What is NS2 balanced for?
Argathor
Join Date: 2011-07-18 Member: 110942Members, Squad Five Blue
Join Date: 2011-07-18 Member: 110942Members, Squad Five Blue
<div class="IPBDescription">release goal</div>Discussion in other threads got me thinking...
I saw three gameplay modes mentioned:
<b>Public</b> (everyone randomly joins servers)
<b>Organised</b> (a group of people gather, electing commanders and join a specific server to play together)
<b>Competitive</b> (two pre-defined teams organise to play against each other)
On top of this, different gameplay mechanics/weapons/lifeforms have different skill levels required to use properly and to their full potential.
With the differing knowledge, ability, motivation and experience of public/organised/competitive players it does not seem possible to balance the game in a way which would equally impact each type of gameplay. Is it possible to balance all modes? Which mode is most important to UWE?
I would assume that public play will attract the largest amount of players and so it makes sense to aim for this, but that still leaves me feeling slightly uncomfortable.
What do you think?
I saw three gameplay modes mentioned:
<b>Public</b> (everyone randomly joins servers)
<b>Organised</b> (a group of people gather, electing commanders and join a specific server to play together)
<b>Competitive</b> (two pre-defined teams organise to play against each other)
On top of this, different gameplay mechanics/weapons/lifeforms have different skill levels required to use properly and to their full potential.
With the differing knowledge, ability, motivation and experience of public/organised/competitive players it does not seem possible to balance the game in a way which would equally impact each type of gameplay. Is it possible to balance all modes? Which mode is most important to UWE?
I would assume that public play will attract the largest amount of players and so it makes sense to aim for this, but that still leaves me feeling slightly uncomfortable.
What do you think?
Comments
However I would say it should be possible to cater to more than one of those, balance between public and organised games should really only be changed by how good the teams are, you should be using the same weapons, same strategies, same methods, the organised games would just be better at it. If that isn't the case you have problems with exploits and unclear mechanics, and should fix those.
Competitive play should be the same as organised play only with stricter rules and things like playing every game twice with the teams swapped and identical start locations. Also who plays who is determined by a tournament matchup so some sort of stat tracking system would be good. Mostly competitive play just needs a bunch of out of game systems to support it, which you could do with community sites probably a lot better than you could with official endorsement.
<b>Balance the game around how ppl without any knowledge and teamwork would play it?</b>
We might as well random generate all balance values after each start...
There are more factors:
- Team sizes: 6v6,8v8,16v16
- Map size and distance between start locations, techpoints etc. (some map sizes wont work with teamsizes)
...
We cant just balance around the average of all... - it wont be balanced for anybody.
There is either organized or unorganized - unorganized ppl play ns2 like tdm... organized ppl play ns2 like ns2.
<b>Balance for 6v6 organized</b> and an average mapsize of X with average distance between start position of Y.
(6v6 will be the most imporant teamsize)
Then lets think about other teamsizes and special map sizes. (since there is no balance for everything)
Ps: i dont say we balance in extremes, skill vs unskilled... but more towards skilled.
They seem exactly the same as the balance objectives for organised play to me.
They seem exactly the same as the balance objectives for organised play to me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Different weapons/lifeforms play and effect games very differently depending on the ability level of the players in the game.
For example mines are much more powerful when placed very tactically by experienced players. Mines are also very easily avoided (and harmlessly detonated) by experienced players. The ability level of players in the game hugely effects the impact mines have on the game (and balance).
<b>To clarify:</b> You can expect a much higher average of ability in competitive (and to an extent organised) games, than public. This changes how various game mechanics and features effect balance in those games.
They seem exactly the same as the balance objectives for organised play to me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep.
This is the thing, public and organised balance should not be different, if they are it's because the experienced players are using obscure exploits or 'the best strategy' or something, which means the game ISN'T balanced.
The game should just be 'balanced' which is universal.
It's easier to make the game PLAYABLE by public players, but making it actually balanced means balanced for everyone.
<!--quoteo(post=1897295:date=Jan 25 2012, 03:48 PM:name=Argathor)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Argathor @ Jan 25 2012, 03:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1897295"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Different weapons/lifeforms play and effect games very differently depending on the ability level of the players in the game.
For example mines are much more powerful when placed very tactically by experienced players. Mines are also very easily avoided (and harmlessly detonated) by experienced players. The ability level of players in the game hugely effects the impact mines have on the game (and balance).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The solution therefore is to make mines easier to use, there's no reason to make them hard to use because it just excludes everyone else.
Include some hints on good mine placement when you buy mines for the first few times. Suddenly mines become more effective for everyone.
