New trend happening/ Rant

Texas_11 · September 2020

Patchie93 said:
Okay but you have no need for a healer or a tank. Since its not like all your champs fight at the same time. You may need different champs for specific nodes on your path. The only specific thing I'd say has a role would be a boss killer for each quest.
Besides that the other 4 champs should all be for lane clearing/synergies

Well you technically do, just not at the same time doesn’t mean you aren’t compiling a team to create counters.

If you have an immune champ you are supporting your DPS champ if they aren’t immune.

Texas_11 · September 2020

DNA3000 said:

Texas_11 said:
“Literally quotes from Kabam , tell me what is not RPG about this game?
There are RPG elements to the game, but the one element that doesn't exist and you're relying upon when you talk about RPG *roles* is you can only have one champion in the fight at a time. In most MMORPGs, the reason why many (not all) focus on roles is to give each *player* something to do in a team. Having a healer makes sense if you can heal the DPS. Having a healer when he has to sit on the bench while the DPS gets his face smashed in doesn't make sense in the same way.

As to synergy buffs, I'm fine with them as they do not replace champion buffing. Champions are buffed based on their actual in-game performance. If they add a synergy and, as many suggest, that synergy is hard to acquire, then most players in the game won't be using that synergy and the average performance of that champion won't go up much.

The problem is people attach their own narrative to this. They assume that if they think a champ needs a buff, everyone including the devs agree. And then if that champ gets a synergy bonus, then of course that's Kabam doing what they are "supposed to do" by buffing the champ but in an inaccessible way. But that is entirely false.

What actually happens is when a new champion is created and they are designing synergies, they look for the conceptual options available for that new champ to synergize with. And if the option is a super powerful champ, they are reluctant usually to give it a super strong synergy on top (but that does happen occasionally). Conversely, if the champion is a lower performing champ, they tend to feel like they have more of a margin to hand out stronger synergies, because those stronger synergies won't do anything unbalancing to a lower performing champ. That makes complete sense from a design perspective.

But what it looks like from the outside is, Kabam is "buffing" poor performing champs with synergies instead of buffing them directly. As if what they are supposed to do is when making synergies, make crappy ones so people don't consider them buffs. Or make strong ones and give them to the already strong champions, so people don't think they are intended to be underperformance buffs. Both of those options are silly, and the product of an invented narrative.

You are taking your own interpretation of what an RPG is and saying “if ...then” . You can’t do that because all it takes is one theory to prove you wrong. Mr fantastic cross fight abilities, and now apocalypse horseman abilities and the ability to regen if your teammate wins a fight.

If your theory on a champion is based on average performances and they don’t improve from that synergy then they need a buff.

Also, you are assuming Kabam thinks like is this synergy strong or not. They had to tone down synergies that made champs too strong and correct it right away, so we shouldn’t be discussing Kabams thought process. We should only discuss results of their thought processes.

Again, you are assuming a narrative of what people are thinking . You should not and cannot speak for what narrative people are thinking. I don’t mind synergies , what I mind is making a champion DPS in this case jump through the roof with a synergy. I could be wrong but I bet you Kabam will see data and realize how dependent they made a champ on synergies. Ghost for example doesn’t need wasp, but makes her gameplay smoother.

I can appreciate your thought process , but essentially what you are saying is Mcoc is not an RPG which is not true .

Kabam creates a synergy that is inaccessible
To many so the champ doesn’t change- I agree with this.

People assume Kabam agrees with them. - This is not true.

DNA3000 · September 2020

Texas_11 said:

DNA3000 said:

Texas_11 said:
“Literally quotes from Kabam , tell me what is not RPG about this game?
There are RPG elements to the game, but the one element that doesn't exist and you're relying upon when you talk about RPG *roles* is you can only have one champion in the fight at a time. In most MMORPGs, the reason why many (not all) focus on roles is to give each *player* something to do in a team. Having a healer makes sense if you can heal the DPS. Having a healer when he has to sit on the bench while the DPS gets his face smashed in doesn't make sense in the same way.

As to synergy buffs, I'm fine with them as they do not replace champion buffing. Champions are buffed based on their actual in-game performance. If they add a synergy and, as many suggest, that synergy is hard to acquire, then most players in the game won't be using that synergy and the average performance of that champion won't go up much.

