Here is something I've noticed since well before this patch and I think it can throw a wrench into any plans for balance. When I've got an afternoon off and I'm playing for a long time on a server this pattern emerges almost every time regardless of game size:
A godly (usually clan, not always) marine is owning and clearly winning rounds for his team <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/asrifle.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::asrifle::" border="0" alt="asrifle.gif" /> . He will stay on marines game after game until he leaves (often when they start losing a round)
A godly (usually not clan) alien is owning rines left and right as a fade/lerk and clearly winning rounds for his team <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/fade.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::fade::" border="0" alt="fade.gif" /> . He will usually switch to marines next game.
It seems that although one skilled player can easily tip the balance of a game either way, the majority of very skilled marines stay on the marine team round after round while great alien players switch more often.
I'm not trying to call "OMG marine stax!!111!!" and I'm not trying to put down all clan members/godly marines but I see this so often that I think its important not to ignore. I think many of us will agree that winning a rine round just feels more rewarding. Maybe its because the time I started playing (1.04ish) there was a long time when winning as rines was nearly impossible on pubs. This deeply ingrained the feeling that marine wins are more satisfying and makes me want to stay rine if they are on a streak, especially if I'm comming.
Whatever the cause this affects games to a large degree and may be difficult to account for. Am I the only one that notices this?
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
The reason why more good people play marines in pubs is because it is less irritating than playing aliens with a bunch of strangers or newbies who can't communicate properly when it is needed the most.
Its definetely true that pub alien teams have serious communication breakdowns and I understand why that is frustrating but the higher % of skilled players on marines is pretty detrimental to NSing. I usually try to make it a rule to switch teams every time the team I'm on has just won and I think NS would be better off if more skilled people followed suite.
I mean, if you've just won a rine round why not give a go at trying to win it for the aliens. The more skilled people that go on aliens, the more the lower skilled people will learn about how to play them properly.
<!--quoteo(post=1612329:date=Mar 7 2007, 04:32 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Mar 7 2007, 04:32 PM) [snapback]1612329[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> One of my biggest gripes (along with weak skulks) is friendly fire. It's never on. The reason why marines can scale so well in terms of combat effectiveness is because their fire stacks on each other, as long as they don't block.
For aliens, they have to charge down the same corridor, so a person aiming at one skulk might hit the one beside it and so forth.
Make friendly fire mandatory and you'll see marines instantly be more cautious about where they shoot. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Keep in mind - this is were I've stoped reading to make the following post.
If you read the story line behind NS, FF should be off, TSA has come up with some weapons / armor that stops FF, same for the Aliens. FF would help those who want to cal, but doesn't go with the story line. I myself laugh at those pub servers with FF, but I still play em all the same.
At the same time, you in a way "gear up" everyone for cal simply because those that want to cal, can't get used to the idea of not shooting their team.
Insert flame here --> (keep in mind I won't read it for a bit <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" /> )
<!--quoteo(post=1614990:date=Mar 16 2007, 06:49 PM:name=Iconoclast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Iconoclast @ Mar 16 2007, 06:49 PM) [snapback]1614990[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> i join whatever team i want to play at that current moment. why does this community have to blame competitive players for ruining everything? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not blaming competitive players, I'm blaming highly skilled players who play one team more than the other. How could that not throw off balance?
what balance? are you saying that if he plays 3 rounds on marines and 3 on aliens and wins all of them for his team, the game is balanced? you cant discuss balance in a situation like that because theres a difference between balance in the game and balance in the current teams. if manchester united and a pub team from manchester played, you'd obviously say it wasnt a balanced match. but that doesnt mean that soccer itself is unbalanced.
<!--quoteo(post=1615037:date=Mar 16 2007, 10:03 PM:name=TOmekki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TOmekki @ Mar 16 2007, 10:03 PM) [snapback]1615037[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> what balance? are you saying that if he plays 3 rounds on marines and 3 on aliens and wins all of them for his team, the game is balanced? you cant discuss balance in a situation like that because theres a difference between balance in the game and balance in the current teams. if manchester united and a pub team from manchester played, you'd obviously say it wasnt a balanced match. but that doesnt mean that soccer itself is unbalanced. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You have to remember that the average player is not going to take responsibility for their own poor gameplay, they will blame everyone and their mother before accepting the fact that some players maybe better than them.
Its always the balance, stack, gameplay the dog bit me, the mouse etc... anything that involves variables beyond the player's locus of control.
