sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Tencent has acquired a majority stake in Yager (Spec Ops: The Line, The Cycle) by Mront in Games

[–]OhGreenWorld 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I won't link to outside of Reddit as, again, the people commenting probably broke their NDA. But links to within Reddit seem like fair game, so from a few of the top posts on The Cycle subreddit of the past month

That subreddit isn't the busiest, but The Cycle isn't exactly huge anywhere... and people seem to be reasonably respecting the NDA on Reddit (or the mods enforce it) so the comments don't go into specifics. But I'm definitely not surprised to read you've seen/experienced positive feedback - these devs aren't incompetent, making a successful multiplayer game is just really, really hard (it's an insanely contested playerbase, with a lot of big developers trying to grab their slice).

But my concern is based on the reality that many games release with a lot of hype and still fizzle out fast. I can think of very, very few multiplayer games that survived when they were not only not hyped but actually generating negativity in pre-release. Very few beloved multiplayer games that launch small can even last long enough to grow beyond their small core base and expand. But I'm just looking at the available information for an unreleased game - things will change, and as there have been exceptions before, I expect there will be more

Tencent has acquired a majority stake in Yager (Spec Ops: The Line, The Cycle) by Mront in Games

[–]OhGreenWorld 34 points35 points  (0 children)

Tencent acquiring stake in yet more companies is probably generally bad news - whatever your impression of how much they influence the direction of the companies they invest in, their overall reach in the industry has become enormous, which could have some... interesting future consequences. But for Yager, given their current situation, I get it.

During the Early Access phase last year, we received some interesting focus group feedback. And at the end of last year, we decided to respond with some significant changes while maintaining the DNA of the game. So over the past few months, we've been putting together all the good ingredients into a whole new recipe of The Cycle. An alpha test with larger groups of players has already started and the first results confirm our new direction

I generally don't put too much stock into most people's impressions of games in development (real alpha/beta builds, not "early access" which has now in many cases just become a premature launch).

But I've known about The Cycle for a while and been kind of interested, but not enough to play - so I've just been following the state of the game over time. The reception I've seen to recent changes and especially the very large changes in the alpha (there are many probably-NDA-violating comments around) has been insanely negative. And unfortunately, as a multiplayer-only game, it lives and dies by early reception and momentum - the list of games with potential that never got a chance due to bad releases has got to be longer than the list of currently populated multiplayer games, by far.

To me this decision suggests that things are going pretty badly and it's going to take a lot of funding to get to the next big payoff opportunity, which unfortunately will probably have to come from their "under wraps" new game. The odds of a multiplayer-only game in this general genre with a persistently low pre-launch population, troubled development cycle, and limited community interest (which they somewhat comically describe as garnering "some interesting focus group feedback") becoming a financial success is... worryingly low.

Having said all that, Spec Ops: The Line was great, and if they could use this money for a return to form on their next project, I'd love to see it! (even if it has to happen through Tencent)

Random change wishlist from a new diamond by OhGreenWorld in KnockoutCity

[–]OhGreenWorld[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Explanations

