Spiral Knights - How Congruent is the Combat Update with the Original Vision of Spiral Knights?

How Congruent is the Combat Update with the Original Vision of Spiral Knights?

37 replies [Last post]

Wed, 05/22/2013 - 02:40

Gametrekker

When I heard today (Tuesday, the 21st of May) that the Dash and Shield Bash update is imminent, I began to think more deeply about why I am intensely apprehensive of this change. Pondering this has brought something into sharper focus for me.

In order for a game to be fun, it must have what I call Design Congruence. To explain, the more that a game's elements are congruent with the overall intention of its design, the better they work to fulfill that intention. This is a fundamental rule of design that I have seen again and again in my twenty years of game analysis.

If a change to a game is not congruent, it weakens the overall experience. Another way to say this is that, if part of the intention is to make a fun game, every incongruent change will make the game less fun.

I'm of the strong opinion that Dash and Shield Bash are incongruent with Spiral Knights' design, and therefore are not a fit for the game.

I have a sense that many people may be feeling that something is off here, but they're unable to articulate what's going on. However, I see clearly what's going on, which means it's up to me to speak up. So, despite the fact that every post like this takes a massive amount of time and effort for me to write, that's what I'm doing. I care much too deeply about this product to stay silent.

Spiral Knights was the only game of its kind, I've spent a huge number of hours playing it, and I can't stand watching it transform into another generic hack-n-slash.

Now I want to offer some concrete analysis of how I came to my conclusion that the imminent combat update is incongruent.

As I see it, the addition of Dash and Shield Bash will likely result in a temporary increase in activity as players sign on to check out the new features. However, after the novelty wears off, it will only result in more players leaving and fewer players joining.

Why will the novelty wear off? Why will the update undermine player retention? Because existing players will see the emptiness of the changes, and new players will find the game less appealing overall. These new mechanics are gimmicks. They're not actually new content; they just change the medium through which players experience the content. It's like Facebook's Timeline "upgrade," which 80% of users dislike. It's like YouTube's upcoming channel page layout "improvement," which removes a number of features and caters to mobile users who can't even see the ads that make Google money. Spiral Knights' combat system already worked. It was already brilliant. We already loved it. It's a huge part of why we've been playing the game! Trying to fix what isn't broken can break what's already in good shape.

The fundamental problem with the combat update is that it will increase the complexity of Spiral Knights' gameplay. One of Spiral Knights' greatest strengths has always been how easy it is to pick up and play, while still providing great depth to its gameplay with its simple controls. Dash and Shield Bash go against this by adding another button to the control scheme and complicating the player's options for no good reason.

As I touched upon in my earlier comments about the revealed design for Battle Sprites, increasing the player's control options does not equal increased depth of play. It only appeals to people who enjoy complexity for the sake of complexity, which is a very small percentage of Spiral Knights' player base, too small of a group to be worth catering to. Adding these new features won't even succeed at making the game more appealing to that type of player, as the rest of the game wasn't built with Dash and Shield Bash in mind.

Spiral Knights has brilliant enemy design and level design, and a lot of that will be invalidated by the combat update, as some testers have already pointed out. The enemies and levels were originally designed to be bested by intelligent play. Dash and Shield Bash change the emphasis to technical skill, encouraging speed run tactics that reduce the game to something more akin to an obstacle course. They also effectively allow knights to cheat the system, speeding through areas previously meant to be navigated carefully, breaking up crowds of enemies previously meant to trap them, and overall ignoring the great care that was originally put into the game's designs.

From the players' experience, the effect of the combat update will be akin to taking mechanics from a completely different game and shoehorning them in where they don't fit. In other words, the mechanics are not congruent with what's already in place in the game.

As I said in my Big Picture Analysis, fans want the game to be improved in terms of quality, not changed in terms of experience. Dash and Shield Bash are a huge, fundamental change to the game engine. From what I've seen, this is not remotely what fans have been asking for, just like no one had been asking for the changes to Facebook or YouTube.

Spiral Knights has been drifting further and further away from the original vision behind it for quite a while now. Yet, as I see it, the combat update is an official abandonment of what once made the game unique, an official abandonment of that original vision.

It's a change to the engine! It's a change to how the game is played on a fundamental level! This is why you don't mess with the engine of a popular product! It breaks what wasn't broken.

I realize that, by the time most people read this, the combat update will likely have already been implemented. Nonetheless, the decision makers behind Spiral Knights are now at a pivotal choice point. They can either follow in the idiocy of the other big companies that have greatly compromised their successful products with ill-considered tinkering, or they can be an exemplary model of a company that stays true to what people already love about it and is able to expand from that firm foundation.

Wed, 05/22/2013 - 03:08

Curious-Mewkat

I agree that the level of retention is not there, such that old players may come back only for a short period of time, and new players may quit after a short period of time. The truth about retaining players in a game is about how the game experience can be altered endlessly, making the game less linear in the sense, thus complexity comes into play. However, though this update can increase the complexity of gameplay, creating new attack strategies et cetera., the overall game experience has not improved substantially.

Simple example, Team Fortress 2 was able to keep its players due to the different play styles each person has, whether playing as an engineer to defend the intel, or a spy to infiltrate enemy lines. This mutual gameplay has helped intensified the experience, thus making the game worth playing. The usage of facebook and youtube as an example is not valid, because the overall usefulness of those sites will not be altered by some petty updates, even though I hate the new youtube channel layout, I would still consider youtube my #1 free video watching site.

In Spiral Knights however, the linearity of the levels made it less appealing as players whiz through the levels, knowing every spot in the back of their head. Boooring. Of course, we cannot blame the small crew size for this game, because it is just a small crew working on it. The end.

Wed, 05/22/2013 - 07:13

Zeddy

Spiral Knight's combat can still be played completely without dashing and shield-bashing. If you want the simple combat of old SK, it'll still be there, and that part will be just as easy to pick up and play.

Just because the nature of combat gets different it doesn't mean it's less fun. I can tell you from experience that it actually gets more fun. The new actions feel satisfying, have meaningful impact, and are fun to use. That is Spiral Knight's original vision.

Wed, 05/22/2013 - 08:05

Gent-Soopakoopa

Ahhh, another doomsday prediction.

