this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2024
30 points (96.9% liked)

Games

32329 readers
1673 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

For game designers, encouraging aggression is often a good thing. Too many players of StarCraft or even regular combat games end up "turtling", dropping initiative wherever possible to make their games slow and boring while playing as safe as possible.

But in other games, often of multiplayer variety, hyper-aggression can sometimes ruin pacing in the other direction. Imagine spawning into a game with dozens of mechanics to learn, but finding that the prevailing strategy of enemy players is to arrive directly into your base and overwhelm you with a large set of abilities, using either their just-large-enough HP pool, or some mitigation ability, while you were still curiously investigating mechanics and working on defenses.

Some players find this approach fun, and this may even be the appropriate situation for games of a competitive variety, where the ability to react to unexpectedly aggressive plays is an exciting element for both players and spectators.

Plus, this is a very necessary setup for speedrunners, who often optimize to find the best way of trivializing singleplayer encounters.

But other games have something of a more casual focus, which can give a sour feeling when trying to bring people into the experience without having to reflexively react to players that are abandoning caution. Even when a game isn't casual, aggression metas can trivialize the "ebb and flow, attack and defense" mechanics that the game traditionally tries to teach. This can also lead to speedruns becoming less interesting because one mechanic allows a player to skip much of what makes a game enjoyable (which can sometimes be solved by "No XGlitch%" run categories)

So, the prompt branches into a few questions:

  • What are fun occasions you've seen where players got absolutely destroyed for relying on various "rush metas" in certain kinds of games, because witty players knew just how to react?
  • What are some interesting game mechanics you've seen that don't ruin the fun of the game, but force players to consider other mechanics they'd otherwise just forget about in order to have a "zero HP, max-damage" build?
  • What are some games you know of that are currently ruined by "Aggression metas", and what ideas do you have for either players or designers to correct for them?
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I haven't played Overwatch for a while but for a time there was a notorious meta called GOATS (3 tanks, 3 supports). It was an insanely aggressive meta that focused on rushing straight into the enemy team, tanking them, and killing them before they can react. The only way you can counter it is by also running the same team comp and hoping to kill them faster.

It ruined ranked games for a few months and the devs apparently had no idea how to fix it without nerfing tanks or supports hard - which would make playing them feel terrible. That's why OW added a role queue and enforced 2 damage, 2 tank, 2 support teams.

That said, I think aggressive metas are way better than turtling ones. Nobody wants to idle around and take pot shots until someone gets bored.