| 1 |
The problem isn't pros vs. newbies so much as it is that balance becomes a lot harder to do when you make the line between useless and overpowering thin, since there isn't as much of a buffer for testing changes. Also, the game can easily degenerate into just doing the single hard but game-winning thing. An example would be the 100% damage combos in King of Fighters XIII, which is all any halfway decent player would practice.
|
1 |
The problem isn't pros vs. newbies so much as it is that balance becomes a lot harder to do when you make the line between useless and overpowering thin, since there isn't as much of a buffer for testing changes. Also, the game can easily degenerate into just doing the single hard but game-winning thing. An example would be the 100% damage combos in King of Fighters XIII, which is all any halfway decent player would practice.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
Evaluating whether something is balanced becomes a lot harder when you make player skill part of the balance equation, since you remove one of the big testing points of balance (switching which player uses what faction/factory/character/strategy).
|
3 |
Evaluating whether something is balanced becomes a lot harder when you make player skill part of the balance equation, since you remove one of the big testing points of balance (switching which player uses what faction/factory/character/strategy).
|
|
|
4 |
\n
|
|
|
5 |
Incentives for pros to do better need not be exclusive to approachable mechanics, especially not when considering mutually exclusive opening decisions (that is, factions/characters/opening factory), since that just leads to gambling on the opening winning the game rather than interacting with one's opponent. It also means that new players have to practically relearn the game to keep growing, rather than using what they've been learning the whole time, which is just frustrating.
|
for 1v1 is only shield fac