Trust me. Having spent a lot of time on the Minecraft forums, I KNOW what a
gaming 2012 prediction looks like.

"Oh no they're adding horses to Minecraft! It's gimmicky! It doesn't fit the THEME!!!
Minecraft will surely die if horses get added!"

Horses got added. Everyone loves 'em except for a few looney pig fanatics who are
angry that horses stole the spotlight from pigs, being better mounts, and anyone else
who doesn't love 'em just ignores 'em. The same predictions about the sudden and
cataclysmic death of Minecraft have been made about everything else. Pistons.
Adventure mode. Magic. Potions. It's all gimicky! It'll never work! But it did.

"Minecraft will surely die if (Insert newest upcoming content here) gets added!"

It's about the same in this community; we just get significant updates much less often.

"Spiral Knights will surely die if (Insert newest upcoming content here) gets added!"

Wed, 05/22/2013 - 08:17

Dementia-Praecox

The only update.

The only update I want are the Battle Sprites. Anything else can take a running jump off the nearest cliff for all I care. Given that OOO seems to be getting sidetracked, the supposed release in July is looking more and more unlikely, not that they've ever been the best at keeping to deadlines, even their own. Even if they do put it off until far past the first half of the year, I'm going to eat my hat if the release still doesn't have more bugs than a motel six.

Wed, 05/22/2013 - 18:17

Gametrekker

Initial responses...

First I want to say that I appreciate the comments I've received so far, and I welcome more to come! Now for my responses to what each person has said...

Curious-Mewkat: The parallel to Facebook and YouTube is highly valid. As I said, 80% of Facebook users dislike its Timeline update. This is because it does make the site less useful due to its now less intuitive layout. Very many people are now, in fact, spending much less time there. I know people who barely use the site anymore because of the awkwardness of navigation. As for YouTube, the only reason it remains #1 is because of the massive amount of money that Google possesses to throw at problems and maintain a vast number of servers so users can upload freely. It has what's effectively a monopoly, and therefore won't suffer much from stupid changes its designers make.

In much the same way as with Facebook, every incongruent update to Spiral Knights, of which I see the new combat update being one, results in more players silently leaving the game. Whoever the decision makers are behind these updates, OOO or SEGA, they need to realize that their decisions have been eroding the profitability of their product.

Zeddy: It's not clear to me what exactly you're saying is Spiral Knights' original vision. However, whatever it is, I see it very differently. As someone who has been playing Spiral Knights for as long and intensely as I have, and as someone who deeply appreciated what the game originally brought to the table in terms of design, allow me to give you my thoughts about what its original vision truly is.

Spiral Knights was a game about exploration, simple but deep gameplay, arcade combat, and intelligent play. With practice, a player would learn how to control their knight, how to fight each enemy, and how to prepare for each battle. These days, Spiral Knights has become a grind. It's the same areas over and over, to the point of them being little more than obstacle courses, as opposed to tests of skill or intelligence. The combat update does nothing to change this, and in fact worsens the issue, as it gives players more tools with which to overpower the increasingly weak challenges the game lays out for them.

The qualities I listed of Spiral Knights' original vision are very worth bringing back. If they are regained, they will herald the return of the great popularity and profits that Spiral Knights once had, and will pave the way for even more expansion.

Gent-Soopakoopa: According to Steam statistics, Spiral Knights' average player activity has dropped about 95% from its peak last year. It's not like I'm saying a great game will suddenly be destroyed by a couple new mechanics. I'm saying a once-great game will be permanently prevented from becoming great again as long as these mechanics are in place. I want to see Spiral Knights return to glory! That's why I'm speaking up.

Dementia-Praecox: This thread is about the combat update. If you want to talk about Battle Sprites, feel free to post in my topic about those.

Wed, 05/22/2013 - 18:50

Addisond

I agree, but I don't forsee OOO undoing this, or returning to the old combat system. It's their game, and they seem to be looking for change. I don't think there's much we can do.

Thu, 05/23/2013 - 00:53

Klipik

mmm... :/

I'm not sure if this was in the original design for the game, in fact I'm pretty sure it's not. I have played a few PvE levels since the update, and I definitely see them as easier now. But overall, dash and bash added depth to the gameplay and, in my opinion, should be considered good additions. Especially if OOO adds tougher content down the road that incorporates these.

P.S: About getting around obstacles, dash doesn't make you invincible to traps like it did in the test server.

P.P.S: The Youtube One channel is worse for mobile users, too.

Thu, 05/23/2013 - 02:52

Curious-Mewkat

Though youtube and facebook dominate the internet in their respective genre, Spiral Knights does not, therefore the usage of Facebook and Youtube as a comparison towards Spiral Knights is not acceptable. There are many other MMOGs out there that will chase after newcomers.

Simply recapping, the game is too linear, especially due to missions... It was this very linear gameplay that destroyed the game's appeal to other players. What happened to the arcade? What happened to the prices of most of the recipes on the market? The Combat Update does not appeal to the players at all in terms of gameplay experience, only the gameplay. Would it be any different to whoosh pass the KoA mission with and without dashing and bashing?

We can concur that this game currently lacks the diversity of gameplay experience attainable, therefore making it less memorable as time passes, leading to the departure of many players.

Thu, 05/23/2013 - 04:56

Usevnsevnsixfivfor

Knights were in older years...right?

I'm sure that knights in past times equipped shields and sometimes bashed it on enemies' fragile areas (head, usually). I hope that answers your question [partially].

Thu, 05/23/2013 - 05:02

#10

Thunder-The-Bright

nope.

usevn, that is not the problem. it's the game we are talking about, not history.
as for the question, I bet there are lots of things that the devs didn't think about in the beginning (one are the minis).
the game is far from its original propouse mainly because of missions, not because of dash and bash.

Thu, 05/23/2013 - 18:56

#11

Gent-Soopakoopa

I enjoy bean burritos.

Personally, I see the new shield and battle sprites as a logical deepening
and explansion of combat as it is, with dashing and bashing adding an extra
layer to the technique-driven side of the game, and the sprites adding an
extra layer to the strategy/preparation-driven side of the game.

Fri, 05/24/2013 - 03:49

#12

Gametrekker

More responses, more clarity, and more context!

