locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1671018:date=Feb 20 2008, 02:47 AM:name=Underwhelmed)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Underwhelmed @ Feb 20 2008, 02:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1671018"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just add in assists, then people can feel like they're doing something, even if they just put in a single bullet or healspray.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I can get behind that. It makes more sense when marines travel around in squads anyway.
<!--quoteo(post=1670777:date=Feb 18 2008, 04:32 AM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spellman23 @ Feb 18 2008, 04:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1670777"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->TF2 is one of those masterfully well done games that come out far and few between. Others would have to be StarCraft, HL2 (although only single player), Civilization series, and I'd even throw in some of the UT series.
Why?
Simple. To start, they are easy to get into. None of this hour explaining basic moves or classes and stuff like when I try to explain Empires or even NS to a bunch of newbies at my LAN games. TF2 you look at a medic and think "oh, a medic, moderate health, crappy weapons, but heals people". Secondly, they have enormous depth. Just watch pro games of StarCraft (which, btw, GomTV is now broadcasting with English Commentary by my friend's brother) and you see a whole new level of intricacy and slight advantages that could easily be missed, but also easily explained. Which brings up the final point, fluid skill curve. Whereas some games, such as NS, has this skill gap that only a few can surmount (you realize how hard it is just to learn to bunny hop consistently? Then to get to pro air control?). However, the skill gap in other games is accessible. There is much less of a binary skill progression and many ways to win which are varied and equally viable. The Civ series is a perfect example. Take over by force, diplomacy, influence, or whatever. Of course, a good mix of all is the best, but you're free to mix and match however you'd like and it responds appropriately. There's no cookbook victory.
Perfect bad example: CS. Sure it's a point-buy-and-shoot game, so easy to get into. Drop the bomb, shoot the dude, OK. However, it suffers from a giant skill gap that no one fills. There's the noobs and the pros. Nothing in between. NS is currently suffering from the same issue.
Why'd I mention HL2? Because it too performs similarly. Easy to get into, wonderful depth (although story depth is mixed with difficultly depth here instead of pure tactical depth), and a smooth learning curve that introduces and makes you master new skills progressively. No giant wall of can't go further until you grind to level 20 or something, just a nice fluid motion up. And that's what makes it so satisfying and such an awesome game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I'd concur with much of what you said although again be careful with passing opinion as fact. If I may add, to be fair CS didn't always used to be like that. Same goes for NS. Same goes for the original TFC. Same goes for WC3, or practically any game in existence if it says popular for long enough. It may happen to TF2 over time as people learn tricks for success on the maps, places to camp or put turrets and how to take them down fast, places to watch for spies, knowing how to spot spies, etc...
I think a more compact way of summarizing what you were trying to say (correct me if I'm wrong) was that the gameplay itself combined with the rate of new players comming to the game will factor into the rate that one will see a divergence between the elite and the newbies as the middle-ground decays. Am I loosing you all here with the wordiness? <img src="http://xzianthia.net/images/simple_graph_of_game_decay.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" /> Basically the theory here is that as a time goes by a game that stays popular is going to start to see a reduction in the average middle-ground player skill and end up with bored expert players and frustrated new players.
Getting to the point, I think you are saying that a well designed game keeps the game fun for everybody as much as possible for the long term.
To that I agree and would vote yes for that being something NS2 needing to pay some attention to, but NS has an advantage here over some other games that hopefully NS2 will incorporate strongly into its design:
First Person Shooter AND Real Time Strategy
So? Well that means things that can make the game be fun for everybody for a FPS and also different aspects that make the game more fun for a long-term RTS can both be used and overlap even ("killing two birds with one stone" solutions are possible). This IS something in my opinion (and many, many others) something Valve did brilliantly well with TF2 in balancing it for teamplay being ultimately greater than the individual.
Nothing is perfect, TF2 isn't, NS2 won't be (sorry fellow fans, but let's be real here), and in fact there is no such thing. You also can't have everything. So as long all of the necessary balances are considered (<!--coloro:#EEEE00--><span style="color:#EEEE00"><!--/coloro-->Max & Charlie you really need stick these kinds of things on a wall in the office where you can SEE them DAILY. Please. Then take picture for next game development blog update FTW!<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->) I think it'll all work out in the end. Thankfully, NS2's developers don't seem to be blind to the game's community.
<!--quoteo(post=1670814:date=Feb 18 2008, 11:38 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Feb 18 2008, 11:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1670814"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Anyone can suicide pyro, but hit and run pyros or a pyro paired with a medic are harder to use effectively. And there are many levels of "chucking nades and setting traps". With your descriptions playing marine in NS is just "shooting bullets". I find the demo class to actually be pretty deep in terms of finding places to put nades, nade jumping, and using stickies and pipes in combat. The indirect fire makes you think ahead and set traps with your pipes even while in combat if you wan to be effective.
