it was when they bought it. That arguement is not entirely without merit.

But what we have here is two groups of players both of which have entitlements that in this situation conflict. And this is the fundamental flaw in your arguement: you do not recognise let alone try to balance both groups' entitlements, only one of those groups.

I have to disagree.

It's not game breaking it's just not how some want to play and that's fine. As long as it's not a bug or some glitch exploit (Like that Friday The 13th Roof Glitch, YIKES!) it's not game breaking . Because someone else doesn't enjoy the feature/perk/power/what ever, doesn't mean it's game breaking. Even if it goes outside of what a dev thinks you should do, it's not game breaking. The devs for this game even encouraged players to play how they want. Other devs encourage experimentation too. They want players to experiment and find different ways of playing. Even in the dev's stream the idea of using the game in a speed run came up and the devs found that interesting.

Most people I know buy a game and expect it to just work and be fun for them. How many people don't like using Luigi in Mario games? They don't like him they don't use him, they don't ask Nintendo to take him out the game.

Choice is a good thing, taking away one sides choice because of another's side is just wrong. There are other options the devs could have used, On/off feature like Shirome said. Back in the day we had cheat codes that had to be type in or you'd have to do some crazy button pressing pattern to unlock extra features; that was a game in itself lol.

I always go back to invisible inc. I was part of the early access for that game, we had people disagreeing on features all the time (some wanted the game more easy others wanted more challenge, endless play, iron man) so the devs came up with more house rules for us to pick and choose what we wanted, because after all it's a single player game and as a dev you want to give as many options as you can for your gamers to have fun playing.

In D&D and other games that have a Game Master, the main rule is to make sure your players are enjoying the game, it's not about making them play how you want them to play, it's about adapting to what your players want and for everyone to enjoy the experience. There is a reason why "House Rules" were invented. They say you can't please everyone, but you can always give players a choice to find their own fun and enjoyment.

Look at GTA/Skyrim/Fallout/Minecraft/ what do these top selling games all have in common?.... Choice... that's all players are asking for.

[Dorok]

Great so you know what players are asking for... Leave me out of the bag, you have no idea what I'm asking for.

Or perhaps you mean for mass selling video game? Then get a job in video game industry they'll pay you in chests full of diamonds if you can explain them how guaranty mass sells for a video games, lol.

[FrappeWarrior]

Originally posted by Kaijudo:

Originally posted by Gregorovitch:

This is a common arguement brought up almost invartiably in situations like this. It sounds very reasonable on the surface. But it has a fundamental flaw. This is that it's not just existing players whose concerns need to be met, it is also new players.

People who a buy a game are entitled to expect that it does not contain game breaking features, and a grossly overpowerd ability that trivialises the game qualifies as gamebreaking becasue a new player will have no idea how OP the ability is and take it anyway thereby ruining their game and wasting their money.

For this reason devs have a duty to rebalance seriously OP abilities, items etc from their games otherwise they are to all intents and purposes deliberately ripping off their customers. Which is exactly what devs usually do and is exactly why they do it.

Now you argue that those who are already playing the game and are happy with it as is are entitled for it to remain as is, i.e. as it was when they bought it. That arguement is not entirely without merit.

But what we have here is two groups of players both of which have entitlements that in this situation conflict. And this is the fundamental flaw in your arguement: you do not recognise let alone try to balance both groups' entitlements, only one of those groups.

I have to disagree.

It's not game breaking it's just not how some want to play and that's fine. As long as it's not a bug or some glitch exploit (Like that Friday The 13th Roof Glitch, YIKES!) it's not game breaking . Because someone else doesn't enjoy the feature/perk/power/what ever, doesn't mean it's game breaking. Even if it goes outside of what a dev thinks you should do, it's not game breaking. The devs for this game even encouraged players to play how they want. Other devs encourage experimentation too. They want players to experiment and find different ways of playing. Even in the dev's stream the idea of using the game in a speed run came up and the devs found that interesting.

Most people I know buy a game and expect it to just work and be fun for them. How many people don't like using Luigi in Mario games? They don't like him they don't use him, they don't ask Nintendo to take him out the game.

Choice is a good thing, taking away one sides choice because of another's side is just wrong. There are other options the devs could have used, On/off feature like Shirome said. Back in the day we had cheat codes that had to be type in or you'd have to do some crazy button pressing pattern to unlock extra features; that was a game in itself lol.

