#Complexity vs Approachability: Finding an equilibrium to maximize player retention.

108 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

native atlas
#

Complex movement mechanics and combos are extremely fun for high elo players. Successfully executing these mechanics is reward for time invested in mastering the power/hunter/comp we choose to pilot. However , this complexity also exists as a barrier to entry for new players.

If you allow too much complexity. Veteran players would enjoy it a lot , however new players will feel overwhelmed and become discouraged from playing. This is unhealthy because it will just be the same 1k players playing the game and nobody wants that.

If you cut too much complexity. Veterans will feel alienated and most likely quit (as many already have) because the aspects of the game they deemed as fun has been removed. It will be more approachable for new players but they will soon find that the skill ceiling is quite low and eventually get bored.

It’s obvious we need to find an equilibrium and it’s obvious that Theorycraft is currently trying to find this equilibrium. In my personal opinion , we are leaning too much towards the side of cutting complexity. Removing mechanics like oath bhop , Celeste aerial ult , hover wing interactions , instead of altering or nerfing them seems like a bandaid solution that reduces the complexity of the game in a negative way.

obtuse stream
#

There is no equilibrium of complexity vs approachability. Making something approachable is always better than making something complex. That's because no one likes game mechanics because they are complex, but rather because they are deep.

Depth is arguably the most important part of a 10,000 hour game, and complexity is often times a byproduct of the developer trying to add depth. However, the developer can add depth without having to make a complex mechanic. A great example of this is Mario's jump in the Super Mario Bros games: jumping is both a source of mobility and a source of offense, so you need to make choices surrounding your jump that balances your need to jump to avoid obstacles and jump to defeat enemies. The Super Mario games are simple enough to be approachable for newcomers, but then the Super Mario games can give players harder and harder levels alongside extra challenges within the levels that allow veterans to have fun too.

Based on this information, it is impossible to remove complexity in a negative way unless it negatively affects the game's depth. We need to absolutely call out Theorycraft if removing a mechanic from the game reduces its depth, but we need to support them when they remove a complex mechanic that doesn't affect the game's depth, or in some cases even add to the game's depth.

#

For the record, I do think removing Oath b-hop and Celeste aerial R2 do not remove depth from them, and I play both of them. B-hop reduced the choices Oath gets to make during macro and added a lot of busywork to his macro game, while aerial Celeste R2 denied opponents the opportunity for counterplay, and engaging with that counterplay is where Celeste's ult is supposed to have depth (even if it takes too long to recast right now to allow for that depth).

native atlas
# obtuse stream There is no equilibrium of complexity vs approachability. Making something appro...

Comparing a game like super mario to supervive is a far stretch. It is much better to compare supervive to other competitive games like League , Dota , Apex etc. All games with depth added through game objectives and multiple complex characters interacting with each other. In these games they rarely reduce complexity , and more so reduce the impact of these highly complex mechanics, which is more ideal IMO.

native atlas
iron lark
#

We need to simplify more!

obtuse stream
# native atlas Oath went from the one of the most mobile hunters in the game to the least mobil...

I mean, Oath was almost literally a melee ranked tanky DPS assassin mage tank support jungler that excelled at everything, and from my understanding was an extremely common, if not dominant, pick in competitive. Nerfing his numbers wouldn't have fixed his issues unless he was nerfed into unplayability, and every Oath player would rather he be good without b-hopping than be bad but keep b-hopping.

tight rose
vestal brook
keen rampart
vestal brook
#

Simple response, we're playin in two differents environments i think that's why u get this pov

#

And i understand blush

obtuse stream
# vestal brook What is the point learning and training if there's no more complex mechanics ? A...

The point of learning and training is to explore the game's depth, not its complexities. Games can have simple things that are either hard to do and/or have counterplay that you need to engage with (David Sirlin's talk of yomi is very good in this discussion: https://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/7-spies-of-the-mind). Things that are executionally demanding encourage players to improve to use those hard-to-use tools consistently, while engaging with counterplay encourages you to read your opponent and perform the counterplay to your opponent's counterplay.

Now, you can have stuff that is both deep and complex, but your goal is to engage with the depth, not the complexity.

obtuse stream
# native atlas Comparing a game like super mario to supervive is a far stretch. It is much bett...

Super Mario is a hyperbolic example that helps get my point across.