If mines only work because you placed them in some weird obscure place that makes them incredibly effective, such as at the only exit from a key vent which is too close to detonate them at range, then that's an exploit and needs fixing. You should make sure they are only ever so effective, and ensure everyone knows how to make them as effective as they can be.
Those stats say nothing, just because there is a 50/50 ration overall - the game can still be very broken and unbalanced in real organized environments. (doesnt even need to be high skilled)
e.g. b190 with mines stats were nearly 50:50 overall, but more like 70-80% for marines in games ppl played ns2 and not tdm. (start the game with 4 players, have lots of leavers and new joined players during a game, no commander for like 10min switching commanders etc etc)
=> 50:50 win is worth nothing.
I was trying to keep it simple on purpose, but you bring more good points to the table to discuss. I would have thought UWE already have their mapping guidelines set and a set amount of players they are aiming to balance for?
I personally do not see public play as a group of people who have no idea what they are doing. After all they frequently contain people who play organised and competitive matches too. The average ability level on each team is just likely to be lower (how much lower and the difference between each team, is another discussion).
Currently it feels a bit like chaos from the ground up.
A lot layouts in the guidelines dont work anymore, because the 2nd hive is too close...
Also the random spawn was built in for maps that were not designed for this... (and there is no guidelines for this)
What works:
- Summit fixed old spawns (pretty much perfect size for 6v6)
- Turtle fixed normal spawns
(if you want random spawns for those maps, we need a scenario system - just random everything doesnt work balanced on this maps)
- Ns1 layouts (at least it should work fine)
As long as teamwork and skill are equally rewarded through game design for both the Marines and Aliens, the game will be balanced.
That is correct, but extremely hard to achieve. I would even say probably impossible.
You cannot make skulks have exactly the same skill scaling as a shotgun marine, a flamethrower marine and a gorge bile bombing, although you should aim for it.
Currently, the marines have a much higher skill cap than aliens do. Even in the gathers, where there are usually better players, fades still dominate, even though they should die from two well-aimed shotgun hits (we reduced the armor to 80 with carapace again). If everyone in there was as good as some of the top NS1 players from the old times (and has perfect performance), the fades would already be more balanced, but fades are much easier to get good at than getting a full-on shotgun hit on them.
No teamwork vs No teamwork = 50/50 chance of winning for each side (i.e. most public matches)
Teamwork vs No teamwork = Side using more teamwork should be favored (i.e. some public matches)
Teamwork vs Teamwork = 50/50 chance of winning for each side (i.e. most competitive matches)
The problem right now is that teamwork is pretty much mandatory for marines to succeed, but mostly optional for aliens in public matches.
<!--quoteo(post=1897297:date=Jan 25 2012, 07:54 AM:name=Koruyo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Koruyo @ Jan 25 2012, 07:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1897297"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I guess, if uwe only looks at the average stats <a href="http://endgamestats.own.cz/" target="_blank">http://endgamestats.own.cz/</a> thats something you could consider balance for public...
Those stats say nothing, just because there is a 50/50 ration overall - the game can still be very broken and unbalanced in real organized environments. (doesnt even need to be high skilled)
e.g. b190 with mines stats were nearly 50:50 overall, but more like 70-80% for marines in games ppl played ns2 and not tdm. (start the game with 4 players, have lots of leavers and new joined players during a game, no commander for like 10min switching commanders etc etc)
=> 50:50 win is worth nothing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
50:50 win is worth something, but it doesn't necessarily mean the game is balanced (or fun). I would say having a close to 50:50 win percentage is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the game to be balanced. However, I'd like to see it broken down by playercount and map (i.e. ideal balance would be 50:50 wins on tram and summit rather than 75:25 on tram and 25:75 on summit). I don't think the current win stats are better at proving when the game is unbalanced (i.e. the 73% win rate for aliens on B193 is a pretty good indicator that NS2 currently favors aliens) rather than when the game is balanced.
Because in a teamwork vs teamwork situation it will maybe more like 70/50, and in a teamwork vs no teamwork it might not matter, because the teamwork team can kinda win even if the gamebalance is against it. (then there is also map, gamelenght, player count etc.)
More details/stats and filter would be cool to make those stats more usefull. (it would also be cool if i could record stats only for a special server/matches that i define, so i would only collect stats if we play ensl gather (and get a more detailed and correct overview how the balance looks there - not that this would be the ultimate balance indicator, but more than just overall of everything)
Personally, I think that the game should have a built-in, highly-accessible gather/matchmaking/organised system, and that the game is balanced around Organised games. Competitive games could just make necessary tweaks, while Public can be considered more casual (and I don't mean that in the sense of "casual gamer", or with any derision).