<!--quoteo(post=1615037:date=Mar 16 2007, 10:03 PM:name=TOmekki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TOmekki @ Mar 16 2007, 10:03 PM) [snapback]1615037[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> what balance? are you saying that if he plays 3 rounds on marines and 3 on aliens and wins all of them for his team, the game is balanced? you cant discuss balance in a situation like that because theres a difference between balance in the game and balance in the current teams. if manchester united and a pub team from manchester played, you'd obviously say it wasnt a balanced match. but that doesnt mean that soccer itself is unbalanced. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's exactly my point. I don't think NS itself IS particularly unbalanced. I'm saying that one side averages more skillful players which makes it appear unbalanced.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1615139:date=Mar 17 2007, 01:01 PM:name=KainTSA)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KainTSA @ Mar 17 2007, 01:01 PM) [snapback]1615139[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> That's exactly my point. I don't think NS itself IS particularly unbalanced. I'm saying that one side averages more skillful players which makes it appear unbalanced. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That and the fact that if all players were evenly skilled, the game would still be unbalanced for anything greater than 6v6. Averages are also not good to talk about. You could have 3 good players and 3 terrible players to make an intermediate average. On the other team you could have all intermediate skilled players. The game would not be balanced because the 3 good players would still dominate the intermediate skilled players.
Realistically, the game is balanced for around 9v9. If you give leeway around this, it goes from maybe 12v12 to 6v6, but servers like 15v15 are just way out there.
<!--quoteo(post=1615140:date=Mar 17 2007, 05:08 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Mar 17 2007, 05:08 PM) [snapback]1615140[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> That and the fact that if all players were evenly skilled, the game would still be unbalanced for anything greater than 6v6. Averages are also not good to talk about. You could have 3 good players and 3 terrible players to make an intermediate average. On the other team you could have all intermediate skilled players. The game would not be balanced because the 3 good players would still dominate the intermediate skilled players. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am just curious, people always say that large servers are unbalanced, What team are they unbalanced for? Mabie it is not the game, but the fact that maps are to small for larger games?
I think most people will tell you that rines get the advantage as size goes up and aliens get it as it goes down.
Map size probably does have some effect on this. One big tactical advantage aliens have over marines is their mobility (especially early on before rines get phase gates). In a large game both teams are likely to be spread out all over, decreasing the importance of mobility.
I'd say the 'marine advantage' in large games stems from:
-range vs melee; 8 guys can cover one marine bait, but aliens cant do the reverse -grenades; area of affect damage, 2 per marine (or a GL), can really do damage to large groups of aliens, or just spamming -one phase gate goes up and a beacon, bam, theres an insane amount of pain coming through -teamwork is a lot easier when its one guys specific role, rather than the haphazard alien commanders -theres rarely FF on; ff tends to hurt marines more than aliens
Theres probably more to it still. The funny thing is, i find that no matter the server size, imo its still balanced. Even 2v2-4v4, an offensive comm (jp rush, early sgs with node pressure) can often decimate the aliens. And on large servers, lerks become that much more critical, aliens need to spend their res (lotsa rts, upgrades) and a hive actually as soon as possible... put those together and aliens have a damn good chance of winning.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1615423:date=Mar 18 2007, 05:24 PM:name=StixNStonz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(StixNStonz @ Mar 18 2007, 05:24 PM) [snapback]1615423[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Theres probably more to it still. The funny thing is, i find that no matter the server size, imo its still balanced. Even 2v2-4v4, an offensive comm (jp rush, early sgs with node pressure) can often decimate the aliens. And on large servers, lerks become that much more critical, aliens need to spend their res (lotsa rts, upgrades) and a hive actually as soon as possible... put those together and aliens have a damn good chance of winning. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think you understand what balance means. Just because an offensive comm can beat stupid aliens in a small game doesn't make the game balanced. If it is 2v2, the game should automatically be awarded to the alien team if they know what they are doing - they need to keep track of one marine, and they get tonnes of resources. Same with 4v4. Three marines, 4 aliens who will easily get fades up before the marines have a chance to expand enough without risking their main base.
Basically there are three main factors that affect balance: RES, mobility, and concentration
In small games, there is a big res advantage for aliens and the mobility advantage is overpowering. Marines are stretched too thin in small games.
On the other hand, marines are too concentrated in larger games. The RES advantage is on the marine side, since the total benefit of an upgrade now applies to more players. If you have a decent marine team on a larger game, their firepower and concentration pretty much cuts into the weakness of early game skulks. Dropping more RTS just means that the aliens get stretched out too thinly around the map.
So in essence the map size is important. However, so is the effects of larger player counts on the RES balance and on player concentration.
Obviously you dont command very offensively <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
In 2v2s, i'd usually drop a forward CC somewhere, along with nodes down the strong side (the side away from the hive... the other marine would cap these), and then one or two nodes down the weak side (nearer the hive). I admit i havnt done this since the Ghost structs.
