I wouldn’t mind some limitations to the bionics system - but only if those limitations serve to make the system more fun by presenting interesting choices.
There’s been a noticeable trend in the game recently to add and change things simply because we can, and without bothering to think about the effects on gameplay. I see this as a serious issue, and some of the suggestions in this thread strike me as that sort of thing.
Others, however, could certainly add to the experience instead of detracting from it. Adding limitations on which bionics can be installed can actually be fun - if you also allowing the removal of bionics, or the installation of “hot swap connectors” that allow you to quickly and efficiently swap bionics but have less equipped at, suddenly you’ve introduced a lot of interesting choices:
Which bionics do I want to equip, knowing it will block me from taking these others?
Do I want to install this bionic, excluding another bionic, because it will synergize well with one I have yet to find?
Do I want to take the risk of swapping out this bionic for another, more useful bionic, knowing I might botch the install and suffer penalties or destroy one or both?
Do I want to allow for more adaptability in exchange for a loss in overall effectiveness at any given time?
These are good questions for a player to be asking - they involve making real choices, with real consequences, and are the essence of gameplay. A big part of this game is about preparing yourself to overcome challenges, and this provides more depth to that system.
The system right now doesn’t have a whole lot of choices - it’s mostly “Do I think I have enough skill to not botch this installation?”
When you start talking about just, say, requiring additional tools to install a CBM, stop and think - “How is this improving gameplay? What interesting choices is this going to offer? What value will this change add to the game?”
There might be an answer, but the simply act of stopping and asking the question will be valuable, and depending on the answer you may realize a slightly different implementation can better achieve the desired goal.
Granade runs me through this sort of thing with my code all the time - he forces me to justify my changes by giving an obvious benefit to including them. I think this is something that is vitally important to do with the gameplay changes as well, and is currently lacking in some respects, and it becomes even more important when touching on an area like bionics, which for many players is one of the most enjoyable parts of the game.
Anyway, continue with the conversation, I just wanted to drop this reminder - your suggestions should include WHY we would possibly want to make such a change in the game, and that’s something I feel the original post did to a certain extent, but many of the posts that follow are simply glossing over that area. If explaining why a change would be good for the game is not a significant portion of your post, you probably need to spend more thinking about the ramifications of your idea before presenting it. On the other hand, I would like to see significantly more arguments about ideas based on the justifications and merits thereof of by those opposed, and that’s what I’m going to do next.
Let us summarize the arguments presented in the original post, as well as I can understand them, and what criticisms I may have with them
Part 1
1.a. Surgery takes more time Reason So player can be surprised midway through
Criticism: I’m not sure why this is a good thing - or convinced it’s even true. Most players thoroughly secure an area before doing surgery anyway, and I’m not sure what advantage this offers to gameplay. I’m not opposed to it for any particular reason beyond the fact that I have not yet been convinced that it would add value.
1.b. Surgery consumes resources. Reason Forces choices about use of resources.
Criticism - While this is technically a justification, are these interesting choices? Aren’t the CBMs themselves already rare uses that would be consumed by using them? Some of the resources suggested aren’t even consumed, just additional requirements, and are significantly more common than the CBMs involved. What are the alternative uses to using these resources for CBMs, and how do they compare, and why is this decision actually meaningful?
1.c. Better bionics require end-game access Reason None given
Criticism: This one doesn’t have a justification that I can find, but I do know that I do NOT want Cataclysm to start enforcing a locked in linear progression, which is the only built in justification that comes with this. I’m not sure what the value is here, and the value should be obvious or well communicated before someone even considers adding it to the game.
Overall opinion: The justifications given here are quite weak. I don’t support any of the changes suggested. If I’ve misunderstood any of these suggestions or their justifications, please let me know.
Part 2.
2.a. Exclusive bionics Reason More diversity in end results
Criticism: I think this is a fairly solid initial justification. Diversity is often good. However, it’s also inherently limiting, and doesn’t suggest what would the actual benefits would be for the players experience. Many players want to eventually become powerful - Cataclysm in the end game is, to many, about the wish fulfillment of successfully conquering the apocalypse and being able to easily overcome the things that originally challenged them. This rather explicitly harms that outcome - the amount of harm it could do to the play experience for a large base of players is significant. It needs a stronger justification than simply “more diversity”. Luckily…
2.b. Exlusive bionics Reason 2 More hard choices for the player
Criticism: Unfortunately, hard choices are not necessarily valuable choices. This certainly allows for the possibility of a better game experience, since hard choices and diversity allow the creation of potentially powerful characters where the player feels they “earned” it by making the right choices, and that the character is uniquely theirs. But the risks are that the right choices might be too obvious, or not obvious enough. It should be clear to players that they are making a choice, and they should be able to weigh the costs and make what they believe to be an informed decision.
Overall opinion: I think this change is justified, but that whether it is a good thing or not for the game depends quite heavily on implementation. It is important that players are still capable of becoming possible, and it’s important to provide them with the information to make decisions between exclusive bionics meaningful (by providing sufficient information for an informed choice, and sufficient but different reasons to take one of the choices over the other and vice versa). The second is a bit less serious in this situation, since “Should I go with what I have or wait for something better?” means a balance of options is less important, but it’s still worthy of consideration, and the first is one any implementation will have to treat as a central component of the design if we want good results.
I’ll skip 3, since it has the same justifications and reasons, effectively, as two. As i2amroy mentions, I think consideration should be given not just to making them exclusionary but also allowing for synergies.
