AdmiralZeech wrote:
You're missing the point. It doesnt matter what it circumvents. Special move cancels were circumventing the animation time of Street Fighter 2, but they allowed combos to exist - and have become a staple of fighting games to this day. Engine tricks have existed that have broken all sorts of rules of game mechanics or even sanity. But if they improve the game, then it's fine.
Like I said, I don't know if multibombing improves the game or not. But that should be the criteria used to judge it, not whether it breaks the rules of the game, or the intentions of the developer.
To address your strawman, if the ability to triple the overcharge rate on an ACU somehow made the game more skillful and fun, then that's fine.
Anaryl wrote:AdmiralZeech wrote:One of my pet hates is people that call any sort of emergent gameplay behaviour an "exploit" to be fixed.
One man's "exploit" is another man's "engine trick." The key is whether the thing is good for gameplay or not.
There's a long history of games having unintended engine tricks that improve gameplay, especially at the top level. And of course, an equally long (if not longer) history of exploits that completely ruin a game, especially at the top level
Double/Triple bombing is borderline, I guess. If it wasnt combined with bomber first, and was just a nifty way of getting a bit of extra damage from a single bomber in a match with 100s of units flying around, then it would be a "not that useful but fun and cute" sort of gameplay feature. It's when it's done on the early bomber that it might be seen as negative.
It's not borderline - it's completely an exploit. You are circumventing the reload time. Would you think if it would be a decent micro trick if there was a way to double/triple the rate of overcharge on an ACU?
You're missing the point. It doesnt matter what it circumvents. Special move cancels were circumventing the animation time of Street Fighter 2, but they allowed combos to exist - and have become a staple of fighting games to this day. Engine tricks have existed that have broken all sorts of rules of game mechanics or even sanity. But if they improve the game, then it's fine.
Like I said, I don't know if multibombing improves the game or not. But that should be the criteria used to judge it, not whether it breaks the rules of the game, or the intentions of the developer.
To address your strawman, if the ability to triple the overcharge rate on an ACU somehow made the game more skillful and fun, then that's fine.
Exploit, engine trick, the label doesn't really matter. If we want to talk about whether it improves the game, fine. We are in firmly subjective territory now, but let's have a shot.
What kind of game do we want? One where micromanagement is dominant? Or one where micromanagement can be safely eschewed in favor of strategic play?
This multidrop issue does more than just exploit the engine or break the original developer's intentions. It goes against the spirit of the game that drew a large part of us into playing it in the first place. While in the course of a strategic game it is nice to have the option to grab control of an individual unit and give it some specific instructions to try and get a slight advantage, this level of manipulation to double or triple the damage output of a low level unit early in the game is not in that vein.
Statistics: Posted by welder — 22 Apr 2012, 07:05
]]>