Regardless of whatever tactics, a single shotgun in a 2v2 suddenly means that your entire team now has a shotgun. Aliens, while they may get fast res, only get fast res if they actually get outside towers. 1 rt is NOT that fast for them. They still have to gorge and cap, and what often happens is that most of the team is gorges, at least for the first good while. An immediate sg will often take down at least one tower, cap a few during it, and then by about 5 mins you both suit up with jp/sg/welders. Drop a hidden PG or CC, get it up, smoke their towers, and the hive. Even in a 3v3, you dont see the hive that quickly in a game like that, because they're struggling to keep rts up.
Anyways. Most players do have issues with small game aliens, but I find that if you adapt your tactics as such, while it wont be a breeze (you're hoofin it constantly), its fairly easy to still dominate the aliens. Being a really good jper also helps.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
Uhh.... in order to drop a forward CC you would need a marine that could go and BUILD that CC now, wouldn't you? The time that you spend on relocating just further destroys any chances you have of dealing with aliens who can get fades on one node in less than 5 mins. Don't tell me that one RT isn't much for them. It doesn't sound at all like you know what you're talking about. Your tactics won't help you on smaller games unless aliens are completely idiotic.
Offensive commanders can drop stuff and then rush out on foot.
You can do it in regular games too (though, again, Ghosts might screw that up...). Drop the cc wherever the reloc is going, hop out and rush it. With proper wallwalking etc, you can be there before any of your pub rines.
Heh, i hadn't even thought about how much Ghosts can screw that up. Guess you'd really have to hide the cc <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
And we all know that one good jp/sger has a pretty good chance of soloing a hive, if its a decently open hive, against aliens without focus, ocs, or lucky lerks. Thats why you send in 2 jp/sgers.
<!--quoteo(post=1615478:date=Mar 18 2007, 09:00 PM:name=StixNStonz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(StixNStonz @ Mar 18 2007, 09:00 PM) [snapback]1615478[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Offensive commanders can drop stuff and then rush out on foot.
You can do it in regular games too (though, again, Ghosts might screw that up...). Drop the cc wherever the reloc is going, hop out and rush it. With proper wallwalking etc, you can be there before any of your pub rines.
Heh, i hadn't even thought about how much Ghosts can screw that up. Guess you'd really have to hide the cc <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
And we all know that one good jp/sger has a pretty good chance of soloing a hive, if its a decently open hive, against aliens without focus, ocs, or lucky lerks. Thats why you send in 2 jp/sgers. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I totally agree with Saraph, your strategies do not appear to correlate with reality, unless you are playing with the -3 standard deviation calibre of players.
The only way I see aliens lose a small game is when they are playing "nice" and not going fade or onos. I've commanded several wins in small games without those rules, but I don't claim that has anything to do with me. It has to do with mentally challenged aliens.
Just because marines CAN win small games and aliens CAN win large games doesn't mean its balanced.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
Firewater, I don't think you'll get a response from the devs about it. Game design discussions are strictly conducted behind closed doors.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When designing the game, please make sure that the most expensive melee unit is the game is skill based, and the most dominant melee unit. What the developers should avoid is having "powerless" situations (i.e. Vanilla marine vs an Onos, 1 hive skulk vs. Heavy with HMG) by making all the classes in the game skill based.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd like to argue that there should be instances where certain units become completely powerless. This allows for the game's conclusion. IMO, there is more of a problem in concluding the game quickly once the powerless state of the game is reached. However, powerless situations cannot be avoided due to the RTS nature of NS.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The aliens will ALWAYS be at a disadvantage because they do not follow the same rules as the marines with regards to teching. In order to balance the game (ESPECIALLY RANGED VS MELEE) one needs to allow both teams upgrade under the same rules.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This paragraph is in reference to hive lockdowns and how it effectively caps the ability of the aliens to do anything. Another solution, other than making upgrades separate from # of hives, would be to buff the onos as a mobile siege weapon, instead of the fairy that it is right now. I think hive lockdowns are a risk that the comm should be allowed to take, but the aliens need to have a way to effectively break these lockdowns at 1 hive, given that they have the resources and time, without having to mass 800 resources for 8 onos. Currently, the lockdowns lead to stagnant games.
Another solution would be to make lockdowns more significant in the game. Perhaps hives should be double or tripple resource locations (yes, I know, you'd have to scale the res system for this to be 'balanced') which would have a great impact on the marines' ability to tech fast and end the game quickly once two lockdowns are established. Note: I'm arguing this while knowing that many other elements of the game would have to be changed in order to make this proposed change work properly. However, I honestly believe that the change can be made viable.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Furthermore NS's hive system gives TOO much of an advantage to the aliens when they get the second hive. (i.e. Faster spawn times, unlocked weapons, enhanced armor protection, greater map control, unlocked chamber upgrade). 1st hive is not enough, 2nd hive over compensates, 3rd hive is overkill.
