PvP non-personal fighting

[unmerged(329441)]

When two or more players fight in a pvp match they are directly opposing each other, and one of them tends to be better at the game than the other one and tends to keep defeating the player who is not as good(either because the player doesn't defend, know the good spells, or use the same op spells over and over again).

If the game has more players, the player would get ganged up on, and would constantly die. This means the player would become very discouraged and come to dislike the playing and probably would leave before long.

I'm not too sure what can be done in a game where there will be two people fighting each other, but maybe some kind of protection or buff that increases with each death in a row, until the better enemy is killed, or an option to define how good you are at the beginning of the game(probably wont help).

Also, game modes where the fighting is not directly personal - like capturing control points in TF2, might help.(through i don't know how it would work for teams with so few people)

 

[Calathas]

Also, game modes where the fighting is not directly personal - like capturing control points in TF2

I think it was mentioned at some point why in challenge and versus modes you have a personal screen, unlike in Adventure mode and VRM, and it was that in challenge modes the maps are smaller and theres not much to interact with. Objective based gameplay would require a significantly larger map than the challenge maps that are around now and would prolly 'cause some issues. Though I would like the idea of CTF or control point score style modes, get on with magicka 2 arrowhead ^^

 

[Al. I. Cuza]

The problem is most players have no interest in learning anything about the correct way to fight in PvP before trying it out.

Some lack the most basic knowlegde of protection, some just use beams, etc...

This is not the games fault.

 

[unmerged(262409)]

The problem is most players have no interest in learning anything about the correct way to fight in PvP before trying it out.

Some lack the most basic knowlegde of protection, some just use beams, etc...

This is not the games fault.

It's not the fault of a game that players aren't interested in learning to play the game?

If the learning curve is too intimidating, that's an issue for developers to pay attention to. Valve, for example, have recognised that the volume of content in TF2 has become too great for a new player to leap in and understand, and have been adding features to ease people into the game.

The Internet is rife with people assuming that players ought to be dedicated enough to study and research a game before playing, and it's a completely wrong-headed belief. And holding the players to blame for that, as though it's their responsibility to want to play the game, really doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Al. I. Cuza]

And holding the players to blame for that, as though it's their responsibility to want to play the game, really doesn't make any sense at all.

It makes sense for me. I hate the trend in games where you practically get everything handed to you and are explained what to do all the way from beginning until end.

Moreover: IF players see they get stomped, they should chill out for a minute and ask for help, which almost never happens. This is why I got farily good, I asked for help, copied tactics and only afterwards made my own.

If players only get frustrated and don't ask for help it IS their fault.

 

[Vesuvius]

Games have to be reasonably deep to be interesting. Magicka is quite well designed in that it is simple to learn the basics but there's still a lot of depth to it. The problem is I think people just get discouraged after a roflstomping by someone who knows what he's doing.

 

[Al. I. Cuza]

The problem is I think people just get discouraged after a roflstomping by someone who knows what he's doing.

And this is just a presumption. Look at MOBA games. They have an incredibly steep learning curve and are still some of the more popular games out there.

 

[unmerged(262409)]

Myself, I'm not interested in ballet. I don't have to be; there's no motive for me to develop such an interest when such a range of things already exists in which I am already interested. Maybe it would be different if it meant I could enjoy an evening's entertainment with some group of ballet-enjoying friends, but that's not the case. Ballet enthusiasts might look down on me for not 'getting' it, but why should they hold it against me? Nothing has given me a reason to share their interest, and if it offends them that I don't I can live with it. They're free to act like it's my responsibility, it won't be, and they'll be wrong. That's okay.

I'm not saying that the game shouldn't have a learning curve. I'm saying that the game has to make people want to play it. If they don't want to play, that's neither their fault nor their problem. And expecting players to be dedicated enough to learning a game that they'll actually go out, read articles and watch gameplay videos is unforgivably naive. I don't read ballet articles or watch ballet videos, because I don't have the desire to understand the subject that many gamers seem to assume is standard for all games.

If I should happen to go to the ballet and enjoy it, maybe I'll take an interest. If I don't enjoy it, I'm not going to go out and study until I do, even if someone tells me it's totally worth it. I'm going to hazard a guess that most people reading this would respond in the same way. What the game has to do is make sure the first-time player perceives the game as worth their time. I tried Counter-Strike, never saw the opponents who were killing me, got stomped so hard I learned nothing and went back to TF2. Why would I need to navigate the learning curve in CS?

 

[Vesuvius]

Magicka is still fun when you're bad at it. It isn't fun when you're bad at it and you're playing against someone who isn't. You can easily spend more time dead than alive in a significantly uneven match. The same can't be said for the MOBA genre, partly because MOBA games have 3-5 people per side so your teammates will carry you and partly because you just can't be killed that soon after a respawn. The MOBA and RTS genres have a much higher learning curve than magicka(which is really just a few steps up from an FPS in terms of learning curve), but they aren't nearly as brutal with the skill gap as you go up the curve.

 

[Al. I. Cuza]

I tried Counter-Strike, never saw the opponents who were killing me, got stomped so hard I learned nothing and went back to TF2. Why would I need to navigate the learning curve in CS?

Well if that's the case, I'm sorry for you, but it's not the game's fault.

@topic: Magicka has a wonderfully dedicated community, and if you need help you just have to ask for it. Same as any game to be honest.

The only difference is indeed the speed of the game, which may be too fast for new players.

Magicka is still fun when you're bad at it. It isn't fun when you're bad at it and you're playing against someone who isn't. You can easily spend more time dead than alive in a significantly uneven match. The same can't be said for the MOBA genre, partly because MOBA games have 3-5 people per side so your teammates will carry you and partly because you just can't be killed that soon after a respawn. The MOBA and RTS genres have a much higher learning curve than magicka(which is really just a few steps up from an FPS in terms of learning curve), but they aren't nearly as brutal with the skill gap as you go up the curve.

Perhaps you don't know Bloodline Champions.