<!--quoteo(post=1860395:date=Jul 14 2011, 01:06 AM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Jul 14 2011, 01:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860395"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i see what you mean now, harimau, much more clearly and i have to agree i like the idea of the map control rewarding the team's abilities..
however i still argue the fact that the individual needs <i><b>something</b></i> other than your team winning in points as an incentive. its more spread out of an idea than CTF, there isn't one flag, theres a dozen RT, and theres infestation, and theres power nodes etc etc etc.. and currently no way to tell which team is truly in the lead.
give the individual some reward for being a skilled player - since kills are arbitrarily contributing to that same disconnected team points - and i think we can agree on a proper game balance at that point. right? proper economy and scalability mixed with skill based reward system. (maybe small upgrades tied to this i.e. frenzy?)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> My only problem with PRFK is the slippery slope: the only time PRFK is actually significant is when the stronger players (better players, and/or better weapons) get it - but if they're already stronger, what need have they of the extra advantage? You're just making it harder for the losers to put up a resistance until the end. And while some may consider one-way steamrolls fun, that only applies to at most 50% of the players, but usually less than 50%. I think we can all agree that games where the outcome isn't decided until the very last second are generally more exciting.
However, regardless of the removal (or not) of PRFK, I still believe TRFK needs to go in, and all commander costs should be changed to TR.
<!--quoteo(post=1860523:date=Jul 14 2011, 09:41 AM:name=KuBaN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KuBaN @ Jul 14 2011, 09:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860523"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->@Harimau: I remember your trepidation about some of the RPS mechanics I suggested, and thought you were being unreasonable. Now I just realized I was using the wrong word, because most of what I was suggesting were, in fact, fail-safes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The key is not to have team-level rock-paper-scissors mechanics (choice of unit), since that's actually kind of counter-productive to the fail-safes I'm talking about (because of the time delay, or resource situation). It's all well and good in an RTS. Instead, the idea is to have player-level fail-safes (the unit's (player's) choices). For example - and this is the most basic and uninspired example I can think of, but it gives an idea of what I'm trying to get at - if every unit in the game had two attacking modes. If a unit were up against another unit, and the other unit's attack mode (<!--coloro:red--><span style="color:red"><!--/coloro--><b><u>Rock</u></b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->) was a counter to their own current attack mode (<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green"><!--/coloro--><b>Scissors</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->), they could pick the counter (<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green"><!--/coloro--><u><i>Paper</u></i><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->), but would have to look out for the opponent's counter to their counter (<!--coloro:red--><span style="color:red"><!--/coloro--><i>Scissors</i><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->). Obviously it still doesn't approach what I would say are acceptable levels of fun, but it's better than "I'm rock, you're scissors, I win. Come back with paper."
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
good discussion, continuing on... :)
<!--quoteo(post=1860610:date=Jul 14 2011, 05:48 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jul 14 2011, 05:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860610"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->what need have they of the extra advantage?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> thats like asking why any FPS game with upgrades is implemented?.. its the incentive i was talking about. also see next: <!--quoteo(post=1860610:date=Jul 14 2011, 05:48 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jul 14 2011, 05:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860610"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're just making it harder for the losers to put up a resistance until the end.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> not true, as long as teams are roughly balanced skill wise (as, once again, any game can do i.e. "shuffling" etc) along with baseline rines and alien balance (what the devs are striving to acheive and just looking at this week's overall game stats its pretty close) then there will be no steam rolling. two top players on either team will ...counter each other. just like the top 5 on one team and the top 5 on the other team will all carry their weight. if one player is so good he gets Onos before anyone else... well.. good on him for being so skilled? your scenario of steam rolling only exists in an unbalanced server with an unbalanced game - not with RFK. :) <!--quoteo(post=1860610:date=Jul 14 2011, 05:48 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jul 14 2011, 05:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860610"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->However, regardless of the removal (or not) of PRFK, I still believe TRFK needs to go in, and all commander costs should be changed to TR.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
agree, although you might have to adjust certain things to accommodate these changes..
Even TF2 has steamrolls if the skill level of the teams is extremely different. A game should be focused on equalization of this difference to make steamrolls less often happen. If you promote the best players with even more power, you will see more steamrolls. And this simply isn't fun on ether side.
<!--quoteo(post=1860757:date=Jul 15 2011, 11:28 AM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Jul 15 2011, 11:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860757"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->its the incentive i was talking about.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <b>incentive</b> to do what? to play well? to get kills? so... people aren't going to play well or get kills because they don't have "incentive"?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->thats like asking why any FPS game with upgrades is implemented?..<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It isn't like that at all. It's that winning should not mean you gain an even greater ability to win, because that just makes the game easier for the winner, and harder for the loser. The fact that the loser has died is loss enough - but if the winner is actually getting stronger? The next time they meet, the winner is even more likely to win.
