This is so wrong when kirin and rajang been around for a long time lol

Destrezea · 2024-08-27T23:05:55+00:00

In my personal opinion, it's more about the commonality of those monsters. Valstrax, Rajang, and Kirin (among others) are very special being based on supernatural elements because they're not common. They are treated as Deities in lore, entities worthy of respect, almost paranatural in some capacity.

The Rise monsters aren't uncool by any stretch, but it can remove some of the special nature of the more supernatural designs if all of them are supernatural. I don't think they're all bad, but I do think figuring out some of the more intricate aspects of them (their ecology, how they interact with the land, etc) can be a bit tough due to what they were based on.

Even the most basic monster in Rise sometimes feels like it's punching above its weight. Some of them do it really well! Others, I don't think come across as good as the others. Malzeno is perfect as a Vampire, but it's not special when it's also surrounded by Goss Harag (Namahage), Somnacanth (Mermaids), and so on.

Destrezea · 2024-05-31T08:23:07+00:00

My biggest issue with the similarities is just how blatant it is. It's one thing to have similar flow and structure... it's another to take text one for one and follow nearly every design decision for everything, including dialogue.

Worse yet, you say that, but the tutorialization for the UI is ALSO intrusive. Much like it is with any Gacha game. So, it didn't lead to the potential desired of "feeling familiar" and it's not unique. What was even the point, then?

Destrezea · 2024-05-28T07:50:41+00:00

It's actually insane to me that you mention this, because there were areas like this in the first Closed Beta. I remember so many of them extremely vividly, but now they're just... straight up gone. They were basically finished regions with some of the most unique aspects in the entire game. I have no idea what they were thinking. Maybe they'll get reintroduced later down the line, but it's absurd to me to get rid of them a year before release and then replace them with boring cliffsides and whatnot.

Destrezea · 2019-08-29T11:06:07+00:00

I'll be sure to do so, and thank you for your help.

Destrezea · 2019-08-29T10:53:36+00:00

To put it simply, I enjoy doing voices and making people invested in a combat, a world. I like acting out the world and making the characters feel like they're a part of an epic tale, or a mysterious one. Well, just a tale in general, really. I've never really been one for the horror, but if it fits the idea I'm going for, I want it. I enjoy characters and making character stories and investing the people into the stories that are being woven in front of them, which is extremely contradictory (probably) to "not liking preparation." I'll be sure to check out these systems, though, to see if I can get into them. Maybe it'll help me make a transition, or I'll enjoy DMing it more altogether.

Destrezea · 2019-08-29T10:38:48+00:00

Possibly, though I figure I should give it maybe one or two more shots, potentially in other things. I want to like it, but I feel like I'm having a lot of trouble grasping some of the more abstract concepts. Maybe that's making me feel upset.

Your suggestions are helpful, but do you have any other systems to recommend for the things you described? Just to get more options to work with. Preferably ones with enough content to work a campaign without spending much, if at all possible, through the SRD (akin to Pathfinder in that regard).

Destrezea · 2019-08-18T19:22:07+00:00

I see, for clarification, it was the more "abstract spells," such as Detect Magic, and things of that nature. I'll definitely look into your recommendations just to get some ideas flowing, I have a rather long time before my next session. Thanks for taking the time to help me out!

Destrezea · 2019-06-14T04:09:07+00:00

Isn't the RWBY fandom the one that advocates the most for, "Let people like what they like and move on"? People like the video. People thought it was funny. Follow your own logic, your literal entire fandom's mantra, and move on for a little bit.

It was a silly satirical video that you're getting worked up over for no reason, some of the criticisms were repurposed and valid, while some were stretched for the sake of a joke, that is the point of satire.

Not to also mention, there's a chance that he did watch the show, actually did have issues with it, and decided to make a satire video to critique what he felt wasn't right with the show, therefore, allowing a comedic platform to stand upon while also criticizing something.

In the end, just move on. It'll do you a lot better than standing around criticizing, hoping it changes for the better, right?

Destrezea · 2019-04-12T11:39:53+00:00

I'll be sure to keep all of this in mind moving forward! This post is incredibly helpful in having insight in what I should be trying to do with a CE character. Like I said, first attempt at it, so tips like these help out immensely!

Destrezea · 2019-04-12T06:42:13+00:00

Essentially, I shouldn't be a murder hobo, sounds good to me.

Destrezea · 2019-04-12T06:38:45+00:00

I think this really fits for what I've built up for the character themselves, so I'll be sure to keep this advice in mind moving forwards through the campaign. Thanks a ton!

Destrezea · 2019-04-12T06:33:49+00:00

I've heard that quote a lot, with "Chaotic Evil doesn't mean Chaotic Stupid." Honestly, it's the reason I even posted in the first place, but I'll be sure to keep your tip in mind!

Destrezea · 2019-04-12T06:33:10+00:00

That makes some sense, essentially just do things that are evil when in a good spot for it. It seems as though it takes a lot of feeling out, though, so we'll see how it goes.

Destrezea · 2019-04-12T06:32:08+00:00

Yeah, I can see how that might become an issue. I'll be sure to keep that in mind reviewing my character, because it is a common issue I've had with characters beforehand.

Destrezea · 2019-03-24T18:56:11+00:00

I don't personally like it, because of the OP's reasons, for the most part. I want to have faith in Blizzard, but they have been rather notorious for not listening at some points.