For a multiplayer example, Brawlhalla is an incredibly simple game thanks to its easy-to-use controls (5 buttons vs Supervive's 13-ish (not counting directional movement or aiming), small movesets, and simple gameplay objectives, yet it is incredibly deep thanks to the interactions between attacking and dodging, the wide variety of gameplay states, and the fact that every character has 2 weapon system that forces you to adapt between 3 different movesets and promotes stage control. Furthermore, it has mechanics like chase dodges, gravity cancels, and exhausted recoveries that add a lot of depth while adding only a little bit of complexity because the depth provided by the mechanic easily outweighs the complexity. For reference, Brawlhalla is frequently cited as the most popular fighting game on Steam, and couples it with a developer-supported tournament scene with some of the highest prize pools, possibly the highest prize pools, within the platform fighter genre. It is simple, yet has a lot of depth, something that every competitive game should strive for.

native atlas
native atlas
# obtuse stream The point of learning and training is to explore the game's depth, not its compl...

The point of learning and playing is to explore depth , which is often times gated behind complex mechanics. Let me introduce a third dynamic: fun. If every hunter had a simple kit like Hudson’s , people would not be playing supervive. It’s the complexity of hunters + depth of the game that entice players. So yes while complexity is often correlated to depth , the main goal is usually to create a fun hunter to play , which usually means they are complex , which means that depth is gated behind mastering complex mechanics. So when you release a complex hunter , and players are invest time to master these complex mechanics , then you remove them completely , it feels really really bad. Imagine they balanced riven by removing her animation cancels instead of reducing her numbers.

native atlas
obtuse stream
misty badge
#

Removing ingredients like butter in a cookie would ruin it. Removing BHOP from oath was a part of his recipe for fun

shut jungle
#

Respectfully, if a "tank" character needs a free bhop mechanic in addition to everything else he already has and does to be fun, then the issue was never with the bhop.

misty badge
#

Making the game feel worse for characters shouldn't be the balance precedent it should be spent elsewhere. Outright removing it from the kit I think is a bit much. They can slow him down or add some other way

shut jungle
#

I'd argue that Oath already has enough in his kit to justify not having a free bhop.

#

Perhaps if it had any direct cost (cd, mana) or wasn't in a kit that already did quite a lot (and does all of it well-at-worst), then it wouldn't have been a problem.

misty badge
#

I don't like seeing them do this with characters. It isn't an Oath only thing. Like why would anyone want to learn the intricacies of how it feels to interact with a game system if it would just be taken away at a later time. Sure there is that argument to make that he didn't need it but it was already there. And it drew people to play the character and it was an enjoyable mechanic

shut jungle
#

I as Void quite enjoyed when my ult would always cast on the ground regardless of my altitude, meaning I could ult people from an altitude where they literally could not stop the cast or even see me.
I suppose we'll re-add that too, even though it garnered some complaints from non-Void players, because it was fun for someone?

obtuse stream
# native atlas I also don’t think brawlhalla is a great example , it’s better to compare brawlh...

Fine, I'll use Omega Strikers as an example, which is still in the same genre as Supervive. Each character has four abilities, but regardless of which character you look at they all get to make interesting decisions with their abilities:

  • each character has a basic Strike that hits the core, but you can hit that core in any direction. You can pass it to a teammate, dribble it off the wall, try hitting it past an enemy player to score or otherwise set up a scoring opportunity

  • damaging abilities can be used to damage and/or ko enemy players, and/or can be used to control and/or shoot the core. Their cooldown forces you to make interesting choices with how you use your abilities because you can't always use them for everything you want them to

  • you can combine abilities together to make progress on your opponents, with every character having shot combos that involve their strike and at least one ability

From there, individual characters have their own depth. Some characters (like Kazan and Rune) have complex mechanics that make them harder to play but deeper, but there are others like Kai and Era that are very simple but still very deep because their mechanics lend themselves to consistently having to make choices and tradeoffs with their gameplay.

That's not even accounting for the awakening draft, which has all sorts of depth too it.

shut jungle
#

IMO biggest issue with podracing was less about podracing itself and more that Oath already did basically everything well coupled with the fact that so very few other hunters had free out-of-combat mobility; podracing would probably have been fine if everyone else had something roughly equivalent.

misty badge
# shut jungle > And it drew people to play the character and it was an enjoyable mechanic Shou...