Let me give you an analogy... Imagine that you were in a race. At the start, someone surpasses you, and for every inch ahead of you, they get a higher top speed. So because he's already faster, the gap increases. And as the gap increases, he gets even faster. As he's faster, the gap increases; as the gap increases, he gets even faster; as he's faster.... and so on.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->not true, as long as teams are roughly balanced skill wise (as, once again, any game can do i.e. "shuffling" etc) along with baseline rines and alien balance (what the devs are striving to acheive and just looking at this week's overall game stats its pretty close) then there will be no steam rolling. two top players on either team will ...counter each other. just like the top 5 on one team and the top 5 on the other team will all carry their weight. if one player is so good he gets Onos before anyone else... well.. good on him for being so skilled? your scenario of steam rolling only exists in an unbalanced server with an unbalanced game - not with RFK. :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> ironhorse, we're not just talking about balance (although the concept is effectively married to balance), here, we're also talking about fun - especially about fun. So though this slippery slope does affect things on a team level, we really have to consider the player more. Why? Because it isn't the "team" that has to deal with a decked out opponent - the "team" doesn't "have (or not have) fun", it's the player. Even if the top two players on either team counter each other, that still means the top players are going to steamroll the other team's lesser players. I'm just saying they need no extra advantage (PRFK) to do so - and in fact should not have the extra advantage. And if there is <b>any</b> (skill or unit) imbalance per side, then the stronger team (better players, or better units) will gain an even greater advantage than is commensurate, leading to a no-comeback endgame - the game effectively ends before the game <b>ends</b>.
I wasn't too fond of RFK even in NS so I've not been fond of it here. It somewhat reminds me of the warcraft mods in a few goldsource/source games, but to a worse extent since you didn't really have to be good, just have played there longer, if you were good on top of that.. well, you were a god in a few of the versions.
thats like asking why any FPS game with upgrades is implemented?.. its the incentive i was talking about. also see next:<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Could you care to provide an example? I believe the upgrades you mention are meant to provide players some degree of customization. Even in games where the game leader (who is in a winning position) can snowball from being the lead, there needs to be a fail safe mechanism that can reverse the situation, and reduce the advantages of the winning team.
For example, in CS, guns drop when players die, the opposite team can pick them up, and use them against their former owners. In DoTA/HoN/LoL, the player on a killing spree provides his/her killer a bigger bounty, and players on a dying spree give less and less gold to their slayers.
In the context of NS2, the winning team should already have faster resource gain through control of territory (Resource Nodes), and consequently, has better weapons, where as the losing team is deprived of higher tier tech (which is currently agonizingly amplified for aliens). Neither is there a fail safe that allows the losing team to "steal", or reduce the advantage of the winning team. This is the type of slippery slope needs to be eliminated.
<!--quoteo(post=1860757:date=Jul 14 2011, 08:28 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Jul 14 2011, 08:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860757"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->not true, as long as teams are roughly balanced skill wise (as, once again, any game can do i.e. "shuffling" etc) along with baseline rines and alien balance (what the devs are striving to acheive and just looking at this week's overall game stats its pretty close) then there will be no steam rolling. two top players on either team will ...counter each other. just like the top 5 on one team and the top 5 on the other team will all carry their weight. if one player is so good he gets Onos before anyone else... well.. good on him for being so skilled? your scenario of steam rolling only exists in an unbalanced server with an unbalanced game - not with RFK. :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I would love to see an effective auto-balance mechanism in NS2.
Like Harimau said, even if both teams are balanced team-team wise, the game experience will be polarize for the players: the top players will feel touchable, but the inexperienced players will feel miserable, after being killed over and over again.
<!--quoteo(post=1860793:date=Jul 15 2011, 10:13 AM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Jul 15 2011, 10:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860793"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Even TF2 has steamrolls if the skill level of the teams is extremely different. A game should be focused on equalization of this difference to make steamrolls less often happen. If you promote the best players with even more power, you will see more steamrolls. And this simply isn't fun on ether side.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not disagreeing with you about removing RFK to stop losing teams getting into situations where they are unable to come back.
I disagree with "A game should be focused on equalization of this difference to make steamrolls less often happen." though. I think good game design involves making the difference between a player who has mastered the mechanics and a player who is bad at them as big as you can. This makes the skill spectrum of the player base bigger and ultimately leads to a more enjoyable game for everyone.
You could say a downside of that is steamrolls will happen when players who have mastered the mechanics play against those who have not, but that is true for any game. Trying to minimize that difference just decreases the difference in skill between players and ends up making the game decided more by luck. Sure if a good player plays a bad player he will win, but in these poorly designed games when two good players play against each other it's harder for them to get an edge. Being slightly better at the mechanics should translate to winning the game by a slight amount - if it doesn't then the difference between the players skill becomes harder to determine and the game becomes more about luck.
