<!--quoteo(post=1989472:date=Oct 10 2012, 08:07 PM:name=Zeikko)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zeikko @ Oct 10 2012, 08:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989472"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The game mechanics just haven't improved in a pace i was hoping. Maybe i have been too optimistic and haven't realized how much work there is to make the game actually work technically so that it can be even released. The recent competitive events have given more hope as I thought they would force UWE to focus on the design and mechanics of the game. Now after couple of events very little has happened and many things have actually gone worse. Also reading and listening some recent statements by UWE regarding some gameplay mechanics and UWE's relationship with the whole competitive gaming are making me to think twice to spend any more time with the game.
As I said earlier i think the game is very shallow and stale currently. It has very lot of potential to be a great game with a lot of replayability and competitive potential, but it has neither really. The only hope I have is that after releasing the game UWE will take a whole different view how to improve the game design, core mechanics, balance and get the feedback loop working. If that doesn't happen soon I don't think the game will reach the potential it has and I think I will find a new game to play competitively or a totally new hobby.
Just my 20 cents.
Thanks for reading<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Reading this entire thread would really give someone the impression that the game is falling apart.
Once they get their internet back, I wonder if UWE will poke their head in here and provide a comment or two.
<!--quoteo(post=1989480:date=Oct 10 2012, 04:25 PM:name=Jed142)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jed142 @ Oct 10 2012, 04:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989480"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In my experience on Australian pub servers, Aliens win at least 70-80% of the time and I feel that Aliens have the advantage in certain areas. I think the basis of the 'balance issues' come from experience and fps/rts history. I myself come from BF3 (as mentioned earlier) and I feel I suck as marines, mainly because the interactions with the enemy is so different along with the environment, tight hallways with numerous obstacles. AIM is an issue! I feel as thought there needs to be a tutorial to introduce those standard fps players to NS2 or maybe a few more tips. such as "keep your distance from enemy, stay in groups, cover your mans feet, conserve your ammo(dont spam), check map, listen. Mainly in early and late game I feel aliens have the advantage: 1. quickly form groups without need for commander assistance. 2. speed. mobility and agility. Jumping , using walls, retreating then celerity then leap.. 3. onos sprint ? (maybe another issue altogether) fade blink, lerk... 4. aliens get close to your =gg? 5. marines cant shoot through each other harder.
With marines I feel that every 'push' or advance is more risky than an alien push.
I feel like I have soo much more to say however it probably doesn't matter, each build will change the argument? plus maybe us aussies have better alien commanders that marines, plus this is on an 18 player server probs heaps difference on 24 player server. larger marine groups would probably be stronger.
edit: but i still love the game! keep it up! cant wait for release :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well you said it yourself, "AIM". That's how you win as a marine, it only takes about half a magazine to kill a skulk without carapace if you don't miss. It's just a matter of skill and experience, once the game is released and there is some completely new blood in the game things will be a bit different. I play on some servers where I can pull scores as a marine in the 50's with only a few deaths. Some servers I barely keep an even ratio. It's just about skill and who you're up against.
<!--quoteo(post=1989485:date=Oct 11 2012, 11:32 AM:name=Davil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Davil @ Oct 11 2012, 11:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989485"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well you said it yourself, "AIM". That's how you win as a marine, it only takes about half a magazine to kill a skulk without carapace if you don't miss. It's just a matter of skill and experience, once the game is released and there is some completely new blood in the game things will be a bit different. I play on some servers where I can pull scores as a marine in the 50's with only a few deaths. Some servers I barely keep an even ratio. It's just about skill and who you're up against.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah true. if you get a few epic marine players it can be gg. I try to play marine as much as I can for practice. I need it haha!
<!--quoteo(post=1989486:date=Oct 10 2012, 04:35 PM:name=Jed142)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jed142 @ Oct 10 2012, 04:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989486"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah true. if you get a few epic marine players it can be gg. I try to play marine as much as I can for practice. I need it haha!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mouse sensitivity is your friend, it helps out tremendously at countering the "holy ######" factor you get when something comes flying at you. The rest is just mental conditioning so you learn to take a breath and aim instead of firing frantically.
Well, to be fair, designing a game can very well be a one man job, balancing it afterwards however, certainly for a game that wants to be competitive, certainly should not. I'm giving UWE the benefit of the doubt, since it hasn't yet been released and I trust some big balance changes ARE still going to take place. That's not to say I entirely agree with the game from a design perspective, though truth be told it's hard to get a proper view on WHAT exactly that design is at times, i.e the vision Charlie has for this game. I know there were design documents but looking at the majority of them would give you the impression that this game ended up being different from what charlie envisioned, lol. Not to mention that there's simply some glaring inconsistencies between some of the design objectives underlying many of the game's features.
For the sake of this game's future, a small group over one person balancing it is definitely a must, provided you can find a group of individuals that are entirely on level on how they see the game... To me it seems like a lot of competitive players in particular profoundly disagree with some fundamental design aspects of the game, rather than with balance of it all (Or in any case with both). But I fear that the design of this game isn't going to dramatically improve post-release, meaning that many of the players who feel that way will just have to 'suck it up' and go play NS2C or some other mod if they don't like vanilla. (Which would be a real tragedy really)
Lastly, didn't Charlie change lerk gas to T2 because of Fana? I mean, it seems like the change was heavily inspired by his suggestions. So to state that competitive players are not being heard whatsoever is in my opinion a little bit of an exaggeration. As with many of these suggestions though, Charlie seems to have implemented them with a 'spin', which arguably ends up making them worse than the original suggestion, lol. (Not to mention that there are a few things that he simply does not 'see', like how problematic for example the second hive onos egg can be, both in pub as well as competitive play)
<!--quoteo(post=1989370:date=Oct 10 2012, 01:16 PM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Oct 10 2012, 01:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989370"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Community members like myself have organised leagues, played for their country, lead clans to league champions, helped farm teams in their spare time, casted games, written articles, moderated forums, hosted servers, given copious amounts of feedback and played the franchise for almost a decade. Stop making me waste my time justifying why i'm credible, especially when i'm not even arguing that I am (even though I am). I can think of far better equipped people than myself with far more motivation who UWE would do well to exploit as the assets they are.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While that may all be true, your post came off as if you have better direction for the game. They specifically said they would support competitive play. If people are playing matches then they will continue to help it grow. In their recent Dev QA they said they weren't going to try and push it to be an esport, yet there's obviously people who enjoy it enough to play it competitively now. You also referenced NS1 as if it was balanced in any way at release, that example doesn't work. It took a lot of tweaks to get it where it was, as I'm sure you know. But, I guess I need to repeat it since you used NS1 as an example of a balance process. Were you playing NS1 from 1.0?
Your anecdotal evidence that Charlie ignores testers feedback is hardly credible with zero examples. The game just reached a near feature complete stage, now it has to be balanced. I'm not going to act like it is balanced right now, but it's obviously much closer than it has been previously. Acting as if they are taking massive steps backwards seems like a knee-jerk NS1 vet reaction. This is a new game, it's being developed for a wider audience if they can capture it.
I really don't see how you are in the position to say UWE can't make informed balance decisions. Just because you have made a bunch of posts about the game, moderated forums and given feedback... none of this qualifies you to make that kind of statement.
edit: It's also amusing all the things people fabricate about how changes are made. Like they know exactly how the balance changes are decided. Shine on armchair game devs.
<!--quoteo(post=1989464:date=Oct 10 2012, 04:43 PM:name=Daphisto)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Daphisto @ Oct 10 2012, 04:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989464"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I do kind of feel the same way that you describe. Sort of like they are throwing putty at a wall and seeing what sticks, rather than knowing what they want to do and executing it. Or maybe a combination of the two.
Either way, it seems like there are a lot of people that feel this way of designing isn't working well and the people want change because they love the idea of NS2. :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Frankly, throwing against the wall is one of the best ways to iterate for gameplay, especially for an area so untrodden as FPS/RTS. You don't have stringent guidelines on what will and won't work, and every minute adjustment completely alters the mesh of gameplay.
You just don't see it being used on public beta builds. I happen to know the League of Legends crew are constantly iterating over kits and design for their champions, usually making almost every member of the company try them out and have a hand in their design. You just see the finished kit and minor tweaks to the values.
So, it's a combination of having a vision, a strong sense of theorycrafting good design, but also getting feedback from lots of views so you know when you've found the perfect solution. It's a huge balancing act.
That was like the best sh*t I´ve read from you Zeikko. Really wow. I also think Tweadles post was very good, as usual. Its very disturbing to hear UWE talk about how open they are and how much feedback they take in, but it just doesnt seem to be true. Sometimes I think "well perhaps Charlie is listening to alot of ppl, its just not me and perhaps we just ask for waaay too much." But I still havent found those the people.