Addisond: Thanks for your support. Also, I disagree that nothing can be done about this. As I said in my last post, Spiral Knights' player base has diminished on a colossal scale. I see more players leaving as a result of this update. If those of us who remain stand up, at a certain point, OOO will be unable to ignore us.

In other words, I need more support! Our voices will be heard! Spiral Knights depends on it!

Klipik: Changing the enemies to reflect the combat update would be a massive and unhelpful undertaking on OOO's part. The game was already popular. Now it's not. As I said in this thread's OP, Spiral Knights is becoming something more akin to a generic hack-n-slash. The combat update has now contributed to this, and altering the enemies to accommodate it will only serve to further distance the game from what once made it popular.

Curious-Mewkat: On the contrary, what you're saying actually makes my argument about the parallels to Facebook and YouTube even more valid. Spiral Knights was once the only game of its kind. If Spiral Knights goes away, which in a sense it already has, the multitude of players like me will have nowhere else to go.

But even if that weren't the case at all, my argument would still stand. My argument had nothing to do with the size or scope of the products I was talking about. I was just talking about products that are being changed in greatly detrimental ways by their developers, and I thought of Facebook and YouTube as examples because they're very well known. I could have provided many more examples than I did, but I didn't feel the need to belabor the point.

Curious-Mewkat and Thunder-The-Bright: I mostly agree with the overall point that you both make. "Would it be any different to whoosh pass the KoA mission with and without dashing and bashing?" I wholeheartedly agree that it would not.

That being said, the larger scale issues with the game must unfortunately be put on the back burner for the time being. As I said in my last post, Spiral Knights will "be permanently prevented from becoming great again as long as these mechanics are in place." Even if the game were brought back to its roots in every other way, the combat update would still perpetually cripple its popularity. This is that big of an issue.

Spiral Knights still has a small team behind it, and that team's time would be much better spent improving the game than continuing to add damaging complications that will need to be fixed later. I think you two and I can all agree on this.

Gent-Soopakoopa: My first post in this thread already explained why your perspective that the new mechanics deepen the combat doesn't reflect what's really going on. 1: Increasing the player's options for control and preparation does not automatically translate to increased depth of play. The combat was very deep already and didn't need abusable additions. In fact, opportunities for abuse create the opposite effect, making the gameplay more shallow. 2: The combat update clashes dramatically with the enemy and level design already present in Spiral Knights. The enemies and levels were built around knights having only the abilities they had before the update. Dash and Shield Bash are incongruent with the existing design of the game for this reason and many others.

In addition to the responses above, I want to present a metaphor that may help readers make better sense of my larger point about congruence.

In order for a game to maximize its success, all of its aspects must fit together as an integrated whole, like a jigsaw puzzle. Puzzle pieces that snap in properly and add to the already existing picture improve the overall product. Pieces that don't can only get in the way of the product's quality.

I see the combat update as a piece from a different puzzle that has been forced into this one where it doesn't belong. No matter how much effort is made to make it fit, and no matter how many people enthusiastically proclaim how much it fits, it can never actually fit. It must be expertly extracted to ensure the quality of the product.

I also want to say that I continue to appreciate the comments that this thread has been receiving. Keep them coming!

However, as I see it, we have been mostly discussing technicalities instead of addressing the deeper issue at hand.

My main concern is not simply the addition of these new mechanics. It's that the combat update shows that the decision makers behind Spiral Knights are using their energy in ways that are diminishing the value of their asset instead of increasing it. My hope is that enough of us will speak up about this to let these decision makers know that they're missing a huge opportunity to increase their profits.

If the decision makers are able to recognize why Spiral Knights had the glory it once had, they will have the sense to see the necessity and great value of maintaining its original vision. As the game regains its glory, and even expands from there, its popularity will soar once again and so will the revenue it generates for OOO and SEGA. Someone accused me of making a "doomsday prediction" with this thread, yet my presentation pertains primarily to profoundly positive possibility. The return to glory is still a very possible outcome if the game is handled properly from here forward.

The best case scenario I'm proposing here is one where everyone wins. The players are happy, once again logging on and enjoying Spiral Knights in huge numbers. Also the companies behind the game are happy, seeing their profits rise to record heights. The small minority of players who dislike the game's return to form will have plenty of other games to play that cater to their specific tastes; so, although they will be gaming elsewhere, they too will be happy.

In closing this post, I want to leave the readers with one question: How can we, together, move forward toward this ideal scenario? I welcome your thoughts about this.

Right now I'm doing everything I can to make the scenario I speak of a reality. Let's keep this pivotal conversation going!

Fri, 05/24/2013 - 07:14

#13

Curious-Mewkat

First of all, I think you missed my point about using Facebook and Youtube as an example. You said it yourself that it was effectively a monopoly due to its dominance over the internet. That saying, we can't compare Spiral Knights because it has not dominated the gaming sector at all. Therefore, incongruent updates on top sectors such as Facebook and Youtube may mean nothing while it may wreck the player count in Spiral Knights as gamers may just migrate to other games if they are unhappy with it.

I cannot say I am pleased with the combat update, nor can I say I am displeased. I am not in a position to answer that.

The main issue we are dealing here is the missions system, the current biggest flaw in the game. It provided linear gameplay and repetitive levels, that eventually caused the inflation rates to soar, due to the KoA mission. This is the most fundamental error in the whole game that must be dealt with so as to erase the current situation and bring back the old scenario. Other than that, there might not be any major issue.

Fri, 05/24/2013 - 08:16

#14

Gent-Soopakoopa

Well...

Well, I'm playing right now, with the shield dash and bash. I'm having a blast.
Explain that. Or do I just have horrible tastes?

Fri, 05/24/2013 - 17:01

#15

Trats-Romra

Trats, a Roman

Three thoughts:

Gametrekker, do you already thought in something to suggest to devs team? I'm really interested at what you think that can improve the arcade.
At the moment, I see the arcade as thing that we use for fun. Also to get some recipes.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I think that all multiplayer game need updates, but not these types of updates.
In my opinion, the mechanics needs balance. We get more power, the monsters must have it too. Otherwise, this game will become like the others MMOs: You need just one guy to defeat hordes of monsters.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I think that a part of the gamers wants new ways to play. Others gamers want new things to do. At the moment, I think the best thing the three rings can do is to try to reconcile the two.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
signed:Trats

Sun, 05/26/2013 - 22:17

#16

Gametrekker

Of Missions and Markets

Curious-Mewkat: Ah, I get your point now. I thought at first that we were disagreeing about the facts here regarding comparing Spiral Knights to Facebook and YouTube. Now I see we're actually in agreement. I'll explain.

