It’s alarming to hear now, after a few years, that re-parry wasn’t intended. This makes me question the game design, stability & quality control of MCoC and Kabam. A lot of the recent game issues and responses have been very disappointing .
The announcement was a little unclear, will reparry stay or be phased out? Also, if it was unintended why is it part of the monthly event quest global nodes for the guardian tags? Will these nodes be addressed before we see them again?
It is not unusual for unintended interactions to become gameplay staples. Capcom did not create the combo systems we now expect in fighting games. It was a happy accident that players found and exploited in their early fighters.
It’s alarming to hear now, after a few years, that re-parry wasn’t intended. This makes me question the game design, stability & quality control of MCoC and Kabam. A lot of the recent game issues and responses have been very disappointing .
There seems to be an assumption that unintended behaviors are bad, or to put it another way all behaviors should be intentional or removed, and this is what all good game implementations do. That's simply not true. In most games every legal move by the players is clearly defined. Chess, for example, implements a game where every legal move by the players is clearly defined. The same thing is true for MCOC, but the definition of a "move" in MCOC is a player input: all player inputs are clearly defined. We can dash forward, dash back, hold block, tap or swipe to attack. These are the legal moves. But what we call Parry, Intercept, draft back, and reparry are not moves, they are tactics. At least some subset of situational tactics are explicitly designed into the game - Parry is an explicitly designed situational tactic. But there are a lot of situational tactics that are not explicitly designed and have no name. The "hit into block twice and then dash back and not hold block to bait a special attack" is not a named tactic (at least it has no popular name) and it almost certainly was not designed explicitly into the game, it is more of an emergent tactic that comes about because of the way the game's attacks and AI work.
These implicit tactics can change with the game as these situational contexts also change. Because they are not explicitly defined, there's nothing "protecting" them in the game design (CompSci 101 students will know this as a 'don't care" in their Karnaugh map homework). They can also become emergent as well. And sometimes, when an emergent tactic becomes possible it also becomes popular, and then the designers have to decide whether to enshrine it as a desired feature of the game or not. They stop being don't-cares in the implementation and start to become requirements.
Not only is this common, it is essentially unavoidable. This is just how games like this work, and I believe no credible game designer would disagree. There is essentially no way for a game to explicitly design all player tactics into their game, any more than there exists a Chess book that contains a list of every legal tactic players can use, nor can there be. There are tactics that don't exist yet in Chess and have never been played by any human player, even after two thousand years of the game's existence.
It’s alarming to hear now, after a few years, that re-parry wasn’t intended. This makes me question the game design, stability & quality control of MCoC and Kabam. A lot of the recent game issues and responses have been very disappointing .
Removed probably because you made an unnecessary doomsday comment about leaving the game just becuase reparry exists.
It’s alarming to hear now, after a few years, that re-parry wasn’t intended. This makes me question the game design, stability & quality control of MCoC and Kabam. A lot of the recent game issues and responses have been very disappointing .
Removed probably because you made an unnecessary doomsday comment about leaving the game just becuase reparry exists.
This comment is unnecessary too.
With all due respect, That’s not an accurate description of the post. I mentioned other issues with the game such as quality, communication & then said perhaps it’s time to move on from MCoC (paraphrasing, don’t remember it exactly). There were no doomsday statements like “the game is dying” and it certainly wasn’t rude or vulgar.
I want what everyone wants, the game to thrive and do well.
Comments
It’s alarming to hear now, after a few years, that re-parry wasn’t intended. This makes me question the game design, stability & quality control of MCoC and Kabam. A lot of the recent game issues and responses have been very disappointing .
It was a happy accident that players found and exploited in their early fighters.
These implicit tactics can change with the game as these situational contexts also change. Because they are not explicitly defined, there's nothing "protecting" them in the game design (CompSci 101 students will know this as a 'don't care" in their Karnaugh map homework). They can also become emergent as well. And sometimes, when an emergent tactic becomes possible it also becomes popular, and then the designers have to decide whether to enshrine it as a desired feature of the game or not. They stop being don't-cares in the implementation and start to become requirements.
Not only is this common, it is essentially unavoidable. This is just how games like this work, and I believe no credible game designer would disagree. There is essentially no way for a game to explicitly design all player tactics into their game, any more than there exists a Chess book that contains a list of every legal tactic players can use, nor can there be. There are tactics that don't exist yet in Chess and have never been played by any human player, even after two thousand years of the game's existence.
This comment is unnecessary too.
I want what everyone wants, the game to thrive and do well.