The state of the competativ scene seems to be looping. 1. we play pcws, we get some casters, the scene grows stronger, 2. we get our hopes up, (again for the 5th time) 3. we start weekend streams or tournaments, we get alot of new teams, 4. we go out on forums telling we have lots of fun but that gameplay is bad, 5. we arent listened to, but we keep on playing, cus we still beleive it gets better soon, 5. the tone gets more and more frustrated, but we keep on playing which makes UWE dont realize how bad game state is, 6. we start making posts telling that we are fed up again, 7. we stop playing. 8. We wait for 3 months, Then out of a sudden we play a pcw again and then the loop starts again
I think we are on 5 or 6 now. So far we have been junkies, coming back everytime. I wonder if this loop is endless..
ZeikkoJoin Date: 2007-12-16Member: 63179Members, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester
<!--quoteo(post=1989565:date=Oct 11 2012, 07:10 AM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ Oct 11 2012, 07:10 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989565"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Frankly, throwing against the wall is one of the best ways to iterate for gameplay, especially for an area so untrodden as FPS/RTS. You don't have stringent guidelines on what will and won't work, and every minute adjustment completely alters the mesh of gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's nothing wrong at iterating. But it feels like not much has been learned from the stuff previously thrown at the wall (in the development of NS & NS2) and that not much attention is being paid to see what sticks and what doesn't. Many times during the development i've felt that great features have been removed or changed to much worse. But then again it's just my subjective opinion.
<!--quoteo(post=1989499:date=Oct 11 2012, 03:28 AM:name=Jonp_11)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jonp_11 @ Oct 11 2012, 03:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989499"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They specifically said they would support competitive play. If people are playing matches then they will continue to help it grow. In their recent Dev QA they said they weren't going to try and push it to be an esport, yet there's obviously people who enjoy it enough to play it competitively now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
UWE is definitely doing great job at supporting competitive play in terms of casting, hosting tournaments, etc. Great job! If this didn't happen i probably would have stopped playing the game long time ago. But it's quite sad to see all the sweat, tears and hard work go down the drain because the game is not fun to play on high level. It just lacks the depth it could potentially have.
<!--quoteo(post=1989499:date=Oct 11 2012, 03:28 AM:name=Jonp_11)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jonp_11 @ Oct 11 2012, 03:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989499"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You also referenced NS1 as if it was balanced in any way at release, that example doesn't work. It took a lot of tweaks to get it where it was, as I'm sure you know. But, I guess I need to repeat it since you used NS1 as an example of a balance process. Were you playing NS1 from 1.0?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NS1 one was a mod. It didn't need to be balanced on release because it was not going to be judged as a standalone games are on release. There were also no prize tournaments, competitive teams or anything like that in the release.
NS2 is a great game, but as it stands I dont see myself playing it for long time like NS1 or Starcraft or DotA.
It is really cool to have tournaments, casts, prizes etc. However I personally believe that NS2 competitive would benefit more from proper gameplay changes in the long run.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited October 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1989600:date=Oct 11 2012, 09:38 AM:name=Zeikko)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zeikko @ Oct 11 2012, 09:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989600"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But it's quite sad to see all the sweat, tears and hard work go down the drain because the game is not fun to play on high level. It just lacks the depth it could potentially have.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I wouldn't go as far as to say that it isn't fun, but it is certainly less fun than it could be and can be very frustrating at times. Spending many hours on testing out new strategies, only to come to the same conclusion every time, that fast second hive-leap-onos is superior, can certainly be tiresome...
<!--quoteo(post=1989600:date=Oct 11 2012, 09:38 AM:name=Zeikko)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zeikko @ Oct 11 2012, 09:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989600"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS1 one was a mod. It didn't need to be balanced on release because it was not going to be judged as a standalone games are on release. There were also no prize tournaments, competitive teams or anything like that in the release.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, NS1 was a good enough game that it didn't need big tournaments to get people to play competitive -- it just happened. The early versions had many problems, but the fundamental gameplay mechanics (skulk vs. lmg, for example) were always solid. My observations so far have been that NS2 is inferior in many of the fundamental gameplay mechanics that made NS1 so successful (compared to its relatively modest-size community) for competitive play.
Organizing events is a great way to boost a community, and kudos to UWE for that, but a lasting community must grow organically from the merits of the game's gameplay.
I agree with Imbalanxd, that comp-players play the game on another level that make them able to balance the game for comp matches. That doesn't mean they can balance the game for pubs. Or even make it a fun experience for the people who play just for fun and without 100% perfect coordination. (Watch out! I don't wrote they are unable to do this. The second just does not conclude from the first.) Sure, they play it much more. That let them experience at which point the gameplay gets stale and repetitive. But that is nothing that can't be balanced with some time.
To get back to the original topic and where I not agree with Imbalanxd is this: <!--quoteo(post=1989267:date=Oct 10 2012, 04:54 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ Oct 10 2012, 04:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989267"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They rely almost entirely on using their speed as a means to avoid the enemy and attack undefended locations. That's fine, NS1 was the same.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not that it wasn't that way in NS1. No. I just say, that this is a very boring approach on the game mechanic that is: The battle between the default alien and the default marine. Skulks shouldn't be forced to avoid battle and instead boringly chew on RTs. Skulk vs Marine should be a fair, equal and fun battle. It is the main part of the game (=what is played the most time) and should decided by skill. Not by: "Skulks are weaker than marines." The direction the devs seam to head with underpowering the skulk in the default vanilla battles, will make the game boring on the long run. Just my 2 cent.
<!--quoteo(post=1989600:date=Oct 11 2012, 09:38 AM:name=Zeikko)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zeikko @ Oct 11 2012, 09:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989600"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's nothing wrong at iterating. But it feels like not much has been learned from the stuff previously thrown at the wall (in the development of NS & NS2) and that not much attention is being paid to see what sticks and what doesn't. Many times during the development i've felt that great features have been removed or changed to much worse. But then again it's just my subjective opinion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I can very much second this.
Also, you really need to understand the consequences of a decision even if it started with little more than a guess and throwing things to the wall. There's a plenty of band aid and exceptions of an exception in the game because we've build on top of things that don't necessary end up sticking properly in the long run.
Balancing the game for public and competitive are the same thing. Bad gameplay mechanics are always bad gameplay mechanics. Bad balance is always bad balance, etc.
"There's a plenty of band aid and exceptions of an exception in the game because we've build on top of things that don't necessary end up sticking properly in the long run."
This. It's been band aid over band aid for too damn long.
<!--quoteo(post=1989623:date=Oct 11 2012, 11:37 AM:name=wiry)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (wiry @ Oct 11 2012, 11:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989623"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Balancing the game for public and competitive are the same thing. Bad gameplay mechanics are always bad gameplay mechanics. Bad balance is always bad balance, etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No they are not, to realize that you have to realize that even the holy grail of "balance" is not an simple matter of comparing numbers. Balance is a very subjective thing just like "bad gameplay mechanics" is a very subjective label. Most obvious example: Onos devour, some people think it's an unique fun gameplay mechanic while others keep arguing about how "broken" it is in terms of balance theorycrafting.
Also keep in mind that comp and public play have very different approaches and player motivations. A competitive team/player does not care if game mechanics are not obvious/intuitive/explained in the game. He goes out of his way to either: A) Test this stuff B) Look it up on the web C) Communicate with other players to share what he found out and what they found out.
You know what a public player will do with unintuitive and cryptic gameplay mechanics? He will ignore them, he will consider them broken and in the end he will consider the game broken. Most players are lazy, they expect the game to come at them and teach them stuff. That's the polar opposite approach of an Play to Win competitive players mindset, he dislikes hand holding (teaching) as it removes the advantage of discovering stuff yourself.
This myth of "just having a balanced game will make it fun" is just that, a myth. Or do people honestly believe that the SC comp. scene got as big as it is because the game had simply been "balanced"? No it has not, the game wasn't balanced out of the box and without it's splendid Singleplayer experience and casual MP playing options trough custom maps (due to easy to use tools), the game would never have gotten such an massive playerbase to support that massive competitive scene in the first place.
In many cases the "perfect comp. balance" can actually be counter intuitive to a "fun experience". In a comp. setting you want equal rules for both teams, no handouts for the weaker team. But in an public setting having such "handouts" can make the difference between a broken experience and a fun one.
This is something I have thought about a little as well, seeing all the upcoming tournaments etc. I feel like it doesn't matter how much money and prizes you throw at a game, if the game sucks then the competitive scene will stay small. You need to have a great game first before having great tournaments.
