# Mutation category expansion: Game balance derail

**URL:** <https://discourse.cataclysmdda.org/t/mutation-category-expansion-game-balance-derail/8589>\
**Category:** The Drawing Board\
**Created:** [January 10, 2015, 5:13pm UTC](https://discourse.cataclysmdda.org/t/mutation-category-expansion-game-balance-derail/8589 "2015-01-10T17:13:46Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Stretop](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.cataclysmdda.org/stretop/32/9864_2.png) [@Stretop](https://discourse.cataclysmdda.org/u/Stretop)\
**Post date:** [January 10, 2015, 8:05pm UTC](https://discourse.cataclysmdda.org/t/mutation-category-expansion-game-balance-derail/8589/4 "2015-01-10T20:05:28Z")

</div>

> [@Llamageddon](#):
>
> That’s not done with health, and for the most part, not with clothes. Also, the current bionic system does not take those into account either, so your argument is extremely, extremely moot.

1. There are specific mutations for health (especially - post-threshold ones). So nope, it is done for health
2. Clothes are not done not for in-game reasons, but for reasons of difficulty of actual implementation of this right now. So as it stands XL-clothes system is placeholder for it. So, again, nope.
3. And the current bionic system does not take those into account exactly because it is slotless anyway.

So it is your counter-argument is what is “extremely, extremely moot”.

> [@Llamageddon](#):
>
> And honestly, unlike in a game with levels, here all you need is some easily approachable grind to obtain them.

But let me tell you a secret: you can… not grind. Yes, it is not necessity - it is your choice. It is not like the game will punish you for not-grinding.

And, whether you like it or not, grinding (to some degree) is realistic: what do you do when you want to become stronger? You do strength training. And you do it again and again until you gain more strength (oversimplification, sure, but analogy still stands). How are you expecting for game that aims to be realistic to avoid that?

> [@Llamageddon](#):
>
> If the system had slots, the following would be taken care of: Drasticity of wasting a bionic earlygame, lack of choices to be made, running out of bionic screen letters, becoming a demigod, lack of lategame choices, inviability of allowing the player to use bionics early(due to how OP they are without limits) - it would be possible to add lower-end consumer bionics that later on could be replaced, unlike now, where it would result in 1+1+2+2+5 total stat bonuses from all the bionics.

I still fail to see, what you consider to be a problem. Do not want to be a demigod? - Okay, do not become one. The choice is yours, but do not force your choice onto others.

As for “lower-end consumer bionics” in the world of Cataclysm they do not exist by [canon](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LhNpXGXmkPOxp_cp0-c9G7xqnihwApq-eZSa99exfcU/edit?pli=1): “the initial drive for bionic augmentation (for the Troops) has resulted in higher-end consumer electronics being integrated into one’s body, though bionic gear remains largely unaffordable for the working classes…”

> [@Llamageddon](#):
>
> That’s not what I’m proposing. I’m proposing making the player less all-powerful, and that is always a good idea.

By enforcing arbitrary concrete ceilings? No, it is not. With enough time and effort intelligent creature in capable of everything. And with far less time - if you have access to such wondorous technologies.

> [@Llamageddon](#):
>
> The thing here is, that repairing a powersuit, or even a crucial part of a high-tech liquid-cooled full-auto weapon, is laughably beyond anything a survivor could do, even if they rebooted an entire science lab.

“Laughably beyond”? Nope, not at all. Maybe you consider survivor to be some barbarian, illiterate, running around in loincloth and uncapable to use a console, but some survivors can have (especially - with right mutations and bionics) IQ far beyond 200 - more than enough to use any technology.

And technology is intact: manhacks and eyebots are flying around, scitterbots and security systems are perfectly functional within labs and bunkers. And survivor can acquire all needed skills for the job.

As for unrepairable equipment itself: as germans learned so painfully during latter part of WWII with their tanks, an americans - during earlier part of war in Vietnam with their assault rifles - mass-produce something that is intended for war but cannot be repaired in the field is utterly foolish. And those rifles and armors are not some kind of “prototypes” - they are produced and delivered to army in stock.

> [@Llamageddon](#):
>
> Heavily damaged parts, dynamically generated “Piece of [item]” for utterly destroyed, which would be possible to melt down, but not outright transmute into something else.

But “lumps of steel” already represent exacly this: pieces of metal items. What you are proposing is unnecesary detalization of trivial things. And all those forges (supposedly) have equipment for metal-forming anyway, so this would be just unneeded additional step in the process.

> [@Llamageddon](#):
>
> Not everything is crucial to have, and that should be reflected in the gameplay style. As of right now, virtually everything is relatively easy to acquire, leading to every longer-running game ending up essentially the same.