My point was simply that a lot of companies are making very poor decisions with their products that are negatively affecting their users and profits. I cited Facebook and YouTube as examples.

As far as I can tell, your point was that those are poor comparisons because they're both monopolies and therefore aren't affected greatly by mistakes like this, while Spiral Knights will more easily lose far more of its customers to other games.

You you know what? You're right! We're both right, really.

The companies behind Facebook, YouTube and Spiral Knights are all making detrimental decisions. This is how they're similar. However, as Spiral Knights obviously does not have a monopoly on the video game market (or even the MMO market), it far more easily loses its clientele when such decisions are implemented.

I hope that cleared things up here.

Gent-Soopakoopa: Your enjoying the combat update is easy to explain. Indeed my argument is not that you have horrible tastes. You're simply part of the tiny percentage of players who would be fine with Spiral Knights abandoning its original vision. Either that or your having fun with this is going to wear off, which is also quite possible.

A game's message boards are almost always a very poor representation of the game's player base. Spiral Knights is no exception to this. The people behind Spiral Knights need to learn how to distinguish between advice that's congruent with their game's original intention and advice that's incongruent. This is very important.

There was a tiny percentage of Facebook users who liked the Timeline update. A portion of that percentage was very vocal about this. These people were very far from the 80% majority that disapproved. Do I even need to say which group would have been more valuable to cater to?

I have now played around with the new mechanics and my reaction is that they're even worse than I had anticipated. They add a huge amount of detrimental clutter to Spiral Knights' combat system. The combat update is an entirely unfun addition to the game from my perspective.

Setting aside the question of congruence for a moment, we have two data points between us: You like the combat update and I dislike it. So, one of us must not have tastes that match Spiral Knights' original vision. If Spiral Knights' profits and popularity are to be maximized, one of us is going to have to not get what they want here. My argument is that it's people like you who will be happier elsewhere once Spiral Knights has returned to glory.

That is, unless you're only having fun for the time being because of the freshness of the update and you're expecting your fun to last when it won't. You may scoff at this, but it's something that happens a lot with bad decisions that are given a lot of flair. Many people proclaim the quality of the decision only to get bored with it later like almost everyone else. In other words, the novelty will wear off. I've been seeing a lot of players on the forums in the first stage of this, the enthusiasm stage.

Curious-Mewkat and Trats-Romra: Okay okay okay. Since this keeps coming up, I'll address it. I'll address Spiral Knights' mission mode and arcade mode discrepancy.

The arcade is fine. It has always been fine. It was the introduction of the mission system that threw things off balance.

Here's the important question to ask: Is Spiral Knights' mission system congruent with the game's original vision?

Unlike the combat update, which I maintain was a bad idea from beginning to end, there were certain aspects of the introduction of missions that improved my experience of the game.

I started playing Spiral Knights a couple months before missions were added. Back then, players had to rely mostly in the wiki and other players in order to get information about the game. The game's story was also extremely nebulous.

Missions changed this. I "got" the game a lot better after playing through a bunch of missions. The game's world and mechanics suddenly made more sense. Also the game's excellent story was expanded upon in a very enjoyable way.

The problem with Spiral Knights' mission system isn't the missions themselves, nor is it the base concept of the game having missions.

The problem is in how the missions were implemented. As Curious-Mewkat pointed out, the design of the mission system has resulted in the game becoming far more linear and repetitive. This was essentially due to its overly structured nature and how easily it could be abused for grinding purposes.

So yes, I agree that the mission system has overall been a very incongruous addition to Spiral Knights and significantly contributed to the game's titanic drop in player activity. Although it may be a complicated process to comprehensively fix this, it would still be of great benefit to OOO to accomplish.

However, there is far more to the story of Spiral Knights' downfall than just the mission system. I strongly disagree that fixing the design of the mission system is all the game needs to become popular again, and I'm not just saying this because of how much I disapprove of the combat update.

I have a great many thoughts about why Spiral Knights' player base has shrunk so severely. As I see it, one of the big factors has to do with the game's difficulty, how it was once difficult-and-unfair and has become easy-and-fair while it needs to be difficult-and-fair. Yet, to elaborate on all my thoughts would require far more writing than is appropriate for this post. This is stuff that I need to share with the Spiral Knights team directly, as it's part of the expertise I possess that they require in order to save their game.

Trats-Romra: Now that I've addressed the above, I'll respond to your other thoughts. Your two remaining thoughts are very related, so I'll address them both together.

Here's a general rule to keep in mind: Players who want new ways to play are not happy with the game they're playing on a fundamental level. In other words, they are not actually fans of the game as it currently exists. They may, for instance, prefer it if Spiral Knights were given far more RPG mechanics, such as a class system and an elaborate EXP system where the knights themselves can level up. However, additions like these would dramatically change the user experience, rather than enhance it.

In order to increase a product's popularity and profits, one must enhance the experience it provides. Enhancing a game means adding more content, such as more levels and items, or balancing/polishing the content that's already present. Changing the experience has an entirely different affect: It changes the type of person the product appeals to.

In other words, changing the product means abandoning some customers in favor of others, usually fewer. Enhancing the product means increasing its overall appeal so that it will then gain additional customers.

It's as simple as that.

The combat update is a change, not an enhancement, because it alters how the game is played on a fundamental level. Now, it is very possible for a change to be beneficial for a product, but only if the product is fundamentally broken in some way, so much so that it can never have much appeal to the market it's currently in. This was very much not the case with Spiral Knights.

So yes! Games like this benefit from updates, but not these types of updates. The needed updates are enhancements, not changes.

This thread is bringing some great analysis out of me! I hope the decision makers behind Spiral Knights are reading my writing here!

Speaking of which, I wonder who the decision makers are now, since I doubt Nick and Ian would have approved of some of the engine and UI changes present in the latest update. We users would really benefit at this point from knowing who exactly is behind all the big changes to the game we play.

Anyway, keep the comments coming!

Sun, 05/26/2013 - 22:47

#17

Quaquonfaes

I agree with...

