PDA

View Full Version : What are your thoughts on the loot system?



Joe_Corleone
07-17-2016, 02:56 PM
Jason Vanderberghe said in an interview at E3 that there is a loot system that will drop weapon parts for us to basically craft our own weapons for each class. I'm wondering if this also includes armor, colors, emblems, etc. also if you will only get drops based on what class you're playing as or if you will get drops for all classes regardless of who you are. I think it's amazing that they are including a loot system. This game seems to have more and more content everytime we see it. Hype is very real.

bububoosh
07-17-2016, 05:28 PM
I personally love this. I have played looters all my life and didn't know that they were going to introduce this into the game. It will be cool to compare some of the stuff you get to your friends and be like "Ha I got this drop last night check it out". It will bring more community I think and more stuff to talk about on here so I am excited for it.

Chaf--
07-18-2016, 12:34 AM
I don't like it. At all.

This game attracts me because of the Art of Battle. This battle system is focused on watching your opponent, predict his moves, outsmart your opponent and manages your ressources. As we know, the game will have classes per faction. Each classes will have a fixed weapon, style, strength, speed and abilities that cannot be modified. And that's good, because it makes the game relying on the knowledge you have on the class you're playing and on the class the opponent is. This is really important, because with the time, automatisms and 1v1 strategies will be built to give FH a really grounded game to balance.

As Vanderberghe describes, the loot could change the abilities of your class. And this is really hurtful for the competitive aspect of the game. That makes the player not only rely on skill and knowledge, but also on the loot your character you'll have. Even if it's on the slightiest, it's still gonna impact the gameplay and that could be critical in certain situation, coasting you a match, because the opponent has better loot items than you. I'm not against the loot system, but it should be 100% cosmetic. Like cool armor pieces that you can color for your characters on each factions, so that makes encourage you to play every classes on every factions. But nothing more.

Also, competition on fixed characters and classes lets you showing your skill without having to play on your online profile. If loots are important, it makes offline and LAN tourneys really difficult to make, because usually, on tourney consoles/PCs, everything on the game will be by default. Lv1 characters should be able to beat Lv20 characters, if the Lv1 player actually outsmart the high ranked player.

bububoosh
07-18-2016, 01:44 AM
I don't like it. At all.
As Vanderberghe describes, the loot could change the abilities of your class. And this is really hurtful for the competitive aspect of the game. That makes the player not only rely on skill and knowledge, but also on the loot your character you'll have. Even if it's on the slightiest, it's still gonna impact the gameplay and that could be critical in certain situation, coasting you a match, because the opponent has better loot items than you. I'm not against the loot system, but it should be 100% cosmetic. Like cool armor pieces that you can color for your characters on each factions, so that makes encourage you to play every classes on every factions.
I don't think it will change anything in multiplayer though friend. I think having a certain item won't let you have an edge over someone without that item. Just like anything else people are going to have to learn combat styles no matter what.

Chaf--
07-18-2016, 01:55 AM
I don't think it will change anything in multiplayer though friend. I think having a certain item won't let you have an edge over someone without that item. Just like anything else people are going to have to learn combat styles no matter what.

Never underestimate how damaging a small change can do. Especially on high level play. Friendlies matches will never saw the difference if the loot system isn't as huge as, say, Dark Souls. But +5% here or -10% there could coast an entire match and change everything.

Fatal-Feit
07-18-2016, 04:27 AM
As Vanderberghe describes, the loot could change the abilities of your class.

Link?

Runic
07-18-2016, 04:44 AM
Link?

Agreed. A link would be great as I had not heard about this. Sounds interesting but I would like to know more.

MisterWillow
07-18-2016, 06:49 AM
Link?

(20:20)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo5K_pS6IBs

However, to say that the loot 'changes the abilities of your class' isn't entirely accurate, at least in regard to multiplayer.

To quote Jason "Your weapon has different pieces you get and you can mix and match. Each of those pieces has stats attached to it, and those stats are mostly going to be trade-offs, right? In the single player campaign, you'll have more of a power progression, and then you can bring some of those; the same idea, in multiplayer, where you can modify your stats. There won't be a power curve in multiplayer, of course, but you can modify your character, and customise the way you want to fight, with that gear." (bolded the relevant bits)

To me, all this means is that you'll be able to fine-tune a Hero to fit your playstyle, which, with the sort of system of trade-offs I'm imagining, can be easily implemented without compromising overall game balance.

For example, say you get a heaver blade, which will do more damage but will be slower to swing; or a heavier pommel that will increase speed but, say, decrease blocking (so, you'll incur greater chip damage while defending---or incur some where you otherwise might not, like light attacks). Armour could be the same way---heavier pieces may protect you more, add an additional segment to your health bar (in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B6FeU0kKyk), for example, you'll notice the Sugoki has more than the Raider), but may restrict how far you are able to dash or overall movement speed, or affect how much stamina is used when attacking (again, all hypothetical).

Additionally, they could have this be done without having a bunch of different variations or literal 'stats' attached to the multiplayer gear. They could subdivide equipment very simply into Light, Heavy and Balanced, and then make a hundred different cosmetic pieces to fit into each one of those. It would all be fairly self-explanatory, I think---Light equipment allowing freer, faster movement while making your character more vulnerable to damage, and perhaps dealing a bit less overall, but also using less stamina, Heavy equipment slowing you down while allowing you to absorb damage and dish it out more, and using more stamina, and Balanced equipment being a middleground between the two---but that way they avoid making it like a literal 'shooter with swords' like The Division or Destiny, where you need that epic loot with 500% damage buffs or whatever, while giving the player an additional level of customisation, and still having a plethora of cosmetic options.

Fatal-Feit
07-18-2016, 07:15 AM
Thanks for the link and timestamp. :)

Going by how he described the loot system as weapons having various pieces with different stats attached, I believe it'll be more like how Evolve Stage 2 is handling its perk system. With perks, you don't exactly have any subtractions to stats, but you do have a limited (3) amount of perks with bonuses and upgrades to choose from, allowing for a variety of customizations and play styles. e.g. - a monster you chose could be slow with high defense and you could focus on buffing the speed. I like this because it gives players a sense of progression without feeling like they've lost something in the process.

MisterWillow
07-18-2016, 09:12 AM
Going by how he described the loot system as weapons having various pieces with different stats attached, I believe it'll be more like how Evolve Stage 2 is handling its perk system. With perks, you don't exactly have any subtractions to stats, but you do have a limited (3) amount of perks with bonuses and upgrades to choose from, allowing for a variety of customizations and play styles. e.g. - a monster you chose could be slow with high defense and you could focus on buffing the speed. I like this because it gives players a sense of progression without feeling like they've lost something in the process.

I haven't played Evolve, so I could be misunderstanding, but I really don't want a system where players can augment their weaknesses without being compromised in another way.