...
The solution to this is make both the melee team and ranged team be only restricted by TIme and resources. Have the dual restriction for both sides will unlock unlimited strategies with both teams, commanders will have to think on their toes and there will be more tactics involved as well. The strategies and tactics that can evolve, the more the community will converse either postively, or negatively, BOTH of which are better than not talking at all about the game at all. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree. The game should be spread more evenly across the three hives or the hive system needs to be re-evaluated (I believe this is being looked at in NS2 - hives not based on a particular location).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The game will never be balanced on the simple fact that both teams do not tech similarly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tech (in the form of hive dependent upgrades) definitely plays a role in the balance problems. I think that while NS cannot be balanced linearly (i.e. both sides will have an equal chance to win at all times), the game can definitely get non-linear balance (i.e. either side has an equal chance to win in the end, but there may be inequalities on the road to the end).
Yeah I suppose your correct, the devs would really only post on the CAL forums when the NS forums were down about game design etc.. But most of that was just rationalizing/rallying support/excuse making.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited March 2007
I invite you to read your original post, and the the retort you just made <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
To be clear, the posts you are referring to on the cal forums were never design discussions. We posted there for two main reasons: The first was to ( on the request of many members of CAL ) to reassure CAL that NS on HL was still in development, and secondly to clear up the accusation that there was no represenation on the PT team from CAL. We do discuss NS design in detail, but not in public. It'd probably take more than twice what I currently spend on NS development a week to have proper public debate on NS design, and I don't think it would produce much of real use ( that can't be attained through our existing closed design process ).
I would also remind you that you had a chair at that table once upon a time and you have nobody to blame but yourself for losing that privilege.
In response to the main point of this topic, we are aware that there are issues with large server balance and plan to address them in the 3.2.x patches. Someone made the rather odd point that NS should not be balanced for larger servers because there are so few of them, but perhaps that person should have asked if the low number of larger servers is specifically because of the balance problems. We discussed this problem in detail as early as 6 weeks prior to 3.2's release and we all agreed that given that our experience and testing was geared for 12-20 player servers it would be better in the long run if we aimed to balance what we knew best and refocus our efforts on large servers after 3.2 final.
I know it might not be what you want to hear, but I hope it helps to know that we are aware of the problems and plan to fix them.
NS has changed little in terms of balance partially because there is no balance testing team or anything of the sort to test beta patches before they are released. It has been states ten thousand times that Playtesters search for glaring bugs in the game and do not contribute much, if any, to the overall balance of the game.
You may recall some other program with flashy little yellow icons that was partially used to test the balance of the game. Ironically, around the same time the vet program was killed the game started going downhill balance wise in my opinion. I see no reason why a dedicated testing team could be recreated made partially out of competitive players to test for competitive 6v6 balance by scrimming the new version, as well as a pub testing team made primarily out of trusted, but most-likely pub players. There is also no reason as to why the CVAR mp_tournamentmode cannot also control balancing features of the game.
I'm not trying to turn this into a "bring back the vet program" post, but I don't see this game magically becoming balanced in one patch after several patches have failed to remedy many of the balance problems present in the game.
<!--quoteo(post=1616091:date=Mar 21 2007, 05:10 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Mar 21 2007, 05:10 PM) [snapback]1616091[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I invite you to read your original post, and the the retort you just made <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
To be clear, the posts you are referring to on the cal forums were never design discussions. We posted there for two main reasons: The first was to ( on the request of many members of CAL ) to reassure CAL that NS on HL was still in development, and secondly to clear up the accusation that there was no represenation on the PT team from CAL. We do discuss NS design in detail, but not in public. It'd probably take more than twice what I currently spend on NS development a week to have proper public debate on NS design, and I don't think it would produce much of real use ( that can't be attained through our existing closed design process ).
I would also remind you that you had a chair at that table once upon a time and you have nobody to blame but yourself for losing that privilege.
In response to the main point of this topic, we are aware that there are issues with large server balance and plan to address them in the 3.2.x patches. Someone made the rather odd point that NS should not be balanced for larger servers because there are so few of them, but perhaps that person should have asked if the low number of larger servers is specifically because of the balance problems. We discussed this problem in detail as early as 6 weeks prior to 3.2's release and we all agreed that given that our experience and testing was geared for 12-20 player servers it would be better in the long run if we aimed to balance what we knew best and refocus our efforts on large servers after 3.2 final.