I think the best thing NS2 has going for it though is the mod-ability of the spark engine. In other games if you don't like the movement mechanics then tough ######, but in spark you can change them to exactly how you want them. I believe that NS2s competitive future will come from modding to create a game with some more skill based and rewarding mechanics. I don't think UWE will ever make a game that the competitive community is happy with, unless they incorporate many things from mods into it.
I do think NS2 has a lot of potential. It is actually pretty good to spectate with the sky cam, you get a nice overview of the action and since one team is mostly melee you don't even need first person view to understand what's going on. For me the gameplay is just lacking at the moment and not very interesting to play for any period of time, but hopefully that will change in the future either from UWE or from mods.
<!--quoteo(post=1989661:date=Oct 11 2012, 02:36 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 11 2012, 02:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989661"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No they are not, to realize that you have to realize that even the holy grail of "balance" is not an simple matter of comparing numbers. Balance is a very subjective thing just like "bad gameplay mechanics" is a very subjective label. Most obvious example: Onos devour, some people think it's an unique fun gameplay mechanic while others keep arguing about how "broken" it is in terms of balance theorycrafting.
Also keep in mind that comp and public play have very different approaches and player motivations. A competitive team/player does not care if game mechanics are not obvious/intuitive/explained in the game. He goes out of his way to either: A) Test this stuff B) Look it up on the web C) Communicate with other players to share what he found out and what they found out.
You know what a public player will do with unintuitive and cryptic gameplay mechanics? He will ignore them, he will consider them broken and in the end he will consider the game broken. Most players are lazy, they expect the game to come at them and teach them stuff. That's the polar opposite approach of an Play to Win competitive players mindset, he dislikes hand holding (teaching) as it removes the advantage of discovering stuff yourself.
This myth of "just having a balanced game will make it fun" is just that, a myth. Or do people honestly believe that the SC comp. scene got as big as it is because the game had simply been "balanced"? No it has not, the game wasn't balanced out of the box and without it's splendid Singleplayer experience and casual MP playing options trough custom maps (due to easy to use tools), the game would never have gotten such an massive playerbase to support that massive competitive scene in the first place.
In many cases the "perfect comp. balance" can actually be counter intuitive to a "fun experience". In a comp. setting you want equal rules for both teams, no handouts for the weaker team. But in an public setting having such "handouts" can make the difference between a broken experience and a fun one.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see what hand holding and "hand outs" as you call them have to do with balance in a public vs competitive environment. I think you are mistaken balance for game play. If something is clearly overpowered, for example the onos has been quite strong this patch. Say we buff the hp on it with another 50% just for the sake of argument. Would that be fun in a public environment? The answer is the same for a competitive environment. Broken gameplay mechanics and balance are of upmost importance.
And I don't even see how you can compare NS2 with SC2, a game that not only has an enourmous following and development team. But also near perfect balance and gameplay mechanics. Do you think players would play SC2 if the gameplay mechanics and balance was bad? In that case I guess you can try out and see how active and well the Command and Conquer 3 community is doing.
JektJoin Date: 2012-02-05Member: 143714Members, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow
More interesting gameplay is already here in the form of current gameplay mods. I believe that's where the future will be for this game, competitively and casually - outside of the initial appeal of seeing through a mouth.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited October 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1989661:date=Oct 11 2012, 01:36 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 11 2012, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989661"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Balance is a very subjective thing just like "bad gameplay mechanics" is a very subjective label.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Just because you can define balance as a subjective value, doesn't mean that it should be, nor that it is even natural to do so. If balance is defined as a question of "Given that both teams have equally skilled players, does team A and team B have an equal chance at winning the game?", then the answer can be a number, if you have access to gameplay statistics, which is an entirely objective value.
Of course, there are other relevant criteria for making a good game as well, that have nothing to do with balance. A game can be perfectly balanced, but still not be any fun to play; both in a public and competitive setting. Some of these other criteria can be entirely subjective. For example, a game where the outcome is decided entirely by a random die throw, would be perfectly balanced, and a lot of people enjoy such games, but I find them frustrating and boring, regardless of what setting they are played in. I prefer games where my actions influence my chance at success; that is a subjective criteria.
<!--quoteo(post=1989661:date=Oct 11 2012, 01:36 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 11 2012, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989661"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also keep in mind that comp and public play have very different approaches and player motivations. A competitive team/player does not care if game mechanics are not obvious/intuitive/explained in the game. He goes out of his way to either: A) Test this stuff B) Look it up on the web C) Communicate with other players to share what he found out and what they found out.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is pretty much irrelevant. Competitive play is not hurt in any way by game mechanics being obvious/intuitive/explained in the game. Bunnyhopping, for example, could easily be made rather obvious/intuitive/explained in the game, without hurting its skill-scaling function in competitive play.
<!--quoteo(post=1989661:date=Oct 11 2012, 01:36 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 11 2012, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989661"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You know what a public player will do with unintuitive and cryptic gameplay mechanics? He will ignore them, he will consider them broken and in the end he will consider the game broken. Most players are lazy, they expect the game to come at them and teach them stuff. That's the polar opposite approach of an Play to Win competitive players mindset, he dislikes hand holding (teaching) as it removes the advantage of discovering stuff yourself.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I have no idea who this "Play to Win competitive player" you're describing to is, but I've never met him. Unintuitive and cryptic gameplay mechanics are poor game design, regardless of how you play the game. Personally, I'd prefer for all the information on gameplay mechanics to be equally available and accessible to anyone. Competitive play is not about being the only one know to know about a mechanic, it's about being the best at using a mechanic.
<!--quoteo(post=1989661:date=Oct 11 2012, 01:36 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 11 2012, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989661"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This myth of "just having a balanced game will make it fun" is just that, a myth. Or do people honestly believe that the SC comp. scene got as big as it is because the game had simply been "balanced"? No it has not, the game wasn't balanced out of the box and without it's splendid Singleplayer experience and casual MP playing options trough custom maps (due to easy to use tools), the game would never have gotten such an massive playerbase to support that massive competitive scene in the first place.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The StarCraft comp scene got as big as it is because a great game for both competitive and public play. So why don't we try to do the same with NS2?
As for casual play, NS2 is designed to be easily moddable, which is the equivalent to custom maps in StarCraft. I don't see how this has anything to do with balancing the main game.
<!--quoteo(post=1989684:date=Oct 11 2012, 03:10 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 11 2012, 03:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989684"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just because you can define balance as a subjective value, doesn't mean that it should be, nor that it is even natural to do so. If balance is defined as a question of "Given that both teams have equally skilled players, does team A and team B have an equal chance at winning the game?", then the answer can be a number, if you have access to gameplay statistics, which is an entirely objective value.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the case of asymmetric teams and gameplay mechanics, the majority of balance boils down to "guess work". If you have symmetric teams, maps and mechanics then balance is a simple matter of making the numbers even. Notice how that does not involve any kind of "if all players are equally skilled" guess work, simply because it's an poor value to index performance around. Putting "playerskill" in a measurable and comparable number is no small or easy task and it grows more complicated (and impossible) as the possible actions of a player increase at any given moment (because this increases to overall complexity of possible outcomes). That's why in a real balanced environment you leave out player skill out of the calculation by assuming all involved players share the same amount of knowledge about gameplay mechanics and how to use them (all players having hit skill ceiling).
<!--quoteo(post=1989684:date=Oct 11 2012, 03:10 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 11 2012, 03:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989684"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Of course, there are other relevant criteria for making a good game as well, that have nothing to do with balance. A game can be perfectly balanced, but still not be any fun to play; both in a public and competitive setting. Some of these other criteria can be entirely subjective. For example, a game where the outcome is decided entirely by a random die throw, would be perfectly balanced, and a lot of people enjoy such games, but I find them frustrating and boring, regardless of what setting they are played in. I prefer games where my actions influence my chance at success; that is a subjective criteria.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But a game can still be fun even if it's not initially "balanced" in an fair/obvious way, it all depends on the game and the mindeset of the players. If a game is simply fun messing around with (regardless of a loss/win at the end of the round) people won't perceive much imbalance and certainly not much about meta game imbalances. You just need to give players other motivations to play besides "winning the round" (See CoD and it's introduction of RPG style unlocks, CS introduction of objective based gameplay coupled with resource management) Yes even that is subjective just like "fun" is a very subjective concept. But there are many modern lessons to be learned from that. You may dislike RNG because it makes things unpredictable (RNG does not automatically make player choices irrelevant), but it's exactly that kind of randomness that often ends up adding spice to the whole mix.