<b>Q:</b>
Do we:
A) allow ease of entry and account for griefing, disorganised play as well as other symptoms of public play?, or
B) do we cater to the competitive scene, with assumptions of highly organised teams, and with such features as difficulty of entry to allow for higher skill ceilings, or
C) do we take a middle ground and assume relatively organised play but with relative ease of entry?
<b>A:</b>
If:
A), Then balance/design the game for Public play.
B), Then balance/design the game for Competitive play.
C), Then balance/design the game for Organised play.
Obviously UWE wants to create a visceral, intuitive teamplay experience, but there will always be a certain element of uncoordination to it because anything else restricts the number of incoming palyers.
allow customization and people can balance it the way they want it
Simply, to make people think about what NS2 is aiming for.
Many people give balance/game mechanics feedback without actually considering the overall aims of NS2.
Between them Harimau and internetexplorer have perfectly summed up the overall idea and challenges ahead. I was also hopeing that UWE might confirm their intentions.
Personally I hope that they have all scenarios in mind when balancing the game.
Right now it seems to be balanced mostly from what the developers experience in their playtests. Lerk hide anyone?
And a bit from what people write on the forums.
I don't think that's the golden solution to properly balance a game.
I think developers should be more in touch with the competetive/organized players of the game.
As they often have a pretty good overall understanding of the game, they know; "x is a counter to y" etc.
Also, they usually play the game very much, and notice even the smallest changes.
It is impossible to balance around players who doesn't have a clue about how the game really plays out.
First time players will, and should, be dominated by more experienced players. Just like in any game.
You can't adress this without making heavy imbalances/unfair advantages for the new players. No one likes that.
My suggestion: get some active competetive players as playtesters for balance only.
Aim for players that have also played and understand how NS1 plays out.
The game is stated to be released in this year, so balance will be important this year due to the release.
You can still have less experienced playtesters to playtest for bugs/glitches.
And then there is the resource costs, example; "should a 50 res fade die from 2 shotgun(20 res) blasts?"
Fades should be left with very little HP after 2 full SG blasts in my opinion, taking the numbers into account.
But they are really only vulnerable while swiping, so I would suggest adding this mod(by Yuuki) to the vanilla game:
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=115631" target="_blank">Fade blink momentum</a>
<ul><li>It makes fades more visible, less invulnerable.</li><li>Fixes the "free hit" fades get when teleporting next to marines and instantly swiping(no reaction time for marines).</li><li>It raises the skill cieling of fades. Right now you hit that cieling very fast.</li></ul>
Also, I would add to this thread:
<b>Frenzy is a bad idea in it's current form. Why?</b>
It makes the fades able to stay in combat(being shot at) for soo much longer, and therefore making them even more overpowered.
I think frenzy could still have a place in the game, just not as a fade upgrade.
Maybe it should be skulk-only, and only work on corpses.
So you can't get more HP while attacking more marines, effectively staying alive and attacking for alot longer than you should.
Bite 1-3 times on a dead body, and you will get some HP back. That could work for the skulk.
As for the fade, it already have regeneration, and metabolize coming soon(use adrenaline to get more adrenaline, and hp).
<b>Frenzy is, and will continue to be a balance killer in it's current form.</b>
You are basically forcing every alien to go carapace, frenzy, regeneration atm - its crazy that you can do that. (stacking defense upgrades, swarm and cloak are not even close as usefull)
Frenzy and regeneration might need a little buff / change how it works.
Carapapce = more effective health, but you need to go back healing
Regeneration = the middle thing of both, either gives you a little more effective health(if permanent passive regeneration) and doesnt take you out of combat for as long, or doesnt give you more effective health - but saves you a lot of time you would waste by going back healing. (just go around a save corner and let the magic fill you up again, kinda like cloak works atm)
Frenzy = if you are good at fighting and dodging you can stay a little longer in combat, but is more risky than carapace. (+ you also need to go back healing)
The amount of health you get from a frenzy kill shouldnt be affected by the dmg of the killing blow. (there are lots of possibilities to make this more balanced for every lifeform, or we could think of something completely different)
You are basically forcing every alien to go carapace, frenzy, regeneration atm - its crazy that you can do that. (stacking defense upgrades, swarm and cloak are not even close as usefull)
Frenzy and regeneration might need a little buff / change how it works.
Carapapce = more effective health, but you need to go back healing
Regeneration = the middle thing of both, gives you a little more effective health(if permanent passive regeneration) and doesnt take you out of combat for as long, or doesnt give you more effective health - but saves you a lot of time you would waste by going back healing. (just go around a save corner and let the magic fill you up again, kinda like cloak works atm)
Frenzy = if you are good at fighting and dodging you can stay a little longer in combat, but is more risky than carapace. (+ you also need to go back healing)
The amount of health you get from a frenzy kill shouldnt be affected by the dmg of the killing blow. (there are lots of possibilities to make this more balanced for every lifeform, or we could think of something completely different)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are missing the point, Frenzy is the thing making the fades overpowered, they can stay and swipe down marines for way too long because of it. To be honest, it's not just the fades it affects, also other lifeforms, in it's current form, just most evident on fades as they have most HP.
