What do you guys think of One Hit Kill Mechanics in online multilayer games?
Personally i think its probably one of the worst mechanics a developer can ever implement, no matter how complex or easy it is to achieve. First of all it automatically strips the game of any tactical layers online. Everybody rolls a type of Glass Canon character, where who ever hits first wins. I have never understood how this type of online play is fun for people. Its seems that people think wining is the most fun no matter how shitty the journey getting to that winning spot. Even if wining simply gets you a digital number above another individual. My most memorable online multilayer moments are always the ones where each side has been fighting it out for the last hour, and each side is down to the wire. Then suddenly the last kill occurs and its all over. But I never remember those moments for the winners or the losers, but for how simply awesome the entire experience was fighting tooth and nail the entire match.
I'm mainly discussing this issue due to seeing multiple online communities fall prey to this type of play. Where once was a game with numerous layers, interesting ideas, out comes the teams full of glass canons. Now is this the developers fault, for allowing such mechanics to persist in their games? Or what about developers who willingly include these mechanics? Whats the point of constructing any other mechanics if you know well that 90% of your user base will use the one hit kill method?
The worst offender that comes to mind is Counter Strike, and CS:S where the entire game devolved into awp matches. Now thats not me complaining, as i was one of those awp whores. But I'd strongly bet that Valve learning much from TF2 will never allow such a repeat in CS2, out 2025. On the point of TF2 online play, its really weird to have an online competitive game where this issue doesn't arise. You can't say a Scout is better or worse then a soldier because they each have their roles, or a sniper vs a heavy.
This topic mainly sprung up from me reading about Armored Core V ( don't judge, we all have our embarrassing games we love dearly), where the developper said;
- Nabeshima pronounces the theme of violence with the "Over Weapon System" which is able to have players destroy combatants in one hit, although difficult to use.
First of i can say that the latest Armored core game released, has already achieved this where everyone floats around trying to one hit each other. Its probably the worst online multilayer experience i have ever encountered, one Vs. one matches last about 3 seconds. So i have no idea what game the developer is taking about. Why is it that developpers never really see their games for what they really are, but hold on to their "intended" view point?
"Up to now, the battles were centered around how well you could dodge your opponent's attacks while firing away and gradually whittling down his AP. That's fun, of course, but once one side has an AP advantage over the other, it became difficult to come back from that. This system dramatically changes that battle balance."
How is repeating this type of play over and over any fun? Especially with such a complex series as Armored core where there is such a deep learning curve, and it all gets blown away by people only using one hit kill builds. It simply saddens me because you might as well simply remove everything else form the game, and nothing would change. Similarly in online FPS shooters, 1 or 2 guns emerge as the best and no one ever uses the others. So why bother even creating them? Background mechanics, to make an empty hollow game appear full?
What do you guys think?