If you don't mind this, your game will become predictable and boring in another awkward way. It's because of this inherit predictability that many professional Chess-players these days prefer to play by rulesets that allow for a certain degree of randomization like Chess960. Because Classical Chess these days mostly boils down to memorizing all the possible outcomes with regular starting positions. It's basically a game of "who can memorize the most moves in advance", instead of making the players adapt and react to the situations, players are mostly looking at moves and go "The next logical step is to go here" without much thinking or dynamic to the gameplay.
As such RNG is not automatically bad or removes impact of player choices, it's all about how to implement that RNG part. In the end you could have lot's of gameplay revolving around RNG as long as you give players enough options and mechanics to shift the RNG generation in a certain direction, that way players choices still matter and have measurable and predictable consequences impact the overall course of the game.
<!--quoteo(post=1989684:date=Oct 11 2012, 03:10 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 11 2012, 03:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989684"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is pretty much irrelevant. Competitive play is not hurt in any way by game mechanics being obvious/intuitive/explained in the game. Bunnyhopping, for example, could easily be made rather obvious/intuitive/explained in the game, without hurting its skill-scaling function in competitive play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Imho it has been and is always relevant, there have been tons of discussions and suggestions that got shut down because people saw an inherit imbalance in competitive play with them, so we didn't even try to go that route. It has happened more than once that "comp balance" and "crazy game mechanics" have been weighted against each other and the latter lost out simply because the competitive crowd is the more organized and louder one to lobby against such changes.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have no idea who this "Play to Win competitive player" you're describing to is, but I've never met him. Unintuitive and cryptic gameplay mechanics are poor game design, regardless of how you play the game. Personally, I'd prefer for all the information on gameplay mechanics to be equally available and accessible to anyone. Competitive play is not about being the only one know to know about a mechanic, it's about being the best at using a mechanic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Every competitive player is a "Play to Win" player, it all boils down to players motivation and mindset. An "PtW" player does not mind doing repetitive/boring tasks as he knows the long term implications of his actions. On the other hand an "Play for Fun" player is more likely to look for mechanics that deliver instant gratification without bothering much about the long term consequences of said actions (either because he can't understand them yet or because he simply does not care).
That's why competitive players are more likely to put up with complicated game design involving a high learning curve, it's the polar opposite of somebody who just wants some "quick and dirty fun".
And if you assume that knowledge about mechanics is equal on all sides, then the obvious result would be that all players and teams play exactly the same way. (Sounds like a familiar problem? ;) ) Because there is a way to calculate the most efficient use of resources, once that way is discovered it gets abused until a valid counter strategy gets discovered. The problem starts if that "counter strategy" to the "optimal strategy" has no other use besides countering that specific "optimal strategy", if that other strategy can't stand on it's own you are boiling the meta game down to "They did this, so now we do that, that means they gonna do that, to which we gonna respond like this", it's the chess problem all over again.
To fix that you need complex and deep mechanics that keep everything dynamic, these make it more difficult to figure out the "optimal strategy" simply because of the involved complexity. So a certain obscurity to game mechanics is actually pretty important to prevent the game from just turning into one giant theorycraft fest.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The StarCraft comp scene got as big as it is because a great game for both competitive and public play. So why don't we try to do the same with NS2?
As for casual play, NS2 is designed to be easily moddable, which is the equivalent to custom maps in StarCraft. I don't see how this has anything to do with balancing the main game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like i wrote before: SC only managed to do that by offering valid ways to play for all kinds of players. If SC would have been released as an MP only game even with modding tools and only an "competitive XvX" mode i bet money it would have bombed big time. What made it successful had been the variety of gamplay it offered to the players that drew them in in the first place. SC could do it because it had the variety in gameplay modes out of the box, that's something NS2 does not have at all yet it still tries to be the jack of all trades in terms of gameplay and audience.
There are so many people out there that never even bothered with the competitive classic multiplayer of SC and instead spent all their time playing Tower Defense, DOTA-likes or Coop custom maps, add to that the number of players who only played the singleplayer because they considered the competitive multiplayer such a different game (Slow paced army/base building players vs min-maxing APM freaks).
Even NS1 had this fragmentation of the community into different playstyles, people only playing siege maps, later on people only playing combat mode. It adds variety to the gameplay and as such a higher chance to satisfy the subjective definitions of "fun" for different players.
Yes NS2 has mod support and that's something i'm certainly happy about, i still feel like the optimal route would have been to focus on "fun random public gameplay" and lock away additional values about balance in an separate "Competitive config". CS did it like that, NS1 did it like that, no reason not do to it in NS2 like that (besides the very vocal comp. scene). It certainly would have made it way easier to address balancing issues that directly relate to bigger team sizes and resource flow, it would have allowed for autobalancing mechanics that actually work and have an impact (handouts for weaker performing teams).
You can always "balance" a game in hindsight around a certain setup (6v6 comp. setting), it's what happens to the majority of games anyway and as such it's expected. But adding "fun" post-release is not only difficult but often ends up being pointless, when your game already has the reputation of being broken and not fun to play. Not saying that's the case with NS2, i just think the game could have gotten an way bigger initial footprint by catering to the basics that attract new players the most about the franchise.
RPS described it best in one of it's previews: Hunting down giant space cows with Flamerthrowers and Jetpacks, that's what makes NS stick out from other games. The "perfect competitive balance" is mostly a nostalgic footnote for former NS1 players but hardly a deal-breaker for new players coming to the franchise.
I think the game was in a great place in 219, except for the super strength of the fade. But even with that the game was still better. With the current hit registration and easy marine upgrades, I don't think that old fade would be as much of a problem.
Heres the dumbed down easy way to 'fix' the competitive game:
Back to 219 values. Keep the 221 Lerk. Keep the 221 cheap marine upgrades. Put full cost tres fade on 2 hive and onos on 3 hive. You now have a fantastic game.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited October 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1989733:date=Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989733"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->you leave out player skill out of the calculation by assuming all involved players share the same amount of knowledge about gameplay mechanics and how to use them<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is just another way of saying what I just said.
<!--quoteo(post=1989733:date=Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989733"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But a game can still be fun even if it's not initially "balanced" in an fair/obvious way, it all depends on the game and the mindeset of the players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It can be fun despite being unbalanced, not because it is unbalanced.
<!--quoteo(post=1989733:date=Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989733"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->(RNG does not automatically make player choices irrelevant)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you actually read the example I used, yes, it does make player choice irrelevant. Reply to the post that was posted, not the post you wish was posted.
<!--quoteo(post=1989733:date=Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989733"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you don't mind this, your game will become predictable and boring in another awkward way.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Player FPS skill, netcode, computer problems in the worst case scenario, and a million other factors all make NS2 inherently unpredictable in matches between reasonably evenly skilled teams.
<!--quoteo(post=1989733:date=Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989733"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Imho it has been and is always relevant, there have been tons of discussions and suggestions that got shut down because people saw an inherit imbalance in competitive play with them, so we didn't even try to go that route.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The argument for removing a feature is "this is not a good feature", and I'm sure that's what UWE's reasoning has been. It's irrelevant that somebody somewhere phrased it as "this is not a good feature for competitive play".
<!--quoteo(post=1989733:date=Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989733"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Every competitive player is a "Play to Win" player, it all boils down to players motivation and mindset. An "PtW" player does not mind doing repetitive/boring tasks as he knows the long term implications of his actions. On the other hand an "Play for Fun" player is more likely to look for mechanics that deliver instant gratification without bothering much about the long term consequences of said actions (either because he can't understand them yet or because he simply does not care).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> A good game manages to have non-repetitive, non-boring tasks that also have long term implications. Competitive players would always prefer that over the opposite, just like a public player. You're positing scenarios that simply make no sense.
<!--quoteo(post=1989733:date=Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989733"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To fix that you need complex and deep mechanics that keep everything dynamic, these make it more difficult to figure out the "optimal strategy" simply because of the involved complexity. So a certain obscurity to game mechanics is actually pretty important to prevent the game from just turning into one giant theorycraft fest.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> All the necessary obscurity is already inherent in the teamplay and FPS aspects of the game. This isn't chess, where you know that x move will always beat y move, this is a FPS/RTS blend, where, amazingly, the board pieces have a mind of their own, and where sometimes y move will beat x move, even though you'd expect it not to.
<!--quoteo(post=1989733:date=Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989733"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If SC would have been released as an MP only game even with modding tools and only an "competitive XvX" mode i bet money it would have bombed big time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Good thing then, that nobody is suggesting that it should be.
<!--quoteo(post=1989733:date=Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989733"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes NS2 has mod support and that's something i'm certainly happy about, i still feel like the optimal route would have been to focus on "fun random public gameplay" and lock away additional values about balance in an separate "Competitive config". CS did it like that, NS1 did it like that, no reason not do to it in NS2 like that (besides the very vocal comp. scene).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No idea what you're talking about here. Both CS and NS were played vanilla as far as balance is concerned.