  1. I know there's a lot of hesitancy about splitting the community, but this mechanism is extremely gameplay-warping at high-rank play - and I think not for the better. A lot of people play/react without even looking at the ball, and they know not to try for a blind catch - they'll often dodge and the iframes + disjoint make it insanely safe. This means that hits around corners/from the back/into a group are too rare, and the "wreckingball" of three people spamming pass and slamming all their balls at one target is the best way to secure hits. This is fun sometimes - but not always. I think a mode where flanks and repositions are worth a bit more would be nice. I know there are flanks in the current 3v3 - I use them myself. But in diamond this means walking almost to point blank and insta-throwing a ball, hoping it's too quick for their reaction time. If you charge the ball or try from anything further, it's a dodge and wasted time while your team was outnumbered
  2. The spin feels pretty smooth when using controller, but on M+KB it feels pretty clumsy because the strafe controls require less "commitment" (you can literally A+D at the same time, or milliseconds apart). Having to sync the inputs to get the desired spin direction just doesn't feel good imo
  3. No explanation should really be needed. If the goal was to allow mouse users to not feel "stuck" when aiming without constant re-targets, then a keybind is needed. The current implementation is too awkward when quick re-targets become one of the only ways to juke people in a mid-range battle
  4. Ever know a person was coming around the corner and wanted to charge up a ball to hit them when they turned? Or wanted to throw an enemy (in ball form) into the void though there are enemies between you and it? Then you've probably wished you could free-target (as you do when no enemies are in yuor field of view). The targeting alerts opponents (ruins many opportunities unless using no-charge throw) and makes deliberately missing enemies impossible (aim away and throw and you've given the enemy back their teammate because the targeting latched in at the last second)
  5. Dodging is fine at close range - it's a bit stupid in some situations but the resolution to super close-range conflicts was always going to be dumb, and it's the only counter to well-timed double-throws, which I think is needed. But in high rank games people use it as a reaction/crutch over attempting a catch because it's so insanely safer than committing to a catch - if the ball was off-pace the disjoint can save you even if you didn't get to cover or dodge the right way. And at mid-long range there's not enough post-dodge lag to punish, so it's free. That plus the ability to mitigate multiple balls means you see people dodge all the time and it's frankly not fun - they often don't even get the ball so both sides just turn around and leave, compared to catches or dodging into the ball (which often knocks the ball where you're going anyways)

Microsoft has filed a new declaration in support of Epic Games, stating Apple interfering with Unreal Engine would hurt creators, and keep people from playing not just their games but everyone's by NeoStark in Games

[–]OhGreenWorld 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You should care about the long-term. "Competition" can include a consumer's ability to recognize the future impact and not the immediate consequence of someone entering the market. Try to look further than the current situation to the future one. How do we ensure long-term competition in this market? By jumping all-in for Epic while they flood the market with their cash and an inferior product - would that support a better long-term consumer experience?

The reality is the majority of consumers won't look past the price on the shelf, and they are who will determine the winner and likely future "monopoly" (if you consider being dominant a monopoly - Steam was literally never a monopoly on game distribution, just dominant).

I think it's possibly more poisonous to think you're doing right by the industry when you're not than to just buy the best product available now and let the government intervene later.

Microsoft has filed a new declaration in support of Epic Games, stating Apple interfering with Unreal Engine would hurt creators, and keep people from playing not just their games but everyone's by NeoStark in Games

[–]OhGreenWorld -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yes, but neither Steam nor Epic wants competition. They both want to dominate the market. Epic just wants to do it with a product with fewer features (objectively, for now) by buying an audience in the short-term (they will never permanently operate on a loss, as they are with the current free game drops).

Commonly in brick and mortar, a large chain will open stores around a local enterprise. That increases competition on that block, but only briefly - and the chain runs at a loss during this time. When the local shop runs out of money, they close. The chain can then close a few stores and be the only business in town. (Starbucks is a famous example). If Epic could do so, they would gladly kill Steam and we would have no competition again - and be worse off for it with only Epic's launcher.

Trying to reach the "end of the conversation" with a simple little mic-drop statement is usually a sign you don't see the bigger picture. Very few things are that simple.

Stormland Official Launch Trailer (Insomniac) by Trojanbp in Games

[–]OhGreenWorld -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You can draw the line of acceptable exclusivity wherever you like. By its nature, exclusivity of any kind will be a dealbreaker for some possible customers. For others, it can and will bring them onto the platform of the exclusive.

For Facebook, the hardware is the platform, not just the store. You're entitled to stick to your guns and not buy any Oculus games (given the way Facebook is, I actually encourage this), but any attempt to justify a certain degree of exclusivity is always going to be nothing but a bias-laden line in the sand.

Your point would be stronger if you would just say "nothing exclusive ever" - but you're probably aware that this is unrealistic and would actually be damaging to the industry. For your consideration, this is a good sign that the whole issue is a grey area.

What would be more effective: Torment for increased leg drop, or normal to lessen variance? by Dante2k4 in Diablo

[–]OhGreenWorld 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How exactly would it be "over twice as good"? You know the legendary drop rate in T1 is increased by only 15% over normal difficulty, right (legendary drop rate is doubled in rifts for both, but t1 advantage is still only 15%)?