The problem is people attach their own narrative to this. They assume that if they think a champ needs a buff, everyone including the devs agree. And then if that champ gets a synergy bonus, then of course that's Kabam doing what they are "supposed to do" by buffing the champ but in an inaccessible way. But that is entirely false.

What actually happens is when a new champion is created and they are designing synergies, they look for the conceptual options available for that new champ to synergize with. And if the option is a super powerful champ, they are reluctant usually to give it a super strong synergy on top (but that does happen occasionally). Conversely, if the champion is a lower performing champ, they tend to feel like they have more of a margin to hand out stronger synergies, because those stronger synergies won't do anything unbalancing to a lower performing champ. That makes complete sense from a design perspective.

But what it looks like from the outside is, Kabam is "buffing" poor performing champs with synergies instead of buffing them directly. As if what they are supposed to do is when making synergies, make crappy ones so people don't consider them buffs. Or make strong ones and give them to the already strong champions, so people don't think they are intended to be underperformance buffs. Both of those options are silly, and the product of an invented narrative.
You are taking your own interpretation of what an RPG is and saying “if ...then” . You can’t do that because all it takes is one theory to prove you wrong. Mr fantastic cross fight abilities, and now apocalypse horseman abilities and the ability to regen if your teammate wins a fight.

If your theory on a champion is based on average performances and they don’t improve from that synergy then they need a buff.

Also, you are assuming Kabam thinks like is this synergy strong or not. They had to tone down synergies that made champs too strong and correct it right away, so we shouldn’t be discussing Kabams thought process. We should only discuss results of their thought processes.

Again, you are assuming a narrative of what people are thinking . You should not and cannot speak for what narrative people are thinking. I don’t mind synergies , what I mind is making a champion DPS in this case jump through the roof with a synergy. I could be wrong but I bet you Kabam will see data and realize how dependent they made a champ on synergies. Ghost for example doesn’t need wasp, but makes her gameplay smoother.

I can appreciate your thought process , but essentially what you are saying is Mcoc is not an RPG which is not true .

Kabam creates a synergy that is inaccessible
To many so the champ doesn’t change- I agree with this.

People assume Kabam agrees with them. - This is not true.

it is interesting to me, and something I will make a mental note of, that you're saying if I say that MCOC is not an RPG, a single counterexample of an instance where MCOC sometimes functions like an RPG invalidates the statement, but you don't object to the poster I was responding to who said MCOC is an RPG with the same objection; that a single counterexample completely invalidates the statement that MCOC is an RPG.

Probably a tad too obvious there.

In any case, I'll revise my statement for the purposes of pedanticness. MCOC doesn't honor the requisite RPG game design elements necessary to emphasize the typical game design elements consistent with player composite team roles in a consistent enough fashion to make those roles a practical component of champion design.

Texas_11 · September 2020

DNA3000 said:

Texas_11 said:

DNA3000 said:

Texas_11 said:
“Literally quotes from Kabam , tell me what is not RPG about this game?
There are RPG elements to the game, but the one element that doesn't exist and you're relying upon when you talk about RPG *roles* is you can only have one champion in the fight at a time. In most MMORPGs, the reason why many (not all) focus on roles is to give each *player* something to do in a team. Having a healer makes sense if you can heal the DPS. Having a healer when he has to sit on the bench while the DPS gets his face smashed in doesn't make sense in the same way.

As to synergy buffs, I'm fine with them as they do not replace champion buffing. Champions are buffed based on their actual in-game performance. If they add a synergy and, as many suggest, that synergy is hard to acquire, then most players in the game won't be using that synergy and the average performance of that champion won't go up much.

The problem is people attach their own narrative to this. They assume that if they think a champ needs a buff, everyone including the devs agree. And then if that champ gets a synergy bonus, then of course that's Kabam doing what they are "supposed to do" by buffing the champ but in an inaccessible way. But that is entirely false.

What actually happens is when a new champion is created and they are designing synergies, they look for the conceptual options available for that new champ to synergize with. And if the option is a super powerful champ, they are reluctant usually to give it a super strong synergy on top (but that does happen occasionally). Conversely, if the champion is a lower performing champ, they tend to feel like they have more of a margin to hand out stronger synergies, because those stronger synergies won't do anything unbalancing to a lower performing champ. That makes complete sense from a design perspective.