<!--quoteo(post=1989733:date=Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989733"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->RPS described it best in one of it's previews: Hunting down giant space cows with Flamerthrowers and Jetpacks, that's what makes NS stick out from other games. The "perfect competitive balance" is mostly a nostalgic footnote for former NS1 players but hardly a deal-breaker for new players coming to the franchise.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That might make somebody buy the game, but it won't keep them playing it for years on end.
Just throwing in my 2 cents, NS1 was definately the best and only game I've ever played to actually get the FPS/RTS thing right. And honestly I think NS2 is carrying that forward. Balance issues are pretty much unable to be resolved in any competitive game unless the teams are perfectly symmetric. The only way to really see if something is unfair is to have perfectly evenly skilled players against each other in every situation. And that just isn't going to happen. The only way to get a very close balance is by making small changes which is what they do. If you completely change the game or how it's played then you start all over with the balance. NS1 was never perfect in everyone's opinion so I doubt this will be either.
<!--quoteo(post=1989804:date=Oct 11 2012, 11:09 AM:name=Davil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Davil @ Oct 11 2012, 11:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989804"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just throwing in my 2 cents, NS1 was definately the best and only game I've ever played to actually get the FPS/RTS thing right. And honestly I think NS2 is carrying that forward. Balance issues are pretty much unable to be resolved in any competitive game unless the teams are perfectly symmetric. The only way to really see if something is unfair is to have perfectly evenly skilled players against each other in every situation. And that just isn't going to happen. The only way to get a very close balance is by making small changes which is what they do. If you completely change the game or how it's played then you start all over with the balance. NS1 was never perfect in everyone's opinion so I doubt this will be either.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you for providing realistic feedback about this. It seems to be lost on many. Some seem to have to this idea that if it isn't done how they have it in their mind, then it's automatically wrong. This thread is truly hilarious to look at, the game isn't complete. It is being constantly tweaked but we get paragraphs about the terrible direction the game is taking. Or really whatever insane armchair game developer idea they've spent too much time distorting in their brain.
THIS GAME WILL TAKE A LOT OF BALANCE FIXES AND PATCHES. If you are freaking out about it now, welcome to beta testing video games. Especially ones done by an extremely tiny team, that are very complex and innovative.
<i>fanatic</i> seems to believe competitive players live in the same world, have the same mindset, as the average public player.
Both casual and competitive players would happily live in the same world, and the game would be so perfect, that someone who put 30 hours into a game would enjoy the experience just like someone who put 3 000 hours into it.
A player booting up his computer after school/work, looking for 2-3 hours of shooting at aliens/munching marines, would be like a player waking up at 8 am on Saturday for his team training.
A player using the flamethrower "because it's a cool weapon, burning stuff is so funny", is just like the player who know how much damages a pellet of a shotgun shell does.
A player morphing into Lerk because "flying in corridors and throwing gas on marines is hilarious" is the just like the player who knows the damage type of all Aliens attacks.
...
I've played more than an hundred of different multiplayer FPS (mostly mods), and had the chance of enjoying the competitive side of the coin on a few of them (not on NS though, sadly). I've only went to "high" levels of comp play on quite unknown mods, but still had the opportunity to find out about the difficulties in organizing matches on a worldwide scale (the latency, it hurts !).
And I almost never found a gameplay dynamic/mechanic working the same way in public plays and in competitive plays. The gameplay really change a lot, especially in terms of tactics and strategies, you're no longer "capturing a point" or "killing the enemy team", you're controlling very specific areas, holding vital choke-points, managing the timing of the round.
Suddenly tricking or surprising the other team is not a matter of timing and slightly-above-average skill, it's (mostly) a matter of chance (a risk & reward bet). Suddenly failing to perform decently at any moment results in an immediate lose, full of consequences on the game (due to the lose of an area, respawn and walking from base to front delay, lose of an opportunity, etc).
And yes, you have to "Play to Win" in competitive play, otherwise you're exposing your teammates to defeat just because you refused to follow the "rules". And the whole point of competitive play is mastering these rules, if you're "Playing For Fun" then tactics and roles have no meaning.
...
On NS2, a Marine not realizing he left his fellow teammates and wandering alone in a corridor is:
- a common mistake on public play, the rule more than the exception - a failure in comp play, the exception more than the rule
- offering an easy kill to the Alien team on public play - preventing his teammates from launching the planned assault and RT room capture on comp play, delaying that plan for 30 vital seconds
- encouraging the nearby Aliens nearby to attack further ("whee we're the best !") on public play - sending a strong signal to the Alien team: "there's only 3 in the Generator Room now, 1 is respawning in Server Room, ok let's storm the Satellite Control while Joe harass the Generator Room and prevent them from moving further"
...
In comp play, there isn't any ignorance of the rules, of the gameplay dynamics and mechanics. Everyone know how each upgrade/item/weapon/attack works and how they each cost. Just with that lack of ignorance, nobody's gonna misunderstand how a thing work and die from it.
While pubbers will keep falling for that ignorance, because they haven't bought the game to stare at a spreadsheet and make tactics with these data.
Same with players behaviors: - public play => a marine will sneak inside Aliens bases and solo some buildings with the hatchet, just to annoy the Comm, who will be yelling at Aliens players to go and defend the base. - comp play => a marine won't do that (unless it's really needed), because he perfectly knows only 1 or 2 players will have to turn back to the base to kill him, and they'll come immediately (and not with a 15-20 seconds delay, because the Comm can't get his troops to listen and obey)
...
That's why I think UWE, if it wants to have a solid competitive scene, need to make a competitive mode, along with a board featuring the designated speakers of all major clans of NS2, who will debate and write some recommendations regarding the competitive mode balance.
If they need to buff or nerf something, they'll be able to do it without having to worry about "pubbers" not getting it and turning most games into some cheap steamrolling stomping.
Like the Fade recent nerf: necessary for pub servers (when the experienced players aren't mass-joining the Marines to stomp noobs "for fun" :|, Fade are okay), it's far from being what the competitive players want (and need).
Two modes: competitive and public.
Otherwise, the game will either listen to the comp scene requests, and pubbers will stop playing it, emptying the pool of potential future comp players, or will listen to the pubbers, and the comp players will just give up on it, no point in trying to set up tactics on a game made for pubbers.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1990085:date=Oct 12 2012, 05:15 AM:name=Inspector Canardo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Inspector Canardo @ Oct 12 2012, 05:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990085"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><i>fanatic</i> seems to believe competitive players live in the same world, have the same mindset, as the average public player.
Both casual and competitive players would happily live in the same world, and the game would be so perfect, that someone who put 30 hours into a game would enjoy the experience just like someone who put 3 000 hours into it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Obviously a casual player will approach the game differently, play the game differently, enjoy different aspects of the game, and so forth, than a competitive player. This is, however, irrelevant to the discussion. There is no reason why a game can't cater to both sides. This has already been proved by hugely popular games like Counter-Strike, StarCraft and even Natural Selection. All of these titles have had public play and competitive play flourish under vanilla gameplay.
The rest of your post is just a repeat of the same theme; that public and competitive play is so different that the two can't exist in the same universe. Permit me to also repeat; that is rubbish. As long as the fundamental gameplay mechanics are properly designed, a game can appeal equally, or almost equally, to all players within a particular group (in NS2's case, primarily FPS gamers).
The only interesting, and difficult to solve, problem caused by different player "groups", is that of intermingling. When you have players of wildly differing skill levels playing against each other on the same servers, the experience is bound to be a frustrating one for many of the players on the low end of the skill spectrum. This isn't a game breaking problem, but some sort of matchmaking to alleviate the problem would be beneficial.
<!--quoteo(post=1990085:date=Oct 12 2012, 05:15 AM:name=Inspector Canardo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Inspector Canardo @ Oct 12 2012, 05:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990085"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And yes, you have to "Play to Win" in competitive play, otherwise you're exposing your teammates to defeat just because you refused to follow the "rules". And the whole point of competitive play is mastering these rules, if you're "Playing For Fun" then tactics and roles have no meaning.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You've missed my point entirely. I'd also advise you to be mindful of who it is you're discussing with. I can guarantee you that you don't want to try to lecture me on what is required to succeed in competitive play.
Comments
As I said earlier i think the game is very shallow and stale currently. It has very lot of potential to be a great game with a lot of replayability and competitive potential, but it has neither really. The only hope I have is that after releasing the game UWE will take a whole different view how to improve the game design, core mechanics, balance and get the feedback loop working. If that doesn't happen soon I don't think the game will reach the potential it has and I think I will find a new game to play competitively or a totally new hobby.