<!--quoteo(post=1860805:date=Jul 15 2011, 06:23 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jul 15 2011, 06:23 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860805"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Let me give you an analogy... Imagine that you were in a race. At the start, someone surpasses you, and for every inch ahead of you, they get a higher top speed. So because he's already faster, the gap increases. And as the gap increases, he gets even faster. As he's faster, the gap increases; as the gap increases, he gets even faster; as he's faster.... and so on.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Racers do get incentivized with better starting positions, lanes, etc. based on their qualifying races.
I'm confused as to how prfk can be rejected for creating a positive feedback loop where the good players get even better, but that trfk is still supported. The same argument applies: whichever team gets an early advantage will get more buildings, more upgrades, and higher tech sooner, increasing their lead.
<!--quoteo(post=1860828:date=Jul 15 2011, 01:28 PM:name=Cerebral)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cerebral @ Jul 15 2011, 01:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860828"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Racers do get incentivized with better starting positions, lanes, etc. based on their qualifying races.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think you missed the point.
<!--quoteo(post=1860828:date=Jul 15 2011, 08:28 AM:name=Cerebral)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cerebral @ Jul 15 2011, 08:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860828"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Racers do get incentivized with better starting positions, lanes, etc. based on their qualifying races.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> How does that have anything to do with what he said? He was giving you an example of a mechanic with slippery slope. Starting position is entirely irrelevant.
<!--quoteo(post=1860832:date=Jul 15 2011, 08:59 AM:name=Typhon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Typhon @ Jul 15 2011, 08:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860832"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm confused as to how prfk can be rejected for creating a positive feedback loop where the good players get even better, but that trfk is still supported. The same argument applies: whichever team gets an early advantage will get more buildings, more upgrades, and higher tech sooner, increasing their lead.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> They aren't entirely the same. RFK provides instant and direct gratification, whereas TRFK provides instant but indirect gratification.
RFK provides a more apparent incentive, but since it is an entirely personal resource, it tends to promote civil competiton instead of team competition. In other words players are playing for cash, so that they can afford better weapons, so that they can increase their score, not so that they can win as a team.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
edited July 2011
in reply to harimau, all these replies sum it up: <!--quoteo(post=1860832:date=Jul 15 2011, 05:59 AM:name=Typhon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Typhon @ Jul 15 2011, 05:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860832"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The same argument applies: whichever team gets an early advantage will get more buildings, more upgrades, and higher tech sooner, increasing their lead.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly. <!--quoteo(post=1861040:date=Jul 16 2011, 11:04 AM:name=KuBaN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KuBaN @ Jul 16 2011, 11:04 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1861040"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In other words players are playing for cash, so that they can afford better weapons, so that they can<b> increase their score</b>, not so that they can win as a team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> uh.. no? in CS clan matches players play for cash so that they can afford better weapons so that they can win as a team? i dont get why RFK has to be seen as purely only beneficial to the individual and not for the purpose of a team. surely being good enough to purchase a GL before anyone else so that your team can clear a room has implications for winning as a team? <!--quoteo(post=1860827:date=Jul 15 2011, 05:18 AM:name=Wilson)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wilson @ Jul 15 2011, 05:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860827"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You could say a downside of that is steamrolls will happen when players who have mastered the mechanics play against those who have not, but that is true for any game. Trying to minimize that difference just decreases the difference in skill between players and <u><b>ends up making the game decided more by luck.</b></u> Sure if a good player plays a bad player he will win, but in these poorly designed games when two good players play against each other it's harder for them to get an edge. Being slightly better at the mechanics should translate to winning the game by a slight amount - if it doesn't then the difference between the players skill becomes harder to determine and the game becomes more about luck.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> ^THIS. <u>plus, its also easier for a bad player to win against a good player again due to luck.</u> (###### supply crates). this is in essence, the core of my concern, not allowing and thus promoting a game design based around skill, you'll end up with a dice roll ala Mario Party. (bowser just took my 5 hard earned stars and gave them to the guy who sucks with 0. grreeeaatt) NS2 strives, even in it's early stages of development, to be a competitive FPS. <!--quoteo(post=1860814:date=Jul 15 2011, 03:59 AM:name=twiliteblue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (twiliteblue @ Jul 15 2011, 03:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860814"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Could you care to provide an example? I believe the upgrades you mention are meant to provide players some degree of customization.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> easy. there's tons, but i'll stick to the best and well tested example: Battlefield. if you've played any of them you know its wayyy more than customization, infact, customization has nothing to do with it at all. and worse here imo, that new killer top tier weapon is a permanent thing for that player. i'm just suggesting round based. <!--quoteo(post=1860814:date=Jul 15 2011, 03:59 AM:name=twiliteblue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (twiliteblue @ Jul 15 2011, 03:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860814"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would love to see an effective auto-balance mechanism in NS2. Like Harimau said, even if both teams are balanced team-team wise, the game experience will be polarize for the players: the top players will feel touchable, but the inexperienced players will feel miserable, after being killed over and over again.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> same. and its doable. <i>the game experience will polarize regardless of any situation due to the game design of upgrades.</i> and i understand the concern for too much polarization, but this is why that upgradeable weapon doesn't slaughter the other team, it merely gives a slight advantage in one area to promote more teamplay etc (wth does one need a GL for if theres no structures yet?) like i said, games like battlefield, COD (shudders), CS, TF2 are all tested, tried, and true and are able to accomplish BOTH of our points, a fair middle ground.
