GDC Talk - "Cursed Problems in Game Design"
|
No actually, gambling doesn't necessitate you to risk "losing" something.
Virtual slot machines are still slot machines and fall under the category of gambling. It just so happens that gambling with a risk is both more fun and more profitable. For multiple reasons (investment in the game, involvment in the game, risk management, 'adrenaline rush',...) And even then, time is a perfectly good currency to pay with anyway. HOPEFULLY it's meaningless because you are enjoying the game so you don't mind losing it, but that's something that does have to be taken into account. |
|
" No, that's not true. I was a little worried for a second, I thought you might be serious. I just looked up the definition, gambling is risking something hoping to gain something. Not doing anything with randomness in it. Need a new signature, cuz name change. I dunno though. I guess this seems fine. Yeah, this is good.
|
|
|
It might depend on your dictionnary and/or language then. Because in every reputable dictionnary in my language it's not.
That might be a cultural thing then. edit: in which case I am sorry. Last edited by polimeris#6053 on Feb 12, 2020, 8:23:48 AM
|
|
" The act of gambling itself is randomn. You just described that yourself bloodpuddles. "risking something hoping to gain something", the randomness is in the absence of a gauranteed result implicitly. We wouldn't call putting a modifier on an item with a crafting bench "gambling" for example, there is no "fail-state" associated with that action. Using an exalt on the other hand does have a "fail-state" and becomes a gamble. Just jumped in this thread two pages ago or so, so maybe im missing context. Peace, -Boem- Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes
| |
|
To just respond to the topic of the OP.
As far as i can tell they just have a poor grasp of game mechanics, they call it a curse when in fact there is already a solution to this problem which is called "durability". If you limit an items worth by its usability over time you adress both issues. This in return allows you to adress probability rates and overal item balance in favor of dopamine pushes.(since durability introduces a natural dopamine low) It strikes me as amazing that people in this field consider this an issue that can't be overcome while it was fixed a decade ago. One of PoE's biggest failures was to not introduce item durability and balance loot tables and crafting probability's around this. It would have both made crafting more fun/drop loot more enjoyable and reduce the need for secondary fixes like fixed crafting options and oversaturation of loot and currency. ^This for example shows a failure in PoE's item system. Currently there is no "lose-state" when simply playing the endgame, which devaluates the experience in general. And im ignoring itemnization as a concept in general, because they delivered a solid blow to that by introducing "different item bases", which instantly devaluated anything that dropped. I still can't comprehend the logic behind that move, we went from enjoying picking up all rare belts to only picking up stygian belts overnight and somehow thats suppose to be a good game experience. Peace, -Boem- Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes
| |
" Sort of, but it's completely different different at the same time. That exalt doesn't actually exist, you can't lose something you don't have. That's sort of like the time argument people usually bring up about this. People claim that they're losing time, but they don't have any time, nobody does. It's just a thing that exists. It's like saying you don't want to lose your gravity walking to the kitchen to eat. Need a new signature, cuz name change. I dunno though. I guess this seems fine. Yeah, this is good.
|
|
"
Spoiler
Of course we have time, because we are finite creatures.
And since we have a finite amount of it, what we decide to do with it grants it value(higher/lower). It's not because something "just is" that it doesn't constrain us as people. Think of it like this, the time you have available with your parents is limited, because they will die. Wether you decide to spend it with them is a value judgement which you will either enjoy or regret the moment they are gone. Your value assesment of time is only applicable to the cosmos as a whole, but completely defunct when talking about people. As for the exalt example. You do have something, the "potential" of a good result vs the "potential" of a bad result. Even if technically the items belong to GGG and you don't own any of it your still gambling with the potential outcomes available. You decide to roll the dice and experience the consequences of the outcomes and GGG is the service that provides you the space to experience those things. If your arguing that people shouldn't identify themselves with those experiences then i agree. But not identifying yourself with them doesn't imply you don't decide to experience them. It's just that they are fictional and should be experienced as such. Similar to reading a book and experiencing the characters in them, games are like books where you decide where the story goes. tl;dr your still risking a bad vs good outcome, even if that experience is granted by a third party Wall-o-text which i think is off-topic so spoilered it. I don't think this thread requires us to go into the nitty gritty of association and identification. Peace, -Boem- Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes
| |
|
D3's problem was that their item system was too simplistic more than anything. I mean I agree that you need to restrict trade but there are much better ways to do it than making it a super annoying system like PoE has. Make it cost prohibitive, only allow 2 items for sale at a time etc. There are plenty of solutions that toxic awful hateful solutions that everyone hated 20 years ago when we evolved past them like what PoE went with.
|
|
" I feel the current system is more gated behind knowledge and learning, than it is gated behind frustration. I've traded more this league than I ever have, and can count on one finger the times I've been frustrated. There's just so much you can do "eliminate" or "mitigate" the so-called frustrations. But me not being frustrated, might come from me being OK with the fact that everything/everyone isn't available when I WANT it/them to be. The main point, though: The current system has no "hard cap" set by GGG. The market is player-driven, without any "hard limitations". Most "soft limitations" come from people not playing the game ATM, or too busy playing to value trade over gameplay. I don't necessarily see that as a negative. And I think A LOT of players value this freedom over forced "hard cap/limitations", even though some might see it as "frustrating". Of course, there are three things GGG should've done a long time ago to make trade... Better (IMO): 1) The public API should've been removed the moment GGG made their own trading site. 2) Live searches should not be possible. Not even close. Ever. 3) After removing live searches and the public API: Move the damn system in-game. Those three steps would GREATLY improve trade in my opinion. After that, they could start experimenting with a direct, on-the-fly-while-playing "accept/decline" system when people sent you trade requests. Bring me some coffee and I'll bring you a smile. Last edited by Phrazz#3529 on Feb 12, 2020, 10:20:12 AM
|
|
|
.
Last edited by OldManGrinding#1140 on Jul 18, 2021, 3:37:50 PM
|
|