But what it looks like from the outside is, Kabam is "buffing" poor performing champs with synergies instead of buffing them directly. As if what they are supposed to do is when making synergies, make crappy ones so people don't consider them buffs. Or make strong ones and give them to the already strong champions, so people don't think they are intended to be underperformance buffs. Both of those options are silly, and the product of an invented narrative.
You are taking your own interpretation of what an RPG is and saying “if ...then” . You can’t do that because all it takes is one theory to prove you wrong. Mr fantastic cross fight abilities, and now apocalypse horseman abilities and the ability to regen if your teammate wins a fight.

If your theory on a champion is based on average performances and they don’t improve from that synergy then they need a buff.

Also, you are assuming Kabam thinks like is this synergy strong or not. They had to tone down synergies that made champs too strong and correct it right away, so we shouldn’t be discussing Kabams thought process. We should only discuss results of their thought processes.

Again, you are assuming a narrative of what people are thinking . You should not and cannot speak for what narrative people are thinking. I don’t mind synergies , what I mind is making a champion DPS in this case jump through the roof with a synergy. I could be wrong but I bet you Kabam will see data and realize how dependent they made a champ on synergies. Ghost for example doesn’t need wasp, but makes her gameplay smoother.

I can appreciate your thought process , but essentially what you are saying is Mcoc is not an RPG which is not true .

Kabam creates a synergy that is inaccessible
To many so the champ doesn’t change- I agree with this.

People assume Kabam agrees with them. - This is not true.
it is interesting to me, and something I will make a mental note of, that you're saying if I say that MCOC is not an RPG, a single counterexample of an instance where MCOC sometimes functions like an RPG invalidates the statement, but you don't object to the poster I was responding to who said MCOC is an RPG with the same objection; that a single counterexample completely invalidates the statement that MCOC is an RPG.

Probably a tad too obvious there.

In any case, I'll revise my statement for the purposes of pedanticness. MCOC doesn't honor the requisite RPG game design elements necessary to emphasize the typical game design elements consistent with player composite team roles in a consistent enough fashion to make those roles a practical component of champion design.

So what you are saying is the line is not clear enough to say if it’s an RPG and that just because it has feathers doesn’t mean it can fly?

DNA3000 · September 2020

Texas_11 said:

DNA3000 said:

Texas_11 said:

DNA3000 said:

Texas_11 said:
“Literally quotes from Kabam , tell me what is not RPG about this game?
There are RPG elements to the game, but the one element that doesn't exist and you're relying upon when you talk about RPG *roles* is you can only have one champion in the fight at a time. In most MMORPGs, the reason why many (not all) focus on roles is to give each *player* something to do in a team. Having a healer makes sense if you can heal the DPS. Having a healer when he has to sit on the bench while the DPS gets his face smashed in doesn't make sense in the same way.

As to synergy buffs, I'm fine with them as they do not replace champion buffing. Champions are buffed based on their actual in-game performance. If they add a synergy and, as many suggest, that synergy is hard to acquire, then most players in the game won't be using that synergy and the average performance of that champion won't go up much.

The problem is people attach their own narrative to this. They assume that if they think a champ needs a buff, everyone including the devs agree. And then if that champ gets a synergy bonus, then of course that's Kabam doing what they are "supposed to do" by buffing the champ but in an inaccessible way. But that is entirely false.

What actually happens is when a new champion is created and they are designing synergies, they look for the conceptual options available for that new champ to synergize with. And if the option is a super powerful champ, they are reluctant usually to give it a super strong synergy on top (but that does happen occasionally). Conversely, if the champion is a lower performing champ, they tend to feel like they have more of a margin to hand out stronger synergies, because those stronger synergies won't do anything unbalancing to a lower performing champ. That makes complete sense from a design perspective.

