Quote:
Originally Posted by pickled_heretic
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
if a game can be / is automated, that's not the fault of the people who make the macros/bots/etc, it's the fault of the developers for making a crappy/boring game that is easy to play. ideally, games would require heuristic decision-making that a computer would never be able to emulate well.
edit: now that i read the OPs post more carefully, i'd say that i agree completely, these sorts of things create a lot of heuristic decisionmaking that gives incentives to play skillfully.
|
I think you got the important parts.
Exploiting unique situations is the hallmark of this kind of gameplay. There's no ONE answer. Having good armor and good weapons, which are basically STATS, helps a lot, but it should not be the sole reason you win a fight!!! It shouldn't be so important. It should be about your choices during the fight. Maybe aim for a balance of 60/40; choices/stats.
You're right. Simple games are easier to make bots for.
My reference(s) to kick (the button) was really a jab at what games consider to be involved gameplay.
(involved = at your keyboard)
But like I already stated, putting attention on aggro management, spawn placement, pathing, buffs, debuffs and so on, is a big part of the
involved gameplay. Those things are not explicitly a part of combat, but they're integral to your success in combat. Maybe /autoattack (combat, in general) needs to be simple so that we can focus on those other things. But the thing is, not all members of a group need worry about the larger concerns. A warrior, for example, shouldn't be worrying too much about pathing and buffs and debuffs and other side-issues; casters and cc people should be. A warrior should be consumed by his opponent(s). My argument was that combat itself, in its current state, is not very impressive.
But having to leanr more things to play would be exhausting for noobs. But it could come in phases. As you level up or change scenery, you meet more kinds of situations that challenge your skill set. It shouldn't happen all at once.
I think it's easy to be too cautious. There's a tendency to think players are dumb so we must make dumb games. It stems from this idea that we should code programs for the lowest common denominator so no one is excluded. For example, if I click the delete button - after changing something - then a window pops up that asks me "Do you really want to delete this?" This is built-in protection against users who mistakenly click it. But it can easily go too far. What if I accidentally click Yes but intended to click No? Maybe the delete button shouldn't even be offered? Heh, it could be too dangerous. Maybe it should be hidden? Or maybe only certain people can use delete? All sorts of questions pop into your head when you're making a program. It's all magnified 3x when a manager expects there to be no complaints.
So my argument here is that games are too conservative and bloated by worrying. Especially the marketing heads. But maybe I'm looking at this all wrong. Maybe MOST people are too inattentive for this. They WANT simplicity.
I myself have pointed to necromancers and other feign deathers to suggest that they're great classes to play for busy people. Got yourself in a pinch? Then click Feign Death. Now you can take care of the baby, or wash the dishes, or go to the shop, or whatever. If you don't got much time, the necro offers you a lot of bang for your buck. You don't have to run around looking for a group. It's very convenient and probably one of my favorite classes. They don't just feign death, either. They can do so much more. They keep you busy. They have power, but it's diverse.
In fact, I think all classes could use feign death. I know real life can get bad quick. Games should allow us to pause them, but they shouldn't at the same time allow us to play them AND do a dozen other things. My opinion.