I haven't played warsow because it never appealed to me. The story and visuals looked bland so I never picked it up. I'm glad neither NS nor TF2 are like warsow.
As for fade, they're completely different things. You're comparing a melee class with infinite air control to an indirect fire trap-setter. All of the classes in TF2 are fairly standard FPS tropes so none of them could have the depth of the fade, but I would say the same of any class in any FPS game without blink/teleport/flight.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Good points.
<!--quoteo(post=1670839:date=Feb 18 2008, 02:26 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Feb 18 2008, 02:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1670839"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, because in NS your aim is constantly tempered by your level of airspeed control. In TF2 it really is just chucking explosives over and over expecting to hit a rogue scout, or bursting flames expecting to hit a rogue spy.
And as far as staying alive as a pyro, that's directly proportionate to your opponents' lack of situational awareness. If you want to argue for ambushing as a pyro that's fine, but it isn't any more rewarding as a technique than it would be with a class like scout or demo - it's just more fiery.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Eh? I usually aim in TF2, for their head usually. It's amazing how well it works, even when you are a Heavy. (ie: most people spray and pray as a Heavy, but I usually will use the minigun only for close range with a whole lot of enemies that keep comming and then I lock in on a target. Not to mention, good soldiers & scouts/pyros with medics backing them and maybe 1 engineer makes for a pretty good set up. Plus I don't know what games you've been playing in Radix, but from what I've seen snipers definitely have some element of skill curve as during the beta snipers sucked bad (most still do), but now you can definitely see people getting the hang of sniper and snipers on average are starting to become more of a threat. By definition trait of people improving doesn't that mean that there is some sort of skill curve?
<!--quoteo(post=1670843:date=Feb 18 2008, 02:45 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Feb 18 2008, 02:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1670843"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Look, if you're going do just turn everything reductio ad absurdum then I'm just going to ignore your posts. You can take the simplest case of anything and make it sound skill-less. I understand it's "cool" to bash TF2, but I see plenty of depth there.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> "reductio ad absurdum" lol! But wait a sec on the second thing... I don't get it, since when has it been cool to bash TF2? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1671018:date=Feb 20 2008, 02:47 AM:name=Underwhelmed)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Underwhelmed @ Feb 20 2008, 02:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1671018"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just add in assists, then people can feel like they're doing something, even if they just put in a single bullet or healspray.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Now that sounds like a great idea, even though it IS kind of copying somebody else's good idea. Well, I guess you could argue you can't own an abstract concept like that any more than you can own a genre... I like it anyways, <b> vote <!--coloro:#00EE00--><span style="color:#00EE00"><!--/coloro-->yes<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b>
However, even if you power game (i.e. exploit everything to maximum potential) some games lend themselves to a much more binary n00b vs. pro. In some respects, the whole FPS + RTS elements makes it harder to enter the game, but definitely give much more depth to the game.
What I was getting at is that there are some games where the dichotomy is much less. For example, StarCraft still retains a fairly large, long, and continuous range of player abilities. Sure the distance is beyond compare between Nada and a n00b, but Nada is not alone and has plenty of competent players he plays against and the n00b can find other n00bs or people who are one step away from being a n00b to play with. Granted, it's very likely they'll match up against better players and get pwned, but there's still a decent distribution.
The real test of a game, at least in this sense, is how well it keeps skill gaps minimal. There will always be the group that forges ahead and maximizes everything (thus becoming the pros) but if everyone becomes a pro or n00b, it doesn't become fun. For example, WoW keeps making new servers because it is the worst, everyone levels up and so eventually you have a server full of high level badasses and no one helping the newbies along (unless they're your friend's char). Also, certain games have very binary elements that cause large leaps in skill and proficiency. In NS, bunnyhopping is one example I can think of right off the bat. A huge advantage, but only really useful if you can do it consistently.
Perhaps, though, the best way to mitigate the low population of middle-skill players is with the influx of more players. Of course, we can't keep doing that.
So, we're left with trying to mitigate the progression curve such that better players usually beat weaker players, but they don't 1) have jumps in skill and 2) do not get huge advantages.
Hopefully that helped clarify what I'm talking about. Also, remember that too much depth makes it hard for new players to get engaged initially, although it does slow the initial progression of people trying to master it as quickly as possible.
<!--quoteo(post=1671089:date=Feb 20 2008, 10:19 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spellman23 @ Feb 20 2008, 10:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1671089"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I see your point. Elongating is good.
However, even if you power game (i.e. exploit everything to maximum potential) some games lend themselves to a much more binary n00b vs. pro. In some respects, the whole FPS + RTS elements makes it harder to enter the game, but definitely give much more depth to the game.