In single player, that's fine, but in multiplayer, something like that would open up room for ultimate builds where certain players have the best of all worlds (or close to it), and when that's tied into progression, it could create a situation where newer players would be unnecessarily punished for not having the right gear.

Of course, there could have been a little slip of the tongue in that interview, when he said 'you can bring some of those' and then stopped himself, he could mean that you keep everything you get in singleplayer to use in multiplayer, with all the stats that constitute the campaign's power curve removed. In that scenario, it would be less of an issue, but I'd prefer the system I suggested above.

BoldAlphawolf
07-18-2016, 09:29 AM
At first i was alittle nervious i wanted a degree of customization but cosmetic only, then i head him say there wont be any power curve in multiplayer meaning no piece of gear is better then the next, i dont feel like the gear trade offs he talked about in multiplayer will mean mich at a high level simple because it all comes down to your skill at the end of the day this is why im going to love for honor all in all im cool with it

Fatal-Feit
07-18-2016, 11:05 AM
I haven't played Evolve, so I could be misunderstanding, but I really don't want a system where players can augment their weaknesses without being compromised in another way.

In single player, that's fine, but in multiplayer, something like that would open up room for ultimate builds where certain players have the best of all worlds (or close to it), and when that's tied into progression, it could create a situation where newer players would be unnecessarily punished for not having the right gear.


Of course, there could have been a little slip of the tongue in that interview, when he said 'you can bring some of those' and then stopped himself, he could mean that you keep everything you get in singleplayer to use in multiplayer, with all the stats that constitute the campaign's power curve removed. In that scenario, it would be less of an issue, but I'd prefer the system I suggested above.

Your idea does sound noble as it doesn't risk imbalancing the game, but I don't recall any other MP games using something like that and it may be because it doesn't actually make you feel rewarded by unlocking new weapon pieces. If the characters are losing health for more strength for that new weapon piece you unlocked, you may as well ignore it and every other weapon pieces in the future and keep using the vanilla stat.

You understood it correctly, but it's not exactly the penalty-free idea that you think it is. Evolve is a very balanced MP game despite its perk system and that's because every player has the option to use perks as well. If everyone is using perks, then no one is exactly at a disadvantage. And while I did focus on improving the speed of my monster, I missed out on increasing damage, eating speed, and other things that other things that could be equally handy. Think about it. The weakest part of my monster got improved, but the other aspects stayed the same. Alternatively, I could have improved the other aspects but left him slow. It's like your idea of Light, Heavy, Balanced, except the players can fine tune it themselves without a sense of false improvement. The idea of progression is what's most important, don't you think?

bububoosh
07-18-2016, 03:01 PM
with all the stats that constitute the campaign's power curve removed.
That is what I was kind of saying. You will still have the pieces in multiplayer but everything that it buffs in single player will drop off at multiplayer. There is no way the FH team would let it be that unbalanced. Then again I haven't seen these things in action.

AvarusTyrannus
07-18-2016, 05:57 PM
I'm wary of anything that manipulates stats. I'd prefer it to remain cosmetic, in my experience even if the gear has pros/cons rather than straight progressive tiered improvement, you'll always see one build favored over all others. Gamers excell at finding things to exploit, and I don't doubt for a second that given a range of options you'd find people all using one "build".

That plus the notion of RNG drops for said gear I think hurts the accessibility of the game, you might just not stand a chance against the " heavy blade light armor tactical foregrip holosight" play style if you don't have that gear or heaven forbid, any gear if you are new.

I realize it gives players something to grind for as well, but I'd argue you lose more than you gain. Safer to make it cosmetic or have hardcore servers where it is cosmetic only.



Evolve is a very balanced MP game


Hahahaha hahahaha hahahaha....ohhhh snap... I disagree. It wasn't balanced in the beta, at launch, in the year+ following launch, and CERTAINLY isn't balanced now.

ksatnodesaelp
07-18-2016, 06:50 PM
I personally can't think of very many games if any that have done the "side grade" option to upgrading equipment very well, a meta always forms and people will always crunch numbers and play the crap out of a game simply to figure out the most efficient and effective way of playing and what items are simply better despite what downsides might exist for it, and all of that would just be compounded by a loot system, I would much rather just have such a thing be for cosmetic items only and let Ubisoft focus on the much easier problem of balancing the classes. Then I could at least focus on making my character look cool instead of looking like a clown simply because it allows me to be some what competitive.

Fatal-Feit
07-18-2016, 08:17 PM
Hahahaha hahahaha hahahaha....ohhhh snap... I disagree. It wasn't balanced in the beta, at launch, in the year+ following launch, and CERTAINLY isn't balanced now.

How much time have you spent with the game? The general issue is that for newer/unexperienced players, there's a difficult learning curve (so much combination of hunters to understand) and it's hard for 4 players to work in unison. Supports like Hank can become the biggest nuisance for monsters as he stops players from taking damage, and if used right, almost invincible, while sometimes the player doesn't do their job and they get slaughtered in seconds. A lot of people called the Wraith OP, but then they call it under-powered when they use it and get rekt because of her low health. Sometimes people call the hunters OP, and then they express that they're under-powered since sometimes a monster murders them too quickly individually. I've just started ranked matches and it's pretty different from the normal matches, as the players know what they're doing so every matches have felt completely fair.

AvarusTyrannus
07-18-2016, 08:52 PM
How much time have you spent with the game? The general issue is that for newer/unexperienced players, there's a difficult learning curve (so much combination of hunters to understand) and it's hard for 4 players to work in unison. Supports like Hank can become the biggest nuisance for monsters as he stops players from taking damage, and if used right, almost invincible, while sometimes the player doesn't do their job and they get slaughtered in seconds. A lot of people called the Wraith OP, but then they call it under-powered when they use it and get rekt because of her low health. Sometimes people call the hunters OP, and then they express that they're under-powered since sometimes a monster murders them too quickly individually. I've just started ranked matches and it's pretty different from the normal matches, as the players know what they're doing so every matches have felt completely fair.

60-70hrs or there about. I'm aware of how the game works and there are many aspects I like, but it has numerous balance flaws which leads to most matches being decidedly one-sided. More on the topic the perks in Evolve both before and after going F2P I would not like to see in For Honor, I guess I'm old fashioned, but I like characters to be rather set. Skins are one things but altering how they work just leaves people out or promotes min/max exploit builds.

MisterWillow
07-18-2016, 09:49 PM
Your idea does sound noble as it doesn't risk imbalancing the game, but I don't recall any other MP games using something like that and it may be because it doesn't actually make you feel rewarded by unlocking new weapon pieces.