bottom line: in a game with upgrades possible, balance is the key, not removing positive feedback to the individual or removing skill based reward systems (Which can be purely team beneficial but still rewarding for the player?)
thanks for the great discussion, guys, i love the intelligence of this community overall.
<!--quoteo(post=1861074:date=Jul 16 2011, 05:31 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Jul 16 2011, 05:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1861074"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->uh.. no? in CS clan matches players play for cash so that they can afford better weapons so that they can win as a team? i dont get why RFK has to be seen as purely only beneficial to the individual and not for the purpose of a team. surely being good enough to purchase a GL before anyone else so that your team can clear a room has implications for winning as a team?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That they win as a team is a consequence of the fact that you are forced to play in teams, but I don't imagine gameplay would be terribly different in CS if it was a Deathmatch style game. I recognize the RFK is beneficial to the whole team, but it changes the players mentality because they aren't really dependent on anyone other than themselves to advance.
I'm talking about both types, (pubs only sometimes coordinate, but result can be the same) but the most important is competitive play, the stuff that's making videos and tweets on UWE's front page and the mentality behind making your game last (like the mentioned games of BF, CS, TF2 etc) with said concepts in mind.
even pub games in BF:BC are amazingly teamplay oriented given little to no mic communication - due to the gameplay design that "changes the player's mentality because they <b>ARE </b>actually really dependent on others" i.e. ammo boxes or defibrillator pads etc.
these items/rewards/systems don't even have to have anything related to personal gain or advantage, they can merely buff their teammates. all I'm saying is playing a game where the ones getting rewarded (read: Onos) are those that hide in base over time and actually hurt their team by taking up a playerslot in the meantime etc, while not actually doing anything to EARN their very obvious reward (that benefits both individual and team) .. make it skill based to make it competitive. Time or luck should not be the deciding factor.
<!--quoteo(post=1858675:date=Jul 7 2011, 08:31 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jul 7 2011, 08:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858675"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You should check out the <a href="http://www.sirlin.net/articles/fail-safes-in-competitive-game-design-a-detailed-example.html" target="_blank">Sirlin article</a> I linked earlier about fail-safes. He uses Guilty Gear XX as an example for how the developers built a foundation of many fail-safes available to (almost) every character, which allowed the game to have a huge variety of characters with really different mechanics. The key thing is that these fail-safes aren't "unit counters", but are <b>available to you almost all the time</b>, and <b><i>available to you in the split second you need them</b></i>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
except all the fail safes in Guilty Gear are controlled by scares resources. They are not always available, and have inherent risks and disadvantages. I believe you completely misunderstood the article. Dave Sirlin's point, as far as I can tell, is that the fail-safes are universally available, in that all characters have access to them, not that you always have access to them, because you don't. You need to use limited resources to access any of the techniques he mentions as fail safes. The article is about how adding these universal abilities can help balance highly asymmetric games. You give both sides the same reasonable useful escape options, this helps ensure that in spite of asymmetry in the design, players are assured certain escape mechanisms.
An example of this in NS2 would be something like giving all classes the ability to sprint, or dodge or soak damage or something to that effect. Adding an element of symmetry players can rely on.
Also every time I read one of your posts I can't help but thing, you most not have liked NS1 very much.
The dramatic difference in power levels between units is a big part of what made that game fun. The fact that it took 3 marines, to fight one fade was a highlight of the game to me. The fact that some times you entered into situations where the odds were stacked against you added dynamics, tension, and a huge thrill. This part of NS was a huge piece of its appeal.
Also, not every one wants a simple, instant gratification game. NS1 was so great because it featured radically different pacing, it frequently had an amazing "narrative plot" with a slow start, several anti-climaxes, and a final climatic battle. Having to stop, fighting and do some other task, went a long way to making the game more fun, and interesting in the long run. Playing as a lowly skulk, just made playing as a murderous fade that much more awesome.
For me NS was all about the big power gaps you seem so happy to see being removed. If anything, the resource model should be changed to account for big power gaps, not the other way around.
<!--quoteo(post=1861128:date=Jul 16 2011, 11:51 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Jul 16 2011, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1861128"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm talking about both types, (pubs only sometimes coordinate, but result can be the same) but the most important is competitive play, the stuff that's making videos and tweets on UWE's front page and the mentality behind making your game last (like the mentioned games of BF, CS, TF2 etc) with said concepts in mind.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> They're both equally important: If the game isn't accessible enough to the average player, and it doesn't have a large enough player base, the only "competitive play" is going to be the same 30 guys playing the same game over and over.