Its not really about the other upgrades. Try reading my previous post again.
Also frenzy is not on the same chamber as regen and cara anyway.
Its not really about the other upgrades. Try reading my previous post again.
Also frenzy is not on the same chamber as regen and cara anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm <b>not</b> missing the point, <u>i'm making a different suggestion.</u>
If you dont see the synergy between frenzy + carapace + regeneration i cant help you.
Also if you read more than MY first sentence, i said it might need a little tweaking - and if we are not able to do that right - a different ability. (which means removing frenzy the way it works now)
(Frenzy is increasing you staying power, while it isnt the same chamber yet, it should be - sry, i will be extra correct next time)
Now tell me what is wrong with my suggestion? - I think it would be nice that you should choose what fits your playstyle/or what you think fits the lifeform best again. And that you cant just even out weaknesses of one upgrade with another one. (making crazy good combos)
Note: Again, might need some buffs or changes to get those upgrades en par in their own way. (with their unique up and downsides)
But frenzy is overpowered, and we need to change the way it works, drastically.
As for high HP lifeforms, it increases their staying power way too much in case that they are the ones to do the last dmg on the marine.
If you just do nothing but move it to the Shell, you will have to chose between regen/staying power(carapace)/better staying power(frenzy).
Look at the upgrades in ns1, they all had up and downsides, and they were all very different, so the choices were very situational.
Regen/carapace/redemption. All worked very differently, and they were trade offs for each other, which I liked.
Carapace and frenzy basicly does the same thing(staying power), the only difference would be that frenzy requires you to do the last hit on marines to get your staying power.
That's why I don't think that your idea will work.
Although I agree that you shouldn't be able to take more than one ability from each chamber(alá NS1).
I would like this also.
I think I suggested this awhile back saying we should vote for Commanders and then start the game.
It was shot down with "We have the ready room".
I'll take it further and say it would be better if the commander started in the Command Chair.
Sure they can eject and someone else can get in but start them in the command chair.
It would set the 'organized' tone for this game for new players.
It force someone into the commander seat from the beginning.
Balance is a whole, it can't be seen as a part vs another part, it is seen when you take everything from both sides and they weigh the same.
Balance is not making every part equal.
Dynamics are created when parts are unequal but the whole is.
Internal pressure to hold things together. Like in the construction of a violin, the parts have applied pressure before they are assembled, and once they are put together the tension is released among the parts and the whole holds together.
The game should create unbalance but give the tools to shift the balance around. Reward the active, those who shift balance in their favor.
Look at a game of chess. The only balanced moment is before the game starts, from the moment you move a piece you create imbalance. Then starts a game of fighting for the control of balance.
Statistics are an illusion. They can't say what really needs to be learned. You would need balanced players of exact equal capacities to be able to use statistics. Look at where economy and politics are going now that they use statistics. They don't care about the life of things anymore and experience the world through a key hole. Politicians care about their statistics and give false promises only to tweak their numbers. Economists see labor as a merchandise and the state of being of the worker is irrelevant.
I could go on and on about these things and go off topic but that is enough for now about the illusions of our contemporary world :p
Experience is the father of all, awareness the mother. Live things if you want to understand them. Experiencing through a filter of statistics can only make you understand numbers, not what the experience is about.
And I think statistics is the best tool we have to understand what is going on. There are so many factors in any individual game, like the varying skills of the individual players for one, that each and every person has a different "experience" of how things are balanced.
For example, one might experience an unbalanced situation if say, one felt hopeless as a skulk vs marines early game. This feeling would be due to one's brain processing the aggregate expectations of a skulk vs rine from all the experiences of that situation one had. In essence, the feeling is a crude statistic.
Thus, statistics give us a concrete measure of outcomes of the game. It turns out you don't need identical players on each team to use statistics. Exact models are not required when you are using a large enough dataset, such that the variances average out. Ex, it is just as likely for the players on marines to be overall more skilled as it is for aliens to be more skilled. Given 1000 games, it will be close to half that are marine sided skill wise, and half alien sided, so any differences in team skill averages out.
I think we need MORE statistics, especially related to tactical aspects, like how many structures placed, what tech paths chosen, etc. Or for map balance: percent of games lost when aliens started at hive x, and so on.
4 bite kills = terrible. there better be a focus-like upgrade or something.