I always go back to invisible inc. I was part of the early access for that game, we had people disagreeing on features all the time (some wanted the game more easy others wanted more challenge, endless play, iron man) so the devs came up with more house rules for us to pick and choose what we wanted, because after all it's a single player game and as a dev you want to give as many options as you can for your gamers to have fun playing.

In D&D and other games that have a Game Master, the main rule is to make sure your players are enjoying the game, it's not about making them play how you want them to play, it's about adapting to what your players want and for everyone to enjoy the experience. There is a reason why "House Rules" were invented. They say you can't please everyone, but you can always give players a choice to find their own fun and enjoyment.

Look at GTA/Skyrim/Fallout/Minecraft/ what do these top selling games all have in common?.... Choice... that's all players are asking for.

what you seem unable to understand is that the previous actor was NOT a choice, it was THE way to play.

when we talk about choice in games (and yes i agree choice is a good thing) we talk about different ways to play all equally viable. but all ways must have their pros and cons and its up to the player to choose. thats what makes interesting gameplay

the original actor HAD NO CONS. in reality it was removing choice by being by far the most optimal way to play. why would anyone choose anything over Actor? why would anyone care about the other perks, abilites, weapons, equippment when with 2 actors and 2 silenced pistols you can do pretty much anything. in reality most of the other aspects of the game were thrown out the window because Actor was so good. that equals to less choice not more.

and thats what makes a game boring, when there is only one optimal way play and you keep doing the same thing over and over, with nothing to challenge you or shake things up it becomes dull, repetitve. even you that so passionately advocate in favor of the old actor would you still play it after 40+ hours of doing the same thing?

and please dont give me the "dont use it" argument. players intentionally handicapping themselves, is not choice, its bad game desing. the whole point of a game is to play against it not against yourself

[Gregorovitch]

Originally posted by Kaijudo:

Choice is a good thing

Choice is a good thing if:

a) The available options are balanced, each having different advantages, disadvantages and consequences

b) A new player can be reasonably expected to reasonably accurately evaluate those advantages, disadvantages and consequences playing the game for the first time blind

If either of those is not the case then the choice is bad, and in the case of Actor both of those things were not the case.

I would also mention that in your reply you have ingnored my central point that IMO it is the duty of the dev to make the game challenging and exiting for the average new player on normal difficulty and to do that they have to remove grossly overpowered stuff otherwise it's going to spoil people's games. You say, for example:

Originally posted by Kaijudo:

Choice is a good thing, taking away one sides choice because of another's side is just wrong.

completely forgetting that a new player doesn't have any side in the matter becasue they don't know anything about the game yet.

Originally posted by Shirome Artiste:

Originally posted by Gregorovitch:

-snip-

It seems to me that you just cherrypicked there and disregarded everything else. If I am wrong forgive me for it, but your post, to me, comes across as condescending and cherrypicking.

I'm sorry if you found what I wrote condescending, I certainly didn't mean it to be, but with all due repect it seems to me it is you who are doing the cherry picking:

Firstly becasue you simply do not recognise the issue of new players inadvertantly picking grossly OP stuff in games and having them ruined as a result (specifically by removing any semblance of challenge and excitement from them).

Secondly becasue you seem to be arguing that the majority of gamers are interested in, to all intents and purposes, cheating. Or at least finding flaws in a game they can exploit. No doubt there are some players who enjoy that sort of thing but I think the overwhelming majority want to play their games straight and as intended according to the devs original vision with the right level of challenge and exitement. They do not want to find that exploits and grossly OP abilities etc have degraded their experience.

[SemtexMan47]

Let's face it. The game needs some actual cons or limits for choosing a class or perk, so there's some real weight towards making decisions on how to upgrade agents. Personally, the Actor nerf I don't really care that much since I mostly still play the same way.

I suspect the devs didn't want to or have time to balance all these aspects so they made everything a positive and just randomized perks.

[ZenMonkey]

Originally posted by FrappeWarrior:

Originally posted by Kaijudo:

I have to disagree.