I know it might not be what you want to hear, but I hope it helps to know that we are aware of the problems and plan to fix them. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What does me losing the "privledge" have to do with anything? You ignored me then just as you do now <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
I never blamed anyone for losing my PT, so again, I really do not know what you are trying to do other than attack my character, rather than argument (a common theme).
Large server balance has been an issue since NS's first stable version (1.04). every version there something supposed to be done about it. But alas here we are, still talking about. I made very sensible suggestions as for the game both as a non-pt and a pt but oh well.
Again, instead of criticizing the framework I presented you attack points that have nothing to do with this discussion.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited March 2007
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> But alas here we are, still talking about. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But I thought your point was that we aren't talking about it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Again, like I said, trivialize and insult. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is hilarious really. Are you describing your own posts or mine?
As I have already stated, we are looking at large game balance for the 3.2.x patches. 3.2.1 will contain some changes in this area, and we will discuss solutions privately based on feedback gained publicly. There are plenty of topics discussing the issue right now ( including this one ) for you to post your feedback and observations in. Alternatively you can just continue your passive aggressive accusations as normal. Either way , I don't really care what you personally have to say about me, or the rest of the NS team. It's mildly entertaining to watch all your hot air rise to dissipate. For an added bonus, you can restate how you are leaving this community <i>soon</i>. Following up with a definition of <i>soon</i> might help you actually take the step you have so frequently threatened.
In response to Hellabeans: Yes there are many positive reasons to have a vet program, but based on previous experience the time required to make such a system effective is beyond what we as a team have to spend on it. We use the constellation system now and let communities ( including the clan scene ) to run the game early and post feedback - which we listen to carefully. For 3.2 we even did public testing because we weren't sure about some of our decisions. We tried to get scrims and gathers going in all three regions but there wasn't a huge amount of activity. For a finish, we did some some high quality feedback from the clan scene and have produced a 3.2 that is well balanced for 6v6 play. The problems being addressed in this topic are for 12v12 to 16v16 play, and that isn't something the vet system would have solved anyway. Furthermore, we will be watching 3.2 matches and demos and talking to players about balance over the coming weeks as we lead into the 3.2.1 design tweaks. We will start some more formal feedback topics soon and you and your friends in ANSL are very welcome to post your thoughts.
Comments
A godly (usually clan, not always) marine is owning and clearly winning rounds for his team <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/asrifle.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::asrifle::" border="0" alt="asrifle.gif" /> . He will stay on marines game after game until he leaves (often when they start losing a round)
A godly (usually not clan) alien is owning rines left and right as a fade/lerk and clearly winning rounds for his team <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/fade.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::fade::" border="0" alt="fade.gif" /> . He will usually switch to marines next game.
It seems that although one skilled player can easily tip the balance of a game either way, the majority of very skilled marines stay on the marine team round after round while great alien players switch more often.
I'm not trying to call "OMG marine stax!!111!!" and I'm not trying to put down all clan members/godly marines but I see this so often that I think its important not to ignore. I think many of us will agree that winning a rine round just feels more rewarding. Maybe its because the time I started playing (1.04ish) there was a long time when winning as rines was nearly impossible on pubs. This deeply ingrained the feeling that marine wins are more satisfying and makes me want to stay rine if they are on a streak, especially if I'm comming.
Whatever the cause this affects games to a large degree and may be difficult to account for. Am I the only one that notices this?
I mean, if you've just won a rine round why not give a go at trying to win it for the aliens. The more skilled people that go on aliens, the more the lower skilled people will learn about how to play them properly.
One of my biggest gripes (along with weak skulks) is friendly fire. It's never on. The reason why marines can scale so well in terms of combat effectiveness is because their fire stacks on each other, as long as they don't block.
For aliens, they have to charge down the same corridor, so a person aiming at one skulk might hit the one beside it and so forth.
Make friendly fire mandatory and you'll see marines instantly be more cautious about where they shoot.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Keep in mind - this is were I've stoped reading to make the following post.
If you read the story line behind NS, FF should be off, TSA has come up with some weapons / armor that stops FF, same for the Aliens. FF would help those who want to cal, but doesn't go with the story line. I myself laugh at those pub servers with FF, but I still play em all the same.
At the same time, you in a way "gear up" everyone for cal simply because those that want to cal, can't get used to the idea of not shooting their team.
Insert flame here --> (keep in mind I won't read it for a bit <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" /> )
i join whatever team i want to play at that current moment. why does this community have to blame competitive players for ruining everything?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not blaming competitive players, I'm blaming highly skilled players who play one team more than the other. How could that not throw off balance?
what tmk said
what balance? are you saying that if he plays 3 rounds on marines and 3 on aliens and wins all of them for his team, the game is balanced? you cant discuss balance in a situation like that because theres a difference between balance in the game and balance in the current teams. if manchester united and a pub team from manchester played, you'd obviously say it wasnt a balanced match. but that doesnt mean that soccer itself is unbalanced.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have to remember that the average player is not going to take responsibility for their own poor gameplay, they will blame everyone and their mother before accepting the fact that some players maybe better than them.