I disagree very strongly with that insinuation. Mechwarrior has similar trade-offs---higher powered lasers do much more damage and have much longer range, but overheat quickly, so you can only use them for small bursts, whereas you can do more sustained damage with lasers of lesser power; light mechs are quick and agile but because of weight and energy issues, can't equip very many weapons, and while Titans, for example, can hit very hard with heavy lasers, railguns, several rocket pods, etc, they are utterly helpless if a lighter mech gets close to them because they're so slow.

Overwatch offers nothing in the way of actual progression or upgrades, but everyone wants those skins regardless because they feel like they earned them (even if they're gained via RNG loot boxes).

Those might not be entirely analogous to the sort of system proposed for For Honor, but I also think there was a slight misunderstanding, which brings me to:


If the characters are losing health for more strength for that new weapon piece you unlocked, you may as well ignore it and every other weapon pieces in the future and keep using the vanilla stat.

They wouldn't be losing anything explicitly, because for every loss there would be a gain in another area. Health wouldn't be affected, but the amount of damage you'd sustain would (perhaps that's a semantic argument), and in exchange you gain or lose speed in movement, dash distance, and/or stamina consumption. Damage would affect attack speed---the harder you hit, the slower you swing. Reach could also be this way---say, you equip a longer blade on your Odachi, so you have a wider swing, and are able to hit people at a (slightly) greater distance than usual, but moving such a blade requires greater leverage, so you swing slower, or there's a longer 'wind up', if you will, so all your attacks could be slightly more telegraphed. But that might be more applicable to polearms---longer hafts, longer reach, slower swings, etc.

Beyond that, every character would have a base stat for everything. The Warden, for example, is a quintessential balanced character---not too fast, not too slow, attacks do moderate damage, has moderate damage protection---but if you equip a full suit of light armour, he could move around like the Oni, but be more vulnerable to damage, and if you keep his base weapon, it would still be slower to swing than if you equip a lighter blade, which would then do less damage. So, you could never make a Warden an Oni (or vice-versa) because the Oni is inherently a glass cannon---high damage, low defense---and in order to match one for the other in either damage, protection, or speed, the Oni would need to wear so much heavy gear that he loses his mobility, and the Warden would need a heavier blade, which would sacrifice attack speed.

None of these changes would need to be monumental either. In the case of armour, for example, every character would start with balanced gear, and in order to have visibly more or less damage protection (or, add a segment to their health bar), they'd need to equip more than half their character with light or heavy equipment. Assuming you have six or seven pieces of armour for each character---helmet, (2) pauldrons, breastplate, tasset, greaves, boots---you'd need three or four to lose or gain an entire segment. If you mix and match, though, you might not change your character's performance at all.

None of this is taking the inherent faction differences into account, either. In the trade-offs between Oni and Warden, for example, the Oni is much faster than the Warden by default, so you couldn't match the Oni for both damage and attack speed no matter what you did. Even with the Kensei, which would be the Warden's more natural analogue, he was noticeably quicker than the Raider and Warden---not to the extent of the Oni, of course, but it was still perceptible. If you had a Warden with a light blade, heavy pommel, narrow cross-guard (the quickest sword possible), against a Kensei with a heavy blade, heavy kashira, heavy tsuba (the slowest sword possible), the Warden would have the speed edge when attacking, but would need to hit his opponent at least twice as many times and be more vulnerable to chip damage.


You understood it correctly, but it's not exactly the penalty-free idea that you think it is. Evolve is a very balanced MP game despite its perk system and that's because every player has the option to use perks as well. If everyone is using perks, then no one is exactly at a disadvantage. And while I did focus on improving the speed of my monster, I missed out on increasing damage, eating speed, and other things that other things that could be equally handy. Think about it. The weakest part of my monster got improved, but the other aspects stayed the same. Alternatively, I could have improved the other aspects but left him slow. It's like your idea of Light, Heavy, Balanced, except the players can fine tune it themselves without a sense of false improvement. The idea of progression is what's most important, don't you think?

What little I know about Evolve makes me think that it's difficult to compare For Honor with Evolve in the way you're attempting, for a couple of reasons.

A progression system works in the way that it does in Evolve because every new match is a clean slate. Everyone starts at level 1 and improves their abilities during that match, but when a new match starts everyone's back at square one. The way you improved your monster in the match you described existed for that match, and in the next one you could choose to improve the other aspects. But, like I said, I've never played it, and I heard they changed things with the move to free-to-play, so it still could be a misunderstanding on my part.

If that is the case, though, any equipment changes you make to your character in For Honor would carry over to every match you play with that equipment.

The second reason has to do with the rationale of the world. It makes sense in the world of Evolve for the monster to increase their abilities, the hunters to upgrade their gear, because the universe calls for it, and nobody can argue with it, really, because the thematic elements are entirely fantastical. For Honor is attempting to approximate realistic (or at least semi-realistic) combat mechanics of a vaguely medieval timeframe, when people wore armour and beat each other to death with hunks of metal, and that comes with a certain level of reference from the real world, since we know (at least vaguely) what that entails, because we are able to recreate it up until the point that someone actually dies. The dynamic of using a heavier or lighter blade on a sword, or wearing a heavier or lighter set of armour and having stamina, attack speed, and whatever else be affected is analogous to the real world---it requires very little in the way of suspension of disbelief---and that's why I proposed it the way I did.

Fatal-Feit
07-19-2016, 01:15 AM
60-70hrs or there about. I'm aware of how the game works and there are many aspects I like, but it has numerous balance flaws which leads to most matches being decidedly one-sided.

Ha, I'm 60-70 hours in, too. If you don't want to get off-topic in this thread, could you PM me what you think are some balancing flaws?


More on the topic the perks in Evolve both before and after going F2P I would not like to see in For Honor, I guess I'm old fashioned, but I like characters to be rather set. Skins are one things but altering how they work just leaves people out or promotes min/max exploit builds.

Someone mentioned that earlier and while I do agree that there are people who will always find a way to exploit the system, a lack of upgrades won't keep them from doing that already. I wouldn't be surprise if there are characters that requires nerfing at launch or feats that needs to be dialed down. Overwatch has been tested numerously and it still needed some major adjustment for characters. But dropping the stat upgrade system in MP would probably be ideal, though, since it will allow them to focus more on the heroes themselves. I'm completely in favor of keeping progression as a cosmetic thing, just as long as there's no microtransaction like in Overwatch.


I disagree very strongly with that insinuation. Mechwarrior has similar trade-offs---higher powered lasers do much more damage and have much longer range, but overheat quickly, so you can only use them for small bursts, whereas you can do more sustained damage with lasers of lesser power; light mechs are quick and agile but because of weight and energy issues, can't equip very many weapons, and while Titans, for example, can hit very hard with heavy lasers, railguns, several rocket pods, etc, they are utterly helpless if a lighter mech gets close to them because they're so slow.