<!--quoteo(post=1861128:date=Jul 16 2011, 11:51 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Jul 16 2011, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1861128"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->even pub games in BF:BC are amazingly teamplay oriented given little to no mic communication - due to the gameplay design that "changes the player's mentality because they <b>ARE </b>actually really dependent on others" i.e. ammo boxes or defibrillator pads etc.
these items/rewards/systems don't even have to have anything related to personal gain or advantage, they can merely buff their teammates. all I'm saying is playing a game where the ones getting rewarded (read: Onos) are those that hide in base over time and actually hurt their team by taking up a playerslot in the meantime etc, while not actually doing anything to EARN their very obvious reward (that benefits both individual and team) .. make it skill based to make it competitive. Time or luck should not be the deciding factor.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree, but there are currently few systems in place that transparently encourage that.
<!--quoteo(post=1861142:date=Jul 17 2011, 07:50 AM:name=Katana-)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Katana- @ Jul 17 2011, 07:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1861142"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also every time I read one of your posts I can't help but thing, you most not have liked NS1 very much.
The dramatic difference in power levels between units is a big part of what made that game fun. The fact that it took 3 marines, to fight one fade was a highlight of the game to me. The fact that some times you entered into situations where the odds were stacked against you added dynamics, tension, and a huge thrill. This part of NS was a huge piece of its appeal.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I too loved that part, but with the symmetric resource model that way of doing it just won't work - there's not much to stop the alien players from all saving up for fade, and then you'd need 3 times as many marine players for it to balance out. The other way around applies too once we get exos and maybe jetpacks. So it's not necessarily that fades need to be weakened, but that an individual marine must be able to get enough awesome equipment to equal a fade.
Comments
however i still argue the fact that the individual needs <i><b>something</b></i> other than your team winning in points as an incentive. its more spread out of an idea than CTF, there isn't one flag, theres a dozen RT, and theres infestation, and theres power nodes etc etc etc.. and currently no way to tell which team is truly in the lead.
give the individual some reward for being a skilled player - since kills are arbitrarily contributing to that same disconnected team points - and i think we can agree on a proper game balance at that point. right? proper economy and scalability mixed with skill based reward system. (maybe small upgrades tied to this i.e. frenzy?)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My only problem with PRFK is the slippery slope: the only time PRFK is actually significant is when the stronger players (better players, and/or better weapons) get it - but if they're already stronger, what need have they of the extra advantage? You're just making it harder for the losers to put up a resistance until the end. And while some may consider one-way steamrolls fun, that only applies to at most 50% of the players, but usually less than 50%. I think we can all agree that games where the outcome isn't decided until the very last second are generally more exciting.
However, regardless of the removal (or not) of PRFK, I still believe TRFK needs to go in, and all commander costs should be changed to TR.
<!--quoteo(post=1860523:date=Jul 14 2011, 09:41 AM:name=KuBaN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KuBaN @ Jul 14 2011, 09:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860523"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->@Harimau: I remember your trepidation about some of the RPS mechanics I suggested, and thought you were being unreasonable. Now I just realized I was using the wrong word, because most of what I was suggesting were, in fact, fail-safes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The key is not to have team-level rock-paper-scissors mechanics (choice of unit), since that's actually kind of counter-productive to the fail-safes I'm talking about (because of the time delay, or resource situation). It's all well and good in an RTS.
Instead, the idea is to have player-level fail-safes (the unit's (player's) choices). For example - and this is the most basic and uninspired example I can think of, but it gives an idea of what I'm trying to get at - if every unit in the game had two attacking modes. If a unit were up against another unit, and the other unit's attack mode (<!--coloro:red--><span style="color:red"><!--/coloro--><b><u>Rock</u></b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->) was a counter to their own current attack mode (<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green"><!--/coloro--><b>Scissors</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->), they could pick the counter (<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green"><!--/coloro--><u><i>Paper</u></i><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->), but would have to look out for the opponent's counter to their counter (<!--coloro:red--><span style="color:red"><!--/coloro--><i>Scissors</i><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->). Obviously it still doesn't approach what I would say are acceptable levels of fun, but it's better than "I'm rock, you're scissors, I win. Come back with paper."