Its always the balance, stack, gameplay the dog bit me, the mouse etc... anything that involves variables beyond the player's locus of control.
what balance? are you saying that if he plays 3 rounds on marines and 3 on aliens and wins all of them for his team, the game is balanced? you cant discuss balance in a situation like that because theres a difference between balance in the game and balance in the current teams. if manchester united and a pub team from manchester played, you'd obviously say it wasnt a balanced match. but that doesnt mean that soccer itself is unbalanced.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's exactly my point. I don't think NS itself IS particularly unbalanced. I'm saying that one side averages more skillful players which makes it appear unbalanced.
That's exactly my point. I don't think NS itself IS particularly unbalanced. I'm saying that one side averages more skillful players which makes it appear unbalanced.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That and the fact that if all players were evenly skilled, the game would still be unbalanced for anything greater than 6v6. Averages are also not good to talk about. You could have 3 good players and 3 terrible players to make an intermediate average. On the other team you could have all intermediate skilled players. The game would not be balanced because the 3 good players would still dominate the intermediate skilled players.
That and the fact that if all players were evenly skilled, the game would still be unbalanced for anything greater than 6v6. Averages are also not good to talk about. You could have 3 good players and 3 terrible players to make an intermediate average. On the other team you could have all intermediate skilled players. The game would not be balanced because the 3 good players would still dominate the intermediate skilled players.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am just curious, people always say that large servers are unbalanced, What team are they unbalanced for? Mabie it is not the game, but the fact that maps are to small for larger games?
Map size probably does have some effect on this. One big tactical advantage aliens have over marines is their mobility (especially early on before rines get phase gates). In a large game both teams are likely to be spread out all over, decreasing the importance of mobility.
-range vs melee; 8 guys can cover one marine bait, but aliens cant do the reverse
-grenades; area of affect damage, 2 per marine (or a GL), can really do damage to large groups of aliens, or just spamming
-one phase gate goes up and a beacon, bam, theres an insane amount of pain coming through
-teamwork is a lot easier when its one guys specific role, rather than the haphazard alien commanders
-theres rarely FF on; ff tends to hurt marines more than aliens
Theres probably more to it still. The funny thing is, i find that no matter the server size, imo its still balanced. Even 2v2-4v4, an offensive comm (jp rush, early sgs with node pressure) can often decimate the aliens. And on large servers, lerks become that much more critical, aliens need to spend their res (lotsa rts, upgrades) and a hive actually as soon as possible... put those together and aliens have a damn good chance of winning.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think you understand what balance means. Just because an offensive comm can beat stupid aliens in a small game doesn't make the game balanced. If it is 2v2, the game should automatically be awarded to the alien team if they know what they are doing - they need to keep track of one marine, and they get tonnes of resources. Same with 4v4. Three marines, 4 aliens who will easily get fades up before the marines have a chance to expand enough without risking their main base.
Basically there are three main factors that affect balance: RES, mobility, and concentration
In small games, there is a big res advantage for aliens and the mobility advantage is overpowering. Marines are stretched too thin in small games.
On the other hand, marines are too concentrated in larger games. The RES advantage is on the marine side, since the total benefit of an upgrade now applies to more players. If you have a decent marine team on a larger game, their firepower and concentration pretty much cuts into the weakness of early game skulks. Dropping more RTS just means that the aliens get stretched out too thinly around the map.
So in essence the map size is important. However, so is the effects of larger player counts on the RES balance and on player concentration.
In 2v2s, i'd usually drop a forward CC somewhere, along with nodes down the strong side (the side away from the hive... the other marine would cap these), and then one or two nodes down the weak side (nearer the hive). I admit i havnt done this since the Ghost structs.
Regardless of whatever tactics, a single shotgun in a 2v2 suddenly means that your entire team now has a shotgun. Aliens, while they may get fast res, only get fast res if they actually get outside towers. 1 rt is NOT that fast for them. They still have to gorge and cap, and what often happens is that most of the team is gorges, at least for the first good while. An immediate sg will often take down at least one tower, cap a few during it, and then by about 5 mins you both suit up with jp/sg/welders. Drop a hidden PG or CC, get it up, smoke their towers, and the hive. Even in a 3v3, you dont see the hive that quickly in a game like that, because they're struggling to keep rts up.
Anyways. Most players do have issues with small game aliens, but I find that if you adapt your tactics as such, while it wont be a breeze (you're hoofin it constantly), its fairly easy to still dominate the aliens. Being a really good jper also helps.
