If you are going to get more value than the other team as support, you have do to better than the supports on the other team.
Who have the same kit as you.
The same thing goes for the DPS, and Tank.
In RQ, you are facing a team which has 2 Supports, 2 DPS and a Tank.
You are facing into a team, with the same options, and the same kit, and you have to do better than they are.
If you are strong, they are also strong, and you must beat them.
b-but how are the forum genjis going to pity themselves if they can’t claim another role has it so much easier?
I’m gonna disagree that its exactly as hard - they’re not and they dont need to be. Comparing skill levels doesn’t matter - the same roles on opposing teams have the same potential power levels, so each member of either team has the same challenge.
Also, some interesting articles on the definition of skill, for those inclined.
https://www.ubisoft.com/en-us/company/social-impact/family-gaming/articles/developing-skills-through-play https://thinkgamedesign.com/gamer-skills/ https://www.franklin.edu/institute/blog/cognitive-load-theory-helping-students-learning-systems-function-more-efficiently The only time there is support vs support interaction is Kiri and ana.
Other than that you rarely target other support outside of dps moira, reddit Lucio and battle mercy duels.
Support is the most relaxing role currently cause dive tanks are not doing good esp winton.
Only doom can give them some headache.
But tank is what determines how much fun supports have.
So currently it’s the laziest role, not necessarily easy.
you are right about one thing. trying to do better than the team enemy supports heh. ive seen that ana on your team die like 10 times while the other ana died like once. your ana is hardscoped in the corner while the other ana is bunny hopping every one of her shots and never stays in one place for long.
although sometimes that helps but not all the time since depending on the enemy comp. i remember one game where i sniped an ana like 5 times (as widowmaker) since she never moved and was hardscoped all the time…
well it happens but if a player dies 10 times as moira… im like what the…maybe its just someone who doesnt take the game seriously and is trying to have fun but man, if i died 10 times as moira i be like what too (have had it happened and of course against a genji who for some reason was more leet than other genjis)
Sure listen to ubisoft the company that has one game reskinned as 10 different titles.
The only game they have that has skill is r6.
Outside that they are a joke that makes sponge shooters.
This probably happens when they want to make stuff happen cause tank is passive.
Sometimes it’s worth it to trade if you take out someone key like a enemy ana or widow
Yeeeah, but that design stuff is spreading and becoming AAA industry standard. You should give it a read, it makes a lot of sense. I can explain in detail if required.
nothing irks me more than a tank who wont push past choke… just stands there. also the tank that never contests cart on defense… avoids it like the plague and just walks backwards letting the enemy team have space and move the thing forward…
ive even got up to the cart as widow and tried to defend and to stop it from moving. its infuriating. one of the reasons i think the tank roll shouldnt exist
It’s not a bad model when given in doses with real content like the first ac trilogy, it became bad and stale when it got stretched over a decade and to all genre.
I mean division 2 bombed , break point bombed, most farcry after 3 is not good or did well except 5 due to the story.
They are constantly shutting down studios and not doing well due to rehashing same formula with little to no depth.
They did innovate with ac and farcry series but now it’s stale.
People already have moved on.
People trying to use those models are failing horribly to get their studios shutdown.
Cause it’s a time and resource sink with high risk reward strategy based on one stale template.
Ya it’s too demanding a role emotionally and mentally for it to be used for such significance in a solo game and with roleq sealed the date of this game.
It works in mobas and mmropga due to guild system and longer matches, so someone playing tank is committed to it
Right now that hog player just wants gg next in 5 mins you can’t build a game around that
I completely disagree with this logic; it’s the same thing as saying, “We’re all fighting a battle; therefore, we’re all the same.”
Sure, every role in the game has to put forth a base level of effort to get its value. However, the DPS role, unlike the support role, has to put forth way more mechanical skill to get its value. (Having to hit headshots to do your job is more difficult, plain and simple.) and then there is the tank role. The tank role has to not only have great mechanics, but it also has to understand how to peel (protect) its team and also know how to make space for its team. (Having more things to deal with is more difficult.)