<!--quoteo(post=1860610:date=Jul 14 2011, 05:48 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jul 14 2011, 05:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860610"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->what need have they of the extra advantage?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
thats like asking why any FPS game with upgrades is implemented?.. its the incentive i was talking about. also see next:
<!--quoteo(post=1860610:date=Jul 14 2011, 05:48 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jul 14 2011, 05:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860610"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're just making it harder for the losers to put up a resistance until the end.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
not true, as long as teams are roughly balanced skill wise (as, once again, any game can do i.e. "shuffling" etc) along with baseline rines and alien balance (what the devs are striving to acheive and just looking at this week's overall game stats its pretty close) then there will be no steam rolling. two top players on either team will ...counter each other. just like the top 5 on one team and the top 5 on the other team will all carry their weight. if one player is so good he gets Onos before anyone else... well.. good on him for being so skilled? your scenario of steam rolling only exists in an unbalanced server with an unbalanced game - not with RFK. :)
<!--quoteo(post=1860610:date=Jul 14 2011, 05:48 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jul 14 2011, 05:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860610"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->However, regardless of the removal (or not) of PRFK, I still believe TRFK needs to go in, and all commander costs should be changed to TR.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
agree, although you might have to adjust certain things to accommodate these changes..
So basically I agree with Harimau.
<b>incentive</b> to do what? to play well? to get kills?
so... people aren't going to play well or get kills because they don't have "incentive"?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->thats like asking why any FPS game with upgrades is implemented?..<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It isn't like that at all. It's that winning should not mean you gain an even greater ability to win, because that just makes the game easier for the winner, and harder for the loser. The fact that the loser has died is loss enough - but if the winner is actually getting stronger? The next time they meet, the winner is even more likely to win.
Let me give you an analogy... Imagine that you were in a race. At the start, someone surpasses you, and for every inch ahead of you, they get a higher top speed. So because he's already faster, the gap increases. And as the gap increases, he gets even faster. As he's faster, the gap increases; as the gap increases, he gets even faster; as he's faster.... and so on.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->not true, as long as teams are roughly balanced skill wise (as, once again, any game can do i.e. "shuffling" etc) along with baseline rines and alien balance (what the devs are striving to acheive and just looking at this week's overall game stats its pretty close) then there will be no steam rolling. two top players on either team will ...counter each other. just like the top 5 on one team and the top 5 on the other team will all carry their weight. if one player is so good he gets Onos before anyone else... well.. good on him for being so skilled? your scenario of steam rolling only exists in an unbalanced server with an unbalanced game - not with RFK. :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ironhorse, we're not just talking about balance (although the concept is effectively married to balance), here, we're also talking about fun - especially about fun. So though this slippery slope does affect things on a team level, we really have to consider the player more. Why? Because it isn't the "team" that has to deal with a decked out opponent - the "team" doesn't "have (or not have) fun", it's the player. Even if the top two players on either team counter each other, that still means the top players are going to steamroll the other team's lesser players. I'm just saying they need no extra advantage (PRFK) to do so - and in fact should not have the extra advantage. And if there is <b>any</b> (skill or unit) imbalance per side, then the stronger team (better players, or better units) will gain an even greater advantage than is commensurate, leading to a no-comeback endgame - the game effectively ends before the game <b>ends</b>.
<!--quoteo(post=1860757:date=Jul 14 2011, 08:28 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Jul 14 2011, 08:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860757"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->good discussion, continuing on... :)
thats like asking why any FPS game with upgrades is implemented?.. its the incentive i was talking about. also see next:<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Could you care to provide an example? I believe the upgrades you mention are meant to provide players some degree of customization. Even in games where the game leader (who is in a winning position) can snowball from being the lead, there needs to be a fail safe mechanism that can reverse the situation, and reduce the advantages of the winning team.
For example, in CS, guns drop when players die, the opposite team can pick them up, and use them against their former owners. In DoTA/HoN/LoL, the player on a killing spree provides his/her killer a bigger bounty, and players on a dying spree give less and less gold to their slayers.
In the context of NS2, the winning team should already have faster resource gain through control of territory (Resource Nodes), and consequently, has better weapons, where as the losing team is deprived of higher tier tech (which is currently agonizingly amplified for aliens). Neither is there a fail safe that allows the losing team to "steal", or reduce the advantage of the winning team. This is the type of slippery slope needs to be eliminated.
<!--quoteo(post=1860757:date=Jul 14 2011, 08:28 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Jul 14 2011, 08:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860757"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->not true, as long as teams are roughly balanced skill wise (as, once again, any game can do i.e. "shuffling" etc) along with baseline rines and alien balance (what the devs are striving to acheive and just looking at this week's overall game stats its pretty close) then there will be no steam rolling. two top players on either team will ...counter each other. just like the top 5 on one team and the top 5 on the other team will all carry their weight. if one player is so good he gets Onos before anyone else... well.. good on him for being so skilled? your scenario of steam rolling only exists in an unbalanced server with an unbalanced game - not with RFK. :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would love to see an effective auto-balance mechanism in NS2.
Like Harimau said, even if both teams are balanced team-team wise, the game experience will be polarize for the players: the top players will feel touchable, but the inexperienced players will feel miserable, after being killed over and over again.