What I was getting at is that there are some games where the dichotomy is much less. For example, StarCraft still retains a fairly large, long, and continuous range of player abilities. Sure the distance is beyond compare between Nada and a n00b, but Nada is not alone and has plenty of competent players he plays against and the n00b can find other n00bs or people who are one step away from being a n00b to play with. Granted, it's very likely they'll match up against better players and get pwned, but there's still a decent distribution.
The real test of a game, at least in this sense, is how well it keeps skill gaps minimal. There will always be the group that forges ahead and maximizes everything (thus becoming the pros) but if everyone becomes a pro or n00b, it doesn't become fun. For example, WoW keeps making new servers because it is the worst, everyone levels up and so eventually you have a server full of high level badasses and no one helping the newbies along (unless they're your friend's char). Also, certain games have very binary elements that cause large leaps in skill and proficiency. In NS, bunnyhopping is one example I can think of right off the bat. A huge advantage, but only really useful if you can do it consistently.
Perhaps, though, the best way to mitigate the low population of middle-skill players is with the influx of more players. Of course, we can't keep doing that.
So, we're left with trying to mitigate the progression curve such that better players usually beat weaker players, but they don't 1) have jumps in skill and 2) do not get huge advantages.
Hopefully that helped clarify what I'm talking about. Also, remember that too much depth makes it hard for new players to get engaged initially, although it does slow the initial progression of people trying to master it as quickly as possible.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you understand my points above? I think you are close but still a tad off: I'm saying it's the decay of the "middle class" of the "average player" (really poorly broad terms I know) that is the cause of what you call the binary polarization of typical n00bs vs. 1337.
I have a theory on this now that I've had more time to think:<ul><li>"middle class" longevity increased as more new players add to the total population and learn to play the game</li><li>"middle class" longevity increased by reducing decay factors</li></ul>ie: such decay factors as: boredom from repetitive beatings from expert players stacking the same team, boredom from linear gameplay and lack of entropy, uncompromising to external life factors, not long enough of a game with powershifts in control to make an interesting and rewarding game (so called "epic games" in this community)
So put yourselves in the developer's mindset, how can you make a fun FPS/RTS game with all of the other things you want to have and yet also be successful in the two theory points above?
How can you attract new players three months past launch date? One year later? Four years later? When the game is as old as WCIII or CS1.6? How can you reduce loosing people in the community? How do you keep games fair across the public servers, which <i>are</i> the foundation of the online community for that game?
Go ahead, I'd like to hear some answers to those questions.
<!--quoteo(post=1670278:date=Feb 12 2008, 11:59 AM:name=Arx)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Arx @ Feb 12 2008, 11:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1670278"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Here here!! Excellent post #5 by murdermode. I agree whole heartedly and view the game in the same way. Even if I play 5 games in a row with a loosing team and my deaths way outnumber my kills I still walk away satisfied even if a little frustrated and I always come back for more because I learn to find a role in any situation thats fun.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> agreed
OK, gotcha X5. Now we're thinking on the same page.
Well, if I were a dev, I would first try to make the game accessible. I'm not talking about dumbing down the game, but at least make things relatively simple and intuitive, or give some sort of help to newer players, little hints that will help them along. TF2 does this wonderfully with its highly stylized artwork, models, maps, etc. Games like DotA and CS1.6 are simple in concept.
Once we have the players, you need to give them a reason to keep playing. Usually this is a mix of fun factor and the ability to improve yourself. The reward of climbing up the skill curve is wonderful. But, you can't make it a grind, you have to be able to have fun as you go. This is where I really love the RTS element in NS since with a large distribution of players, you not only are not forced to be the best in combat, but there's different ways to be helpful. Dedicated Gorges are always in short supply. Lerks played as supportive units while the better Skulks and Fades hit the enemies. And of course who doesn't enjoy becoming an Onos for the first time or be part of a Heavy Train as your team just starts to gain the edge and progressively start to plow on towards victory after a good match?
A major factor for fun is the longevity. While games like CS1.6 are split into smaller "rounds", they are still fairly long as you replay each map several times, each round trying out perhaps different weapons or strategies and building on the money your earned last round. Other games like DotA have systems in place to purposefully prevent players form winning in the first push, although extremely strong players can break the game in one solid push (Broodmother....). The key is that the team that "lost" the first engagement still has a chance to pull through somehow, elongating the challenge for as long as possible until it becomes apparent that one side has begun to gain too much momentum.