Just my 20 cents.
Thanks for reading<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Reading this entire thread would really give someone the impression that the game is falling apart.
Once they get their internet back, I wonder if UWE will poke their head in here and provide a comment or two.
I feel as thought there needs to be a tutorial to introduce those standard fps players to NS2 or maybe a few more tips. such as "keep your distance from enemy, stay in groups, cover your mans feet, conserve your ammo(dont spam), check map, listen.
Mainly in early and late game I feel aliens have the advantage:
1. quickly form groups without need for commander assistance.
2. speed. mobility and agility. Jumping , using walls, retreating then celerity then leap..
3. onos sprint ? (maybe another issue altogether) fade blink, lerk...
4. aliens get close to your =gg?
5. marines cant shoot through each other harder.
With marines I feel that every 'push' or advance is more risky than an alien push.
I feel like I have soo much more to say however it probably doesn't matter, each build will change the argument? plus maybe us aussies have better alien commanders that marines, plus this is on an 18 player server probs heaps difference on 24 player server. larger marine groups would probably be stronger.
edit: but i still love the game! keep it up! cant wait for release :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well you said it yourself, "AIM". That's how you win as a marine, it only takes about half a magazine to kill a skulk without carapace if you don't miss. It's just a matter of skill and experience, once the game is released and there is some completely new blood in the game things will be a bit different. I play on some servers where I can pull scores as a marine in the 50's with only a few deaths. Some servers I barely keep an even ratio. It's just about skill and who you're up against.
Yeah true. if you get a few epic marine players it can be gg. I try to play marine as much as I can for practice. I need it haha!
Mouse sensitivity is your friend, it helps out tremendously at countering the "holy ######" factor you get when something comes flying at you. The rest is just mental conditioning so you learn to take a breath and aim instead of firing frantically.
I'm giving UWE the benefit of the doubt, since it hasn't yet been released and I trust some big balance changes ARE still going to take place. That's not to say I entirely agree with the game from a design perspective, though truth be told it's hard to get a proper view on WHAT exactly that design is at times, i.e the vision Charlie has for this game. I know there were design documents but looking at the majority of them would give you the impression that this game ended up being different from what charlie envisioned, lol. Not to mention that there's simply some glaring inconsistencies between some of the design objectives underlying many of the game's features.
For the sake of this game's future, a small group over one person balancing it is definitely a must, provided you can find a group of individuals that are entirely on level on how they see the game... To me it seems like a lot of competitive players in particular profoundly disagree with some fundamental design aspects of the game, rather than with balance of it all (Or in any case with both). But I fear that the design of this game isn't going to dramatically improve post-release, meaning that many of the players who feel that way will just have to 'suck it up' and go play NS2C or some other mod if they don't like vanilla. (Which would be a real tragedy really)
Lastly, didn't Charlie change lerk gas to T2 because of Fana? I mean, it seems like the change was heavily inspired by his suggestions. So to state that competitive players are not being heard whatsoever is in my opinion a little bit of an exaggeration. As with many of these suggestions though, Charlie seems to have implemented them with a 'spin', which arguably ends up making them worse than the original suggestion, lol. (Not to mention that there are a few things that he simply does not 'see', like how problematic for example the second hive onos egg can be, both in pub as well as competitive play)
Big +1 to Zeikko by the way, great write-up.
While that may all be true, your post came off as if you have better direction for the game. They specifically said they would support competitive play. If people are playing matches then they will continue to help it grow. In their recent Dev QA they said they weren't going to try and push it to be an esport, yet there's obviously people who enjoy it enough to play it competitively now. You also referenced NS1 as if it was balanced in any way at release, that example doesn't work. It took a lot of tweaks to get it where it was, as I'm sure you know. But, I guess I need to repeat it since you used NS1 as an example of a balance process. Were you playing NS1 from 1.0?
Your anecdotal evidence that Charlie ignores testers feedback is hardly credible with zero examples. The game just reached a near feature complete stage, now it has to be balanced. I'm not going to act like it is balanced right now, but it's obviously much closer than it has been previously. Acting as if they are taking massive steps backwards seems like a knee-jerk NS1 vet reaction. This is a new game, it's being developed for a wider audience if they can capture it.
I really don't see how you are in the position to say UWE can't make informed balance decisions. Just because you have made a bunch of posts about the game, moderated forums and given feedback... none of this qualifies you to make that kind of statement.
edit: It's also amusing all the things people fabricate about how changes are made. Like they know exactly how the balance changes are decided. Shine on armchair game devs.
Either way, it seems like there are a lot of people that feel this way of designing isn't working well and the people want change because they love the idea of NS2. :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Frankly, throwing against the wall is one of the best ways to iterate for gameplay, especially for an area so untrodden as FPS/RTS. You don't have stringent guidelines on what will and won't work, and every minute adjustment completely alters the mesh of gameplay.
You just don't see it being used on public beta builds. I happen to know the League of Legends crew are constantly iterating over kits and design for their champions, usually making almost every member of the company try them out and have a hand in their design. You just see the finished kit and minor tweaks to the values.
So, it's a combination of having a vision, a strong sense of theorycrafting good design, but also getting feedback from lots of views so you know when you've found the perfect solution. It's a huge balancing act.
The state of the competativ scene seems to be looping.
1. we play pcws, we get some casters, the scene grows stronger,
2. we get our hopes up, (again for the 5th time)
3. we start weekend streams or tournaments, we get alot of new teams,
4. we go out on forums telling we have lots of fun but that gameplay is bad,
5. we arent listened to, but we keep on playing, cus we still beleive it gets better soon,
5. the tone gets more and more frustrated, but we keep on playing which makes UWE dont realize how bad game state is,
6. we start making posts telling that we are fed up again,
7. we stop playing.
8. We wait for 3 months,
Then out of a sudden we play a pcw again and then the loop starts again
I think we are on 5 or 6 now. So far we have been junkies, coming back everytime. I wonder if this loop is endless..
There's nothing wrong at iterating. But it feels like not much has been learned from the stuff previously thrown at the wall (in the development of NS & NS2) and that not much attention is being paid to see what sticks and what doesn't. Many times during the development i've felt that great features have been removed or changed to much worse. But then again it's just my subjective opinion.
<!--quoteo(post=1989499:date=Oct 11 2012, 03:28 AM:name=Jonp_11)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jonp_11 @ Oct 11 2012, 03:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989499"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They specifically said they would support competitive play. If people are playing matches then they will continue to help it grow. In their recent Dev QA they said they weren't going to try and push it to be an esport, yet there's obviously people who enjoy it enough to play it competitively now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
UWE is definitely doing great job at supporting competitive play in terms of casting, hosting tournaments, etc. Great job! If this didn't happen i probably would have stopped playing the game long time ago. But it's quite sad to see all the sweat, tears and hard work go down the drain because the game is not fun to play on high level. It just lacks the depth it could potentially have.
<!--quoteo(post=1989499:date=Oct 11 2012, 03:28 AM:name=Jonp_11)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jonp_11 @ Oct 11 2012, 03:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989499"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You also referenced NS1 as if it was balanced in any way at release, that example doesn't work. It took a lot of tweaks to get it where it was, as I'm sure you know. But, I guess I need to repeat it since you used NS1 as an example of a balance process. Were you playing NS1 from 1.0?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NS1 one was a mod. It didn't need to be balanced on release because it was not going to be judged as a standalone games are on release. There were also no prize tournaments, competitive teams or anything like that in the release.
It is really cool to have tournaments, casts, prizes etc. However I personally believe that NS2 competitive would benefit more from proper gameplay changes in the long run.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that it isn't fun, but it is certainly less fun than it could be and can be very frustrating at times. Spending many hours on testing out new strategies, only to come to the same conclusion every time, that fast second hive-leap-onos is superior, can certainly be tiresome...
<!--quoteo(post=1989600:date=Oct 11 2012, 09:38 AM:name=Zeikko)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zeikko @ Oct 11 2012, 09:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989600"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS1 one was a mod. It didn't need to be balanced on release because it was not going to be judged as a standalone games are on release. There were also no prize tournaments, competitive teams or anything like that in the release.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, NS1 was a good enough game that it didn't need big tournaments to get people to play competitive -- it just happened. The early versions had many problems, but the fundamental gameplay mechanics (skulk vs. lmg, for example) were always solid. My observations so far have been that NS2 is inferior in many of the fundamental gameplay mechanics that made NS1 so successful (compared to its relatively modest-size community) for competitive play.
Organizing events is a great way to boost a community, and kudos to UWE for that, but a lasting community must grow organically from the merits of the game's gameplay.
