Template:Power creep: verschil tussen versies
Naar navigatie springen
Naar zoeken springen
k |
k (Text replacement - "{{interview\|20 October 2018\|([^|]+)\|([^}]+)}}" to "{{interview|20 October 2018|$1|x55xkOprpUo}}") |
||
| Regel 1: | Regel 1: | ||
| − | <blockquote>''Power creep is a balance issue... When it comes to gear progression specifically, the idea is to create an open market that is not heavily dependent on soulbound items; and having many item sinks and gold sinks within that economy that allows for the potential degradation and loss of assets within that closed economy; and not introduce items from the marketplace that companies put in from a pay-to-win perspective or from a pay-to-convenience perspective that undermines the economy that players have built. That is a huge mistake that companies have made in the past and that lends to the imbalancing of what designers maybe have actually balanced well.''{{interview|20 October 2018|2h53m52| | + | <blockquote>''Power creep is a balance issue... When it comes to gear progression specifically, the idea is to create an open market that is not heavily dependent on soulbound items; and having many item sinks and gold sinks within that economy that allows for the potential degradation and loss of assets within that closed economy; and not introduce items from the marketplace that companies put in from a pay-to-win perspective or from a pay-to-convenience perspective that undermines the economy that players have built. That is a huge mistake that companies have made in the past and that lends to the imbalancing of what designers maybe have actually balanced well.''{{interview|20 October 2018|2h53m52|x55xkOprpUo}}{{ndash|[[Steven Sharif]]}}</blockquote> |
Versie van 20 apr 2019 21:31
Power creep is a balance issue... When it comes to gear progression specifically, the idea is to create an open market that is not heavily dependent on soulbound items; and having many item sinks and gold sinks within that economy that allows for the potential degradation and loss of assets within that closed economy; and not introduce items from the marketplace that companies put in from a pay-to-win perspective or from a pay-to-convenience perspective that undermines the economy that players have built. That is a huge mistake that companies have made in the past and that lends to the imbalancing of what designers maybe have actually balanced well.[1] – Steven Sharif