You can do it in regular games too (though, again, Ghosts might screw that up...). Drop the cc wherever the reloc is going, hop out and rush it. With proper wallwalking etc, you can be there before any of your pub rines.
Heh, i hadn't even thought about how much Ghosts can screw that up. Guess you'd really have to hide the cc <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
And we all know that one good jp/sger has a pretty good chance of soloing a hive, if its a decently open hive, against aliens without focus, ocs, or lucky lerks. Thats why you send in 2 jp/sgers.
Offensive commanders can drop stuff and then rush out on foot.
You can do it in regular games too (though, again, Ghosts might screw that up...). Drop the cc wherever the reloc is going, hop out and rush it. With proper wallwalking etc, you can be there before any of your pub rines.
Heh, i hadn't even thought about how much Ghosts can screw that up. Guess you'd really have to hide the cc <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
And we all know that one good jp/sger has a pretty good chance of soloing a hive, if its a decently open hive, against aliens without focus, ocs, or lucky lerks. Thats why you send in 2 jp/sgers.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I totally agree with Saraph, your strategies do not appear to correlate with reality, unless you are playing with the -3 standard deviation calibre of players.
Just because marines CAN win small games and aliens CAN win large games doesn't mean its balanced.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When designing the game, please make sure that the most expensive melee unit is the game is skill based, and the most dominant melee unit. What the developers should avoid is having "powerless" situations (i.e. Vanilla marine vs an Onos, 1 hive skulk vs. Heavy with HMG) by making all the classes in the game skill based.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd like to argue that there should be instances where certain units become completely powerless. This allows for the game's conclusion. IMO, there is more of a problem in concluding the game quickly once the powerless state of the game is reached. However, powerless situations cannot be avoided due to the RTS nature of NS.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The aliens will ALWAYS be at a disadvantage because they do not follow the same rules as the marines with regards to teching. In order to balance the game (ESPECIALLY RANGED VS MELEE) one needs to allow both teams upgrade under the same rules.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This paragraph is in reference to hive lockdowns and how it effectively caps the ability of the aliens to do anything. Another solution, other than making upgrades separate from # of hives, would be to buff the onos as a mobile siege weapon, instead of the fairy that it is right now. I think hive lockdowns are a risk that the comm should be allowed to take, but the aliens need to have a way to effectively break these lockdowns at 1 hive, given that they have the resources and time, without having to mass 800 resources for 8 onos. Currently, the lockdowns lead to stagnant games.
Another solution would be to make lockdowns more significant in the game. Perhaps hives should be double or tripple resource locations (yes, I know, you'd have to scale the res system for this to be 'balanced') which would have a great impact on the marines' ability to tech fast and end the game quickly once two lockdowns are established. Note: I'm arguing this while knowing that many other elements of the game would have to be changed in order to make this proposed change work properly. However, I honestly believe that the change can be made viable.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Furthermore NS's hive system gives TOO much of an advantage to the aliens when they get the second hive. (i.e. Faster spawn times, unlocked weapons, enhanced armor protection, greater map control, unlocked chamber upgrade). 1st hive is not enough, 2nd hive over compensates, 3rd hive is overkill.
...
The solution to this is make both the melee team and ranged team be only restricted by TIme and resources. Have the dual restriction for both sides will unlock unlimited strategies with both teams, commanders will have to think on their toes and there will be more tactics involved as well. The strategies and tactics that can evolve, the more the community will converse either postively, or negatively, BOTH of which are better than not talking at all about the game at all.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree. The game should be spread more evenly across the three hives or the hive system needs to be re-evaluated (I believe this is being looked at in NS2 - hives not based on a particular location).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The game will never be balanced on the simple fact that both teams do not tech similarly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tech (in the form of hive dependent upgrades) definitely plays a role in the balance problems. I think that while NS cannot be balanced linearly (i.e. both sides will have an equal chance to win at all times), the game can definitely get non-linear balance (i.e. either side has an equal chance to win in the end, but there may be inequalities on the road to the end).
Oh well.
To be clear, the posts you are referring to on the cal forums were never design discussions. We posted there for two main reasons: The first was to ( on the request of many members of CAL ) to reassure CAL that NS on HL was still in development, and secondly to clear up the accusation that there was no represenation on the PT team from CAL. We do discuss NS design in detail, but not in public. It'd probably take more than twice what I currently spend on NS development a week to have proper public debate on NS design, and I don't think it would produce much of real use ( that can't be attained through our existing closed design process ).
I would also remind you that you had a chair at that table once upon a time and you have nobody to blame but yourself for losing that privilege.
