I don't understand why this game was butchered
lun, 08/23/2021 - 07:37
In Spiral Knights, there weren't many parts of co-operative play, because most of the time people get in each other's way more often than actually benefiting from each other.
I first saw this game at mmohut.com and at that time games had more emphasis on fun and less emphasis on taking things away at the cost of fun for the sake of this or that. It was actually very worth being on the lookout for new games.
https://youtu.be/mUEv7unHQKI?t=521
Here if you skip to 8:40 you can see an example of how co-operative play already fails to work, although by seeing the contraptions you get the impression, that it would be somewhat co-operative. It still makes a funny experience, i admit lol.
Well anyway, most of the time people either knock monsters out of each other's way or directly into each other during the monster's attack animation, or people don't get to attack something, because it was already killed by a team-member. That last part is actually not as significant, because there are usually enough monsters around for everyone.
In any case, one of the major factors in favour of teamplay were health-share revives. Health-share revives from my perspective made it possible to set a challenge to yourself. One benefit was, that you could focus on reviving somebody first, so in the case of a total wipeout, 1 person would become a source of hope. Another benefit was, that no matter how good you are, you can always get hit and reviving someone not only added some safety and a "challenge" to it, but it's always a good deed. Alot of the time nowadays a form of "assisting" somebody in a game is not an actual help. You are taking away or literally stealing their gameplay. But with health-share revive you were giving them gameplay. Sure, sometimes the pressure was too big for some people, but you could afford to be optimistic and they would always be welcome on the battle field. Nowadays you get the 1-of-2 situation where you are either the dead-weight or the elitist. It works a portion of the time, but the team spirit can never be the same. And if you run out of life, it just comes down to money..or "sparks of life". I don't mean to suggest bringing back the constantly increasing energy cost system, which would still be nice, if it wasn't tied to in-game money, let alone real money. But the idea of spending something to revive, especially something shiny, does not resonate with me very well.
And in the context of the health-share revives, it also makes no sense to me, why certain monsters were adjusted or "fixed". When zombies or retrodes kept aiming at a player instead of blindly attacking in 1 direction, it may have been difficult, but it also added a layer of challenge to the most-commonly-visited stages, making it actually reasonable to even bother thinking about a revive system.
The most endgame stages, that i have tryed, were so difficult, that i can't even think of beating them with all the sparks, that i can possibly save up. I don't think, that the health-share revives would make a difference for those kind of places..
Similarly, the droppable items like health pills, remedy pills, and vials were an essential benefit to party play !
And to me, these weren't some sort of fine-tuned mechanics, no..i viewed them as the beginning of the road, as an introduction, where i can hope to expect future improvements. But instead people viewed them as a flaw..and "fixed" them.
jeu, 09/02/2021 - 14:20
#2
This Game Wasn’t Actually Butchered, But Alright
>but this change would require significant changes to the code, which would have other effects on game play, some of which you might not foresee.
That’s the case for literally all types of game development and digital development in general.
dim, 09/05/2021 - 07:04
#3
yep
Yep. Writing high-quality code is hard. Also, balancing a game is hard.
dim, 09/05/2021 - 16:02
#4
what
There's more to just fixing the balancing a game or what ideas they removed. It's the fact there's people who are still behind the game and still don't do anything. Adding a career section would make it better if they want balancing for this game. There's some nerds and code experts in-game who can literally fix and add value more than Grey Havens could ever do. What is the purpose of running a game if you can't code or if at all add them?
Community has been way too nice and patient and there's literally no choice other than to assume that there is no one doing anything for the game. Funding the game or just selling it is the best option.
lun, 09/06/2021 - 00:34
#5
@bopp
The game is poorly balanced already, there is no need for thorough gameplay considerations, players will be glad just to have anything.
Shareability of belt items is not a major work but it enables a supportive role.
lun, 09/06/2021 - 07:49
#6
The game was intentionally
The game was intentionally reduced in complexity and challenge to provide children and casual players an easier time in the game. The idea was, easier game = more players = more $$. It is pg-13 after all.
Combine this with loot boxes, and you have a $$ generating machine....or so they thought. Would be cool to know how much they brought in each month, but that's private business.