Overwatch offers nothing in the way of actual progression or upgrades, but everyone wants those skins regardless because they feel like they earned them (even if they're gained via RNG loot boxes).

Overwatch is a different comparison because there is no altering of the characters besides their looks. Nothing is actually affecting gameplay. It has a different sense of progression and reward.

As for Mechwarriors, I've never played that game but the way you described it does sound like it handles that upgrade system very appropriately. I'll give a response after the next quote.


Those might not be entirely analogous to the sort of system proposed for For Honor, but I also think there was a slight misunderstanding, which brings me to:

They wouldn't be losing anything explicitly, because for every loss there would be a gain in another area. Health wouldn't be affected, but the amount of damage you'd sustain would (perhaps that's a semantic argument), and in exchange you gain or lose speed in movement, dash distance, and/or stamina consumption. Damage would affect attack speed---the harder you hit, the slower you swing. Reach could also be this way---say, you equip a longer blade on your Odachi, so you have a wider swing, and are able to hit people at a (slightly) greater distance than usual, but moving such a blade requires greater leverage, so you swing slower, or there's a longer 'wind up', if you will, so all your attacks could be slightly more telegraphed. But that might be more applicable to polearms---longer hafts, longer reach, slower swings, etc.

Beyond that, every character would have a base stat for everything. The Warden, for example, is a quintessential balanced character---not too fast, not too slow, attacks do moderate damage, has moderate damage protection---but if you equip a full suit of light armour, he could move around like the Oni, but be more vulnerable to damage, and if you keep his base weapon, it would still be slower to swing than if you equip a lighter blade, which would then do less damage. So, you could never make a Warden an Oni (or vice-versa) because the Oni is inherently a glass cannon---high damage, low defense---and in order to match one for the other in either damage, protection, or speed, the Oni would need to wear so much heavy gear that he loses his mobility, and the Warden would need a heavier blade, which would sacrifice attack speed.

None of these changes would need to be monumental either. In the case of armour, for example, every character would start with balanced gear, and in order to have visibly more or less damage protection (or, add a segment to their health bar), they'd need to equip more than half their character with light or heavy equipment. Assuming you have six or seven pieces of armour for each character---helmet, (2) pauldrons, breastplate, tasset, greaves, boots---you'd need three or four to lose or gain an entire segment. If you mix and match, though, you might not change your character's performance at all.

None of this is taking the inherent faction differences into account, either. In the trade-offs between Oni and Warden, for example, the Oni is much faster than the Warden by default, so you couldn't match the Oni for both damage and attack speed no matter what you did. Even with the Kensei, which would be the Warden's more natural analogue, he was noticeably quicker than the Raider and Warden---not to the extent of the Oni, of course, but it was still perceptible. If you had a Warden with a light blade, heavy pommel, narrow cross-guard (the quickest sword possible), against a Kensei with a heavy blade, heavy kashira, heavy tsuba (the slowest sword possible), the Warden would have the speed edge when attacking, but would need to hit his opponent at least twice as many times and be more vulnerable to chip damage.

Thank you for the detailed explanation. Both of our ideas are actually very similar, as play styles can change and both versions have trade-offs. Hopefully I can explain it properly.

Let's say, every character start with an even 20 stat points with up to 4 weapon pieces to change, and Orochi has 4 defense, 8 attack, and 8 speed--4/8/8--while the Warden has 7/7/6. It's more complex than that, as you've explained, but let's keep it simple for the sake of comparison. Your idea is to make the upgrades a trade-off, so for example, a fully upgraded Orochi would be 2/9/9 because the player prefers the offensive; while the Warden is 9/9/2. They're all balanced as before and they each simply focused on improving their strengths in favor or lessening their weaknesses.

My idea doesn't really change that so much. Like before, 4/8/8 for the Orochi and 7/7/6 for the Warden. The only difference is that there isn't any trade-off, however it's important to note that the upgrades are still limited to 4. So the Orochi could be 4/10/10 and the Warden, 8/8/8. They have more stats and while the Warden improved his weakness, the Orochi improved its attack and speed to make up for it.

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying it, but I think the only difference is in how players perceive these changes, and I think the idea of having trade-offs don't make me feel rewarded like pure enhancements would.

Also, did we get any mentioning that equipment change will be related to stats as well, like you described? Because that'd be great.


What little I know about Evolve makes me think that it's difficult to compare For Honor with Evolve in the way you're attempting, for a couple of reasons.

A progression system works in the way that it does in Evolve because every new match is a clean slate. Everyone starts at level 1 and improves their abilities during that match, but when a new match starts everyone's back at square one. The way you improved your monster in the match you described existed for that match, and in the next one you could choose to improve the other aspects. But, like I said, I've never played it, and I heard they changed things with the move to free-to-play, so it still could be a misunderstanding on my part.

Yes and no. Also, sorry for not being able to explain it properly. Only the monster can level up during the match (up to level 3) but it's not related to any perk-like enhancements and before the match begins, everyone has the option to choose their character, their skin, and their 3 perks. It's similar to how For Honor is handling its loadouts. Monsters leveling up could also be compared to how feats. are unlocked mid-match, as it primarily unlocks and enhances their skills and they both revert in the beginning of the next match.


The second reason has to do with the rationale of the world. It makes sense in the world of Evolve for the monster to increase their abilities, the hunters to upgrade their gear, because the universe calls for it, and nobody can argue with it, really, because the thematic elements are entirely fantastical. For Honor is attempting to approximate realistic (or at least semi-realistic) combat mechanics of a vaguely medieval timeframe, when people wore armour and beat each other to death with hunks of metal, and that comes with a certain level of reference from the real world, since we know (at least vaguely) what that entails, because we are able to recreate it up until the point that someone actually dies. The dynamic of using a heavier or lighter blade on a sword, or wearing a heavier or lighter set of armour and having stamina, attack speed, and whatever else be affected is analogous to the real world---it requires very little in the way of suspension of disbelief---and that's why I proposed it the way I did.

I actually don't know how to reply to this because I don't understand the argument. It's probably because I misunderstand your point, so please correct me if I'm off on something. I really like the way For Honor is handling its upgrade system more because it's using equipment, and you described it pretty well, but I don't think presentation makes them THAT different. My argument is mostly based on how they should present stats. Evolve is just an example of how upgrades can solely focus on bonuses.

Although, in case it hasn't been made clear, Evolve has a limited of set of perks that everyone can use. It's all transparent; nobody can farm for the best stats like in Destiny.

MisterWillow
07-19-2016, 03:44 AM
Overwatch is a different comparison because there is no altering of the characters besides their looks. Nothing is actually affecting gameplay. It has a different sense of progression and reward.