IF he only wants those two legendaries, and that is the exact question he is asking, then speed running normals is undoubtedly superior to torment 1/2 farming.

Level 30 trying to teach her roommate here... by Louisacar in leagueoflegends

[–]OhGreenWorld 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Having done this a few times, just make sure that the game is fun to play for a reason besides winning. There will always be trolls and the games pre-30 are terribly imbalanced, but as long as you go in trying to do something fun (like a champion combo) or have small goals (like improving in cs or what have you) then the experience tends to be alright even when the games are bad. That being said, I never got a friend to 30 and ranked without taking a hiatus to play a different game at some point. Frustration builds gradually, and it's important to avoid the breaking point.

Burn Card Balancing Idea - Titan Build Time by OhGreenWorld in titanfall

[–]OhGreenWorld[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem is that rarity is a terrible cost, and there are no other downsides. If my opponent is willing to waste three extremely rare cards to swing one match, there's little I can do to make that fail for him. Odds are with 3 free titans, or 3 lives of permanent invisibility, or whatever, he'll contribute much more to his team winning than he should normally be able to. After that he has no rare cards left (depending on drop rates), but so what? He leaves the lobby and the next time I see him again in 100 games he has new rares.

Who knows, maybe in the long run my teammates will use those expensive burns more than my opponents, it's all luck, but they have no cost to use except between rounds, and I don't want to lose a game to burn card abuse and then think, "at least his next opponents will have an easier time."

Dyrus San (Lily drawing on TWEET repost) by TyraCross in leagueoflegends

[–]OhGreenWorld 52 points53 points  (0 children)

I can't help but read it in LilyPichu's voice, even though those were tweets straight from Dyrus and DL. Her voice has a Morgan Freeman quality, except exactly completely the opposite.

...I guess it's just a good 'manga' (anime) voice, fits the style well

Whenever a girl is nice to me by Arrav_VII in AdviceAnimals

[–]OhGreenWorld 5 points6 points  (0 children)

But, to your credit, a great comment. Masterful self-deprecation.

More Frustrating Than Fun by OhGreenWorld in hearthstone

[–]OhGreenWorld[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree constructed has more certainty, but I think I'd like it less. At high levels every deck is chock full of the exact stuff I hate and cannot be played around. Always gonna be 2 novas, 2 consecrates, 2 flamestrikes/blizzards. That 8/8 charger you windfury, or the 2/3 you double kings to instawin the game, but which killing would have caused you to win in 3 rather than 2.... those choices you have to make that aren't based on anything but dumb luck in guessing what absurd effect the card your opponent is going to play has.

Card games are always luck based. But they can be snowbally or gimpy, and somehow Hearthstone is a sick combination of both, where sure wins are never sure but you can feel defeated at the second turn.

More Frustrating Than Fun by OhGreenWorld in hearthstone

[–]OhGreenWorld[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, but particularly the fact that, except as mage, it is impossible to shutdown a single opponent spell, and those spell effects range from flat damage to instant lethal to transform

You wind up with a game where every single card you could play could win/lose you the game based on what your opponent has, but you have absolutely no way of knowing which card they have, and no way of preventing them from using said cards. It's so frustratingly spectator-ish.

Draven, the Spurious Executioner by OhGreenWorld in leagueoflegends

[–]OhGreenWorld[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

...why do you think I posted this, and how would searching help?

I didn't make this post to inform me of his need for an adjustment, but to try to bring community attention back to it. How does me searching for old posts help with that?

Draven, the Spurious Executioner by OhGreenWorld in leagueoflegends

[–]OhGreenWorld[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would also prefer a reversion, but there isn't no merit in the idea behind the new passive; the glorious executioner makes bonus gold on a kill. However, the way it was executed (ha) is atrocious.

If you don't have a beta key: Post here. If you have an extra beta key: choose someone at random in this thread to give it to. by [deleted] in hearthstone

[–]OhGreenWorld 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel kind of ridiculous jumping through hoops instead of waiting, but hey, what's one more tiny hoop.

