Why power creep is bad in 4 paragraphs or fewer

Im just struggling to apply hedonic treadmill concept to something in particular, because it seems to encompass everything and anything. just like it can apply to power creep, it can also apply to theoretic close-to-perfect balancing of the game (ie, the opposite of power creep)

"

grepman wrote:

Im just struggling to apply hedonic treadmill concept to something in particular, because it seems to encompass everything and anything. just like it can apply to power creep, it can also apply to theoretic close-to-perfect balancing of the game (ie, the opposite of power creep)

Those aren't opposites. In a practical sense, perfectly balancing a game is the relative power-creeping of the less powerful options. What you're saying is like saying the opposite of increasing wages is closing the wage gap (assuming one exists, which I'd rather not debate here).

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

grepman wrote:

Im just struggling to apply hedonic treadmill concept to something in particular, because it seems to encompass everything and anything. just like it can apply to power creep, it can also apply to theoretic close-to-perfect balancing of the game (ie, the opposite of power creep)

Those aren't opposites. In a practical sense, perfectly balancing a game is the relative power-creeping of the less powerful options. What you're saying is like saying the opposite of increasing GDP is closing the wage gap.

I dont really see it...in this context perfectly balanced game means not options but player power vs content.

what is the opposite of a power creep to you then ? and without hearing your answer first, how does it not conform to concept of hedonic treadmill ?

"

grepman wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

grepman wrote:

Im just struggling to apply hedonic treadmill concept to something in particular, because it seems to encompass everything and anything. just like it can apply to power creep, it can also apply to theoretic close-to-perfect balancing of the game (ie, the opposite of power creep)

Those aren't opposites. In a practical sense, perfectly balancing a game is the relative power-creeping of the less powerful options. What you're saying is like saying the opposite of increasing GDP is closing the wage gap.

I dont really see it...in this context perfectly balanced game means not options but player power vs content.

That is best referred to as "tuning," not balance. Balance should refer to player options vs other player options (ex: passive tree, itemization), because such things should have nearly equal weight. Monster groups should only very rarely have nearly equal weight to players, as in a 50% chance to win. Getting that PvE win percentage right isn't about balance, it's about getting the lopsided result that feels best — it's about tuning.

Even then, the proper opposite of power creep is weakness creep, not a static power level. The opposite of forward is reverse, not stopped. I agree that a net stasis of sorts is the objective long-term while power creep is necessary to sell players on new content to chase after. That's why I advocate for a near-simultaneous combination of power creep (by rotating content in) and weakness creep (by rotating content out) that results in near-stasis.