I'm not disagreeing with you about removing RFK to stop losing teams getting into situations where they are unable to come back.
I disagree with "A game should be focused on equalization of this difference to make steamrolls less often happen." though. I think good game design involves making the difference between a player who has mastered the mechanics and a player who is bad at them as big as you can. This makes the skill spectrum of the player base bigger and ultimately leads to a more enjoyable game for everyone.
You could say a downside of that is steamrolls will happen when players who have mastered the mechanics play against those who have not, but that is true for any game. Trying to minimize that difference just decreases the difference in skill between players and ends up making the game decided more by luck. Sure if a good player plays a bad player he will win, but in these poorly designed games when two good players play against each other it's harder for them to get an edge. Being slightly better at the mechanics should translate to winning the game by a slight amount - if it doesn't then the difference between the players skill becomes harder to determine and the game becomes more about luck.
Racers do get incentivized with better starting positions, lanes, etc. based on their qualifying races.
I think you missed the point.
How does that have anything to do with what he said? He was giving you an example of a mechanic with slippery slope. Starting position is entirely irrelevant.
<!--quoteo(post=1860832:date=Jul 15 2011, 08:59 AM:name=Typhon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Typhon @ Jul 15 2011, 08:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860832"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm confused as to how prfk can be rejected for creating a positive feedback loop where the good players get even better, but that trfk is still supported. The same argument applies: whichever team gets an early advantage will get more buildings, more upgrades, and higher tech sooner, increasing their lead.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They aren't entirely the same. RFK provides instant and direct gratification, whereas TRFK provides instant but indirect gratification.
RFK provides a more apparent incentive, but since it is an entirely personal resource, it tends to promote civil competiton instead of team competition. In other words players are playing for cash, so that they can afford better weapons, so that they can increase their score, not so that they can win as a team.
<!--quoteo(post=1860832:date=Jul 15 2011, 05:59 AM:name=Typhon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Typhon @ Jul 15 2011, 05:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860832"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The same argument applies: whichever team gets an early advantage will get more buildings, more upgrades, and higher tech sooner, increasing their lead.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly.
<!--quoteo(post=1861040:date=Jul 16 2011, 11:04 AM:name=KuBaN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KuBaN @ Jul 16 2011, 11:04 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1861040"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In other words players are playing for cash, so that they can afford better weapons, so that they can<b> increase their score</b>, not so that they can win as a team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
uh.. no? in CS clan matches players play for cash so that they can afford better weapons so that they can win as a team? i dont get why RFK has to be seen as purely only beneficial to the individual and not for the purpose of a team. surely being good enough to purchase a GL before anyone else so that your team can clear a room has implications for winning as a team?
<!--quoteo(post=1860827:date=Jul 15 2011, 05:18 AM:name=Wilson)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wilson @ Jul 15 2011, 05:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860827"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You could say a downside of that is steamrolls will happen when players who have mastered the mechanics play against those who have not, but that is true for any game. Trying to minimize that difference just decreases the difference in skill between players and <u><b>ends up making the game decided more by luck.</b></u> Sure if a good player plays a bad player he will win, but in these poorly designed games when two good players play against each other it's harder for them to get an edge. Being slightly better at the mechanics should translate to winning the game by a slight amount - if it doesn't then the difference between the players skill becomes harder to determine and the game becomes more about luck.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
^THIS. <u>plus, its also easier for a bad player to win against a good player again due to luck.</u> (###### supply crates).
this is in essence, the core of my concern, not allowing and thus promoting a game design based around skill, you'll end up with a dice roll ala Mario Party. (bowser just took my 5 hard earned stars and gave them to the guy who sucks with 0. grreeeaatt) NS2 strives, even in it's early stages of development, to be a competitive FPS.
<!--quoteo(post=1860814:date=Jul 15 2011, 03:59 AM:name=twiliteblue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (twiliteblue @ Jul 15 2011, 03:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860814"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Could you care to provide an example? I believe the upgrades you mention are meant to provide players some degree of customization.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
easy. there's tons, but i'll stick to the best and well tested example: Battlefield. if you've played any of them you know its wayyy more than customization, infact, customization has nothing to do with it at all. and worse here imo, that new killer top tier weapon is a permanent thing for that player. i'm just suggesting round based.
<!--quoteo(post=1860814:date=Jul 15 2011, 03:59 AM:name=twiliteblue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (twiliteblue @ Jul 15 2011, 03:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860814"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would love to see an effective auto-balance mechanism in NS2.