But what it looks like from the outside is, Kabam is "buffing" poor performing champs with synergies instead of buffing them directly. As if what they are supposed to do is when making synergies, make crappy ones so people don't consider them buffs. Or make strong ones and give them to the already strong champions, so people don't think they are intended to be underperformance buffs. Both of those options are silly, and the product of an invented narrative.
You are taking your own interpretation of what an RPG is and saying “if ...then” . You can’t do that because all it takes is one theory to prove you wrong. Mr fantastic cross fight abilities, and now apocalypse horseman abilities and the ability to regen if your teammate wins a fight.

If your theory on a champion is based on average performances and they don’t improve from that synergy then they need a buff.

Also, you are assuming Kabam thinks like is this synergy strong or not. They had to tone down synergies that made champs too strong and correct it right away, so we shouldn’t be discussing Kabams thought process. We should only discuss results of their thought processes.

Again, you are assuming a narrative of what people are thinking . You should not and cannot speak for what narrative people are thinking. I don’t mind synergies , what I mind is making a champion DPS in this case jump through the roof with a synergy. I could be wrong but I bet you Kabam will see data and realize how dependent they made a champ on synergies. Ghost for example doesn’t need wasp, but makes her gameplay smoother.

I can appreciate your thought process , but essentially what you are saying is Mcoc is not an RPG which is not true .

Kabam creates a synergy that is inaccessible
To many so the champ doesn’t change- I agree with this.

People assume Kabam agrees with them. - This is not true.
it is interesting to me, and something I will make a mental note of, that you're saying if I say that MCOC is not an RPG, a single counterexample of an instance where MCOC sometimes functions like an RPG invalidates the statement, but you don't object to the poster I was responding to who said MCOC is an RPG with the same objection; that a single counterexample completely invalidates the statement that MCOC is an RPG.

Probably a tad too obvious there.

In any case, I'll revise my statement for the purposes of pedanticness. MCOC doesn't honor the requisite RPG game design elements necessary to emphasize the typical game design elements consistent with player composite team roles in a consistent enough fashion to make those roles a practical component of champion design.
So what you are saying is the line is not clear enough to say if it’s an RPG and that just because it has feathers doesn’t mean it can fly?

I'm saying calling it an RPG doesn't mean it has all the properties of one, especially because different people mean different things when they say that. And so just because a Kabam employee uses the term, doesn't mean they are using it the way you mean. Based on my conversations with Kabam developers,. I'm pretty sure they aren't using it the way you seem to be. But also I think you don't need to talk to Kabam developers to realize that RPG roles in traditional RPGs and MMORPGs presume that the different roles are interacting together in the game more or less simultaneously and strongly, and that this would have to be a pervasively supported gameplay feature of MCOC for the developers to consider this a meaningful driving element of champion design and gameplay meta design. At best, synergies are a very weak shadow of typical RPG role interactions.

I'm afraid I'm insufficiently familiar with avian biology to be able to express this particular set of game design ideas in those terms.

Texas_11 · September 2020

DNA3000 said:

Texas_11 said:

DNA3000 said:

Texas_11 said:

DNA3000 said:

Texas_11 said:
“Literally quotes from Kabam , tell me what is not RPG about this game?
There are RPG elements to the game, but the one element that doesn't exist and you're relying upon when you talk about RPG *roles* is you can only have one champion in the fight at a time. In most MMORPGs, the reason why many (not all) focus on roles is to give each *player* something to do in a team. Having a healer makes sense if you can heal the DPS. Having a healer when he has to sit on the bench while the DPS gets his face smashed in doesn't make sense in the same way.

As to synergy buffs, I'm fine with them as they do not replace champion buffing. Champions are buffed based on their actual in-game performance. If they add a synergy and, as many suggest, that synergy is hard to acquire, then most players in the game won't be using that synergy and the average performance of that champion won't go up much.

The problem is people attach their own narrative to this. They assume that if they think a champ needs a buff, everyone including the devs agree. And then if that champ gets a synergy bonus, then of course that's Kabam doing what they are "supposed to do" by buffing the champ but in an inaccessible way. But that is entirely false.

What actually happens is when a new champion is created and they are designing synergies, they look for the conceptual options available for that new champ to synergize with. And if the option is a super powerful champ, they are reluctant usually to give it a super strong synergy on top (but that does happen occasionally). Conversely, if the champion is a lower performing champ, they tend to feel like they have more of a margin to hand out stronger synergies, because those stronger synergies won't do anything unbalancing to a lower performing champ. That makes complete sense from a design perspective.