I know it's different, and perhaps inappropriate, given that nothing changes, but I was coming at it from your premise of not having a sense reward from unlocks because there isn't any character growth from it. Nothing changes, and yet people still feel rewarded.


Let's say, every character start with an even 20 stat points with up to 4 weapon pieces to change, and Orochi has 4 defense, 8 attack, and 8 speed--4/8/8--while the Warden has 7/7/6. It's more complex than that, as you've explained, but let's keep it simple for the sake of comparison. Your idea is to make the upgrades a trade-off, so for example, a fully upgraded Orochi would be 2/9/9 because the player prefers the offensive; while the Warden is 9/9/2. They're all balanced as before and they each simply focused on improving their strengths in favor or lessening their weaknesses.

My idea doesn't really change that so much. Like before, 4/8/8 for the Orochi and 7/7/6 for the Warden. The only difference is that there isn't any trade-off, however it's important to note that the upgrades are still limited to 4. So the Orochi could be 4/10/10 and the Warden, 8/8/8. They have more stats and while the Warden improved his weakness, the Orochi improved its attack and speed to make up for it.

I see where our differences are. You want a more literal sense of character improvement---and I imagine in the campaign you'll get that---and I'd prefer a system of customisation, with a set of pieces to alter aspects of them.

To take your example---and to complicate it probably more than it needs to be---allow me to paint a picture real quick of how I imagine this will work.

First, instead of giving everyone a certain number of points, let's establish a middle-ground and go from there. Say that the Warden, Raider and Kensei are that middle-ground, the respective balanced characters of their factions---since that's the impression I get anyway. Now, divide their customisation between armour and weapons. Take into account the inherent faction differences---that being, in my opinion, defense (Knights), offense (Vikings), and speed (Samurai). Delineate between stats governed by armour changes---damage resistance (DR), movement speed (MS), dash distance (DD), and stamina usage (SU)---and weapon part changes---attack speed (AS), attack damage (AD), and chip damage (CD). And finally, establish that 10 is the exact middle of every scale, and recognise that stamina usage and chip damage use golf scoring (lower numbers are better).

Each Hero would be different, since the Orochi seems like he has less armour pieces, for example, than the others, and the Raider has fewer pieces for his weapon, but in characters that have the most options available, armour-wise, you have the proposed 7 pieces---helmet, cuirass, tasset, boots, and 2 pauldrons---and weapon wise you'd have 4---blade, cross-guard, hilt/haft, and pommel.

So, to take the Warden, with base gear, his 'stats' would be, in order, DR=11 MS=10 DD=10 SU=10 AS=10 AD=10 CD=9, but if you want to buff his defense and raise his attack power, make him a pseudo-tank, load him down with all heavy armour and give him a heavy blade, wide cross-guard, and heavy pommel, you'd end up with DR=18 MS=3 DD=3 SU=3 AS=3 AD=17 CD=2. Now, in this setup, you'd have something closer to a Sugoki, slow, lumbering, but very well protected character, which might fit your playstyle more, but you would still disadvantaged you if you run up against a tank or glass cannon, since the tank could match you for damage resistance (especially if he's also wearing heavy gear), and the glass cannon could run circles around you. So, you can make little adjustments, swap the blade for a balanced one, or some armour pieces for light ones, and end up with something like DR=8 MS=13 DD=13 SU=13 AS=11 AD=11 CD=10.

And since someone will probably ask, the Raider's base stats would be DR=10 MS=9 DD=9 SU=10 AS=9 AD=11 CD=10 and the Kensei's would be DR=10 MS=11 DD=11 SU=9 AS=11 AD=10 CD=10.

I know that that's fairly complicated---once again, probably more than it needs to be---but all of this would be background information, without the various stat bars shown in most shooters, so they could even go half numbers with most of this, to make it so you don't have quite as large a divergence between all light and all heavy gear. Or use something different (since I'm certain they already have their own system in place). That's just an approximation of how I think it will work.


Perhaps I'm oversimplifying it, but I think the only difference is in how players perceive these changes, and I think the idea of having trade-offs don't make me feel rewarded like pure enhancements would.

Maybe not, but pure enhancements inherently disadvantages new players who lack the playtime required to unlock new pieces of gear. Having a system of trade-offs mitigates that as much as possible without making the unlock system entirely cosmetic, which, for the record, I would much prefer.


Also, did we get any mentioning that equipment change will be related to stats as well, like you described? Because that'd be great.

Already provided. (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1472372-What-are-your-thoughts-on-the-loot-system?p=11839755&viewfull=1#post11839755) I realise there's a certain level of interpretation involved, but I think he's as clear about it being a 'system of trade-offs' and how 'there won't be a power curve in multiplayer' as he can be without demonstrating the system.


Yes and no. Also, sorry for not being able to explain it properly. Only the monster can level up during the match (up to level 3) but it's not related to any perk-like enhancements and before the match begins, everyone has the option to choose their character, their skin, and their 3 perks. It's similar to how For Honor is handling its loadouts. Monsters leveling up could also be compared to how feats. are unlocked mid-match, as it primarily unlocks and enhances their skills and they both revert in the beginning of the next match.

Although, in case it hasn't been made clear, Evolve has a limited of set of perks that everyone can use. It's all transparent; nobody can farm for the best stats like in Destiny.

That's what I thought. Again, a misunderstanding on my part.

That sounds more like something like the Call of Duty perk system. Slap on Juggernaut, Flak Jacket, and Ghost (is that dating me?) and now you're invisible on radar and can take several extra shots and a grenade to the face. And that makes me like it less, honestly.

I also recognise that might be an unfair comparison, since CoD has everyone with the same stats, instead of having the weaknesses you've described in Evolve that need improvement, but if that sort of system were implemented in For Honor, all I can foresee happening is people improving the defense of the Orochi, so he's got high damage without the detriment of low defense.


I actually don't know how to reply to this because I don't understand the argument. It's probably because I misunderstand your point, so please correct me if I'm off on something. I really like the way For Honor is handling its upgrade system more because it's using equipment, and you described it pretty well, but I don't think presentation makes them THAT different. My argument is mostly based on how they should present stats. Evolve is just an example of how upgrades can solely focus on bonuses.

No, it's my fault. I was making a thematic argument in a thread regarding mechanics again. :p

I was just saying that the augmentation in Evolve could be seen as thematically consistent, being that it's a science fiction setting, so you can rationalise certain things that you can't in a setting like For Honor's. It's also a part of why I dislike the Revenge mechanic, at least how it looks. You can say that your adrenaline kicks in, so you psychologically repress pain and gain a burst of strength, etc. but I think it's difficult to justify a perk system without being like 'yeah, my guy worked out some, so he's faster now'.

It was a tangent from me without very much relevance in this particular discussion, so feel free to ignore it if it makes the debate easier.