I agree, but in my opinion the most significant problem, is bashing, now you can bash your way through hordes and wall of enemies to make it to the other side instead of taking the time to battle them.

Sun, 05/26/2013 - 23:32

#18

Klipik-Forum

Sigh

"Changing the enemies to reflect the combat update would be a massive and unhelpful undertaking on OOO's part. The game was already popular. Now it's not. As I said in this thread's OP, Spiral Knights is becoming something more akin to a generic hack-n-slash. The combat update has now contributed to this, and altering the enemies to accommodate it will only serve to further distance the game from what once made it popular."

SK combat, in PvE, before this update, was incredibly simple. Sure, there were a few basic enemy movements to learn, but at the end of the day 90% of enemies can be killed by running in a circle spamming brandish charges and the 10% that can't everyone complains about. People say we should make the game harder/more challenging, myself included. But there's only so much you can do with that limited combat system. At its core, SK is an MMOARPG/dungeon crawler. It's meant to have engaging combat. When you reach endgame, the combat is not engaging. The new system certainly doesn't make it any more challenging, but at least it makes it more fun if you want it to be. And it opens up the potential for much more interesting content later down the line. Maybe it is a bad idea to revamp all the existing enemies completely, but a little change wouldn't hurt. A general, overall improvment to the AI to make it faster, smarter, especially in the more advanced levels.

In response to everything after that post: why are you so set on the idea that this change is a bad thing? As far as I can figure out, it's because you think SK is moving too far away from its original vision. Keep in mind, the original game was not perfect. Just because something is now different doesn't mean it's worse. Was one of the draws of SK originally slow-moving, limited combat? I don't think so.

More detailed response below this line:
-----------------

"Here's a general rule to keep in mind: Players who want new ways to play are not happy with the game they're playing on a fundamental level. In other words, they are not actually fans of the game as it currently exists."
I have to disagree with you here. Just because you want Improvments does not mean you are not happy with the game. It may mean you aren't 100% satisfied with it, but no one is ever 100% satisfied with anything. Example: I liked Spiral Knights as it was in June 2011, when I joined. I didn't see much wrong with it because I hadn't gotten to fully experience it yet. One year later, I'd gotten about halfway through and had a better idea of what the game was and where I thought it could be improved. I still liked the game (even though missions came and I hated them), but I thought it could use work to be even better. And that's when I started posting here.

"Enhancing a game means adding more content, such as more levels and items, or balancing/polishing the content that's already present. Changing the experience has an entirely different affect: It changes the type of person the product appeals to. In other words, changing the product means abandoning some customers in favor of others, usually fewer. Enhancing the product means increasing its overall appeal so that it will then gain additional customers."
First off, enhancement is a form of change. Nothing can be different without some form of change. 1+1=2. Before=/=after, so change happened, even if it's just adding more of the same thing.

"The combat update is a change, not an enhancement, because it alters how the game is played on a fundamental level."
Except... It doesn't. The combat update does not change the core combat mechanics of the game. Everything that was there before is still there, you can still use it, and it's just as effective as it was last week or last month or last year. The updates are not a change that alters the core gamplay mechanics, but rather an enhancement that is entirely optional and can increase effectiveness is used correctly, while requiring skill to learn and master and providing the opportunity for more involved, interesting content later down the line. Yes, there are bugs and new exploits of course, every update for every big game has those too. Hopefully they will get ironed out, and if they don't then our problem is not with content design.

"Now, it is very possible for a change to be beneficial for a product, but only if the product is fundamentally broken in some way, so much so that it can never have much appeal to the market it's currently in."
So you're saying that the only time any change (by your definition) can ever be good is if something is wrong? Have you not heard of taking something good and making it even better?

"So yes! Games like this benefit from updates, but not these types of updates. The needed updates are enhancements, not changes."
SK will "benefit" from this update in the long run, if it survives that long. The combat changes are positive ones, and will affect the game as such in the future. Would you mind saying exactly what they take away?

I liked your other thread better. This one feels like it's just whining about change. It's probably because I could find actual things wrong with the UI update, but this one seems all around positive (except for the hideously generic new icons of course).

Sun, 05/26/2013 - 23:37

#19

Ewbte

@Gametrekker

I totally understand and agree with you. There is a huge list of bugs and defects, most of them known almost from the game launch and still not changed.. but they add shield bash and dash and pets rather than fix it.

Oh, everything was already told more than overninethousand times.
Game world in a mess.

Sun, 05/26/2013 - 23:41

#20

Klipik-Forum

@Ewbte

I'm giving them until the BS release, and inevitable surrounding drama and minor fixes, to do things like dash and bash and minis and Gorgos. New content, cool. But after all that's out of the way...

Tue, 05/28/2013 - 02:12

#21

Gametrekker

K.I.S.

Klipik-Forum: Okay, I'm going to be very frank with you. I realize you mean well here, and we do agree on a number of points (such as the incongruity of the mission system and the new icons). However, I must say that you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood most if not all of the points I made that you mentioned in your post.

Here's the quote that sticks out for me the most in the first section of your post: "Was one of the draws of SK originally slow-moving, limited combat? I don't think so." My response to this is that, actually, it was. Spiral Knights' low number of buttons and simple controls made the game easy to pick up and play. Also, the combat that you refer to as "limited" was in fact very deep and strategic. I have mentioned this multiple times in this thread already, in addition to touching on it in both my post about Battle Sprites and my Big Picture Analysis.

You make a point that Brandish charge attacks show that Spiral Knights' combat is fundamentally broken. Since you started playing Spiral Knights in June 2011, you may recall that the Brandish line did not have its current charge attacks that early on. The current Brandish line charge attacks being so powerful isn't evidence that Spiral Knights' combat is broken; it's evidence that those charge attacks are broken. They need to be nerfed to some degree. (Personally I'd recommend removing their knockback, since that would retain their usefulness for AoE while removing their ability to one-shot solitary enemies.)

In the same sentence where you talk about the Brandish line, you say that "everyone complains about" the enemies that don't get demolished by those charge attacks. This is not what I've seen! As I said in my last post, "a game's message boards are almost always a very poor representation of the game's player base." Yes, people have always complained about devilites on these forums. That didn't necessarily mean they deserved to be nerfed. The developers have to pay attention to what type of player is complaining and why. There has been a lot of complaining on these forums over the years from players who just want a free ride in this game. There have been tons of threads created by players asking for the game's energy system to be abolished, of all things! Just because people complain doesn't mean they deserve to be accommodated. Just because some people complain doesn't mean everyone complains.