As far as implementation for NS2, some interesting ideas come to mind. There needs to me many viable strategies, which means at least a little more variety on tech and items. I personally sponsor weapon mods for this category, making them more versatile with more tech, but you pay for not getting the next bigger gun sooner. Thus, we have a balanceable tradeoff that makes the strategy more interesting. Also, there needs to be a way for the losing team to still make it out. Not weaken the "winning" team, but kind of a way for the loser of the first few minor skirmishes to be able to come back. A more active map which helps defend starting territory is an interesting idea, so it slows the progression of each team as they have to pick and choose where to explore. In theory the territory system also balances, since more territory is harder to defend, but the way most maps are built there are too many chokepoints which prevent this from becoming a huge problem. I like the idea behind ns_Nexus where the map is a tetrahedron, making no matter where you are, you're effectively along the edge of the map, making no one spot a strong chokepoint that cuts you off from half the map. However, a hostile map holds some promise in my mind, but of course there's serious issues with storyline and it might just drag out the opening parts of the game instead of provide a "fallback", which is my main goal.
Anyways, keep the theory coming. I love game theory. We can nitpick specific balancing when the devs tell us more about certain areas (new res system for example?)
<!--quoteo(post=1671473:date=Feb 26 2008, 03:07 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Feb 26 2008, 03:07 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1671473"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So, you guys are telling us you like to lose?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, more specifically, I don't mind losing as long as it was a fulfilling loss. I had fun, maybe I learned something new I can apply to next round, and there were many moments where if I was just a little bit better or we did something a little differently maybe we could've turned the game.
What I hate is one-sided we already lost at 1minute but it dragged on for 30 minute games.
The odd loss doesn't faze you, sure. I can understand that. But it's something like this... An odd loss - no effect. (one loss won't faze you, just try again) Cumulative losses - negative effect. (now you're starting to get pissed off..) A win - positive effect. (damn that feels good.) Cumulative wins - positive effect, but cumulative effect gradually lessening (ie. you generally get bored of pwning noobs) Game experience - varying effect. A lot of people, on both teams, find a game where one team pushes the other team to the edge, but that team stubbornly puts up a decent resistance (+ lots of action), a very fun experience. That's different to a drawn-out game where one player is stubbornly HIDING, and everyone else just wants the match to end.
Now, your overall enjoyment is a combination of each of these factors. Positive game experience + a win = awesome. Negative game experience + cumulative losses = "###### this ######".
<i>Now this is pretty much all bull###### from me (i needed the practice) and an over-simplification, but if you take the gist of it it sorta makes sense. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" /></i> Oh and, this doesn't really have much to do with the topic itself - On Balancing - but then again, that's boring as hell for us non-developers. edit: 'think I overdid it with the cursing, perhaps.. but you get the idea.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
I don't mind losing a few times in a row as long as I'm getting something out of those losses. Whether it's a new technique or strategy or just improved aim, as long as it's noticeable to me, it's positive. I think that's what spellman23 and the_x5 is trying to get at wrt to new players. As long as the game doesn't feel too dense or punishing then losing can still be productive in the players' eyes.
I often have fun with some games while losing. It seems to be determined by how much the game allows me a chance to stage small victories, even possibly wrest victory from the jaws of defeat. On the opposing side, if the game appears to be going all our way, if there is still the chance the other side could win, it makes it that much more intense of a experience.
I think this relates to balance in that at if at any one time, a technology or particular strategy equals a win every time (or so close to 100% that it seems like it always wins), the balance is broken.
I think well balanced games allow a win at anytime but gradually lessen how hard it is to win the longer a game goes, so that the beginning of a match allows one to acclimate them self but the longer a game goes it has progressively more chances to end the match before one grows bored having gotten the impression of a stale mate where there are a complete lack of small victories but holding status quo.
Hope that makes sense and local, spellman23 and the_x5 realize I am agreeing with their position.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
edited March 2008
WRT the original topic, it sounds like you're trying to quantify a process that is dynamic and unstable over time. The desired end-result is the assignment of a unit (let's call it a balance unit) to particular artifacts in the game. Unfortunately, the balance unit of any particular artifact in the game is going to be related and dependent on several other artifacts in the game in addition to the player-base itself and its paradigm(s) of the game-play. Also, the more artifacts in the game, the more complicated and unstable the balance becomes. This makes accurate or useful quantification of balance units very difficult and subject to being deceptive oversimplifications.
There's a couple of good articles on this by Sirlin, but they don't even begin to scratch the surface of exactly why balancing multiplayer games (other than pong, maybe) is virtually impossible. <a href="http://www.sirlin.net/archive/game-balance-part-1/" target="_blank">http://www.sirlin.net/archive/game-balance-part-1/</a> and <a href="http://www.sirlin.net/archive/game-balance-part-2/" target="_blank">http://www.sirlin.net/archive/game-balance-part-2/</a>
I think in this case the technique is not practical exactly because the assumption that you made (to define gameplay elements) is almost never able to be satisfied.
