Repairs and Replacements are the Most Important Aspects of Design

It's not the permutations that's the issue. A huge part of character action combos are aerial combos. Once you launch an issue, most characters have some sort of combo potential to keep the fight in the air. When you add another player to that, the two players would keep getting in each other's way, their combos would overwrite each other leading to a system that satisfies neither of them. Then add more characters and it just gets incrementally worse.

Attached: 2022-04-14 (13).jpg (1920x1080, 1.32M)

What's the problem?

I just told you what's the problem. If you want character action, you shouldn't have multiplayer, because the systems are not good for 2+ players. It's not an issue of the number of combos, it's people getting each other's way. The only time they wouldn't is if every fight is 1v1, but that defeats the purpose of multiplayer.

You're saying aerials are necessary / beneficial.

user, I don't know if you're posting while fully aware of this or not, but I feel I should inform you you're speaking to a known schizo. Proceed only while knowing this.

Yes, they are a huge part of character action games.

Noted.

Levels.

What do you mean levels?

1 per.

I'm sorry, I can't parse what you're trying to say

A level per aerial, duh.

Again, what does that mean to you, specifically? I cannot argue for or against something if I don't know what exactly you're trying to describe, and I'm not going to understand if you space it out to borderline one word per post. What do you mean one level per aerial?

It's self-explanatory, a level of hitboxes and hurtboxes each for an aerial performed.

I'm trying to imagine if you were forced to add multiplayer to a stylish combo beatem up how it would work. I think a system where you take turns styling on an enemy where one player purposely ends their combo so the other can pick it up would work. If you let some moves "pass the baton" to your partner I think it could be really fun.

>It's self-explanatory
I can assure you, it was not. You can't assume people will read your mind.
>a level of hitboxes and hurtboxes each for an aerial performed.
I don't see how this will eliminate the issue of people getting each other's way. Like for a very easy example, there are abilities that are specificall built around pulling enemies to you, even in the air. If two players are comboing one enemy in the air, and either one of the uses an ability like this, it'll break the combo flow of the other player. If Player 1 wants to execute A, and Player 2 wants to execute B, there are many instances where only one of those could be performed on any given enemy.

Yeah that's an option I deliberately didn't mention, only because while it sounds like a good idea, I feel like it'd result in a lot of downtime for either player.

That's ridiculous.

If Player 1 wants to execute A, and Player 2 wants to execute B, there are many instances where only one of those could be performed on any given enemy.
These are called priorities.

Fighting games don't have to do this.

Attached: 2022-04-12.jpg (1920x1080, 1.81M)

>These are called priorities.
When you introduce priorities between two characters, it will inevitably break the combo flow for one of them, through no fault of their own. That runs in contrary to what character action games are about.

>Fighting games don't have to do this
Nobody said anything about fighting games.

>I feel like it'd result in a lot of downtime for either player
I was thinking that too but for regular enemies you can each combo one enemy then tag and switch which would be super cool. For bosses you'd have something like Dante's guns to get in some chip damage before tagging in which I guess would be pretty lame yeah.

>I was thinking that too but for regular enemies you can each combo one enemy then tag and switch which would be super cool
Netcode would need to be rock solid for that. I dunno, maybe tweaking numbers enough might result in something good, but it's a tightrope act.
>For bosses you'd have something like Dante's guns to get in some chip damage before tagging in which I guess would be pretty lame yeah.
Dear lord, imagine one player on DMC5 and the other forced to play DMC2 Infested Chopper until they switch.

You'd definitely have to design the game from the ground up so that each player has something exciting to do in every encounter but I do think the concept is doable.

holy shit youre back
post the strawberries on toast pic please

what does this sim have to do with anything?

is this the same autist that keeps bringing up permanant gear destruction in mmos and everyone having to RMT to get ahead?

>When you introduce priorities between two characters, it will inevitably break the combo flow for one of them
That's called skillfulness.