Quikkfeet
07-19-2016, 06:02 PM
I wouldn't mind the looting system, It will show how creative the fighters/players will be and individuality in their play styles. As long as there's a trade-off like he mentioned, I don't see a problem with it.Gaining a lot of attack while sacrificing defense. I'm sure depending on the class you choose there will be limitations on how far you can change the stats. Either way i'm ok with it.

Joe_Corleone
07-20-2016, 09:40 AM
Wow...I didn't think it would gain this type of response. I have complete faith it will be balanced. Jason said no power curve, just stats that will allow you to adjust to your play style. I want to create my own weapons and armor, and as long as there's no power curve, I'm sure it's gonna be fantastic.

waraidako
07-20-2016, 10:46 AM
As long as there are no microtransactions involved I'm cool with it.

AvarusTyrannus
07-21-2016, 12:06 AM
As long as there are no microtransactions involved I'm cool with it.

I'd say the chances of that are slim to none, can't think of a game with RNG loot crates that doesn't have micro transactions.

NexiKuro
07-21-2016, 12:30 AM
There will always be "a build" or "a class", so I don't think adding a perk/equipment system would change a lot. Of course the main rule has to be that you need to be able to focus on a class(in terms of customization) and make it viable easily, so the game is going to need some kind of crafting system. You can't expect people to rely on RNG alone to get to the build they want and also expect any kind of competitive play.

Overwatch proves that if you have a good enough cosmetic system with various rarities(the rarities make the system) people will find progression there anyway. So whether or not they do add a perk/equipment system is fairly irrelevant as long as their customization system is strong enough, if it isn't the equipment system could pick up the slack but that would still need to be well designed on it's own.

I'd be fine with them ripping off the system blizzard uses for their crafting: You can break items you don't need down for a number of tokens depending on the rarity and then use those tokens to "craft" the items you want. The ratio isn't very important but you should be able to work your way into finishing a class by discarding everything you don't 100% need in a reasonable amount of time. That way competitive players can get where they want to go without a lot of tedium, and the rest of us can grow our collection of stuff and have progression that way.

waraidako
07-21-2016, 01:02 PM
I'd say the chances of that are slim to none, can't think of a game with RNG loot crates that doesn't have micro transactions.

I mean more like Counter-Strike where you have to buy a key for the loot crates. That's horsemanure. Being able to buy loot crates themselves I don't care about. You do you. But everything should be unlockable for free, and with reasonable effort. None of this "You could technically grind for 20 hours for one item, or you could buy it for 5 bucks".

If I pay $60 for the game, I expect the entirety of the game. Nothing should be hidden behind a paywall.

Chaf--
07-21-2016, 02:36 PM
To quote Jason "Your weapon has different pieces you get and you can mix and match. Each of those pieces has stats attached to it, and those stats are mostly going to be trade-offs, right? In the single player campaign, you'll have more of a power progression, and then you can bring some of those; the same idea, in multiplayer, where you can modify your stats. There won't be a power curve in multiplayer, of course, but you can modify your character, and customise the way you want to fight, with that gear." (bolded the relevant bits)

To me, all this means is that you'll be able to fine-tune a Hero to fit your playstyle, which, with the sort of system of trade-offs I'm imagining, can be easily implemented without compromising overall game balance.

For example, say you get a heaver blade, which will do more damage but will be slower to swing; or a heavier pommel that will increase speed but, say, decrease blocking (so, you'll incur greater chip damage while defending---or incur some where you otherwise might not, like light attacks). Armour could be the same way---heavier pieces may protect you more, add an additional segment to your health bar (in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B6FeU0kKyk), for example, you'll notice the Sugoki has more than the Raider), but may restrict how far you are able to dash or overall movement speed, or affect how much stamina is used when attacking (again, all hypothetical).

Additionally, they could have this be done without having a bunch of different variations or literal 'stats' attached to the multiplayer gear. They could subdivide equipment very simply into Light, Heavy and Balanced, and then make a hundred different cosmetic pieces to fit into each one of those. It would all be fairly self-explanatory, I think---Light equipment allowing freer, faster movement while making your character more vulnerable to damage, and perhaps dealing a bit less overall, but also using less stamina, Heavy equipment slowing you down while allowing you to absorb damage and dish it out more, and using more stamina, and Balanced equipment being a middleground between the two---but that way they avoid making it like a literal 'shooter with swords' like The Division or Destiny, where you need that epic loot with 500% damage buffs or whatever, while giving the player an additional level of customisation, and still having a plethora of cosmetic options.

Ok, I think you guys needs an example to understand what I mean.

Let's pretend that FH became big. At least, big enough to have an important LAN championship somewhere. Every players will play on consoles/PCs that aren't their own, without their saves, their customs or loots. They'll play LV1 heroes. Imagine that I'm used to a "slighty modified" Warden, that is lighter but faster. But just by a slighty bit. No big deal. Because I don't have the loot I'm used to and the one that need to play the game during 20+ hours to have, I have no choice, but to pick default Warden. I'm used to the game and I'm used to fight against Shugoki. I know that with a strict timing, I can parry after recovering from a hit I made on his guard. But the recovering speed is different, by only a tiny bit. 3 frames max. That throw-off my timing and let the Shugoki kill me.

Never underestimate how much impact a "slighty bit" of loot can do in your playstyle. At high-level play, fraction of seconds is less than enough to throw you completely off guard. With the siimplicity of controls FH will give us, I have no doubt this high-level thinking will be quickly obtained by people. In fighting games, a slighty bigger hitbox or less frames of recovery after a hit can completely return a matchup upside down. FH is the same deal, but on a layer. Another layer will be the feat usage and another one will be teamplay.

My take on this subject is simple: No compromises. Every one should have the same exact gameplay and mobility on a hero, no matter if you're LV1 or LV20. The customization purpose should be cosmetics only. Nothing less, nothing more. After that, we can fairly call that a real competitive game with fair and tight balance.

MisterWillow
07-21-2016, 07:15 PM
Let's pretend that FH became big. At least, big enough to have an important LAN championship somewhere. Every players will play on consoles/PCs that aren't their own, without their saves, their customs or loots. They'll play LV1 heroes. Imagine that I'm used to a "slighty modified" Warden, that is lighter but faster. But just by a slighty bit. No big deal. Because I don't have the loot I'm used to and the one that need to play the game during 20+ hours to have, I have no choice, but to pick default Warden. I'm used to the game and I'm used to fight against Shugoki. I know that with a strict timing, I can parry after recovering from a hit I made on his guard. But the recovering speed is different, by only a tiny bit. 3 frames max. That throw-off my timing and let the Shugoki kill me.