<!--quoteo(post=1671765:date=Feb 29 2008, 10:37 PM:name=CanadianWolverine)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(CanadianWolverine @ Feb 29 2008, 10:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1671765"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I often have fun with some games while losing. It seems to be determined by how much the game allows me a chance to stage small victories, even possibly wrest victory from the jaws of defeat. On the opposing side, if the game appears to be going all our way, if there is still the chance the other side could win, it makes it that much more intense of a experience.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Somewhat seconded.
I prefer playing long drawn out stalemate game or having the odds against you than playing a game that is won in the first 10mins. This only really applies if I'm on the attacking side though.. Having an impenetrable defense is boring tbh.
And for the record, TF2 is ######. Critical hits are stupid and everything is normalized to the point where its extremely bland. Having defended the first checkpoint for 10mins then losing it to a single Soldier whilst a scout is camping the 2nd checkpoint is extremely frustrating. Not to mention 'ubercharge' spam from medics. Tbh that in itself ruined the game.
How can you have fun playing a game when you basically have godmode on? It requires no skill. I really don't get it.
One of my friends has his own little game musings blog and did some stuff on balance, but that article was pure quality. Covered everything from definition to applications (and why some are wrong... lol CAPCOM).
Here's my friend's blog for your perusal: <a href="http://gamingsalembic.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">http://gamingsalembic.wordpress.com/</a>
Comments
I can get behind that. It makes more sense when marines travel around in squads anyway.
Why?
Simple. To start, they are easy to get into. None of this hour explaining basic moves or classes and stuff like when I try to explain Empires or even NS to a bunch of newbies at my LAN games. TF2 you look at a medic and think "oh, a medic, moderate health, crappy weapons, but heals people". Secondly, they have enormous depth. Just watch pro games of StarCraft (which, btw, GomTV is now broadcasting with English Commentary by my friend's brother) and you see a whole new level of intricacy and slight advantages that could easily be missed, but also easily explained. Which brings up the final point, fluid skill curve. Whereas some games, such as NS, has this skill gap that only a few can surmount (you realize how hard it is just to learn to bunny hop consistently? Then to get to pro air control?). However, the skill gap in other games is accessible. There is much less of a binary skill progression and many ways to win which are varied and equally viable. The Civ series is a perfect example. Take over by force, diplomacy, influence, or whatever. Of course, a good mix of all is the best, but you're free to mix and match however you'd like and it responds appropriately. There's no cookbook victory.
Perfect bad example: CS. Sure it's a point-buy-and-shoot game, so easy to get into. Drop the bomb, shoot the dude, OK. However, it suffers from a giant skill gap that no one fills. There's the noobs and the pros. Nothing in between. NS is currently suffering from the same issue.
Why'd I mention HL2? Because it too performs similarly. Easy to get into, wonderful depth (although story depth is mixed with difficultly depth here instead of pure tactical depth), and a smooth learning curve that introduces and makes you master new skills progressively. No giant wall of can't go further until you grind to level 20 or something, just a nice fluid motion up. And that's what makes it so satisfying and such an awesome game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I'd concur with much of what you said although again be careful with passing opinion as fact. If I may add, to be fair CS didn't always used to be like that. Same goes for NS. Same goes for the original TFC. Same goes for WC3, or practically any game in existence if it says popular for long enough. It may happen to TF2 over time as people learn tricks for success on the maps, places to camp or put turrets and how to take them down fast, places to watch for spies, knowing how to spot spies, etc...
I think a more compact way of summarizing what you were trying to say (correct me if I'm wrong) was that the gameplay itself combined with the rate of new players comming to the game will factor into the rate that one will see a divergence between the elite and the newbies as the middle-ground decays. Am I loosing you all here with the wordiness?
<img src="http://xzianthia.net/images/simple_graph_of_game_decay.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Basically the theory here is that as a time goes by a game that stays popular is going to start to see a reduction in the average middle-ground player skill and end up with bored expert players and frustrated new players.
Getting to the point, I think you are saying that a well designed game keeps the game fun for everybody as much as possible for the long term.
To that I agree and would vote yes for that being something NS2 needing to pay some attention to, but NS has an advantage here over some other games that hopefully NS2 will incorporate strongly into its design:
First Person Shooter AND Real Time Strategy
So? Well that means things that can make the game be fun for everybody for a FPS and also different aspects that make the game more fun for a long-term RTS can both be used and overlap even ("killing two birds with one stone" solutions are possible). This IS something in my opinion (and many, many others) something Valve did brilliantly well with TF2 in balancing it for teamplay being ultimately greater than the individual.