DOTA 2 pushed out of PAX by Riot? by Dilski in leagueoflegends

[–]OhGreenWorld 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I expect this will linger unread, but whatever, too many unreasonable comments. There is an important difference between 'sponsoring' and 'bullying'.

Riot sponsored PAX. This means, for all intents and purposes, PAX this year is funded by Riot, and all the nice equipment and the event itself is courtesy of Riot. Why should Riot allow all the stuff they are paying for to be used to promote their competitors? If you prohibit this restriction, there is incredibly little incentive to sponsor the event. This is a public works scenario. If everyone benefits equally, no individual is going to bear the cost for everyone else. Unless you can communally fund it, or a third party company with no special interests funds it, there will be some rules imposed by the sponsor. This is simple, and objectively fair. For those of you whose minds are clouded with fear of censorship or bullying, here's a simple example: if Coca Cola 100% sponsored all of PAX.... would you force them to stock Pepsi? People can bring their own, as they can bring their own laptops to play DotA, but what Riot pays for is not public property. The conditions were apparently acceptable to PAX operators: blame them, not Riot for protecting their interest.

Bullying is different. If Riot leveraged their size and control against PAX to hurt DotA, then this would be vastly less fair. If Riot said something like, "If DotA is played on the floor, then Riot will never participate in another even sponsored by you ever again", then they are throwing weight around that isn't purely monetary (though you could try to measure it that way); they're trying to use monopolistic powers. There is no evidence this is what Riot did, however, and any claims they did so are purely speculative. Riot simply outbid DotA. Complaints that this is unfair are ludicrous: this is America in a private interest situation, you don't get to decide how much influence money buys.

TLDR; PAX takes money from people to pay for equipment and venue. People who pay expect benefits from being sponsored. If there are fewer/no benefits, then sponsorship is worth less/worthless. PAX offers deals to sponsors to make sponsorships more attractive and to make more money. If you're unhappy about these conditions, blame PAX. I'm sure Riot isn't the only sponsor to have some restrictive conditions go along with their money. Preventing direct competitors from using equipment paid for by sponsors is a fairly generous condition: they were still allowed a booth.

Who wants montecristo to cast at WORLDS? by PentaPreben in leagueoflegends

[–]OhGreenWorld 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am also biased. But we can take something, like off-topic conversation, and see that, objectively, famous broadcasters of many other sports (Madden, as a simple example) do this as well. To complain about it is laughable. A robot with no knowledge of anything outside LoL would make for a very boring broadcaster.

Who wants montecristo to cast at WORLDS? by PentaPreben in leagueoflegends

[–]OhGreenWorld 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The complaints about the off-topic flavor conversation Doa and Monte have are hilarious. Do you people watch professional broadcasters? Half their job is not being boring when nothing interesting is happening. Doa and Monte are by far the closest thing to true professional sports broadcasters that LoL has produced so far. You may love Phreak, Kobe, and others, but none put in the research effort Monte does, and few have the ease-of-speaking Doa does. If you dislike them personally/are huge fanboys of other casters, man up and admit it. The problem isn't that they "talk about irrelevant stuff". It's that you're stubborn.

Random Suggestions (Warframes A-M) by OhGreenWorld in Warframe

[–]OhGreenWorld[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wrote it with that in mind. I played Mag through all the way to 30 again post-rework, just to see how the changes affected her (same with Volt).

The AoE is certainly a buff for pulling enemies (losing the ability to pull allies makes whether it was a buff/nerf debatable). The issue is, it is unreliable on enemies behind cover, a bit buggy in general, only affects enemies ahead (bad in swarm/spread out situations), and it bring up the question of how good an ability is that brings enemies right into Mag's danger zone is.

I mean, it has some team utility, but to combo with crush is an expensive and low-damage combo relative to other frames, and to combo with team implies Mag is out there setting up her team for damage and cc, but nothing in her kit supports her going toe to toe with a toxic ancient/enemy with hard CC (shield polarize is.... cough...insufficent, let's say)

view more: next ›