But what it looks like from the outside is, Kabam is "buffing" poor performing champs with synergies instead of buffing them directly. As if what they are supposed to do is when making synergies, make crappy ones so people don't consider them buffs. Or make strong ones and give them to the already strong champions, so people don't think they are intended to be underperformance buffs. Both of those options are silly, and the product of an invented narrative.
You are taking your own interpretation of what an RPG is and saying “if ...then” . You can’t do that because all it takes is one theory to prove you wrong. Mr fantastic cross fight abilities, and now apocalypse horseman abilities and the ability to regen if your teammate wins a fight.

If your theory on a champion is based on average performances and they don’t improve from that synergy then they need a buff.

Also, you are assuming Kabam thinks like is this synergy strong or not. They had to tone down synergies that made champs too strong and correct it right away, so we shouldn’t be discussing Kabams thought process. We should only discuss results of their thought processes.

Again, you are assuming a narrative of what people are thinking . You should not and cannot speak for what narrative people are thinking. I don’t mind synergies , what I mind is making a champion DPS in this case jump through the roof with a synergy. I could be wrong but I bet you Kabam will see data and realize how dependent they made a champ on synergies. Ghost for example doesn’t need wasp, but makes her gameplay smoother.

I can appreciate your thought process , but essentially what you are saying is Mcoc is not an RPG which is not true .

Kabam creates a synergy that is inaccessible
To many so the champ doesn’t change- I agree with this.

People assume Kabam agrees with them. - This is not true.
it is interesting to me, and something I will make a mental note of, that you're saying if I say that MCOC is not an RPG, a single counterexample of an instance where MCOC sometimes functions like an RPG invalidates the statement, but you don't object to the poster I was responding to who said MCOC is an RPG with the same objection; that a single counterexample completely invalidates the statement that MCOC is an RPG.

Probably a tad too obvious there.

In any case, I'll revise my statement for the purposes of pedanticness. MCOC doesn't honor the requisite RPG game design elements necessary to emphasize the typical game design elements consistent with player composite team roles in a consistent enough fashion to make those roles a practical component of champion design.
So what you are saying is the line is not clear enough to say if it’s an RPG and that just because it has feathers doesn’t mean it can fly?
I'm saying calling it an RPG doesn't mean it has all the properties of one, especially because different people mean different things when they say that. And so just because a Kabam employee uses the term, doesn't mean they are using it the way you mean. Based on my conversations with Kabam developers,. I'm pretty sure they aren't using it the way you seem to be. But also I think you don't need to talk to Kabam developers to realize that RPG roles in traditional RPGs and MMORPGs presume that the different roles are interacting together in the game more or less simultaneously and strongly, and that this would have to be a pervasively supported gameplay feature of MCOC for the developers to consider this a meaningful driving element of champion design and gameplay meta design. At best, synergies are a very weak shadow of typical RPG role interactions.

I'm afraid I'm insufficiently familiar with avian biology to be able to express this particular set of game design ideas in those terms.

Definition - What does Role-Playing Game (RPG) mean?

A role-playing game (RPG) is a genre of video game where the gamer controls a fictional character (or characters) that undertakes a quest in an imaginary world.

Defining RPGs is very challenging due to the range of hybrid genres that have RPG elements.

Traditional role-playing video games shared five basic elements:

The ability to improve your character over the course of the game by increasing his statistics or levels.

A menu-based combat system with several choices of skills, spells, and active powers as well as an active inventory system with wearable equipment such as armors and weapons.

A central quest that runs throughout the game as a storyline and additional (and usually optional) side quests.

The ability to interact with elements of the environment or storyline through additional abilities (e.g. lockpicking, disarming traps, communication skills, etc.)

The existence of certain character classes that define the characteristics, skills, abilities, and spells of a character (e.g. wizard, thief, warrior, etc.)

Modern and hybrid RPGs do not necessarily have all of these elements, but usually feature one or two in combination with elements from another genre.

Does MCoC have this or not? Can you check the box yes or no to any of these. If you check all no, this conversation is done. If you check two yes. Well...