In that scenerio, the event organizers should prepare enough that each character has one of each piece with one of each spec available for players to customise to fit their playstyle. Remember, the system I proposed only has Heavy Light and Balanced for each piece, not 'stats' in an RPG sense. Everything else is just cosmetic, so a player who played for 20+ hours may have a Hero who looks cooler, but the Hero itself wouldn't function any differently than a player's who's only played for 2-5 with the same loadout.

Of course, the sorts of people who are in tournaments (especially important ones) tend to experiment a lot, and so would probably be familiar with a handful of options, and would thus be able to adjust themselves to fit the environment. And, if they are otherwise restricted to all-stock Heroes, tournaments like that require registration weeks or months in advance, and so would provide players an opportunity to re-familiarise themselves with all balanced gear.


My take on this subject is simple: No compromises. Every one should have the same exact gameplay and mobility on a hero, no matter if you're LV1 or LV20. The customization purpose should be cosmetics only. Nothing less, nothing more. After that, we can fairly call that a real competitive game with fair and tight balance.

For the record, I agree that everything should be entirely cosmetic. I'm just going by what Jason said in an interview, and the system I outlined, in my opinion, would be the least compromising compromise they could make, since it would allow for mechanical customisation without spoiling the overall balance.

Chaf--
07-22-2016, 11:28 AM
In that scenerio, the event organizers should prepare enough that each character has one of each piece with one of each spec available for players to customise to fit their playstyle. Remember, the system I proposed only has Heavy Light and Balanced for each piece, not 'stats' in an RPG sense. Everything else is just cosmetic, so a player who played for 20+ hours may have a Hero who looks cooler, but the Hero itself wouldn't function any differently than a player's who's only played for 2-5 with the same loadout.

What about when you have a lot of those loot pieces? That means TOs will have to unlock every single consoles with every single loot pieces. Maybe the customisation settings will be elsewhere in the menu, instead of right when you start a game. Means that players has to quit the LAN lobbies, customs, "oh ****, I forgot something", go back, do it again. And wait every single loading screens between all of this. So, for a single match, we have to count twice the time per matches to count the setups AND the game. As a guy who ran Splatoon tournaments, trust me, this is balls busting. And this is why LAN consoles tourneys are not big at all.

The solution would be to have a toggle in online lobbies that nullify every loot things. So, everything that is added to your hero will be cosmetics and other lobbies can go ham on their shiny stuffs, while tourney rules will forces this.

BoldAlphawolf
07-22-2016, 11:51 PM
In serious tournaments they dont play moded everything is default, some tournaments dont even let you bring your own controller. like the wow arena tournaments for example you play with marco's when playing casual an stuff but on a world stage you cant use them there are part of the game, but give a competitive edge to those who use them to the maxium, i was alittle conerned about mutiplayer until it was offically said there wont be a power curve i trust that they are going to make a good balanced game, three frames isnt small btw thats huge in a 2D fighter's like mortal kombat or tekken, but i seen what you where trying to say, with three stances being able to feign attacks guard breaks having to mind your stance an your opponents stance the entire time, i think frame counting wont be the end all be all we see in typical fighting games not to mention this isnt a fighter lol, just have faith in the them we are all going to love this game

Chaf--
07-23-2016, 01:08 AM
In serious tournaments they dont play moded everything is default, some tournaments dont even let you bring your own controller. like the wow arena tournaments for example you play with marco's when playing casual an stuff but on a world stage you cant use them there are part of the game, but give a competitive edge to those who use them to the maxium, i was alittle conerned about mutiplayer until it was offically said there wont be a power curve i trust that they are going to make a good balanced game, three frames isnt small btw thats huge in a 2D fighter's like mortal kombat or tekken, but i seen what you where trying to say, with three stances being able to feign attacks guard breaks having to mind your stance an your opponents stance the entire time, i think frame counting wont be the end all be all we see in typical fighting games not to mention this isnt a fighter lol, just have faith in the them we are all going to love this game

The BYOC part is true. Especially in fighting games. The default console part isn't. A lot of those events will have sponsor consoles or special event consoles, like the one you see in demonstration. Nothing more, unless players brings their own consoles.

The whole "frame" part is different from a lot of games. The fastest hit in Tekken 7) is 11 frames. The fastest in Street Fighter V is 3. But SFV has 8F of lag, too, so you also have to anticipate your movements. And Tekken has like 10F of lag aswell. A lot of hits in MKX is like 8 or 10 frames on startup, but I don't know that much about this game. And every games has frame counting, startup animations and suck. Any game that has hitboxes, hurtboxes and real time fightings is affected by frame counting. FH is no exception.

This is even worse, because FH will be a 3-way guard system. Tekken and any 3D games inspired by Virtua Fighter have all 3-way guard systems as well. Except the mix up is High/Mid/Low, while FH has Top/Left/Right. Outside of that, this will be the same deal. In Tekken, you have "whiff punishing", when a movement with a lot of recovery is whiffed and when you can punish it with faster strikes. I have no problem seeing a Shugoki, whiffing his strong attack and a Raider, punishing it with his light string.

If you pick a 1v1 situation, with the AoB, a small and circular map and the 12 (?) default heroes, this is 100% a fighting game. An Arena Fighter, even, on the same boat as Naruto, DBZ, Pokkén, Gundam... And this is why I'm here. Because it's more than that. It's also a team-play shooter-like game, with areas to cover and special abilities to use in long-range battles.

And this is why I'm insisting on that point. This is why we need the most default characters with default abilities. There will be too much to analyse if this loot system is added to the competitive aspect of the game. It doesn't seems like too much, tho. But think about every levels. Not just day one and online-only.

I just hope everything we say in this forum will be at least checked by the dev team, so they can think about it.

BoldAlphawolf
07-23-2016, 04:33 PM
there aint a power curve so someone at lvl 2o isnt stronger then someone at lvl 1, idk i think more of your skill comes into a game like this how good you are at the art of battle not how fast you came memorize every character's combo strings an and know which frames are negative an just punish them imo that ant skill thats mathmatics , in a game like this because of the AOB every character will be affective on a competition level not just these select few like we see in other games.

yote224
07-24-2016, 08:12 PM
I'm all for the weapon customization with loot drops. On a long enough timeline everyone will have everything available to them no matter how it's done (barring hardcash) so I don't see equipment giving folks that much of an edge over someone else and even so it won't be for long. I don't think a recent game like this has ever launched where things weren't patched down the road so I'm expecting to see some minor tweaks here and there because that's just what happens with these things.

Maccaroth
07-25-2016, 08:28 AM
I wouldn't mind the loot system being entirely cosmetic but in that case I doubt they'd bother making some sort of non-cosmetic system for the singleplayer aspect of the game alone. "Being able to modify your stats" sounds awful and contradicts the statement about no power curve. It's the same idea after all. There will be a power curve. If only because you will be able to stack certain stats and gain advantage that way. This is really worrying.

ksatnodesaelp
07-25-2016, 06:19 PM
As much as I'd rather there be no gear with stats there's still ways that they could minimize such a power curve, such as letting you get all the relevant upgrades within the first 5 or 10 levels and the rest of the game levels are more focused on cosmetic items or items that are exactly the same stat wise but give a different look to your character.

