Jump to content

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, purely fat said:

I didn't say it because I think we are alone on that one brother.

I had a feeling that's why I brought it up lol. hey man, some people like eating shit. People like different things lol 

 

NrnONEw.gif

 

but we agree on PIT KOTH and oddball on midship

Edited by JB_
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JB_ said:

I had a feeling that's why I brought it up lol. hey man, some people like eating shit. People like different things lol 

 

NrnONEw.gif

 

but we agree on PIT KOTH and oddball on midship

Some people see a giant deadzone and be like "oh my god it's so bad I just keep dying there." I'm just sitting car side thinking "Bitch no shit that is why nobody else is standing there."

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FatkidForger said:

Even then, all you're doing is proving my initial point that maps exist to express their modes and designers desire. You can have your opinion on Asymmetric and personally I prefer their design too, but to just flat out imply symms are irrelevant does nothing but hinder designers ability to share unique and varied experiences. I mean like aside from the logical points that give them weight thats already been discussed in full, just this initial idea alone proves enough to me. I just don't get why it has to be so cut and dry. Everything doesn't have to be a war of ideology and battle for superiority of LD. It stinks of elitism. Even though it's just a motion, I feel like this will still be interpreted as an assault of intellectual integrity. I wish I hadn't brought this up tbh, but I expected nothing less.

It only "stinks of elitism" if you're sensitive enough to take map critique and reasoning as a person attack.  Otherwise, how could that possibly be what you're drawing from this conversation.

 

Tell me right now why it's a bad idea to make a 16 way symmetric map for Big Team. Like an actual pizza with 16 slices.

 

Before you begin even begin to think critically about that - every single person here knows that idea is stupid intrinsically.  You wouldn't make a 16 way symmetric map because it's nonsense; it's a waste of space and repetition that doesn't mean anything.  You wouldn't make an 8 way symmetric map either.  Some 4 way symmetric maps have been made, Warlock, but I think we all know how those are.  So where is the cut off point for symmetry? 5 way? 3 way? When does it become bad? If you don't like the notion of 16 way symmetry it follows reason that you wouldn't find 2-way symmetry appealing for the same reasons, albeit watered down.  Best argument I can imagine would be using a 2 way symmetric map as a stress test to see which team performs better with identical geometry but even then there are issues; if you don't have fixed spawns that whole argument goes out the window on the first player death and spawns swap.  Now you're not fighting against a mirrored axis.  Do you leave spawns fixed? Spawn trap, which makes the map no longer about stressing the use of geometry and instead you're crossing the 50 yard line to spawn trap the other team (MLG Pit Slayer).  OR the opposite happens and the map crawls to a halt (Also, Pit Slayer).  There's no reason for a symmetrical map in an asymmetrical mode. 

 

1 hour ago, FatkidForger said:

but to just flat out imply symms are irrelevant does nothing but hinder designers ability to share unique and varied experiences

I mean I don't care what you make.  Make whatever you want, doesn't bother me.  Problem comes when people pile out horse crap and then wanted it to be taken just as seriously as everything else.  I wouldn't make a 2 Base 2 Tower and then cry when someone said it wasn't as good as other maps.  You can't both choose to not think or improve and then also want all the glory, all the credit, and none of the ramifications.  In this case, the ramifications are some random guy on the internet (me) telling you your map sucks.  Who cares, deal with it.  I sure as hell don't care, why should you.

 

The only reason this bothers people is pride. Either choose to improve and get better or be content at where you are. Like I'm giving you actual reasoning and my thoughts on why it really makes no design sense to attempt a symmetric map for an asymm game mode and you've turned it into an attack on you - you're offended by my reasoning. And I've barely said anything on the matter yet outside of asking a hypothetical.  Problem here is you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, purely fat said:

Nexus KOTH, Midship Ball, Construct(pseudosym) koth, Pit koth, Oasis Koth, Warlock Ball (I hate it but people like it) and every sym in existence for slayer.