It's not game breaking it's just not how some want to play and that's fine. As long as it's not a bug or some glitch exploit (Like that Friday The 13th Roof Glitch, YIKES!) it's not game breaking . Because someone else doesn't enjoy the feature/perk/power/what ever, doesn't mean it's game breaking. Even if it goes outside of what a dev thinks you should do, it's not game breaking. The devs for this game even encouraged players to play how they want. Other devs encourage experimentation too. They want players to experiment and find different ways of playing. Even in the dev's stream the idea of using the game in a speed run came up and the devs found that interesting.

Most people I know buy a game and expect it to just work and be fun for them. How many people don't like using Luigi in Mario games? They don't like him they don't use him, they don't ask Nintendo to take him out the game.

Choice is a good thing, taking away one sides choice because of another's side is just wrong. There are other options the devs could have used, On/off feature like Shirome said. Back in the day we had cheat codes that had to be type in or you'd have to do some crazy button pressing pattern to unlock extra features; that was a game in itself lol.

I always go back to invisible inc. I was part of the early access for that game, we had people disagreeing on features all the time (some wanted the game more easy others wanted more challenge, endless play, iron man) so the devs came up with more house rules for us to pick and choose what we wanted, because after all it's a single player game and as a dev you want to give as many options as you can for your gamers to have fun playing.

In D&D and other games that have a Game Master, the main rule is to make sure your players are enjoying the game, it's not about making them play how you want them to play, it's about adapting to what your players want and for everyone to enjoy the experience. There is a reason why "House Rules" were invented. They say you can't please everyone, but you can always give players a choice to find their own fun and enjoyment.

Look at GTA/Skyrim/Fallout/Minecraft/ what do these top selling games all have in common?.... Choice... that's all players are asking for.

what you seem unable to understand is that the previous actor was NOT a choice, it was THE way to play.

when we talk about choice in games (and yes i agree choice is a good thing) we talk about different ways to play all equally viable. but all ways must have their pros and cons and its up to the player to choose. thats what makes interesting gameplay

the original actor HAD NO CONS. in reality it was removing choice by being by far the most optimal way to play. why would anyone choose anything over Actor? why would anyone care about the other perks, abilites, weapons, equippment when with 2 actors and 2 silenced pistols you can do pretty much anything. in reality most of the other aspects of the game were thrown out the window because Actor was so good. that equals to less choice not more.

and thats what makes a game boring, when there is only one optimal way play and you keep doing the same thing over and over, with nothing to challenge you or shake things up it becomes dull, repetitve. even you that so passionately advocate in favor of the old actor would you still play it after 40+ hours of doing the same thing?

and please dont give me the "dont use it" argument. players intentionally handicapping themselves, is not choice, its bad game desing. the whole point of a game is to play against it not against yourself

Actor did have choice... you had the choice to use it or not use it. I think we're talking meta game verses the game itself... the meta aspect of the game you a have choice, just don't use it, but in the game the perk didn't have a downside, that's something way different. You feel you have no choice because if you use it there is no side effect so of course you'd use it, like there isn't a decision to make?

for example: If I use the magic hat it will allow me to move faster, but at a cost of my strength and I really need a high strength to use that brute sword in the later game, the magic glove gives me the strength I need but I will make me super slow, so what do I want? a fast weak charter or a slow strong character? but if magic hat and magic glove had no downside you'd just use them both, be fast and strong, kick ass. I get what you're saying.

Yes the actor perk was tempting and someone might grab at it when they first see it. I get that, but after time they might get bored with that, so they will look for other options, or maybe they're a different play that's more into the combat, they may get bored one day too and go for the more stealthy route, nothing is wrong with either way you choose to play first or later on, it's your choicer and that's the meta.

Look at collectible card games... they ban and nerf cards left and right, Yu Gi Oh does it all the time, but that's only for the tournament event side of things, to keep it fair, but there is nothing stopping you and your friends from opening some boosters and just putting any deck build you want and playing with it. It's the same with those perks...the original actor wasn't hurting anyone's game because how one player played didn't effect how the other player wanted to play.

[ZenMonkey]

Originally posted by Gregorovitch:

Originally posted by Kaijudo:

Choice is a good thing

Choice is a good thing if:

There shouldn't be a "if" (applied rules) after choice... once that "if" is there you're back to trying to direct the players how to play your game. Yes you want them to find things you put in there for them, but you can't put the grip on to tight at the cost of their enjoyment.