AvarusTyrannus
07-26-2016, 01:00 AM
As much as I'd rather there be no gear with stats there's still ways that they could minimize such a power curve, such as letting you get all the relevant upgrades within the first 5 or 10 levels and the rest of the game levels are more focused on cosmetic items or items that are exactly the same stat wise but give a different look to your character.

They just better expect things to have to be rebalanced often as people find build exploits.

xDarkMACx
07-26-2016, 01:40 AM
A loot system seems pointless if it doesn't offer a power curve and only be cosmetic. There would be no incentive to grind for gear at all. If items do give/take, that might be worthwhile. For example, giving 5 offense and taking 5 defense would help out in weak areas. That would still make a power curve though. Another way to do something with loot in SP and MP could be to establish 2 separate gamertags but this would also make myself and I imagine others to not play one of the game modes.

I am also concerned with the longevity of this game if the loot doesn't add to the power curve. Say what you want about the COD franchise but those games have longevity. I'm not a fan of COD games but I'm not blind to its success. There is no loot in COD but there are unlockable items and microtransactions. As far as MP goes, in my experience, most players do not have a power curve on items. There is a somewhat of a power curve as items take longer to unlock are generally stronger than the ones that can be unlocked early. Forget about game, I know one is a shooter and the other an action/adventure, I'm talking about loot/unlockables/items.

When I think of loot based games, I think of the Diablo franchise. I played all 3 Diablo games and I enjoy them. When I play any of those games, I don't login to find loot that doesn't affect my build but gives me a power curve against my enemies. Saying that a game will have loot but not give a power curve makes me think that the developers don't know what they are doing. I hope I'm wrong because the game looks fun from seeing some videos.

MisterWillow
07-26-2016, 04:28 AM
A loot system seems pointless if it doesn't offer a power curve and only be cosmetic. There would be no incentive to grind for gear at all.

Tell that to Overwatch players grinding loot-boxes to get skins that do nothing.


If items do give/take, that might be worthwhile. For example, giving 5 offense and taking 5 defense would help out in weak areas. That would still make a power curve though.

Not really. Every advantage creates a disadvantage, so it's more a method of customisation instead of improvement.

That doesn't mean it can't be unbalanced, of course. For example, a Shugoki equips a bunch of gear that increases defense and decreases offense (to take your example). He's already got plenty of both, so even if is attack damage goes down to the level of the Warden, the buff in defense would make him nigh invincible for all the extra armour.


I am also concerned with the longevity of this game if the loot doesn't add to the power curve. Say what you want about the COD franchise but those games have longevity. I'm not a fan of COD games but I'm not blind to its success. There is no loot in COD but there are unlockable items and microtransactions. As far as MP goes, in my experience, most players do not have a power curve on items. There is a somewhat of a power curve as items take longer to unlock are generally stronger than the ones that can be unlocked early. Forget about game, I know one is a shooter and the other an action/adventure, I'm talking about loot/unlockables/items.

'Power curve' in CoD (and most shooters, really) relies on the gun, and the 'best gun' varies game to game and said gun's place in the unlock column. Some game's it's the P90, and sometimes the FAL or G36. In some games, you can get one of those 3rd and in others 17th. Once you have it, though, most people don't care about what comes after it.

Concerning longevity, the gameplay should dictate longevity alone. If something isn't fun to play, but people play it for the Skinner-box pleasure of getting a pellet every so often, it's a failed game, in my opinion. Battlefield, for example, could be played endlessly even if you had no unlocks, and everything was available from the start. Overwatch is the same way. Counterstrike and TF2 have been played continuously for a decade because they're fun to play (even though TF2 added hats and things).


When I think of loot based games, I think of the Diablo franchise. I played all 3 Diablo games and I enjoy them. When I play any of those games, I don't login to find loot that doesn't affect my build but gives me a power curve against my enemies. Saying that a game will have loot but not give a power curve makes me think that the developers don't know what they are doing. I hope I'm wrong because the game looks fun from seeing some videos.

I'd prefer if people were evenly matched from a mechanical standpoint and let their skill determine the outcome. Especially in a game like this.

Maccaroth
07-27-2016, 07:22 AM
Having loot being purely cosmetical could be enough to have people grind for loot because people like to customize characters to their liking. But going that way means there have to be more than just weapon pieces - various parts of armor for all three factions (or different looks for the same piece of loot depending on the faction). I would be much more excited for having the loot system working like that over turning it into weapon boosts. In fact, after hearing what customization in game will look like (stat boosts) I kind of feel disappointed because of wasted potential (imagine people creating their own unique looking warrior) and potential risk of a power curve.

Chaf--
07-28-2016, 02:43 AM
A loot system seems pointless if it doesn't offer a power curve and only be cosmetic. There would be no incentive to grind for gear at all. If items do give/take, that might be worthwhile. For example, giving 5 offense and taking 5 defense would help out in weak areas. That would still make a power curve though. Another way to do something with loot in SP and MP could be to establish 2 separate gamertags but this would also make myself and I imagine others to not play one of the game modes.

I am also concerned with the longevity of this game if the loot doesn't add to the power curve. Say what you want about the COD franchise but those games have longevity. I'm not a fan of COD games but I'm not blind to its success. There is no loot in COD but there are unlockable items and microtransactions. As far as MP goes, in my experience, most players do not have a power curve on items. There is a somewhat of a power curve as items take longer to unlock are generally stronger than the ones that can be unlocked early. Forget about game, I know one is a shooter and the other an action/adventure, I'm talking about loot/unlockables/items.

Complex systems and loots != game longetivity.
People still plays 15/20yo fighting games competitively. People doesn't need complex loots and systems to enjoy that type of games. CoD is a terrible example. People can't hook on an episode, because they know they'll have an "update" one year later. No matter how deep the Prestige or the Things Pro system is. Settle a game with the same weapons and abilities for every characters/heroes makes the game focusing on reads and skills, more than on loots and abilities. People shouldn't win more, because of a specific set of equipments. This is anti-competitive. A game tends to last more on scene, if the rulesets and any aspects of the game stays intact and balanced.


Saying that a game will have loot but not give a power curve makes me think that the developers don't know what they are doing.
Because you need a loot system to convince you that level and game designers does their jobs? Not on stages layout? Not on feats? Not on heroes balancing? You're focusing on the wrong aspect of For Honor's game design. It's not your character that should level up and gain new abilities. YOU should. By knowing the game, reading your opponent, knowing the stages, the strategies, knowing your team mates, etc.