To be fair, for quite a while now, Spiral Knights has been considerably less deep and strategic than it was originally. This is primarily because of all the nerfs to enemies and all the buffs to knights and their weapons. These balance tweaks and the mission system are by far the biggest factors in why Spiral Knights' endgame is no longer engaging. These are what needed to be fixed. The new mechanics do nothing to help this situation and in fact only make it worse. They do this by making knights even more powerful and quick to bulldoze their way through missions.

You know what? I want to elaborate on Spiral Knights' lost depth a bit more. You say that the game's combat used to be "incredibly simple." I actually see it very differently! What about shield canceling and the game's unusual reloading system? These mechanics were already in place to provide technical depth, rewarding players who take the time to master the game's controls. What about shield bumping? It used to be a crucial mechanic for strategically repositioning enemies! Now the game's enemies are pushovers and don't require intelligent play to beat.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Dash and Shield Bash are gimmicks. They don't provide any more actual depth than the game once had long ago.

You ask at the end of your post what the combat update took away from the game. In case this isn't clear by now, my argument is that it took away the simplicity and intuitiveness of the controls. It added two buttons! Two! I was concerned before the update was implemented and I thought it was only going to add one! It does not matter that none of the old mechanics were changed by these additions. As I said in my last post, the combat update adds "a huge amount of detrimental clutter to Spiral Knights' combat system." None of problems responsible for Spiral Knights' loss of its player base involved its controls. OOO has broken something that once was part of what made the game popular instead of fixing the issues that are driving away its customers.

Again, according to Steam statistics, Spiral Knights has lost over 95% of its player base since its peak last year. I cannot stress this enough. This unequivocally means that the game has changed dramatically for the worse since that time. The combat update is not remotely what was needed to help the game regain its popularity, and, looking at the numbers, it indeed isn't helping at all.

Alright, due to the lateness of the hour, I have to break off my response to you here for today. I'll be back soon to address the second of the two sections of your post. I have a lot to say to it, but I can only write so much in a day.

Ellthan-Cosmolion: What you describe is indeed one of the many problems with the combat update. Game design is a very complicated business, and in my experience it's very common for people to not understand design issues when they experience them, or even after seeing an explanation of them. So thanks for your support and for being an example of someone who can see a piece of this puzzle clearly.

Ewbte: Thanks very much for your support as well! I saw your open letter to Nick and greatly appreciated it. I'll provide a more detailed response to it in your own thread.

Thu, 05/30/2013 - 12:03

#22

Neodasus

@OP Weapon switching was

@OP

Weapon switching was originally much slower. They're just giving us abilities to keep up with new content. This update is just a precursor to d30+ content.

Sat, 06/01/2013 - 19:54

#23

Gametrekker

Enhancements versus Changes

I'll let the following serve as both the continuation of my response to Kiplik-Forum and my response to Neodasus.

Kiplik-Forum, I'll start my response to the second of the two sections of your post by addressing the first point you make there: "Just because you want Improvments does not mean you are not happy with the game." Indeed, this statement of yours is quite accurate. However, I didn't say anything that contradicts it!

There is a critical distinction here: What I said in my post was that players who want new ways to play are the ones that aren't happy with the game. I then went on to give an example of a player wanting Spiral Knights to have far more RPG mechanics, changing it on a fundamental level. There's a very big difference between wanting the game you're playing to change from, say, a platformer to a shooter, and wanting the game to simply have more levels and items. The point I was making was addressing what Trats-Romra said about some gamers wanting "new ways to play" while others want "new things to do." I hope this explanation makes it more clear.

Now it's time for me to address what I see as a general problem with your understanding of my arguments that affects everything you say for the remainder of your post: You seem to not yet see what I was talking when I was explaining changes versus enhancements.

In my Big Picture Analysis, I said something very significant: "Fans don't want the product they love to become something different; they want their current experience to be enhanced and expanded." I also referenced this in my initial post in this thread. In my response to Trats-Romra, I made an attempt to explain it in more detail.

To do this, I presented two distinct concepts, one of which I refer to as enhancements and the other I refer to as changes. It's not for no reason that I italicized those words so many times; I didn't mean them literally!

I specifically say in my post that, as I mean it, "enhancing" a game involves "adding more content, such as more levels and items, or balancing/polishing the content that's already present." Perhaps I haven't been clear enough about what definition I was using for "changing" a game, so I'll rephrase it one more time: It involves fundamentally altering the experience. The combat update, optional or not, fundamentally alters the way a lot of enemies are optimally fought in the game, and adds more buttons to the standard control scheme. This is a much bigger deal than most people realize!

Players who really like a product want to experience more of the product. With more levels and items that are worth playing and using, players have more to do in Spiral Knights. With glitches being fixed, players have a more streamlined and intuitive experience. These are enhancements.

Adding impactful new mechanics that affect the entirety of combat, regardless of whether or not the game can be played without them, turns the game into effectively a different game. This is a change. It's like if charge attacks weren't in the game and then one day they were added. Players don't have to use them, but they're now at a disadvantage if they don't.

One could argue that Dash and Shield Bash don't have enough utility for players who don't use them to be considered disadvantaged. To this I respond, if the new mechanics are that useless, they shouldn't have been implemented anyway! Then the simplicity of Spiral Knights' controls could have been maintained.

Spiral Knights' combat system was one of the oldest, most fundamental, and most successful aspects of its design. If you want to make a formerly-popular product popular again, the best first step is to find out why it was popular in the first place. I loved Spiral Knights' simple controls. I loved the depth it once had. Hundreds of thousands of other players once enjoyed those too, exactly as they were. We wanted more, not something different. Instead, we got missions, enemy nerfs, fake-out content like the Black Kats, and plenty of prize boxes.

I hope that the decision makers behind Spiral Knights will first take a step back and then take the time to properly understand why their game's players are vanishing and what can be done to to bring them back. They are currently leaving millions of dollars on the table by not doing this.

I want to take the end of this post here to mention two things.