>That runs in contrary to what character action games are all about.
Appealing to definitions.

>Nobody said anything about fighting games.
>[Not an argument].

30ms is simple.

Depth vs. variety.

As long as it's requested.

SP vs. multiplalyer motivation.

1/2.

Attached: sbc-3.jpg (665x885, 402.69K)

That's a great looking sandwich

2/2.

Attached: Real Money Economies.png (800x600, 41.09K)

Attached: RMEs.png (800x600, 44.22K)

Attached: Botting.png (800x600, 25.7K)

Attached: Botting and RMEs.png (800x600, 48.03K)

>objective
>gameplay loop
>gathering
>crafting
Good thing there are terrible posts like these to bring me back to sanity.

>[Implying these aren't keywords for making you think].

it only makes me think that OP is a retard

I don't need keywords to think the intern-tier slides itt are idiotic marketing nonsense.

>[Not an argument].

>That's called skillfulness.
It's just actively getting in each other's way. It's like two cars in a small street, one of them will have to give. It's not a skill issue, it's a design problem that doesn't really benefit either of them.
>Appealing to definitions.
Yes, because who are you going to sell your character action game to, if not people who like character action games? When you throw out combo potential, you no longer have a character action game, so why would you call it that?
>[Not an argument].
user YOU brought up fighting games, without explaining why you brought them up at all.

There's not really an argument presented itt in the first place. These slides just state things that publishers and stockholders want to hear without any explanation as to how it benefits game design as a creative or entertainment medium.

Attached: 1650053072026.jpg (720x691, 73.66K)

Barring additional explanation, it just sounds like you want gaming to only be accessible to rich people.

When people make slides like yours, they're almost always followed up by explanations of what they mean, because otherwise they're just empty slogans.

>It's just actively getting in each other's way.
The combo flow isn't about getting in each other's way. It's called skillfulness because it's winning the priority, usually via newness.

That's all.

There's a diference between internet marketing and marketing truth.

You're appealing to least common denominator lowest-hanging fruit, and that's not what optimals are about.

Prove it.

Attached: Playstyles.png (800x600, 37.18K)

>The combo flow isn't about getting in each other's way. It's called skillfulness because it's winning the priority, usually via newness.
Most players already have a difficult time stringing elaborate combos together, if you add other players being able to break that flow, it's not going to incentivize people to do more combos. Why would they bother when any random player could break it?

All your posts sound like you want to break game design into a formula or algorithm. That's not how you make great games.

>Prove it.
Slogans and slides are inherently designed to omit everything but the most important words. People talk using complete sentences. The point of powerpoint slides is to drill in the keywords, along with an explanation of what you're actually talking about. If you don't do that, there is a high chance people will misunderstand what you're talking about. Slides aren't there to do the job for you, they're there to give bullet points, help the audience follow along and help you as well in remembering the key points.

>You're appealing to least common denominator lowest-hanging fruit, and that's not what optimals are about.
Optimals for games would be whales, of course. If you want to center you game on whales, that's fine, but it also omits the other 99% of your potential playerbase. Even whales typically don't support more than 1-2 games each though.

>Most players already have a difficult time stringing elaborate combos together
3 uses of X, Y, or Square aren't elaborate, particularly.

>if you add other players being able to break that flow
Timing, and risks:rewards; you're barely arguing character action, much less overall gameplay.

You're not arguing that anything is mysterious.

>Optimals for games would be whales
That's too specific to be always true.

Attached: 2022-04-14 (16).jpg (1920x1080, 1.55M)

>3 uses of X, Y, or Square aren't elaborate, particularly.
Character action games have typically much longer combo possibilities than X, Y and Square, ignoring the fact that you're invoking the button layout of two different controllers. The combo potential increases especially as you get more abilities.
>Timing, and risks:rewards; you're barely arguing character action, much less overall gameplay.
I'm still arguing character action, but it sounds more and more like you're thinking of Monster Hunter, rather than Devil May Cry.