Texas_11 · September 2020

https://www.techopedia.com/definition/27052/role-playing-game-rpg

Got my information from here. Where are you getting yours from @DNA3000

Again you are assuming what Kabam is saying. If they are at any point referring to any aspects of this game , it is an RPG.

Texas_11 · September 2020

Definition - What does Role-Playing Game (RPG) mean?

A role-playing game (RPG) is a genre of video game where the gamer controls a fictional character (or characters) that undertakes a quest in an imaginary world.

Defining RPGs is very challenging due to the range of hybrid genres that have RPG elements.

Traditional role-playing video games shared five basic elements:

The ability to improve your character over the course of the game by increasing his statistics or levels.

A menu-based combat system with several choices of skills, spells, and active powers as well as an active inventory system with wearable equipment such as armors and weapons.

A central quest that runs throughout the game as a storyline and additional (and usually optional) side quests.

The ability to interact with elements of the environment or storyline through additional abilities (e.g. lockpicking, disarming traps, communication skills, etc.)

The existence of certain character classes that define the characteristics, skills, abilities, and spells of a character (e.g. wizard, thief, warrior, etc.)

Modern and hybrid RPGs do not necessarily have all of these elements, but usually feature one or two in combination with elements from another genre.

Can you check box on these! Yes or no. Don’t worry , we don’t have to discuss chickens for this.

Timone147 · September 2020

I kind of agree. I understand why they do it but also disagree with this approach. It takes away from the fun we could be having to tie some(emphasis on some) of these upgrades to synergies.

I feel that many times we have synergies come through that would be easy adjustment to a champs base kit to make them a viable champ to bring into content that could literally be implemented today and not cause any problems n game issues and not break the meta at all. Just make the champ viable.

While I am ok with this and understand I don’t think synergies should be something that makes a champ like just viable. Synergies you care about usually(if you will really use them) give something to a champ or make a champ awesome for what that synergy delivers either in damage or utility.

These synergies that make the champ viable to use should just be minor adjustments to there base kit that could be rolled out enmass versus the drip feed are slated to get.

unoobmepro · September 2020

@kabam vydious close this already

wdkeller1_ · September 2020

This game is not a traditional RPG. “Role-playing” is a word that means you play a role. Traditional RPGs are like Skyrim or even DD. Non-traditional RPGs are like Dishonored or other games where your choices matter in the game. The main difference between non-traditional and traditional is not being given the choice of who you are but maybe how you want to play the game vs the choice of who you are and how you want to play the game. When talking about non-traditional, perceptives and opinion come into play bc some might disagree about whether it or not it is a RPG.

That being said, in this game, you don’t get a choice of who you are. You do get a choice on how to play the game, however its you, the physical player, not the Summoner, making that choice. You don’t physically control the character of the Summoner; you control the characters he/she summons.

I will say that I do my own personal RPG game in MCOC. I pretend to treat my champions like family. I have my favorite champion A-team depending on star levels. These teams have been made throughout my journey in the campaign. A bunch of unlikely alliance between heroes and villains with usually few to no synergies against evil. That’s my mental RPG but not the reality of the game.

Synergies are cool, boost potential, and may be interesting but they are not necessary. Characters should good with or without synergy. I don’t focus on synergies. For me, I focus on Variety of Class, #type, but most importantly how they make me feel when I’m controlling them. If I have synergies, great. If I don’t, fine, I’ve been having fun and success without them for a very very long time.

Opinions are like buttholes...
Take it or leave it:)

Texas_11 · September 2020

wdkeller1_ said:
This game is not a traditional RPG. “Role-playing” is a word that means you play a role. Traditional RPGs are like Skyrim or even DD. Non-traditional RPGs are like Dishonored or other games where your choices matter in the game. The main difference between non-traditional and traditional is not being given the choice of who you are but maybe how you want to play the game vs the choice of who you are and how you want to play the game. When talking about non-traditional, perceptives and opinion come into play bc some might disagree about whether it or not it is a RPG.

That being said, in this game, you don’t get a choice of who you are. You do get a choice on how to play the game, however its you, the physical player, not the Summoner, making that choice. You don’t physically control the character of the Summoner; you control the characters he/she summons.