I'm not forgetting the new player at all. They might go for that perk first, if they are having fun they will keep playing, if they not having fun they will look into other perks. Sometimes the dev just has to let the players explore. A game like Dues Ex got great reviews because it may have been one of the first games that allowed you to tackle a mission in different ways, not many games could or did that at the time.

[Scriptimus]

Originally posted by Kaijudo:

Originally posted by Gregorovitch:

Choice is a good thing if:

There shouldn't be a "if" (applied rules) after choice... once that "if" is there you're back to trying to direct the players how to play your game. Yes you want them to find things you put in there for them, but you can't put the grip on to tight at the cost of their enjoyment.

I'm not forgetting the new player at all. They might go for that perk first, if they are having fun they will keep playing, if they not having fun they will look into other perks. Sometimes the dev just has to let the players explore. A game like Dues Ex got great reviews because it may have been one of the first games that allowed you to tackle a mission in different ways, not many games could or did that at the time.

Did deus ex contain a walk in the park perk?

[FrappeWarrior]

Originally posted by Kaijudo:

Actor did have choice... you had the choice to use it or not use it. I think we're talking meta game verses the game itself... the meta aspect of the game you a have choice, just don't use it, but in the game the perk didn't have a downside, that's something way different. You feel you have no choice because if you use it there is no side effect so of course you'd use it, like there isn't a decision to make?

again the "dont use it" is not a choice. games are made around systems, mechanics and rules for the player to use, they are not an open bag of features for the player to choose whatever suits him. as i said before if that was the case you would see every game coming out with its own cheat engine. but they dont and there is a reason. besides the nerf doesnt really take choice away from you, you still have the choice of going stealthy and do exactly what you did before. it just made it a bit less easier. so honeslty the whole choice argument is invalid. so the only "choice" that you may argue is gone, is the choice to play the game completely risk-free and thats obviously a choice the devs didnt intend to have in the game (and frankly shouldtn be in the game)

Originally posted by Kaijudo:

for example: If I use the magic hat it will allow me to move faster, but at a cost of my strength and I really need a high strength to use that brute sword in the later game, the magic glove gives me the strength I need but I will make me super slow, so what do I want? a fast weak charter or a slow strong character? but if magic hat and magic glove had no downside you'd just use them both, be fast and strong, kick ass. I get what you're saying.

thats a great example. so why is do hard for you to understand that the original Actor needed adjustment?

Originally posted by Kaijudo:

Yes the actor perk was tempting and someone might grab at it when they first see it. I get that, but after time they might get bored with that, so they will look for other options, or maybe they're a different play that's more into the combat, they may get bored one day too and go for the more stealthy route, nothing is wrong with either way you choose to play first or later on, it's your choicer and that's the meta.

you cant seriosuly expect a game to be balanced or built around the idea that players will get bored with one feature and then they will try another one. c mon, thats just naive. by the time they get bored with actor tehy may as well be bored with the whole game and move on to something else. seriously thats not meta nor choice.

Originally posted by Kaijudo:

Look at collectible card games... they ban and nerf cards left and right, Yu Gi Oh does it all the time, but that's only for the tournament event side of things, to keep it fair, but there is nothing stopping you and your friends from opening some boosters and just putting any deck build you want and playing with it. It's the same with those perks...

yeah but this isnt a card game and you dont play against your friends where you can agree to bend the rules in a way that suits you both. this is a computer game, a program, it has no say in bending the rules. its designed to work in a specific way. and perks are designed to work in a specific way. the Actor perk was badly designed becasue it canceled almost every other way the program had to counter you and the program couldnt do anything about it. if you were playing YGO with your friend and you pulled a card that made you immune to anything he had and say "hey let me use this" what would your friend say? also please stop comparing this game to cards games, assissins creed inv. inc ect. this is a diefferent game with different systems. apples and oranges

Originally posted by Kaijudo:

the original actor wasn't hurting anyone's game because how one player played didn't effect how the other player wanted to play.

of course it did. it hurted they way i and others wanted to play the game the same way the nerf hurted you. this argument goes both ways and doesnt really prove anything. you dont like being at risk of getting spotted and i dont like being invisible, so what now...which one of us is right? (the right answer is no one). so can we please get over this argument