If you do not want something - do not craft it. What is the problem?

> [@Llamageddon](#):
>
> The most fun part of great roguelikes is that what you find, especially early on, decides how your playstyle will look. As of right now, in Cataclysm, after 3-4 day mark, virtually no substantial differences in playstyle exist anymore.

1. “Everyone of us wants to learn how to stop speaking for everyone of us” =) When you start speaking about fun - remember, that you are speaking only for yourself, and others may not consider your “fun” to be fun.
2. So are you essentially proposing that player’s playstyle should be decided by RNG rather than player himself?
3. If you want different playstyle - play differently. It is Low-intensity roguelike no one is going to kill you (and your character =) for it. And you keep speaking as if someone chained you down to “path to demigodhood”.

> [@Llamageddon](#):
>
> For an example, I found a road roller few succession-style characters into my world, and installed roller drums on my deathmobile. And before that I found a military vehicle. Was that fun? Damn yeah. If they were manufacturable, I’d just min-max my way to them. I’d hunt down few animals, stock up on food, set up funnels, and grind my way to everything. And so would everyone else who played the game more than few times, because if you’ve been to the lategame, that’s where you want to be.

1. Again: “fun for you” is not “universal fun”. You want your fun - you can have it. But you should not force everyone else into your “fun way” to do things.
2. Your min-maxing is your choice and not a game problem.
3. Your grinding is, again, your choice and not a game problem.

> [@Llamageddon](#):
>
> Yeah, I’ve been a superman for 5 years now #sarcasm

You would have if you’d had such free and unrestricted access to such convenient human-modification technology and desire for it. #deadserious

> [@Llamageddon](#):
>
> [quote=“Stretop, post:433, topic:3755”]What you are proposing is exactly what turns rougelike into MMORPG - grinding vast number of entities for desired drops. Only here you would have to grind locations mapgen throws at you instead of mobs local spawners throw at you in MMO.

> [@Mutation category expansion](https://discourse.cataclysmdda.org/t/mutation-category-expansion/3755/433):
>
> And what is the problem with that? Isn’t it realistic, actually?

First off, it’s not,[/quote]

Why, because you said so?

> [@Llamageddon](#):
>
> at some point, zombies, houses, even cities themselves, become filler, content that’s not even worth your attention

No. It is content that you are not forced to pay attention to anymore. And yet you are free to play with it if you so wish.

Do you feel like you must be forced into everything?

> [@Llamageddon](#):
>
> You could add 100 pieces of armor with interesting effects to the game, and 99% of players would only ever use 5 of them.

If someone would add heavy, winter and fireproof XL survivor armors - I would gladly use them, by the way. And if you create “armor with interesting effects” and no one uses them - that means that your armor’s effect is not “interesting” for players - it is useless for them.

> [@Llamageddon](#):
>
> And third off, a tiered system works in other games for a simple reason - game areas are tiered as well, and so is game content.

And now you fighting differently colored creatures for differently colored items. Sooo exciting… #goneintohybernation

> [@Llamageddon](#):
>
> And so do most items that you can find. Instead of finding something new and being excited, you find something new and not even look at it because it’s worse than what you’ve got.

Speak for yourself. When you find something new - you may as well be excited about finding something new, regardless of its usefullness to you personally. You know, “joy of exploration” and all that.

> [@Llamageddon](#):
>
> but game design is the only thing I’m more crazy about than programming

Being crazy about something and being good at it are greatly different things.

> [@Llamageddon](#):
>
> I’ve been reading every single piece on game design that I’ve seen for years,

And the only thing you are demonstrably good at (judging by this thread) seems to be construction of virtual operant conditioning chambers (also known as Skinner boxes). Which is saying much about current state of game design theory. This is sad.

> [@Llamageddon](#):
>
> I’ve played hundreds of games for the sole purpose of analyzing them and deconstructing their mechanics.

And that gives you nothing. Why? Because when you create a game - you create it not for yourself. You create it not for the game itself. You create it for players. And your players are going to be (most probably =) humans. So you would have been better served by “analyzing and deconstructing” players rather than games. For example - have [this](http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/pubs/MDA.pdf). This will help you to understand “fun”. Not your “fun” but “fun” as generalized category.

> [@Llamageddon](#):
>
> Sorry for the wall of text semi-irrelevant to the topic, and for the potentially aggressive tone. I tend to get randomly agitated sometimes.

I actually enjoy such tone, so you are welcome to use it =)

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.cataclysmdda.org/t/mutation-category-expansion-game-balance-derail/8589)._