How could the game complexity grow so much over time ?

[WhyNot]

After nearly 2 years of not playing the game I installed it again.

Besides losing all my previous 'levels' I was baffled by the added complexity of the game over time : even video 'tutorials' felt like a downer for the game.
For me, this took all the casual fun out of the game and I uninsttalled it.

Is it just me or are people happy with the present state of the game ? Usually I cope with complexity only when coding not when gaming.

Any replacement of HLL like it was in it's early days ?

[KRT™Montaigne]

Escrito originalmente por datCookie:

Escrito originalmente por KRT™Montaigne:

Complexity should be about being able to constantly evolve new playing styles without the mechanics needing to change. Personally I hate that garries are artificially locked to a certain distance from each other. If a team wants to build all 8 garries in the same sector, let them. Furthermore I hate all these little tags over friendly players' heads. I would much rather all of these were removed. No squad or commander chat. Only local chat that both sides can overhear and some form of mechanic for command messages e.g. attached radioman :) but then the player base would be seriously niche LOL

In comp' games now they don't allow the panther as it's OP, artillery can only use one gun and nobody is allowed to attack either artillery and so recon is actually used as recon. However, it means that both sides now spam flares constantly, which also isn't necessarily as the game was designed.

My stance here is that the mechanics first need to be in a good place in order for more complexity to be found and utilised. Right now, the state of mechanics is incredibly shallow, where even high level players need to create arbitrary rules just to make the experience a little more bearable and open up a few extra options in gameplay.

I will again stipulate that some complexity is given through player skill and experience, but this is no different for any team-based multiplayer shooter, including games like CS. It's a natural state of the genre.

There are several changes that could be made (and should be, imho) that would more naturally allow for more varying and complex gameplay, without the need for arbitrary rules and wouldn't just be seen in clan matches. The best example I can give would be the removal of artillery, with mortars being introduced that would require teams to actively hunt for them across the map.

Another good example would be the addition of secondary objectives (perhaps multiple of them) in sectors, so teams aren't just scrambling around one objective constantly. This would allow for teams to split focus, or even choose where they want to direct their attention.

But overall, I think I've made it pretty clear that from a game mechanics point of view, the game is horrifically shallow. If the only complexity to be found is in clan matches, I wouldn't consider that a win, nor a good example of depth of gameplay that people claim HLL has.

I think pretty much everyone agrees with you about artillery :)

Re: it being more complex in clan games and not public not being a win. It's just down to communities not being established. For me Starcraft 2 is very much a game with only a set amount of strategies. There's no huge depth to that game but the skill set makes for incremental advantages and the length of the game's appeal continues to see different strategies involve.

I think this is one of those conversations that is ultimately subjective and people see different things. I'm never going to describe this as the perfect game and like all games there will always be limitations because, by their very nature you have rules baked into the game in terms of what it is physically possible to do and what is not.

However, it's been nice having a reasonable Steam conversation. Have a lovely holiday DatCookie (and everyone else :))

[datCookie]

Escrito originalmente por KRT™Montaigne:

I think pretty much everyone agrees with you about artillery :)

Re: it being more complex in clan games and not public not being a win. It's just down to communities not being established. For me Starcraft 2 is very much a game with only a set amount of strategies. There's no huge depth to that game but the skill set makes for incremental advantages and the length of the game's appeal continues to see different strategies involve.

I think this is one of those conversations that is ultimately subjective and people see different things. I'm never going to describe this as the perfect game and like all games there will always be limitations because, by their very nature you have rules baked into the game in terms of what it is physically possible to do and what is not.

I think that, in regards to SC2, it's biggest limitation is that there are only 3 factions available, which does limit overall strategies. AOE2 is probably one of the best examples of depth in RTS, because you have so many various factions with their own strengths and strategies.

One thing I dislike here in HLL is that all factions are essentially mirrors of each other, meaning they play the same (or extremely similar). I'd love to have seen factions have their own strengths and weaknesses (historically speaking) that teams can play for and against during a match, thus creating even more complex gameplay.

Either way, I'm happy to have people disagree with my opinion, I just appreciate it more when someone takes the time to actually respond with some detail and explanation, unlike those who contribute literally nothing but spend their time screaming at you.

Escrito originalmente por KRT™Montaigne:

However, it's been nice having a reasonable Steam conversation. Have a lovely holiday DatCookie (and everyone else :))

Likewise, happy holidays to yourself as well :)

[RiceTrooper]

Escrito originalmente por Ratz | Zak:

Escrito originalmente por datCookie:

A second deflection. Sounds to me like you can't explain the depth you believe this game has. I've already outlined how it doesn't, many times. You're more than welcome to counter that, or just continue making pointless statements about playtime.

The advanced game cannot be taught. Sorry. I have better things to do than write several paragraphs on the subject. I also think it's interesting to keep you engaged on a game you never play, certainly a peculiar behaviour I've never seen before.

Bro are you going to actually reply to his argument or not rather than just trying to ad hominem? No wonder you got banned.

He's right. The game is very shallow for a "tactical" shooter.

Literally in a recent Offensive match on the Remagon bridge map, my USA team built a heavy defense on the bridge that was nearly unpassable by 5 minutes in. All of that was bypassed because of a SINGLE airhead the Germans were able to land at the very last point WHILE WE WERE DEFENDING THE SECOND POINT. This was literally 10 minutes in, and a single recon was able to build a garry. All of our defenses just for them not to even attack the bridge.

In fact, the whole point of the game is to always flank the enemy from behind and set up garries and OPs behind them, because enemies will almost always spawn on the objectives rather than coming from their HQ, meaning no fear of flanking.

Because of this, the game almost always struggle with having a definite frontline. And if the defender even tries to set up a frontline, a single officer/recon and a supply drop/airhead can end up devastating them. In what war is that realistic?

However, if the commander just doesn't do anything, or a couple officers neglect supplies to build garries? The whole team falls. It's punishing, but also incredibly infuriating that one or two rogue squads can put the entire team in jeopardy.

Tank gameplay is pretty simplistic, too. Somehow, an M1 Bazooka does absolutely no damage to a Panzer IV from a point blank side shot? Not to mention, the crew can just up and fix their damage from the inside anyway?

But if it's situated near infantry that is covering all of its flanks, good luck even damaging it. In that case, you either need artillery (which rarely anyone knows how to use), your own tanks (which will likely die trying), or having to flank all the way around the map (in which case, the tank has already pushed ahead). Or, you have to rely on teammates being good enough to cover you as you push the infantry.

Also, the only way to counter enemy artillery is by having recon/rogue squads spawncamp their HQ. That is just incredibly dumb.