In response to the main point of this topic, we are aware that there are issues with large server balance and plan to address them in the 3.2.x patches. Someone made the rather odd point that NS should not be balanced for larger servers because there are so few of them, but perhaps that person should have asked if the low number of larger servers is specifically because of the balance problems. We discussed this problem in detail as early as 6 weeks prior to 3.2's release and we all agreed that given that our experience and testing was geared for 12-20 player servers it would be better in the long run if we aimed to balance what we knew best and refocus our efforts on large servers after 3.2 final.
I know it might not be what you want to hear, but I hope it helps to know that we are aware of the problems and plan to fix them.
You may recall some other program with flashy little yellow icons that was partially used to test the balance of the game. Ironically, around the same time the vet program was killed the game started going downhill balance wise in my opinion. I see no reason why a dedicated testing team could be recreated made partially out of competitive players to test for competitive 6v6 balance by scrimming the new version, as well as a pub testing team made primarily out of trusted, but most-likely pub players. There is also no reason as to why the CVAR mp_tournamentmode cannot also control balancing features of the game.
I'm not trying to turn this into a "bring back the vet program" post, but I don't see this game magically becoming balanced in one patch after several patches have failed to remedy many of the balance problems present in the game.
Stop "quasi-insulting" everyone Firewater
I invite you to read your original post, and the the retort you just made <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
To be clear, the posts you are referring to on the cal forums were never design discussions. We posted there for two main reasons: The first was to ( on the request of many members of CAL ) to reassure CAL that NS on HL was still in development, and secondly to clear up the accusation that there was no represenation on the PT team from CAL. We do discuss NS design in detail, but not in public. It'd probably take more than twice what I currently spend on NS development a week to have proper public debate on NS design, and I don't think it would produce much of real use ( that can't be attained through our existing closed design process ).
I would also remind you that you had a chair at that table once upon a time and you have nobody to blame but yourself for losing that privilege.
In response to the main point of this topic, we are aware that there are issues with large server balance and plan to address them in the 3.2.x patches. Someone made the rather odd point that NS should not be balanced for larger servers because there are so few of them, but perhaps that person should have asked if the low number of larger servers is specifically because of the balance problems. We discussed this problem in detail as early as 6 weeks prior to 3.2's release and we all agreed that given that our experience and testing was geared for 12-20 player servers it would be better in the long run if we aimed to balance what we knew best and refocus our efforts on large servers after 3.2 final.
I know it might not be what you want to hear, but I hope it helps to know that we are aware of the problems and plan to fix them.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What does me losing the "privledge" have to do with anything? You ignored me then just as you do now <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
I never blamed anyone for losing my PT, so again, I really do not know what you are trying to do other than attack my character, rather than argument (a common theme).
Large server balance has been an issue since NS's first stable version (1.04).
every version there something supposed to be done about it. But alas here we are, still talking about. I made very sensible suggestions as for the game both as a non-pt and a pt but oh well.
Again, instead of criticizing the framework I presented you attack points that have nothing to do with this discussion.
Again, like I said, trivialize and insult.
But alas here we are, still talking about.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But I thought your point was that we aren't talking about it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Again, like I said, trivialize and insult.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is hilarious really. Are you describing your own posts or mine?
As I have already stated, we are looking at large game balance for the 3.2.x patches. 3.2.1 will contain some changes in this area, and we will discuss solutions privately based on feedback gained publicly. There are plenty of topics discussing the issue right now ( including this one ) for you to post your feedback and observations in. Alternatively you can just continue your passive aggressive accusations as normal. Either way , I don't really care what you personally have to say about me, or the rest of the NS team. It's mildly entertaining to watch all your hot air rise to dissipate. For an added bonus, you can restate how you are leaving this community <i>soon</i>. Following up with a definition of <i>soon</i> might help you actually take the step you have so frequently threatened.
In response to Hellabeans:
Yes there are many positive reasons to have a vet program, but based on previous experience the time required to make such a system effective is beyond what we as a team have to spend on it. We use the constellation system now and let communities ( including the clan scene ) to run the game early and post feedback - which we listen to carefully. For 3.2 we even did public testing because we weren't sure about some of our decisions. We tried to get scrims and gathers going in all three regions but there wasn't a huge amount of activity. For a finish, we did some some high quality feedback from the clan scene and have produced a 3.2 that is well balanced for 6v6 play. The problems being addressed in this topic are for 12v12 to 16v16 play, and that isn't something the vet system would have solved anyway. Furthermore, we will be watching 3.2 matches and demos and talking to players about balance over the coming weeks as we lead into the 3.2.1 design tweaks. We will start some more formal feedback topics soon and you and your friends in ANSL are very welcome to post your thoughts.