Nothing is perfect, TF2 isn't, NS2 won't be (sorry fellow fans, but let's be real here), and in fact there is no such thing. You also can't have everything. So as long all of the necessary balances are considered (<!--coloro:#EEEE00--><span style="color:#EEEE00"><!--/coloro-->Max & Charlie you really need stick these kinds of things on a wall in the office where you can SEE them DAILY. Please. Then take picture for next game development blog update FTW!<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->) I think it'll all work out in the end. Thankfully, NS2's developers don't seem to be blind to the game's community.
<!--quoteo(post=1670814:date=Feb 18 2008, 11:38 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Feb 18 2008, 11:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1670814"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Anyone can suicide pyro, but hit and run pyros or a pyro paired with a medic are harder to use effectively. And there are many levels of "chucking nades and setting traps". With your descriptions playing marine in NS is just "shooting bullets". I find the demo class to actually be pretty deep in terms of finding places to put nades, nade jumping, and using stickies and pipes in combat. The indirect fire makes you think ahead and set traps with your pipes even while in combat if you wan to be effective.
I haven't played warsow because it never appealed to me. The story and visuals looked bland so I never picked it up. I'm glad neither NS nor TF2 are like warsow.
As for fade, they're completely different things. You're comparing a melee class with infinite air control to an indirect fire trap-setter. All of the classes in TF2 are fairly standard FPS tropes so none of them could have the depth of the fade, but I would say the same of any class in any FPS game without blink/teleport/flight.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Good points.
<!--quoteo(post=1670839:date=Feb 18 2008, 02:26 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Feb 18 2008, 02:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1670839"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, because in NS your aim is constantly tempered by your level of airspeed control. In TF2 it really is just chucking explosives over and over expecting to hit a rogue scout, or bursting flames expecting to hit a rogue spy.
And as far as staying alive as a pyro, that's directly proportionate to your opponents' lack of situational awareness. If you want to argue for ambushing as a pyro that's fine, but it isn't any more rewarding as a technique than it would be with a class like scout or demo - it's just more fiery.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Eh? I usually aim in TF2, for their head usually. It's amazing how well it works, even when you are a Heavy. (ie: most people spray and pray as a Heavy, but I usually will use the minigun only for close range with a whole lot of enemies that keep comming and then I lock in on a target. Not to mention, good soldiers & scouts/pyros with medics backing them and maybe 1 engineer makes for a pretty good set up. Plus I don't know what games you've been playing in Radix, but from what I've seen snipers definitely have some element of skill curve as during the beta snipers sucked bad (most still do), but now you can definitely see people getting the hang of sniper and snipers on average are starting to become more of a threat. By definition trait of people improving doesn't that mean that there is some sort of skill curve?
<!--quoteo(post=1670843:date=Feb 18 2008, 02:45 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Feb 18 2008, 02:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1670843"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Look, if you're going do just turn everything reductio ad absurdum then I'm just going to ignore your posts. You can take the simplest case of anything and make it sound skill-less. I understand it's "cool" to bash TF2, but I see plenty of depth there.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"reductio ad absurdum" lol! But wait a sec on the second thing... I don't get it, since when has it been cool to bash TF2? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1671018:date=Feb 20 2008, 02:47 AM:name=Underwhelmed)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Underwhelmed @ Feb 20 2008, 02:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1671018"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just add in assists, then people can feel like they're doing something, even if they just put in a single bullet or healspray.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now that sounds like a great idea, even though it IS kind of copying somebody else's good idea. Well, I guess you could argue you can't own an abstract concept like that any more than you can own a genre... I like it anyways,
<b>
vote <!--coloro:#00EE00--><span style="color:#00EE00"><!--/coloro-->yes<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b>
However, even if you power game (i.e. exploit everything to maximum potential) some games lend themselves to a much more binary n00b vs. pro. In some respects, the whole FPS + RTS elements makes it harder to enter the game, but definitely give much more depth to the game.
What I was getting at is that there are some games where the dichotomy is much less. For example, StarCraft still retains a fairly large, long, and continuous range of player abilities. Sure the distance is beyond compare between Nada and a n00b, but Nada is not alone and has plenty of competent players he plays against and the n00b can find other n00bs or people who are one step away from being a n00b to play with. Granted, it's very likely they'll match up against better players and get pwned, but there's still a decent distribution.
The real test of a game, at least in this sense, is how well it keeps skill gaps minimal. There will always be the group that forges ahead and maximizes everything (thus becoming the pros) but if everyone becomes a pro or n00b, it doesn't become fun. For example, WoW keeps making new servers because it is the worst, everyone levels up and so eventually you have a server full of high level badasses and no one helping the newbies along (unless they're your friend's char). Also, certain games have very binary elements that cause large leaps in skill and proficiency. In NS, bunnyhopping is one example I can think of right off the bat. A huge advantage, but only really useful if you can do it consistently.