First, I've now written two posts in response to Ewbte's open letter to Nick. I present some more good analysis in these, and Ewbte's letter itself is a great read too.

Also, I want to say that I've recently had some very useful live conversations with other players who feel a passion for the ideas I've been presenting in my threads. If anyone reading this would like to talk with me as well, I encourage you to do so! One option of course is to send me a message through Spiral Knights itself. In addition to that, I actually shared all my contact info at the end of my Big Picture Analysis, so I might as well put it here too: My phone number is (707) 631-8602, my email is gametrekker@sbcglobal.net, and I'm GameTrekker on both AIM and Skype.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 00:39

#24

Fehzor

I was going to write something, but then I thought about when I read Zeddy's thread about lockdown and realized how much of a moron I am. Carry on.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 11:33

#25

Klipik

I maintain that Dash and Bash are logical extensions of the combat system, and are enhancements rather than changes. You mentioned that the combat system was actually very deep? Well, I didn't manage to make it to the very endgame (SLs) before these updates got added in. And as I've said, I didn't really notice the "depth" you're talking about. So, is it reasonable to conclude that the "depth" is only noticed and used at the highest level of play? I say it is. Following that, the Dash and Bash don't make significant changes to the combat to new players - it isn't even bound to any keys when they start. It will make a difference only at endgame, and most players who get there have made their decision to stay anyway. It also opens the door for more D28+ content that will be harder, and slowly work in the new systems to make them necessary instead of a cheap add-on.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 11:52

#26

Aura-The-Robot

The way I see it.

Personally I like the Dash and Shield Bash moves. They let new players have skills that can save their butt in the beginning and let the older, stronger players think of new strategies to use these skills. Its not like you HAVE to use the moves. You don't HAVE to use anything. The creators added this in probably because the game lacked a move to dash away quickly and not be killed. The dash does that. The shield bash is the reverse. A way to break through a group of enemies without having to kill them. Adding new features is like creating new pokemon. Everyone will be iffy about them.. then in an amount of time later, everyone will love them. Its the endless cycle. Something is new. People hate it. It becomes older. People like it. The dash and bash are new right now, and people like them. When they are old, then alot more people will like them more. They will get used to it. When something is old in a game, it is reassuring that it probably works and its not going to be complained about unless its broken. New players will just think of it like something always there.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 11:54

#27

Klipik

I will do the OP's work for him here, and say that the old levels are not designed for Dash and Bash, and as such are now much easier because you can dodge out of draps, over spikes, through crowds, etc.

Mon, 06/17/2013 - 15:51

#28

Knight-Along

I agree, if Spiral Knights

I agree, if Spiral Knights become another Diablo, I'll cry.

Mon, 06/17/2013 - 18:25

#29

Gent-Soopakoopa

@Klipik

Except that you're using almost entirely bogus arguments.

Environmental hazards, such as spikes, can not be dashed through.

Yes, some traps can be dashed through. They can also be blocked. So?

Why, yes, you CAN bash through crowds now. However, getting pushed and flinch-locked
into a corner by a large group of mobs was never fun in the first place. It was just about
as much fun as the trojan corner hitbox bug, which trapped you in a corner to the front of
a trojan with no room to move, meaning there is literally no hope if it happens while
you're playing solo. End of story.

Tue, 06/18/2013 - 08:55

#30

El-Odio

Sheesh

I am most impressed by your patience, as I am really sorry for you to have chosen to take this path. Reading such posts gives me faith for some people, while it is utlimatly crushed by the responses. Scrolling down the thread I can not but notice how you take the time to write once and again obvious statements that have been simplified to a level that betrays the work you have put into it.
Repeating something over and over... You have my sympathy for trying to argue in this forum.

Yeah, about the whole story with the update and shield and dash:
"One could argue that Dash and Shield Bash don't have enough utility for players who don't use them to be considered disadvantaged. To this I respond, if the new mechanics are that useless, they shouldn't have been implemented anyway!"
Something I wholeheartedly agree to.

However, let me think aloud for a moment. OOO has more and more started to rely on fake difficulty. "The more, the merrier". Dash and bash, while a fundamental change to the game, are in some way a response to their own laziness. They can't be bothered to actually design intelligent enemies, well build traps, or sound rooms. Most challenges are "let's make a small room and fill it with monsters until you literally can't see the ground any more". I guess at some point they noticed - "Damn, they can't move with so many monsters". Which would explain the implementation of "liberating" movements.
Dash and bash can probably be seen as a prelude to a lot of cheap ass levels with 100% more monsters, just because people want it really hard. (Which is [BS], just sayin'.)

Because it's important enough to be cited:
"Why, yes, you CAN bash through crowds now. However, getting pushed and flinch-locked into a corner by a large group of mobs was never fun in the first place."

The problem with dash and bash is not what they are, but what they mean. They mean that OOO prefers to not implement anything that would actually add to the exploration, or balance anything in need of balancing but to throw in their own ideas and see what happens.
They keep missing the point with their content, which is why very few players ever attempt the Danger Missions.

(This is nothing about the topic, but I welcomed the Devilites nerf, because for me as a gunner no mission with them was worth it. I also found the forums to be swarming with elitists who'd rather have Devilites stay the way, then those who actually didn't like them. I can agree that many nerfs where unnecessary, but the devilite one was important. Through it doesn't help to help newcomers, if there are no newcomers to help. What is missing is a T4, for those who have hit a dead end. And I guess we can all agree that this game hits the end game quite fast.)

Tue, 06/18/2013 - 23:34

#31

Klipik-Forum

I take moderate offense to El-Odio's labeling of everyone besides the OP as too dumb to get his point. I would argue more, but right now I have sleeping to do.

Tue, 06/18/2013 - 16:18

#32

Coelydragon

Anyways...

I skipped to the last 2 paragraphs of El-Odio's post (skimmed the rest, which was just a summary of what dash and bash are and are not and reactions. What the other posts were, really.) and I disagree. I know tons of people that play danger missions. I do them myself whenever I can grab a vanguard and time. However, I don't see how you can argue that OOO is not fixing exploration, then say that they made one part too hard and it was good that they nerfed it. Followed quickly by a complaint that there needs to be more difficult things. Get what I'm saying?