These changes you bring up about Void / Jin are balance changes more than they are about movement and character feel. The oath changes removed a mechanic he used to interact with the game. It'd be the same as removing Jin/Zeph bhop. Or taking the ability for void to tp on walls. I am not here advocating for every character to be broken. But BHOP is a character feeling issue not a balance issue in my eyes.

shut jungle
misty badge
#

I just disagree with how TC goes about it and their logic on it that's all

misty badge
shut jungle
#

I really do not think that Oath being slightly less-good at something is a significant loss.

misty badge
shut jungle
misty badge
#

Nobody is saying he's unplayable. Nobody is saying he is make or break from this mechanic.
I'm simply arguing he is less fun/interesting than before. And players that take the time to fully utilize things in a kit that are unique and expressive shouldn't have it removed

shut jungle
#

I'm all for having depth in a kit and having avenues for skill expression, but it's possible for those things to just be plain un-fun to play against.
Like Void orbital ult.

misty badge
#

Jin didn't lose skill expression losing that mechanic. He still functions the same. Void plays the same just can't bug abuse ? I fail to see how it's the same

shut jungle
native atlas
misty badge
shut jungle
#

I want stuff under the same vague umbrella as podracing in the game. I want there to be avenues for skill expression beyond obscure knowledge checks and micro aim.
But some things under that umbrella sometimes aren't that enjoyable for other people.

native atlas
# shut jungle Respectfully, if a "tank" character *needs* a free bhop mechanic in addition to ...

Please read my messages above. I agree 100 percent that he was overpowered , he could do everything. But the solution shouldn’t be to remove core mechanics. Because without bhop he’s either an immobile assassin champ , or an immobile tank champ. That is boring as shit , maybe instead reduce his damage number all around , so that he can’t be 1 shotting people , but still allow him to have decent mobility to peel for teammates and maybe look for flanks. My issue is not that he’s nerfed. My issue is that they are nerfing him by making him a less complex hunter rather then reducing the impact potential of his tools

native atlas
plucky bay
rocky cobalt
#

How can you say he is not playable in soloqueue

#

He already has infinite mobility with dash resets from shield

obtuse stream
# native atlas You are way too caught up on semantics. Deep and complex go hand in hand, fun is...

I've given you a rigorous, scientific proof by counterexample that games can be deep without being complex. Deep games are rectangles, complex games are squares, and you're trying to proove that all rectangles are squares. It's completely true that all squares are rectangles in the same way all complex games are deep, but I have proven in this thread that not all deep games are complex in the same way not all rectangles are squares.

Complexity doesn't add variation to gameplay. If it did, a complex game like League of Legends wouldn't need random chance and constant patching to keep players engaged for 10,000 hours. Games need depth to keep players engaged for 10,000 hours, because depth is what gives the game its replayability by providing the execution barriers and decision space needed to keep a game from becoming repetitive. That is what makes a 10,000 hour game a 10,000 hour game.

tight rose
#

If u guys care as much about this kind of stuff start crying about oath's ult change

#

Those kind of tweaks are the epicenter of simplification that does nothing but hurt the game

native atlas
# obtuse stream I've given you a rigorous, scientific proof by counterexample that games can be ...

Proof by counter example for what? Nowhere in this thread did I claim games cannot be deep without complexity. Chess exists. I’m claiming that complexity can and does add depth to games in the same genre of supervive , and removing complex mechanics is taking a step in the wrong direction development wise. This is why I’m telling you that you’re stuck in the semantics , you’re arguing against a side that nobody is opposed to. You kinda just presented an argument then argued against it claiming that it was my pov

native atlas
# obtuse stream I've given you a rigorous, scientific proof by counterexample that games can be ...

Yes game depth gives games replayability and makes them fun. Complexity absolutely adds variation. You can’t tell me that Hudson v Hudson 1v1 is comparable to brall v brall in terms of variation. League of legends has a huge player base that has invested a lot of time in learning the game to a relatively high level; they have explored game depth to the level they desire. They constantly patch and add complex characters to keep players engaged , it’s almost as if adding new complex characters offers milestone goals for players because players enjoy investing time to learn complex mechanics. You think if league didn’t constantly add complex mechanics they would have survived this long ? Complex mechanics keep players engaged , and yet supervive is removing them , do you see why I made my post now ?

obtuse stream
# native atlas Yes game depth gives games replayability and makes them fun. Complexity absolute...

Hudson is not nearly as deep as Brall is. That depth is why the Brall mirror is more varied than the Hudson mirror, not the complexity.

If I'm not mistaken Riot still adds simple characters to its roster like Yuumi, Briar, and Naafiri, and takes out mechanics in the same way they add them. They keep players engaged by changing the game and adding new things they get to learn, not by making the things they add complex.