Perhaps, though, the best way to mitigate the low population of middle-skill players is with the influx of more players. Of course, we can't keep doing that.
So, we're left with trying to mitigate the progression curve such that better players usually beat weaker players, but they don't 1) have jumps in skill and 2) do not get huge advantages.
Hopefully that helped clarify what I'm talking about. Also, remember that too much depth makes it hard for new players to get engaged initially, although it does slow the initial progression of people trying to master it as quickly as possible.
However, even if you power game (i.e. exploit everything to maximum potential) some games lend themselves to a much more binary n00b vs. pro. In some respects, the whole FPS + RTS elements makes it harder to enter the game, but definitely give much more depth to the game.
What I was getting at is that there are some games where the dichotomy is much less. For example, StarCraft still retains a fairly large, long, and continuous range of player abilities. Sure the distance is beyond compare between Nada and a n00b, but Nada is not alone and has plenty of competent players he plays against and the n00b can find other n00bs or people who are one step away from being a n00b to play with. Granted, it's very likely they'll match up against better players and get pwned, but there's still a decent distribution.
The real test of a game, at least in this sense, is how well it keeps skill gaps minimal. There will always be the group that forges ahead and maximizes everything (thus becoming the pros) but if everyone becomes a pro or n00b, it doesn't become fun. For example, WoW keeps making new servers because it is the worst, everyone levels up and so eventually you have a server full of high level badasses and no one helping the newbies along (unless they're your friend's char). Also, certain games have very binary elements that cause large leaps in skill and proficiency. In NS, bunnyhopping is one example I can think of right off the bat. A huge advantage, but only really useful if you can do it consistently.
Perhaps, though, the best way to mitigate the low population of middle-skill players is with the influx of more players. Of course, we can't keep doing that.
So, we're left with trying to mitigate the progression curve such that better players usually beat weaker players, but they don't 1) have jumps in skill and 2) do not get huge advantages.
Hopefully that helped clarify what I'm talking about. Also, remember that too much depth makes it hard for new players to get engaged initially, although it does slow the initial progression of people trying to master it as quickly as possible.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you understand my points above? I think you are close but still a tad off: I'm saying it's the decay of the "middle class" of the "average player" (really poorly broad terms I know) that is the cause of what you call the binary polarization of typical n00bs vs. 1337.
I have a theory on this now that I've had more time to think:<ul><li>"middle class" longevity increased as more new players add to the total population and learn to play the game</li><li>"middle class" longevity increased by reducing decay factors</li></ul>ie: such decay factors as: boredom from repetitive beatings from expert players stacking the same team, boredom from linear gameplay and lack of entropy, uncompromising to external life factors, not long enough of a game with powershifts in control to make an interesting and rewarding game (so called "epic games" in this community)
So put yourselves in the developer's mindset, how can you make a fun FPS/RTS game with all of the other things you want to have and yet also be successful in the two theory points above?
How can you attract new players three months past launch date? One year later? Four years later? When the game is as old as WCIII or CS1.6?
How can you reduce loosing people in the community? How do you keep games fair across the public servers, which <i>are</i> the foundation of the online community for that game?
Go ahead, I'd like to hear some answers to those questions.
agreed
Well, if I were a dev, I would first try to make the game accessible. I'm not talking about dumbing down the game, but at least make things relatively simple and intuitive, or give some sort of help to newer players, little hints that will help them along. TF2 does this wonderfully with its highly stylized artwork, models, maps, etc. Games like DotA and CS1.6 are simple in concept.
Once we have the players, you need to give them a reason to keep playing. Usually this is a mix of fun factor and the ability to improve yourself. The reward of climbing up the skill curve is wonderful. But, you can't make it a grind, you have to be able to have fun as you go. This is where I really love the RTS element in NS since with a large distribution of players, you not only are not forced to be the best in combat, but there's different ways to be helpful. Dedicated Gorges are always in short supply. Lerks played as supportive units while the better Skulks and Fades hit the enemies. And of course who doesn't enjoy becoming an Onos for the first time or be part of a Heavy Train as your team just starts to gain the edge and progressively start to plow on towards victory after a good match?
A major factor for fun is the longevity. While games like CS1.6 are split into smaller "rounds", they are still fairly long as you replay each map several times, each round trying out perhaps different weapons or strategies and building on the money your earned last round. Other games like DotA have systems in place to purposefully prevent players form winning in the first push, although extremely strong players can break the game in one solid push (Broodmother....). The key is that the team that "lost" the first engagement still has a chance to pull through somehow, elongating the challenge for as long as possible until it becomes apparent that one side has begun to gain too much momentum.