To get back to the original topic and where I not agree with Imbalanxd is this: <!--quoteo(post=1989267:date=Oct 10 2012, 04:54 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ Oct 10 2012, 04:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989267"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They rely almost entirely on using their speed as a means to avoid the enemy and attack undefended locations. That's fine, NS1 was the same.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not that it wasn't that way in NS1. No. I just say, that this is a very boring approach on the game mechanic that is: The battle between the default alien and the default marine. Skulks shouldn't be forced to avoid battle and instead boringly chew on RTs. Skulk vs Marine should be a fair, equal and fun battle. It is the main part of the game (=what is played the most time) and should decided by skill. Not by: "Skulks are weaker than marines." The direction the devs seam to head with underpowering the skulk in the default vanilla battles, will make the game boring on the long run. Just my 2 cent.
I can very much second this.
Also, you really need to understand the consequences of a decision even if it started with little more than a guess and throwing things to the wall. There's a plenty of band aid and exceptions of an exception in the game because we've build on top of things that don't necessary end up sticking properly in the long run.
"There's a plenty of band aid and exceptions of an exception in the game because we've build on top of things that don't necessary end up sticking properly in the long run."
This. It's been band aid over band aid for too damn long.
No they are not, to realize that you have to realize that even the holy grail of "balance" is not an simple matter of comparing numbers.
Balance is a very subjective thing just like "bad gameplay mechanics" is a very subjective label. Most obvious example: Onos devour, some people think it's an unique fun gameplay mechanic while others keep arguing about how "broken" it is in terms of balance theorycrafting.
Also keep in mind that comp and public play have very different approaches and player motivations.
A competitive team/player does not care if game mechanics are not obvious/intuitive/explained in the game. He goes out of his way to either: A) Test this stuff B) Look it up on the web C) Communicate with other players to share what he found out and what they found out.
You know what a public player will do with unintuitive and cryptic gameplay mechanics? He will ignore them, he will consider them broken and in the end he will consider the game broken. Most players are lazy, they expect the game to come at them and teach them stuff. That's the polar opposite approach of an Play to Win competitive players mindset, he dislikes hand holding (teaching) as it removes the advantage of discovering stuff yourself.
This myth of "just having a balanced game will make it fun" is just that, a myth.
Or do people honestly believe that the SC comp. scene got as big as it is because the game had simply been "balanced"? No it has not, the game wasn't balanced out of the box and without it's splendid Singleplayer experience and casual MP playing options trough custom maps (due to easy to use tools), the game would never have gotten such an massive playerbase to support that massive competitive scene in the first place.
In many cases the "perfect comp. balance" can actually be counter intuitive to a "fun experience". In a comp. setting you want equal rules for both teams, no handouts for the weaker team. But in an public setting having such "handouts" can make the difference between a broken experience and a fun one.
I think the best thing NS2 has going for it though is the mod-ability of the spark engine. In other games if you don't like the movement mechanics then tough ######, but in spark you can change them to exactly how you want them. I believe that NS2s competitive future will come from modding to create a game with some more skill based and rewarding mechanics. I don't think UWE will ever make a game that the competitive community is happy with, unless they incorporate many things from mods into it.
I do think NS2 has a lot of potential. It is actually pretty good to spectate with the sky cam, you get a nice overview of the action and since one team is mostly melee you don't even need first person view to understand what's going on. For me the gameplay is just lacking at the moment and not very interesting to play for any period of time, but hopefully that will change in the future either from UWE or from mods.
Balance is a very subjective thing just like "bad gameplay mechanics" is a very subjective label. Most obvious example: Onos devour, some people think it's an unique fun gameplay mechanic while others keep arguing about how "broken" it is in terms of balance theorycrafting.
Also keep in mind that comp and public play have very different approaches and player motivations.
A competitive team/player does not care if game mechanics are not obvious/intuitive/explained in the game. He goes out of his way to either: A) Test this stuff B) Look it up on the web C) Communicate with other players to share what he found out and what they found out.
You know what a public player will do with unintuitive and cryptic gameplay mechanics? He will ignore them, he will consider them broken and in the end he will consider the game broken. Most players are lazy, they expect the game to come at them and teach them stuff. That's the polar opposite approach of an Play to Win competitive players mindset, he dislikes hand holding (teaching) as it removes the advantage of discovering stuff yourself.
This myth of "just having a balanced game will make it fun" is just that, a myth.
Or do people honestly believe that the SC comp. scene got as big as it is because the game had simply been "balanced"? No it has not, the game wasn't balanced out of the box and without it's splendid Singleplayer experience and casual MP playing options trough custom maps (due to easy to use tools), the game would never have gotten such an massive playerbase to support that massive competitive scene in the first place.
In many cases the "perfect comp. balance" can actually be counter intuitive to a "fun experience". In a comp. setting you want equal rules for both teams, no handouts for the weaker team. But in an public setting having such "handouts" can make the difference between a broken experience and a fun one.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see what hand holding and "hand outs" as you call them have to do with balance in a public vs competitive environment. I think you are mistaken balance for game play. If something is clearly overpowered, for example the onos has been quite strong this patch. Say we buff the hp on it with another 50% just for the sake of argument. Would that be fun in a public environment? The answer is the same for a competitive environment. Broken gameplay mechanics and balance are of upmost importance.
And I don't even see how you can compare NS2 with SC2, a game that not only has an enourmous following and development team. But also near perfect balance and gameplay mechanics. Do you think players would play SC2 if the gameplay mechanics and balance was bad? In that case I guess you can try out and see how active and well the Command and Conquer 3 community is doing.
Just because you can define balance as a subjective value, doesn't mean that it should be, nor that it is even natural to do so. If balance is defined as a question of "Given that both teams have equally skilled players, does team A and team B have an equal chance at winning the game?", then the answer can be a number, if you have access to gameplay statistics, which is an entirely objective value.
Of course, there are other relevant criteria for making a good game as well, that have nothing to do with balance. A game can be perfectly balanced, but still not be any fun to play; both in a public and competitive setting. Some of these other criteria can be entirely subjective. For example, a game where the outcome is decided entirely by a random die throw, would be perfectly balanced, and a lot of people enjoy such games, but I find them frustrating and boring, regardless of what setting they are played in. I prefer games where my actions influence my chance at success; that is a subjective criteria.
<!--quoteo(post=1989661:date=Oct 11 2012, 01:36 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 11 2012, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989661"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also keep in mind that comp and public play have very different approaches and player motivations.
A competitive team/player does not care if game mechanics are not obvious/intuitive/explained in the game. He goes out of his way to either: A) Test this stuff B) Look it up on the web C) Communicate with other players to share what he found out and what they found out.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is pretty much irrelevant. Competitive play is not hurt in any way by game mechanics being obvious/intuitive/explained in the game. Bunnyhopping, for example, could easily be made rather obvious/intuitive/explained in the game, without hurting its skill-scaling function in competitive play.
<!--quoteo(post=1989661:date=Oct 11 2012, 01:36 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 11 2012, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989661"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You know what a public player will do with unintuitive and cryptic gameplay mechanics? He will ignore them, he will consider them broken and in the end he will consider the game broken. Most players are lazy, they expect the game to come at them and teach them stuff. That's the polar opposite approach of an Play to Win competitive players mindset, he dislikes hand holding (teaching) as it removes the advantage of discovering stuff yourself.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have no idea who this "Play to Win competitive player" you're describing to is, but I've never met him. Unintuitive and cryptic gameplay mechanics are poor game design, regardless of how you play the game. Personally, I'd prefer for all the information on gameplay mechanics to be equally available and accessible to anyone. Competitive play is not about being the only one know to know about a mechanic, it's about being the best at using a mechanic.
<!--quoteo(post=1989661:date=Oct 11 2012, 01:36 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 11 2012, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989661"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This myth of "just having a balanced game will make it fun" is just that, a myth.
Or do people honestly believe that the SC comp. scene got as big as it is because the game had simply been "balanced"? No it has not, the game wasn't balanced out of the box and without it's splendid Singleplayer experience and casual MP playing options trough custom maps (due to easy to use tools), the game would never have gotten such an massive playerbase to support that massive competitive scene in the first place.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The StarCraft comp scene got as big as it is because a great game for both competitive and public play. So why don't we try to do the same with NS2?
As for casual play, NS2 is designed to be easily moddable, which is the equivalent to custom maps in StarCraft. I don't see how this has anything to do with balancing the main game.