Riot's development team has brainwashed a whole generation of game designers into thinking that complexity is an essential part of building a competitive multiplayer video game. It's not. Every other modern competitive game gets big because they are simple, have an appealing art style and/or recognizable IP, and still have the depth needed to hold player interest hundreds of hours in. We need to call pur developers out when they make changes that reduce the depth of our games, yes, but we need to support them when they simplify the game while retaining its depth so that we, as a playerbase, can attract new players that give us a better experience through shorter queue times. Complexity should never be the goal, it should be a byproduct of trying to score with a good game.

languid blade
# native atlas I also don’t think brawlhalla is a great example , it’s better to compare brawlh...

It also just depends on the type of player. Depth can come in many different shapes and sizes. And different people enjoy different types of depth.

In sports/martial arts for example, boxing is fairly simple but deep, while Brazilian jiu jitsu is more like chess, highly cerebral and also very deep (you study positions and outthink your opponent).

Or in gaming, tetris is pretty simple but very deep and competitive, while StarCraft 2 or chess is very complex by comparison. They require lots of study and understanding many nuances and complexities.

If you take traditional fighting games, some focus more on difficulty in mechanical execution, where simply playing the game "normally" requires you to master mechanically intensive aspects of your character or the game in general (Tekken 7 or some anime-fighters) while other games lower the bar for mechanical execution but create depth through split-second decision-making and mindgames (Street Fighter for example).

Different people will be attracted to different kinds of games. Some people like mastering difficult mechanics or complex systems, while others prefer their depth to lie more in decision-making/mindgames/strategy or other things.

Part of what attracts me to SV is that in many ways it is more accessible than something like Dota 2 or even Apex (with MNK, since you have to learn a lot of tech to compete) yet its depth lies in macro/positioning, teamplay. I wouldn't mind the characters having a little more depth individually though and more room for mastery, so I get the disappointment with things like nerfing Oath bunnyhop. Things like that are fun. It was just causing issues with balance in his case.

For SV in general it's just a matter of target audience and vision for the game. They can find success making a more complex or simple game but in either case it has to be well executed and find its right audience. The artstyle hints more toward a target audience that values accessibility/simplicity over high complexity though (which again, isn't to say a lack of depth).

#

Another thing worth mentioning. Even games like starcraft, chess etc. have a fairly simple basis. I think broadly successful games often have this because it makes them accessible. Games that require you to study them extensively first before starting and having fun will always be more niche as few people enjoy that kind of a thing or want to commit without knowing if it's worth it.

languid blade
# native atlas Yes game depth gives games replayability and makes them fun. Complexity absolute...

Idk much about league. But I'd guess that if LoL came out today they'd focus less on complex characters and more on accessible characters. LoL has a large playerbase of veteran players that are already invested into the game.
I think games that are far along their lifecycle and are still in development tend to often get more complex with time (look at yugioh). That doesn't mean it's always the best way to start out though.

#

And going that route (of more complexity) also will always appeal more to some and less to other players as explained above.

native atlas
# languid blade Idk much about league. But I'd guess that if LoL came out today they'd focus les...

This was a well thought out reply. Don’t have a response to this that I haven’t already written out on this thread. I guess it’s just difference in view points at this point. I’m coming from the bias of someone who has invested alot of hours into supervive , so I want more complex mechanics to learn and explore, but I understand that complexity can seem too overwhelming for newer players. I just hope TC doesn’t continually take out complexity and lose the veteran players who stay bc they love how the game feels.

tight rose
#

If they release lol today with that approach it wouldnt grow into what it is today. The amount of pull this game has even with todays audience is as crazy cos of the way it developed. yeah it could be big in another way. But just because something is hard or less efficient doesnt mean it cant match or top the potential of another way. I think esepcially for devs its important to understand these pov's and what it is ur trying to create to begin with

languid blade
# native atlas This was a well thought out reply. Don’t have a response to this that I haven’t ...

That's fair. I also have a lot of time in the game, maybe 800-1000 hours at this point. I'd also like more depth and I think trios made the game feel a bit more flat in some ways. I just think they have to be careful where they add that depth. Leaning into the sanboxy stuff and unique environments is I think a good idea. Like I said I'd personally enjoy hunter kits with slightly more skill-expression as well. What I personally don't like is complicated item-systems, enchantments, resource management etc. But others love this stuff (especially many MOBA players). We'll see what route TC takes.

languid blade
# tight rose If they release lol today with that approach it wouldnt grow into what it is tod...