I don't think there's anything good about the experiences you just listed that inherently comes from the symmetry.  KOTH plants an objective and has everyone attack it, the symmetry isn't really relevant and any map listed that plays 'well' for KOTH would probably be better as an asymm.  

 

I love Construct KOTH but that's because it's not really a symm, and the hill placements all stress that.  The one on the open bottom balcony firing up at both streets and Gold Lift is a really good example.  Really fun setup / hill, also inherently assymetric.  And would be better served on an asymm. 

 

Warlock can die in a fire lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just worth noting here - this is not an absolute.  

 

My argument is more about the theoretical highs and lows of asymm vs symm.  Obviously a bad asymm is worse than an excellent symmetrical map.  And it is possible to still pull a good experience - like KOTH Construct (not a total sym but whatever) out of things, I'm just thinking in a design sense ; where is the ceiling.  And it just makes way more design sense to make an assym map for an assym game mode.  Much higher high.  I imagine that absolute perfect symmetrical map might make an alright asymm experience - it's more a question of why you would pursue that.  You're just limiting yourself, and wasting potential for cool encounters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Box_Hoes said:

Would you like to see slayer on any symms in the future or do you believe only asymms should be played for slayer 

 

Sorry for only just getting to this, I may have da rona

 

No, not really, for reason I we already talked about. It's the same geometry twice, which is the same as saying it's half a maps worth of encounters within whatever footprint the playercount you're making allows for. This is the same argument for efficiency I'd use in all sorts of other places, like with weapons. If we can only have so many weapons because dev can only make so many weapons, we might as well make them unique from eachother, right? Whereas purposeful redundancy is a waste of resources. And yeah I hadn't really even considered the things that Multi said about spawns, how really you only get that even matchup once, then the respawn system throws that away. Like I said, for certain gamemodes I think it's fine, probably even necessary, but it's just... less map for everything else. 

 

And I would also say that as a result of symmetry, the one half of a map that you DO get to design seems to be limited by the fact that you know you have to mirror it all at some point. Like, I can't put a powerful spot in certain places because once I mirror it both sides you may now have facing worlds gameplay, where players just sit in bases because that's where you allocated power. So, you basically always need the powerful positions to be on the 50 yard line, which kinda makes every symm more or less a hill you fight over from either side, in the macro sense (if you care about preventing camping). Again, it's just unnecessarily limiting.

 

Oh and I'm definitely not responding to any of the other nonsense posted in the last few pages lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

A point on syms

encounters mirrored on the axis will have two possible angles of approach, forward(A) and backward(B). syms like citadel are semi-rotational in that there is a donut around which players circulate through the map and meet at either A/B., and which is mirrored rotationally around an axial continuum. There are opportunities for interesting encounters in the central atrium, which is not necessarily subject to the continuum, but those are short lived because risk/reward design. A similar effect is obtained with the Midship 2axial symmetry, however Midship does not have a symmetrical continuum and therefore encounters are slightly different. Whereas Citadel will give you encounters A for the entire time you are moving in one direction around its donut path, Midship will flip from encounters A to B (and A' to B') based on where you are relative to your base. So like... there are definitely ways to make symmetrical maps interesting for asymmetrical objective gamemodes and slayer alike, but you're gonna be hard-pressed to find a way to do it that isn't in donut form.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So they already reverted

 

https://news.xbox.com/en-us/2021/01/22/update-on-xbox-live-gold-pricing/ 

 

 

[UPDATED on 1/22/2021 at 8:52 PM PT]

We messed up today and you were right to let us know. Connecting and playing with friends is a vital part of gaming and we failed to meet the expectations of players who count on it every day. As a result, we have decided not to change Xbox Live Gold pricing.

We’re turning this moment into an opportunity to bring Xbox Live more in line with how we see the player at the center of their experience. For free-to-play games, you will no longer need an Xbox Live Gold membership to play those games on Xbox. We are working hard to deliver this change as soon as possible in the coming months.

If you are an Xbox Live Gold member already, you stay at your current price for renewal. New and existing members can continue to enjoy Xbox Live Gold for the same prices they pay today. In the US, $9.99 for 1-month, $24.99 for 3-months, $39.99 for 6-months and $59.99 for retail 12-months.

Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, JB_ said:

So they already reverted

 

https://news.xbox.com/en-us/2021/01/22/update-on-xbox-live-gold-pricing/ 

 

 

[UPDATED on 1/22/2021 at 8:52 PM PT]

We messed up today and you were right to let us know. Connecting and playing with friends is a vital part of gaming and we failed to meet the expectations of players who count on it every day. As a result, we have decided not to change Xbox Live Gold pricing.

We’re turning this moment into an opportunity to bring Xbox Live more in line with how we see the player at the center of their experience. For free-to-play games, you will no longer need an Xbox Live Gold membership to play those games on Xbox. We are working hard to deliver this change as soon as possible in the coming months.

If you are an Xbox Live Gold member already, you stay at your current price for renewal. New and existing members can continue to enjoy Xbox Live Gold for the same prices they pay today. In the US, $9.99 for 1-month, $24.99 for 3-months, $39.99 for 6-months and $59.99 for retail 12-months.

Thank you.


Man, that’s the saddest shit I’ve ever read. Business without principles, all they can do is walk back because a bunch of people got mad outside their doors. Too bad you need some combination of

a/ 7 years of executive experience 

b/ 10+ years industry experience 

c/ an MBA 

d/ a former political office

e/ 10% or more of company stock

f/ be a clinically diagnosed schitzoid/mental case with a Twitter acct

g/ a public school teacher

h/ a public intellectual in good standing with the right opinions

to change the way they operate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to finish this video but I have to wait on recording as my voice is all messed up from being sick. Oh and despite the 17 pages (probably about an hours worth of video if well edited with faster talking) I still feel like I only touched the surface of a few topics. This sort of thing really deserves many, many videos or write-ups but that's not what gets the clicks yo

Link to post
Share on other sites

here's a good question, is it true that certain games can be evil even if they are fairly balanced? and I'm not just talking about themes and narratives, but the actual skills that are exercised. Like among us for example, which has a very fun and engaging competitive formula, when playing as a traitor, rewards you for lying, falsely accusing,  and generally confusing the other players. As much as I enjoy playing as the good guy investigators, whenever I get picked to play as the imposter, I find it convicting how good I can be sometimes at playing a sociopathic liar.

 

Look, ignore whether or not among us is a balanced game, there are adjustable settings, whatever, assume it is balanced and think about the implications of my thesis. Right now i'm leaning more towards it's not good to reward this, as fun as it may be

1260918535_Forgemapsthumbnail.thumb.png.a0054255c7c5aba3a52c3cef60b4b815.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Soldat Du Christ said:

is it true that certain games can be evil even if they are fairly balanced?

Yes.

 

Games that grant and encourage you to steal, lie, cheat, dishonor, and murder are giving you options of practicing a form of wickedness. You could argue that games that allow you to incant outright witchcraft, or serve a higher echelon through worship and idols, are asking you to practice a form of paganist teachings.

 

This is one of the reasons I've stuck to a rigid set of multiplayer gameplay loops, and avoid campaigns. I also enjoy games that know they're games, and try not to make themselves more than what they are. The reason I'm not bothered by the prospect of downing Spartans, Guardians, or Op-Fors with explosives and bullets, is because it looks ridiculous.

 

God made a difference between cold-blooded murder, murder out of hatred or unrighteous anger, and accidental manslaughter, conquering a nation, or self defense. He told Joshua and the Israelites that they weren't to destroy the nations ahead of them because of their own righteousness, but because said nations were utterly abhorrent and beyond wicked.

 

That being said, ultimately it is your decision to play these games that offer you these options. However, if you're convicted of trying to play these games, perhaps it would be better to play something else.

 

God bless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Soldat Du Christ said:

here's a good question, is it true that certain games can be evil even if they are fairly balanced? and I'm not just talking about themes and narratives, but the actual skills that are exercised. Like among us for example, which has a very fun and engaging competitive formula, when playing as a traitor, rewards you for lying, falsely accusing,  and generally confusing the other players. As much as I enjoy playing as the good guy investigators, whenever I get picked to play as the imposter, I find it convicting how good I can be sometimes at playing a sociopathic liar.