Well shit, I want to have a cocaine kitties party and go box a giant scorpion while my bewildered friend watches.

>You're not arguing that anything is mysterious.
user, just look at >Botting and Real Money Economies are Beneficial
Okay, that's fine.
>- via Accessibility
Here's the first problem. What does accessibility mean in this context? The ability to access the game? Or accommodating disabled people? Why is accessibility capable of making botting and RME beneficial?
>and in Promoting Depth
Why? How does botting and RME promote depth?
>Creativity
Again, why? How does botting and RME promote creativity?
>and Quick Pacing
What does this mean? Is this supposed to mean a fast pace? A quick pace for what? Development? The gameplay's pace? How does botting and RME help with that?
It is a bunch of slogans, which is fine on its own, but you're not giving an explanation on any of it. People can't see into your head, they won't magically know what you're talking about.

>That's too specific to be always true.
So what is it then?

this discussion seems mostly directionless due to OP’s poor communication, but i’m interested in the talk about multiplayer fighting games. i don’t play a lot of fighting games but it sounds like people are saying “combos” and “aerials” to reference *control* of the fight - in pvp / pve, a lot of fun for me is starting with no / ambiguous control (e.g. lots of mobs attacking) and managing strategy/execution to get in control (e.g. trapping mob/opponent in aerial/combo).

sharing control in a co-op way seems tough, interested to see if there are games that do it. 1v1 fighting games naturally have like, a back-and-forth at high level, e.g. you have to give space to your opponent to make sure you don’t overextend. i don’t play Monster Hunter but that seems like it chucks this all out of the window and just says “here’s a shared target, everyone go at it in parallel” - more like many people each playing a single-player game. any good examples of shared control?

>any good examples of shared control?
Battletech on the Genesis/Megadrive, one player controls the legs of the mech and the other controls the torso/weapons. So one player is tasked with dodging while the other has to aim and shoot while accounting for the movements of the other player, and the other player has to try to get close enough for the shooter to actually be able to fire on targets.

>What's entertaining is being a god.
No, it's the journey, not the result, give a man everything he wants and you destroy him.
But yes, an obnoxious mechanic is still an obnoxious mechanic.

>Character action games have typically much longer combo possibilities than X, Y and Square
No. 3x3 is much beyond the usual.

>I'm still arguing character action, but it sounds more and more like you're thinking of Monster Hunter, rather than Devil May Cry
I argued an economy.

>Here's the first problem. What does accessibility mean in this context?
Accessibility to botting, the real money economy, and gameplay options.

>Why?
It depends on what you're describing as depth, creativity, and quick pacing because those are very specific to any meaning; these are mentioning what science has explained, but you're not going deeper than that somebody has posted images.

>...

>this discussion seems mostly directionless due to OP’s poor communication
I don't believe you.

>it sounds like people are saying “combos” and “aerials” to reference *control* of the fight
Combos and aerials are two very explicit designs, usually.

--

Here's ARK, each of the bushes and trees and rocks being harvestable.

Attached: 2022-04-15 (2).jpg (1920x1080, 1.75M)

>No, it's the journey, not the result
You're not arguing for anything, but detracting from what defines a god. They're utilizing the gathering, crafting, and trading for being ultimate. Universal.

>pic
If this were true, everyone would agree on what the best media is. They don't. So...

No they aren't. Botting is winning a game without playing it, which means it's not a game at all. There's something to be said about a game's design if it encourages people to bot, I can understand that, but the solution then is to just not play the game; go play something else. And RMT destroys games by inviting people to turn what's supposed to be fun into a job, usually by people who don't even like the game. Not to mention it destroys the economy by elevating the standards of how much money a player can reasonably be expected to have, which drives normal players to spend real money to try and keep up with some stupid imaginary world. It also destroys half the reason people play video games to begin with, when their competence in this imaginary world is now controlled by their real world social status.

Fuck off, bugman.