mechalink

full blog post here

Reading the modding Discord, it looks like the boss changes are fairly substantial nerfs:

• Balteus's missiles have worse tracking and a smaller blast radius
• Sea Spider's defense is substantially lower
• Cel 240 has lower HP, deals 15% less damage for most attacks and 25% less for some

So I'm interested in this because I agree conceptually that if you've designed your game to have a specific experience, you should want to maintain that experience. But there's two things that spiral off that. 1) Even in an unchanged game, time passes and the populace's average skill level at various games (and peoples' specific ones) will change, as well as changes to everything but the bosses will mean people will come to the boss with different skillsets and capabilities. 2) Maybe what you published isn't actually yielding the behaviors and experience you wanted, so what is your responsibility to maintain that?

1. While 'leaving it the same' is the most likely to have survivors have similar experiences in the near term, ultimately, there is no way to make it the same for everyone that it was for a specific person. Some people will never have the experience when the boss is untouched because it's too much for them (those people will never experience anything in the remainder of the game either, see also Magic 'wins in deck vs wins in hand vs wins when played' for a card.) Some people will never have that experience because different builds become viable, or people use guides to overcome a game's complexity or unapproachability. (Lots of people didn't finish Legend of Mana w/o a FAQ because the game is a rat's nest of quest triggers in some non-obvious places.) Some people will never have that experience if a cool boss like that is optional. If your goal is to make sure everyone has the same actual experience, then you will have to change bosses over time, and measure carefully (which is fascinating to me on another aspect: what is being measured for players of the game, what does it expose?)

2. Games are always 'flawed' in someone's eyes. They are media, and communication, which means a game's meaning, and experience, is a negotiated thing. Should you make a different choice about patching a game if the game is doing what you intended, but the second order effects aren't what you wanted, or if the game isn't doing what you intended, but the second order effects are good? This is a tough decision. In one sense, a warped PvP scene could be a desired experience for one group, and an undesirable one for another. Whose priorities do you lean towards? If one says 'most players' in the same breath as saying 'but nerfing bosses is not okay with me because it destroys future peoples' ability to experience the satisfying arc that I did' (I don't know if there's anyone who does, but someone out there probably does, it's not unreasonable), then it feels like there's an underlying principle there that justifies both, and is probably based around PvE allowances and feelings vs PvP allowances and feelings. I'd say the most common underlying principle there is something like PvE being broken has been the norm for decades and as long as it's close enough for casual work, in the players' favor, it's not a real problem. PvP being broken can kill games, except this doesn't apply there, because 'in the players' favor' for casual work means that sometimes you're going to have to nerf to make that happen. PvE being unbalanced to get across a feeling (the ever-lauded 'dark souls is supposed to make you feel like you're struggling to survive, so anything unfair goes as long as there is a step chart that succeeds) is inherently risky terrain. Maybe the Armored Core fanbase is less into Dark Souls's mindset.

I don't think either of these base trains of thought are unique, but the thoughts around how devs navigate a PvE design where a character being effective in general, and in specific fights, should largely not be 'stumbled into' or 'obvious' (especially while managing PvP) is a space I personally don't know as much about, other than what I have seen in Dark Souls, which I would say sacrifices a lot more good things to get the Wizardry style experience it wants than it gives back. But they've chosen to make it so that if you can't see as well, you can't win the way they want, so I'm never going to agree with them even if I liked Wizardry style punishment games. But it makes it harder to figure out what system design for PvE that demands significant player engagement to succeed. I think the Mecha concept is likely a place where that sort of thing is much more understandable and easier than a medieval concept.

And what if it is obvious to someone who understands the system? Do you have to make the system completely opaque, and the enemy moves so unexpected, to guarantee you only understand how to win an encounter after you've lost it? That's a big narrative hit.