As far as implementation for NS2, some interesting ideas come to mind. There needs to me many viable strategies, which means at least a little more variety on tech and items. I personally sponsor weapon mods for this category, making them more versatile with more tech, but you pay for not getting the next bigger gun sooner. Thus, we have a balanceable tradeoff that makes the strategy more interesting. Also, there needs to be a way for the losing team to still make it out. Not weaken the "winning" team, but kind of a way for the loser of the first few minor skirmishes to be able to come back. A more active map which helps defend starting territory is an interesting idea, so it slows the progression of each team as they have to pick and choose where to explore. In theory the territory system also balances, since more territory is harder to defend, but the way most maps are built there are too many chokepoints which prevent this from becoming a huge problem. I like the idea behind ns_Nexus where the map is a tetrahedron, making no matter where you are, you're effectively along the edge of the map, making no one spot a strong chokepoint that cuts you off from half the map. However, a hostile map holds some promise in my mind, but of course there's serious issues with storyline and it might just drag out the opening parts of the game instead of provide a "fallback", which is my main goal.
Anyways, keep the theory coming. I love game theory. We can nitpick specific balancing when the devs tell us more about certain areas (new res system for example?)
Well, more specifically, I don't mind losing as long as it was a fulfilling loss. I had fun, maybe I learned something new I can apply to next round, and there were many moments where if I was just a little bit better or we did something a little differently maybe we could've turned the game.
What I hate is one-sided we already lost at 1minute but it dragged on for 30 minute games.
But it's something like this...
An odd loss - no effect. (one loss won't faze you, just try again)
Cumulative losses - negative effect. (now you're starting to get pissed off..)
A win - positive effect. (damn that feels good.)
Cumulative wins - positive effect, but cumulative effect gradually lessening (ie. you generally get bored of pwning noobs)
Game experience - varying effect. A lot of people, on both teams, find a game where one team pushes the other team to the edge, but that team stubbornly puts up a decent resistance (+ lots of action), a very fun experience. That's different to a drawn-out game where one player is stubbornly HIDING, and everyone else just wants the match to end.
Now, your overall enjoyment is a combination of each of these factors. Positive game experience + a win = awesome. Negative game experience + cumulative losses = "###### this ######".
<i>Now this is pretty much all bull###### from me (i needed the practice) and an over-simplification, but if you take the gist of it it sorta makes sense. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" /></i>
Oh and, this doesn't really have much to do with the topic itself - On Balancing - but then again, that's boring as hell for us non-developers.
edit: 'think I overdid it with the cursing, perhaps.. but you get the idea.
I think this relates to balance in that at if at any one time, a technology or particular strategy equals a win every time (or so close to 100% that it seems like it always wins), the balance is broken.
I think well balanced games allow a win at anytime but gradually lessen how hard it is to win the longer a game goes, so that the beginning of a match allows one to acclimate them self but the longer a game goes it has progressively more chances to end the match before one grows bored having gotten the impression of a stale mate where there are a complete lack of small victories but holding status quo.
Hope that makes sense and local, spellman23 and the_x5 realize I am agreeing with their position.
There's a couple of good articles on this by Sirlin, but they don't even begin to scratch the surface of exactly why balancing multiplayer games (other than pong, maybe) is virtually impossible. <a href="http://www.sirlin.net/archive/game-balance-part-1/" target="_blank">http://www.sirlin.net/archive/game-balance-part-1/</a> and <a href="http://www.sirlin.net/archive/game-balance-part-2/" target="_blank">http://www.sirlin.net/archive/game-balance-part-2/</a>
I think in this case the technique is not practical exactly because the assumption that you made (to define gameplay elements) is almost never able to be satisfied.
Somewhat seconded.
I prefer playing long drawn out stalemate game or having the odds against you than playing a game that is won in the first 10mins. This only really applies if I'm on the attacking side though.. Having an impenetrable defense is boring tbh.
And for the record, TF2 is ######. Critical hits are stupid and everything is normalized to the point where its extremely bland. Having defended the first checkpoint for 10mins then losing it to a single Soldier whilst a scout is camping the 2nd checkpoint is extremely frustrating. Not to mention 'ubercharge' spam from medics. Tbh that in itself ruined the game.
How can you have fun playing a game when you basically have godmode on? It requires no skill. I really don't get it.
One of my friends has his own little game musings blog and did some stuff on balance, but that article was pure quality. Covered everything from definition to applications (and why some are wrong... lol CAPCOM).
Here's my friend's blog for your perusal:
<a href="http://gamingsalembic.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">http://gamingsalembic.wordpress.com/</a>