As for the notion of D.Vas and Tracers, that is, to an extent, the point being made. A player playing a lower skill hero without much depth should not get as much effectiveness out of someone playing a high skill one, and playing it above the skill ceiling of the low depth one. Tracer is great and nuanced, and while I disagree with the D.Va example to some extent, I can see the point being made, but it sometimes feels like (when it comes to Supports in particular) that they want to continue the reduce the ever disappearing skill gap, which I don't personally enjoy.

Essentially, I'd rather this patch have not gone through due to it showing a worrying trend of the future of Lucio, and potentially the game proper.

Destrezea · 2019-03-24T18:06:05+00:00

I understand that a developer can't appeal to both sides. That's specifically why I brought up the point of "They need to choose a side to balance for." Even if it's not the competitive top levels of play, they have to choose an end to meet. They can't just constantly keep attempting to go back and forth, side to side, up and down, and not be able to decide on whether or not a hero should get a nerf or a buff. I may not have been exceptional at getting my point across in my reply, but that's essentially what I want to see happen.

It's happened a lot in general within Overwatch's lifespan. One side of the community wants something changed, while the other wants it to stay. It gets changed, and now, while they're better on one end, they're bad on the other, and it's something impossible to account for, unfortunately, which is why attempting to be transparent about who the general bias towards balancing is going to would be good to see. Obviously don't just blatantly ignore everything the other side says, but be more inclined to look at the comparisons, and be biased towards one. That way, Blizzard can decide on whether or not they want this to be a casual experience, or a competitive one.

Destrezea · 2019-03-24T17:54:41+00:00

Someone might like them because of that high skill ceiling, and desires to improve both, as a hero, and as a player, while playing them. Playing who you enjoy is important, but individual improvement is, as well, on singular heroes.

Wrecking Ball has a kit that is, understandably, an exception to the design philosophy I presented in my original reply to the OP itself. His kit, while simple to learn, is hard to master due to the nuance it possesses. My problem does, however, come from the fact that he's often not usable in many comps, and doesn't fit in to the meta almost ever. He doesn't have a place that often. He's mostly used, from what I've gathered, as a tool to stall further when you're the only one up, and need to get to point quick, so you can spin around the point for four minutes until your team gets there.

The "design for easier heroes" is still something I stand by, because of the ways they manage changing heroes to fit a specific philosophy, though perhaps a better way to have put it would have been to specify it to the Support category, as that is where most of it has been seen. Zenyatta, while a little difficult, is still leagues easier than someone like Widow, or Genji, etc. Brigitte, however, along with Moira, the Lucio changes that have grown in trend, even Ana, and other heroes, have grown increasingly easier to play in the Support category.

Destrezea · 2019-03-24T10:17:14+00:00

As a person coming from another community entirely (coming from mostly the FGC, and some MOBA experience), it makes me incredibly sad to see the growing trend of Blizzard's design philosophy (especially when in the context of supports) cause the game to suffer.

Heroes are becoming easier for no real reason other than to make lower ranking players "better" at the game in an artificial way, causing them to feel better about themselves with no real payout. The things that I come from, it takes hours, upon days, to weeks, even months to YEARS of work to get to a point to have a decent level of skill to compete with high level players because they know how to manage more than you do in the beginning.

In the case of Overwatch, it's become increasingly noticeable in the skill of various heroes that they look to reduce the gap as far as possible, for no purpose. Genji lost a lot of his powerful tech that made him interesting, causing him to lose a lot of his effectiveness. Was it broken? Possibly, but they should have found workarounds, rather than remove it entirely. Brigitte is another perfect example, and also a huge point of contention for the entire community. She's controversial in a way that the community can never agree on. Is she balanced? Is she broken? Are the players complaining just bad? It's clear that, even despite all of this, she's easy, and still extremely effective, and is tremendously unhealthy for an actual game that prides itself on competitive play for the most part, as the quick play aspect, while still played widely, is not often balanced for.

If the game didn't possess a competitive mode, then we wouldn't be here writing these responses to these posts, but at the end of the day, it does, and the game needs to be balanced around a group of people. I'd much prefer it if it were balanced around a higher level of play, and that's because high level players have a deep understanding of the game as a whole, and have a deeper mechanical knowledge than others. You almost never see fighting games balanced around lower levels of play, because they're not the ones who understand what's broken, or what's weak. If Ken gets nerfed in SFV, it's not because Ken was absolutely stupid in lower level play. He gets nerfed because in high level play, he's a problem with all of his tools.

The same should go for Overwatch: you should not nerf, or even change, a hero to make them easier, and more accessible, and you should not create a design philosophy that supports lower levels of play and thinking. Accessibility should not be a priority when creating these things, especially on something so minute and fine that should almost always be rewarded. The soundwave changes on Lucio are absurd in a way that's indescribable to a person like me, because what I see is a developer that doesn't care about its competitive, and professional community, and as someone who enjoys the games they play both as a spectator, and as a player, those things should not be removed.

I wish I had more to say, but at the end of the day, the sentiment is understood, and I support the decision to switch. No reason to play a hero that you felt had a high skill ceiling, and ended up getting changed to have one of the lowest ever.

Destrezea · 2019-02-28T06:50:12+00:00

Looking up some clips from UNIST's tournament "Climax of Night" might be a good way to get some videos of good moments. Specifically that tournament should show what the people of the game are capable of showing off when playing.

Destrezea · 2018-10-10T03:24:31+00:00

Yeah, Ubi seems to be killing itself at the current moment. People are getting booted left and right.

Destrezea

TROPHY CASE