LoL has so many players and such a rich history that potential new players will be more compelled to invest into learning the game. The popularity is sort of like a stamp of approval, as in "Look this game is really worth it, you can invest your time and energy here".
If LoL was new and the devs had no name to them, most people would not invest into such a highly complex game (with how it currently is). It'd be a niche hit but likely not start out with big player numbers.

tight rose
#

And thank fuck someone can see this and doesnt just disregard everything that matters cos they are so deadset on a single take or we they have. Even tho an idea or we may work or is good, i just cant disregard the size of the “world” a game like league has. Similar to wow or counterstrike even tho cs to a lesser or different extent. And while generations change or cycle or come and go, and certain audiences might make it more likely to succeed. Me personally i think u can still make a game diff wether in this way or in another that doesnt suit a current generation as well, that being if ur really passionate honest x y z about what ur creating. Adding to that if lets say 10/10 fps games currently out are all very easy to accomodate a playerbase/generation who prefer it that way etc that can also mean ull stand out more when not doing so may it be for the better or worse. Either way it comes down to believing in what u want to create ig

#

and that world is also, mystery from storylines positive and negaive, rioters being loved and or then hated, the game nostalgia and ahh it used to be better those days, these days i just play tft, the lore, all this shit combined creates a wide net that catches people left and right which in the end makes it so u can have ur game go dying or less popular for a good amount of years while simplifying it to then shake it up with a remake or by for example making it harder or we. And again making those steps comes down to devs believing and being capable of seeing it

native atlas
#

Reviving this thread to discuss : bishop hover wing tech and beebo fast car variations

#

I am still of the opinion that tech should not be removed , they should only be weakened if they are over performing

#

I also think in general , removing tech from one character and not others creates a lot of imbalance. Dillon wrote somewhere that either remove it all or keep it all , and I agree with that sentiment

buoyant quarry
#

To be fair, bishop wings was a character specific tech : there was no reason that only bishop's dash did not cancel the wings.

native atlas
#

Ye that’s fair , but the rmb wings tech removal was undeserved imo, they should have just merged the amount of height you could get instead of gutting it completely , and now she can’t even use autos during hover wings which is so dumb

thorny olive
#

neither can zepth

#

with beebos fastcar i feel as tho the issue is that the audio change on beebo gutted his car in high elo

#

so the only way to feasibly hit beebo car now in br is fast car towards a herd of player or a player stuck in a funnel with a low chance of dodging

#

i actually really like the idea of the car being louder given the speed of it

#

like imagine normal car sound is only when on screen not when approaching

#

but then like standard fast car is like a train siren

#

and UBERFAST CAR is like a goddam tornado warning

native atlas
# thorny olive with beebos fastcar i feel as tho the issue is that the audio change on beebo gu...

As a controller , I think his car should play the role of a zoning tool , rather than a primary engage or catch tool. Now that car is more telegraphed it’s playing more towards the controller identity that beebo should fill. The issue with fast car is that it becomes a reaction time test for opponents , and if you aren’t paying attention or preoccupied then you will get caught out and dragged out by this super fast zoning tool . That gameplay pattern feels like shit. I think a good equilibrium is reducing the speed of fast car tech reasonably while keeping how telegraphed it is

thorny olive
#

the issue with that is beebo in br needs car as a killing tool

#

bombs nerf is to large to play around stand your ground laws

#

car cant be a zoning tool cause beebo is dead if car is down/missed

#

in most situations

native atlas
native atlas
thorny olive
#

yes and no

native atlas
thorny olive
#

they once said every character should be viable

#

in br

#

in high ranks you need kills so beebo needs a good way to kill players

native atlas
#

Your saying high elo br earlier so I thought we were discussing in the context of pugs and scrims

thorny olive
native atlas
#

Solo br is not supervive it’s just bot and noob farming

thorny olive
#

beebo is buggy af but his currently fine in scrims

#

esp if you have a comp for it

native atlas
thorny olive
#

^this is true

#

just not enough of a kill angle for the character anymore honestly

#

cause when you hit car you hit at least 1 zeep bomb and a left click

#

thats your kill combo

obtuse stream
# native atlas As a controller , I think his car should play the role of a zoning tool , rather...

How is car supposed to play the role of a zoning tool? It has no range and presents no threat until Beebo uses it, so it cannot zone.

The ability it's closest in function to within Supervive's roster is Bishop's ult as a long-form dash with a hitbox. You can use both as escape tools and engage tools, and use neither as zoning tools, although both have strong zoning tools in the rest of their kits.

native atlas
thorny olive
#

0 beebo mains use car that way

#

for good reason its not very effective

misty badge
#

I mean using it late game to send people into storm is a valid use for it right ? And players have to respect it or their position is cooked

native atlas