Unfortunately, these changes caused players to leave fast, so it didn't seem to work out too well.
This is what happens when greed replaces passion in game ownership.
lun, 09/06/2021 - 16:42
#7
The true nature of my post
I don't think there is any point in saying what they want or what they can do.
As far as i can tell this game is not in a state of ready to change, but preserving something good and fun.
And the "community" has been heard over the past who knows how long. That's how all these changes came to be.
I have looked for posts to simply vent or join in, but i found ridiculous posts, that weren't at all in tune with what i wanted to say, and some, where people are still learning english by writing in forums.
Sure, there may have been a few people agreeing with my personal opinions, but for most part these were community-driven changes. I just wanted to write what i think as my personal opinion, so it is remembered in exactly that way. This isn't some kind of "this needs to change"-thread. And if you're going to call people "nerds", please keep it out. What i can say is very limited by how god or forum rules treat bad people and limit my ability to even talk back. Me writing this thread was already a big leap for me. I wrote it, so i may have said what i think inb4 there is nothing left but ruins of what once was. Certainly not with the same silly hopes of shaping the game. After attempting to make a game on my own it also becomes pretty obvious, that this is impossible. I don't know what kind of creative endeavours it requires and financial power, but i want to write what i think about an existing game, not try to push it, completely ignorant of who even owns the game, like you are doing.
Also, if you want to make more money, just re-enable paysafecard. I had bought a 100€ paysafecard, but after clicking on whatever picture advertised it, the option for actual paysafecard wasn't even there. Even the wiki hinted, that it's there. I had to ask for a refund at a 7.50€ fee. And i was going to spend a tad bit more, too. I am not so stupid to think, that my personal investments even make a difference. I have seen a video ridiculing the amount of pokémon, and the comments were instead picking on people, who have issues with too many pokémon. A video about too many pokémon being too hard to catch up to and yet the comments talking poorly about people with that very opinion. I didn't even leave a comment, because it was apparant to me, that these arrogant kids or people were the ones with any type of funding power, be it for the video creator, or the franchise, simply by out-numbering me lol. But yeah, having a financial transaction method available, that doesn't ask for people's private information and isn't shady in any way, would surely make a small difference. But then again, i do not know if there is any fee involved for adding a transaction method or if it would even be worth it.
I also appreciate Bopp's sane posts, but when trying to respond, i only seem to be able to write overly defensively, even if he is just agreeing with me, so i decided to not write anything, at all.
If people are just going to join with their unrealistic non-sense without any positivity, i'm going to move this to the graveyard at the risk, that i'm not even allowed to move posts to the graveyard* or at the risk of getting other disciplinary measures. I wanted to write what >>I<< think, and not what others think.
Sure, you can argue, that this is a forum for discussing things, but all of humanity would have to learn to behave before attempting to do that..
*maybe i can, i'm not really sure - pretty sure trade forum people do it all the time, although the context is different
mar, 09/28/2021 - 09:33
#8
Thank you thankfully but No-Thanks!
> Sure, you can argue, that this is a forum for discussing things, but all of humanity would have to learn to behave before attempting to do that..
Congratulations on that big leap! I’m aware that writing online might seem quite scary since there’s no vocal intonations or facial expressions to allow people to know what you mean which may lead to confusion. Additionally attempting to do what exactly? Also the name of this forum is literally “general discussion”. In addition to this if you’re worried about being banned due to unsavory word usage you could always try to use silly language to mask things such as fluster cluck, duck, flipping and et cetera. Use your imagination!
If I understand correctly...
Your main objection is that health-share reviving was an important kind of teamwork. I agree. There were many complaints when this feature was removed.
Your second objection is that some of the AI has been weakened. I tend to agree, although it's not all bad. For example, wolvers no longer track their target while they attack, but instead we have gorgos with approximately that style of attack.
Your third objection is that knights should be able to drop pickups, so that other knights can pick them up? I think that this is tightly tied to how treasure is allocated now. Everything is individual to the knight. I mean, I agree with you, but this change would require significant changes to the code, which would have other effects on game play, some of which you might not foresee.