 

Look, ignore whether or not among us is a balanced game, there are adjustable settings, whatever, assume it is balanced and think about the implications of my thesis. Right now i'm leaning more towards it's not good to reward this, as fun as it may be

You have to remember that when engaging with a fictional medium, you're only ever expected to act out the role of another. If you find it hard to distinguish the difference between your own moral code and that of the one you're being presented with, that becomes the only issue. Just because I enjoy monopoly, doesn't mean I want to bankrupt ppl irl. These roles we take on are in some cases designed to challenge our perspectives, but often you'll find yourself being shown these (personally held) atrocities in order to understand just how sound your moral compass really is. If you can grasp the concept that good and evil are laws bound to humanity, it becomes more clear to expose. In among us the character you play as doesn't understand humanity from a greater aspect than we're easy to emotionally manipulate which is what the game from that stand point is all about, trust. That is the entire point of The Thing. No one forces you to lie, you could always say "hey, I'm the imposter" right? But then you're just playing as you, but are you really? Would you let yourself willing die in the face of salvation if your own moral code deemed it right to kill? We don't know until put into that situation for real. How can you know your way of living is pure if you never get the chance to experience being wrong. Use games to help inform you and teach you counter ideals, but keep what matters most to you solid. 🙂

Edited by FatkidForger

FatKid LD > Core LD

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2021 at 9:02 AM, Soldat Du Christ said:

here's a good question, is it true that certain games can be evil even if they are fairly balanced? and I'm not just talking about themes and narratives, but the actual skills that are exercised. Like among us for example, which has a very fun and engaging competitive formula, when playing as a traitor, rewards you for lying, falsely accusing,  and generally confusing the other players. As much as I enjoy playing as the good guy investigators, whenever I get picked to play as the imposter, I find it convicting how good I can be sometimes at playing a sociopathic liar.

 

Look, ignore whether or not among us is a balanced game, there are adjustable settings, whatever, assume it is balanced and think about the implications of my thesis. Right now i'm leaning more towards it's not good to reward this, as fun as it may be

 

Mmmmmmaybe.    Yes.

 

Spoiler

 

I think if a game is to be truly evil, or a true promoter of evil, then it would have to exclusively reward evil on the part of the player and depict them as the hero. I can't think of one that really does that 100%, personally. Most I think are somewhere floating around the cultural standard of 40% room-temp mixed morality with some streaks of 5-10% good and evil respectively. GTA might come close, even if it is played for laughs - but even then, it's understood that it exists in a parody universe.

 

Among Us asks players to be extremely honest as well, and objective, not just deceptive. Games like Clue kind of do the same thing, and both are in a /fantasy/ setting which clearly label the murderer as the villain. Then there are games like Alien: [insert subtitle] where you can play as the Xeno and trap the humans. How's that different from Among Us, other than the conferences where you have to speak to each other and lie? What about Halo Zombies where the alpha zombies have camo and can sneak around? Those all require the player to be sneaky and deceptive, but there is a clear division between good and evil.

 

Being sneaky, deceptive, telling a lie isn't necessarily evil. Imagine a scenario where you are held at gunpoint by a hoodlum who demands you give him your car keys or something. Maybe you tell him it's in the parking lot across the street, when its actually half a mile away - idk. Or a non-emergency scenario: someone casually asks you at the office whether you are married and you deflect the question because it is irrelevant or needlessly personal or you're not interested and don't want to make a scene. Are either of those evil things to do?

 

Ok sure, the examples I give are piecemeal, but that's the point - without asking the player to do evil things AND telling them they are doing good things both in and outside the game, I wouldn't consider the game evil. I would look inward and try to figure out why it is so fun to play the evil role, but even then I wouldn't necessarily expect you to conclude that they are fully on board with doing the evil things that are entertaining in a separate context. Might be a little weird the way you get involved, though? Idk, check it out.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...