I will say that I do my own personal RPG game in MCOC. I pretend to treat my champions like family. I have my favorite champion A-team depending on star levels. These teams have been made throughout my journey in the campaign. A bunch of unlikely alliance between heroes and villains with usually few to no synergies against evil. That’s my mental RPG but not the reality of the game.

Synergies are cool, boost potential, and may be interesting but they are not necessary. Characters should good with or without synergy. I don’t focus on synergies. For me, I focus on Variety of Class, #type, but most importantly how they make me feel when I’m controlling them. If I have synergies, great. If I don’t, fine, I’ve been having fun and success without them for a very very long time.

Opinions are like buttholes...
Take it or leave it:)

Very good write up. I appreciate you chiming In.

DNA3000 · September 2020

wdkeller1_ said:
This game is not a traditional RPG. “Role-playing” is a word that means you play a role. Traditional RPGs are like Skyrim or even DD. Non-traditional RPGs are like Dishonored or other games where your choices matter in the game. The main difference between non-traditional and traditional is not being given the choice of who you are but maybe how you want to play the game vs the choice of who you are and how you want to play the game. When talking about non-traditional, perceptives and opinion come into play bc some might disagree about whether it or not it is a RPG.

This is actually a significant distinction, because whether an RPG offers players role choices or locks them into one choice for narrative purposes changes the entire design of the game. When you have one "character" in the game that is playable, the content of the game is 100% targeted at that one character, because of course it is. But when you have an RPG where the player is offered a choice of roles, you now have to ensure that every role choice is meaningful, and that means the content cannot be focused on only one kind of character. The content must offer advantages and disadvantages for each role that are different, so the choice of role is meaningful. And this requires specific attention to how every different player character interacts differently with the world.

It is this specific kind of design thinking, where content isn't optimized for one kind of player-character, but must interact with different player characters in different significant ways, that is the "RPG design element" that Kabam's "RPG designers" focus their attention on. They aren't explicitly saying that MCOC is an RPG per se, they are saying that one part of what they do when they design champions (who are both the player characters and the content of the game) is something that would be very familiar to RPG game content designers. They have similar design goals, and a similar design language.

Texas_11 · September 2020

DNA3000 said:

wdkeller1_ said:
This game is not a traditional RPG. “Role-playing” is a word that means you play a role. Traditional RPGs are like Skyrim or even DD. Non-traditional RPGs are like Dishonored or other games where your choices matter in the game. The main difference between non-traditional and traditional is not being given the choice of who you are but maybe how you want to play the game vs the choice of who you are and how you want to play the game. When talking about non-traditional, perceptives and opinion come into play bc some might disagree about whether it or not it is a RPG.
This is actually a significant distinction, because whether an RPG offers players role choices or locks them into one choice for narrative purposes changes the entire design of the game. When you have one "character" in the game that is playable, the content of the game is 100% targeted at that one character, because of course it is. But when you have an RPG where the player is offered a choice of roles, you now have to ensure that every role choice is meaningful, and that means the content cannot be focused on only one kind of character. The content must offer advantages and disadvantages for each role that are different, so the choice of role is meaningful. And this requires specific attention to how every different player character interacts differently with the world.

It is this specific kind of design thinking, where content isn't optimized for one kind of player-character, but must interact with different player characters in different significant ways, that is the "RPG design element" that Kabam's "RPG designers" focus their attention on. They aren't explicitly saying that MCOC is an RPG per se, they are saying that one part of what they do when they design champions (who are both the player characters and the content of the game) is something that would be very familiar to RPG game content designers. They have similar design goals, and a similar design language.

Good thoughts, I can appreciate this perspective

JChanceH9 · September 2020

They said banning 4*s was to keep people from having a frustrating experience, but in reality we all know it was to limit synergies and make you seek the 5*+ versions.

If they just admitted it I’d be fine- it’s a business, but I can’t stand the obvious lie by omission.

Texas_11 · September 2020

JChanceH9 said:
They said banning 4*s was to keep people from having a frustrating experience, but in reality we all know it was to limit synergies and make you seek the 5*+ versions.

If they just admitted it I’d be fine- it’s a business, but I can’t stand the obvious lie by omission.

My 4* AA still puts in work when he can lol

New trend happening/ Rant

Comments