There are just roles that have to do more, which makes them objectively more difficult.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying ubi makes good games, I’m saying someone in ubi came up with a good way of defining what skill is in games.
It basically splits skill into categories - they use 3, i use 2.
Physical skills
Mental Skills
Those are then broken down in more detail. From there, you can rate every element of your game based on which skills they need and how much.
It sounds like one of those achievement board stuff that ruins work places.
Skill and gameplay loop feel is something you feel and experience not something that can be drafted up.
There is a reason why it’s only a handful of developers who get gunplay right and not anyone can clone cod despite it being simple format.
Only cod develops even in that treyarch and infinity ward get it.
Bungie is another
Battlefield is another esp dice eco system
Respawn is another cause they are old school cod Dev’s.
Id gets it for arcade shooters.
Valve gets it right due to source engine formula and having nailed that feel.
But it’s why no one else is able to get that right in ubisoft or gearbox or Bethesda outside is games.
It’s not something you can define, it’s a bit like making pizza sure you can mass produce with systems even satisfy and make money, but you won’t be top tier pIzza maker that has the essence of making it.
It’s also as simple as wanting to satisfy your customers.
I know the pizza analogy isn’t the greatest as they do stick to one formula but you get the idea.
Pizza formula does work with games like doom, cause the core formula is solid and can be evolved.
Show anyone who hasn’t played the games of doom 1 and 2 and doom eternal and tell them these are the same gameplay loops most will laugh, but ask anyof those boomershooter players they will say it’s the same
It’s just they.managed to evolve the formula
While ubi tries to reskin and have a fixed formula that doesn’t evolve
Imagine if doom 2016 doesn’t allow you to shoot vertically cause old.doom didn’t
That’s what ubi formula is.
Again, couldnt give a carp about ubisoft game quality - the last good game they made imo was Rayman Origins. HOWEVER, someone there came up with the method so I’m crediting them for it.
I’m saying that thing is becoming an industry design standard for all studios because its clever and helpful. There’s a load of research done into cognitive load theory, the theory of fun and general psychology. Its all definable stuff, which helps you make intelligent decisions.
Even gameplay loops can be evaluated against things like cognitive load.
Over the last 10 years or so, game design has been evolving into a science, driven by data and user feedback over what the designers “feel”. Again, industry wide.
Its like making a pizza by analysing what pizzas people like, making a pizza then asking your customers “did you like that pizza”?
Explains why most mainstream games are bad
.
See every game that was a success in last decade was either a inspired spin off or high dedicated effort game like witcher 3 or bg 3 or someone who doesn’t give a thing about press or media and just shut themselves up and make what they do best and evolve like rockstar.
None of these achievement board games by ubi ea are hailed in the last decade.
Overwatch came out of inspiration and ashes of a lost game in the bones of tf2 not some research paper someone made for cookie points.
They did manage to ruin it with data later.
Supports are partially enablers. If I sleep someone and spam ping them and nobody kills them or I’m damage boosting two DPS that are licking the floor, it doesnt matter how much better I am than the enemy supports.
I can be saving teams from ultimates and keeping people alive like crazy but if nobody does the objective or their own job we still lose. At that point I’m just enabling them to play badly.
Not even slightly - most mainstream games dont have good designers or are driven by money over fun (i.e. Overwatch).
I’ve repeatedly said ubisoft is irrelevant, please stop - a clever guy who worked there made a thing, the end. This thing is used ACROSS the industry, not just in mainstream titles.
You somehow think data that’s designed as a tool to help game designers somehow makes games worse? That…doesnt make sense. The creativity is still there, just with extra tools. Bad designers use data incorrectly (i.e. Overwatch) good designers use it well.
You’re just complaining that you dont like ubisoft, not that the process is wrong. Prove me wrong by criticising the exact process, not ubisoft.