Like Harimau said, even if both teams are balanced team-team wise, the game experience will be polarize for the players: the top players will feel touchable, but the inexperienced players will feel miserable, after being killed over and over again.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
same. and its doable. <i>the game experience will polarize regardless of any situation due to the game design of upgrades.</i> and i understand the concern for too much polarization, but this is why that upgradeable weapon doesn't slaughter the other team, it merely gives a slight advantage in one area to promote more teamplay etc (wth does one need a GL for if theres no structures yet?) like i said, games like battlefield, COD (shudders), CS, TF2 are all tested, tried, and true and are able to accomplish BOTH of our points, a fair middle ground.
bottom line:
in a game with upgrades possible, balance is the key, not removing positive feedback to the individual or removing skill based reward systems (Which can be purely team beneficial but still rewarding for the player?)
thanks for the great discussion, guys, i love the intelligence of this community overall.
That they win as a team is a consequence of the fact that you are forced to play in teams, but I don't imagine gameplay would be terribly different in CS if it was a Deathmatch style game. I recognize the RFK is beneficial to the whole team, but it changes the players mentality because they aren't really dependent on anyone other than themselves to advance.
I'm talking pubs here, not organized play.
I'm talking about both types, (pubs only sometimes coordinate, but result can be the same) but the most important is competitive play, the stuff that's making videos and tweets on UWE's front page and the mentality behind making your game last (like the mentioned games of BF, CS, TF2 etc) with said concepts in mind.
even pub games in BF:BC are amazingly teamplay oriented given little to no mic communication - due to the gameplay design that "changes the player's mentality because they <b>ARE </b>actually really dependent on others" i.e. ammo boxes or defibrillator pads etc.
these items/rewards/systems don't even have to have anything related to personal gain or advantage, they can merely buff their teammates. all I'm saying is playing a game where the ones getting rewarded (read: Onos) are those that hide in base over time and actually hurt their team by taking up a playerslot in the meantime etc, while not actually doing anything to EARN their very obvious reward (that benefits both individual and team) .. make it skill based to make it competitive. Time or luck should not be the deciding factor.
except all the fail safes in Guilty Gear are controlled by scares resources. They are not always available, and have inherent risks and disadvantages. I believe you completely misunderstood the article. Dave Sirlin's point, as far as I can tell, is that the fail-safes are universally available, in that all characters have access to them, not that you always have access to them, because you don't. You need to use limited resources to access any of the techniques he mentions as fail safes. The article is about how adding these universal abilities can help balance highly asymmetric games. You give both sides the same reasonable useful escape options, this helps ensure that in spite of asymmetry in the design, players are assured certain escape mechanisms.
An example of this in NS2 would be something like giving all classes the ability to sprint, or dodge or soak damage or something to that effect. Adding an element of symmetry players can rely on.
Also every time I read one of your posts I can't help but thing, you most not have liked NS1 very much.
The dramatic difference in power levels between units is a big part of what made that game fun. The fact that it took 3 marines, to fight one fade was a highlight of the game to me. The fact that some times you entered into situations where the odds were stacked against you added dynamics, tension, and a huge thrill. This part of NS was a huge piece of its appeal.
Also, not every one wants a simple, instant gratification game. NS1 was so great because it featured radically different pacing, it frequently had an amazing "narrative plot" with a slow start, several anti-climaxes, and a final climatic battle. Having to stop, fighting and do some other task, went a long way to making the game more fun, and interesting in the long run. Playing as a lowly skulk, just made playing as a murderous fade that much more awesome.
For me NS was all about the big power gaps you seem so happy to see being removed. If anything, the resource model should be changed to account for big power gaps, not the other way around.
They're both equally important: If the game isn't accessible enough to the average player, and it doesn't have a large enough player base, the only "competitive play" is going to be the same 30 guys playing the same game over and over.
<!--quoteo(post=1861128:date=Jul 16 2011, 11:51 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Jul 16 2011, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1861128"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->even pub games in BF:BC are amazingly teamplay oriented given little to no mic communication - due to the gameplay design that "changes the player's mentality because they <b>ARE </b>actually really dependent on others" i.e. ammo boxes or defibrillator pads etc.
these items/rewards/systems don't even have to have anything related to personal gain or advantage, they can merely buff their teammates. all I'm saying is playing a game where the ones getting rewarded (read: Onos) are those that hide in base over time and actually hurt their team by taking up a playerslot in the meantime etc, while not actually doing anything to EARN their very obvious reward (that benefits both individual and team) .. make it skill based to make it competitive. Time or luck should not be the deciding factor.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree, but there are currently few systems in place that transparently encourage that.
The dramatic difference in power levels between units is a big part of what made that game fun. The fact that it took 3 marines, to fight one fade was a highlight of the game to me. The fact that some times you entered into situations where the odds were stacked against you added dynamics, tension, and a huge thrill. This part of NS was a huge piece of its appeal.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I too loved that part, but with the symmetric resource model that way of doing it just won't work - there's not much to stop the alien players from all saving up for fade, and then you'd need 3 times as many marine players for it to balance out. The other way around applies too once we get exos and maybe jetpacks.
So it's not necessarily that fades need to be weakened, but that an individual marine must be able to get enough awesome equipment to equal a fade.