Exploration is not broken in the sense that you're talking about. The arcade is there, and is completely viable. True, the old levels are not as compatible, but there is very little that dash and bash do to change how different the levels are played. Take FSC for example. What do people dash and bash for? Escape attacks? What does that have to do with the level? It's the monster, not the level, and dash is only a last second escape from the monster. Unless you're referring to ICMF in which case dashing often overshoots your mark and lands you in the next active shock trap, and even then, it's fine because it's not made any easier. Dash and bash are not OP moves. They are adrenaline rush moves where you get that last burst of energy to escape for a second. Defensive buff, rather than all the offensive buffs we've been talking about. Yes, new content is nice, if not very much needed, but dash and bash have added to the fights. Exploration has become second-priority due to the full knowledge of every scenario room and every danger room and every level.

Let me rephrase. Dash and bash add to the combat, but not the exploration directly. The exploration has finished and there is no more to explore unless you are completely ignorant of the wiki and forums. However, there most definitely have been new levels, even though they've been searched through already. Compounds, for example, are compatible with the dash and bash in a way that swarms are added nearly at the same time as methods to escape the swarm. Look at the release order: Swarms come out. Players fight swarms. Players get stuck in swarms (mostly on the last room). Escape methods are implemented. No one notices, really. OOO is focused on exploration, though not directly because the exploration factor is always covered quickly. We, as spiral knights, are too good at finding every single honking room and reporting them, making them no longer new. I mean, face it. Compounds were new. They were great. They synergized with the dash with their puzzles and traps and swarms. And yet, in about 2 weeks, every compound room had been pounded through, noted, and recorded. OOO tries, but I guess we're just too good.

Wed, 06/19/2013 - 08:45

#33

El-Odio

*shrugs* Wasn't offending anyone, just stated that I noticed him repeating himself. Discussions on these forums are painful, which is no secret.

This isn't even about dash and bash.
I as a gunner hated Devilites and welcomed the nerf. Regardless of my 605 hours of "play"time that didn't change. No matter how often I faced them, they never became fun. Because the problem wasn't skill, it was weaponry and impatience. And fighting them without a Valiance or Magnus would always take time. Also, fighting the same monster in the same enviroment is not called exploration. It never held anything new or interesting just the same tedious procedure.
I myself am not bend on getting something more difficult. But the forum is. Everywhere you hear them screaming "Harder! I said HARDER! FASTER!" as if this was brothel. But it won't make sense to increase difficulty in this tier, as this third tier offers an acceptable challenge to those who just mastered second tier and scrambled enough energy for their first 5* equipment. It takes more than long enough for fresh ones to reach and master Vanaduke, which is something the "veterans" tend to forget all too often.

You keep using the word "exploration", but I think it doesn't mean what you think it means. Because exploration is broken in the exact way you just discribed - there is no reason to look for anything because you know all that by now. THAT is the problem of exploration. Also, it's not worth it in rewards. (Here I would repeat most of the last paragraph of yours, which is most of my third paragraph anyway.)
While yes, Danger Missions are new for some time, some people will rush through them by the end of the first week. Some. And even if they are on the wiki, it's not the same as going through yourself. I for my part, still like GitM, as I have seen it about 3 times since it came out. It's just not worth it to do that on a regular basis, but nice to look at once in while. Except of course the cheap as rooms with more monsters than should be allowed., which I already mentioned.

Bleh, I'll just leave it at that. Not my fight, and I'm not to eager on joining any crusades anyways.

Wed, 06/19/2013 - 08:55

#34

Coelydragon

Exactly. Thank you. Dash and bash were made to enhance the exploration process, not increase the exploration itself. I enjoy danger missions and missions in general myself because of the fights, but there is no more exploration involved. It's more of fighting your way through. The combat update was not congruent because OOO knows exploration is easily completed, and thus they shifted their focus slightly so the game still works completely fine and is in some senses more fun, but not exactly congruent.

Sun, 06/23/2013 - 06:33

#35

Blandaxt

Disagree!

To keep things short and simple, I agree with some of your ideas and you have made some good points, but in the overall main point of this thread, I completely disagree with you. I don't think the game was perfect the way it was, I think the game was good or even great but not perfect. Has the game overall experienced dropped in quality with the new updates such as: Missions, Shard bomb, incomplete status mechanics, ect? Yes it has, but the direction that the game is heading with the battle sprites and this new battle mechanic of Dash and Bash is not bad for the game. I am not sure if these new updates are OOO decision or if it is SEGA's, but in my opinion, they are heading in a good direction. I feel the dash and bash combat mechanic needs to me tweaked a little so it can have more of an effect on the game and be easier to use, but overall, I support OOO or SEGA's decision to move forward to this idea. I will not elaborate further, but I will say one thing, can you see the future? What if the dash and bash, plus the Battle sprite is just a small piece of something grand OOO is planning to add to the game? Well that is all I have to say.

Sun, 06/23/2013 - 16:52

#36

Klipik-Forum

Agreee with Blandaxt!

Maybe Dash and Bash aren't completely congruent with the original vision, but that original vision was by no means perfect and this looks to be a progression in the right direction, as long as they support it with the correct enemy and level design.

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 06:21

#37

Blandaxt

Not too Complicated

About the mission system, you said "Although it may be a complicated process to comprehensively fix this". I’m thinking why not just make it so players can only go through missions only once and have no repeats. This means, players who have completed the mission cannot go back to help their friends who have not completed the mission. It also means, players will get a onetime experience with completing the mission scenarios and will also mean players will flood back too the arcade to grind the vanaduke missions.

About the point of your argument which is change versus enhancement, I think you’re completely right that having the right update can form a change or enhancement to the overall player experience for SK. I also think you’re completely wrong to use spiral knights original system of game play when you first started the game as a model for this argument. Again, spiralknights game play back then and now is still fluid and has not change as drastically as you are describing. I would cater to your argument if suddenly the whole fundamental basic of spiral knight combat mechanics were thrown out of the window and something new and entirely unlikeable was implemented, but you are saying 2 simple functions that are use base on a player optional preferences will destroy all that spiral knights stand for. I can only say, unless you describe thorough example of how this future analysis of yours will carry out and eventually cause the downfall of spiral knights, I cannot find myself to ever side with your assumptions.

Search

How Congruent is the Combat Update with the Original Vision of Spiral Knights?