In the case of asymmetric teams and gameplay mechanics, the majority of balance boils down to "guess work". If you have symmetric teams, maps and mechanics then balance is a simple matter of making the numbers even. Notice how that does not involve any kind of "if all players are equally skilled" guess work, simply because it's an poor value to index performance around. Putting "playerskill" in a measurable and comparable number is no small or easy task and it grows more complicated (and impossible) as the possible actions of a player increase at any given moment (because this increases to overall complexity of possible outcomes). That's why in a real balanced environment you leave out player skill out of the calculation by assuming all involved players share the same amount of knowledge about gameplay mechanics and how to use them (all players having hit skill ceiling).
<!--quoteo(post=1989684:date=Oct 11 2012, 03:10 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 11 2012, 03:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989684"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Of course, there are other relevant criteria for making a good game as well, that have nothing to do with balance. A game can be perfectly balanced, but still not be any fun to play; both in a public and competitive setting. Some of these other criteria can be entirely subjective. For example, a game where the outcome is decided entirely by a random die throw, would be perfectly balanced, and a lot of people enjoy such games, but I find them frustrating and boring, regardless of what setting they are played in. I prefer games where my actions influence my chance at success; that is a subjective criteria.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But a game can still be fun even if it's not initially "balanced" in an fair/obvious way, it all depends on the game and the mindeset of the players. If a game is simply fun messing around with (regardless of a loss/win at the end of the round) people won't perceive much imbalance and certainly not much about meta game imbalances. You just need to give players other motivations to play besides "winning the round" (See CoD and it's introduction of RPG style unlocks, CS introduction of objective based gameplay coupled with resource management) Yes even that is subjective just like "fun" is a very subjective concept. But there are many modern lessons to be learned from that. You may dislike RNG because it makes things unpredictable (RNG does not automatically make player choices irrelevant), but it's exactly that kind of randomness that often ends up adding spice to the whole mix.
If you don't mind this, your game will become predictable and boring in another awkward way. It's because of this inherit predictability that many professional Chess-players these days prefer to play by rulesets that allow for a certain degree of randomization like Chess960. Because Classical Chess these days mostly boils down to memorizing all the possible outcomes with regular starting positions. It's basically a game of "who can memorize the most moves in advance", instead of making the players adapt and react to the situations, players are mostly looking at moves and go "The next logical step is to go here" without much thinking or dynamic to the gameplay.
As such RNG is not automatically bad or removes impact of player choices, it's all about how to implement that RNG part. In the end you could have lot's of gameplay revolving around RNG as long as you give players enough options and mechanics to shift the RNG generation in a certain direction, that way players choices still matter and have measurable and predictable consequences impact the overall course of the game.
<!--quoteo(post=1989684:date=Oct 11 2012, 03:10 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 11 2012, 03:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989684"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is pretty much irrelevant. Competitive play is not hurt in any way by game mechanics being obvious/intuitive/explained in the game. Bunnyhopping, for example, could easily be made rather obvious/intuitive/explained in the game, without hurting its skill-scaling function in competitive play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Imho it has been and is always relevant, there have been tons of discussions and suggestions that got shut down because people saw an inherit imbalance in competitive play with them, so we didn't even try to go that route.
It has happened more than once that "comp balance" and "crazy game mechanics" have been weighted against each other and the latter lost out simply because the competitive crowd is the more organized and louder one to lobby against such changes.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have no idea who this "Play to Win competitive player" you're describing to is, but I've never met him. Unintuitive and cryptic gameplay mechanics are poor game design, regardless of how you play the game. Personally, I'd prefer for all the information on gameplay mechanics to be equally available and accessible to anyone. Competitive play is not about being the only one know to know about a mechanic, it's about being the best at using a mechanic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Every competitive player is a "Play to Win" player, it all boils down to players motivation and mindset. An "PtW" player does not mind doing repetitive/boring tasks as he knows the long term implications of his actions. On the other hand an "Play for Fun" player is more likely to look for mechanics that deliver instant gratification without bothering much about the long term consequences of said actions (either because he can't understand them yet or because he simply does not care).
That's why competitive players are more likely to put up with complicated game design involving a high learning curve, it's the polar opposite of somebody who just wants some "quick and dirty fun".
And if you assume that knowledge about mechanics is equal on all sides, then the obvious result would be that all players and teams play exactly the same way. (Sounds like a familiar problem? ;) ) Because there is a way to calculate the most efficient use of resources, once that way is discovered it gets abused until a valid counter strategy gets discovered. The problem starts if that "counter strategy" to the "optimal strategy" has no other use besides countering that specific "optimal strategy", if that other strategy can't stand on it's own you are boiling the meta game down to "They did this, so now we do that, that means they gonna do that, to which we gonna respond like this", it's the chess problem all over again.
To fix that you need complex and deep mechanics that keep everything dynamic, these make it more difficult to figure out the "optimal strategy" simply because of the involved complexity. So a certain obscurity to game mechanics is actually pretty important to prevent the game from just turning into one giant theorycraft fest.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The StarCraft comp scene got as big as it is because a great game for both competitive and public play. So why don't we try to do the same with NS2?
As for casual play, NS2 is designed to be easily moddable, which is the equivalent to custom maps in StarCraft. I don't see how this has anything to do with balancing the main game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like i wrote before: SC only managed to do that by offering valid ways to play for all kinds of players. If SC would have been released as an MP only game even with modding tools and only an "competitive XvX" mode i bet money it would have bombed big time. What made it successful had been the variety of gamplay it offered to the players that drew them in in the first place. SC could do it because it had the variety in gameplay modes out of the box, that's something NS2 does not have at all yet it still tries to be the jack of all trades in terms of gameplay and audience.
There are so many people out there that never even bothered with the competitive classic multiplayer of SC and instead spent all their time playing Tower Defense, DOTA-likes or Coop custom maps, add to that the number of players who only played the singleplayer because they considered the competitive multiplayer such a different game (Slow paced army/base building players vs min-maxing APM freaks).
Even NS1 had this fragmentation of the community into different playstyles, people only playing siege maps, later on people only playing combat mode. It adds variety to the gameplay and as such a higher chance to satisfy the subjective definitions of "fun" for different players.
Yes NS2 has mod support and that's something i'm certainly happy about, i still feel like the optimal route would have been to focus on "fun random public gameplay" and lock away additional values about balance in an separate "Competitive config". CS did it like that, NS1 did it like that, no reason not do to it in NS2 like that (besides the very vocal comp. scene). It certainly would have made it way easier to address balancing issues that directly relate to bigger team sizes and resource flow, it would have allowed for autobalancing mechanics that actually work and have an impact (handouts for weaker performing teams).
You can always "balance" a game in hindsight around a certain setup (6v6 comp. setting), it's what happens to the majority of games anyway and as such it's expected. But adding "fun" post-release is not only difficult but often ends up being pointless, when your game already has the reputation of being broken and not fun to play. Not saying that's the case with NS2, i just think the game could have gotten an way bigger initial footprint by catering to the basics that attract new players the most about the franchise.
RPS described it best in one of it's previews: Hunting down giant space cows with Flamerthrowers and Jetpacks, that's what makes NS stick out from other games. The "perfect competitive balance" is mostly a nostalgic footnote for former NS1 players but hardly a deal-breaker for new players coming to the franchise.
Heres the dumbed down easy way to 'fix' the competitive game:
Back to 219 values. Keep the 221 Lerk. Keep the 221 cheap marine upgrades. Put full cost tres fade on 2 hive and onos on 3 hive. You now have a fantastic game.
/opinion
That is just another way of saying what I just said.
<!--quoteo(post=1989733:date=Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989733"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But a game can still be fun even if it's not initially "balanced" in an fair/obvious way, it all depends on the game and the mindeset of the players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It can be fun despite being unbalanced, not because it is unbalanced.
<!--quoteo(post=1989733:date=Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989733"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->(RNG does not automatically make player choices irrelevant)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you actually read the example I used, yes, it does make player choice irrelevant. Reply to the post that was posted, not the post you wish was posted.
<!--quoteo(post=1989733:date=Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989733"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you don't mind this, your game will become predictable and boring in another awkward way.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Player FPS skill, netcode, computer problems in the worst case scenario, and a million other factors all make NS2 inherently unpredictable in matches between reasonably evenly skilled teams.
<!--quoteo(post=1989733:date=Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989733"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Imho it has been and is always relevant, there have been tons of discussions and suggestions that got shut down because people saw an inherit imbalance in competitive play with them, so we didn't even try to go that route.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The argument for removing a feature is "this is not a good feature", and I'm sure that's what UWE's reasoning has been. It's irrelevant that somebody somewhere phrased it as "this is not a good feature for competitive play".
<!--quoteo(post=1989733:date=Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989733"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Every competitive player is a "Play to Win" player, it all boils down to players motivation and mindset. An "PtW" player does not mind doing repetitive/boring tasks as he knows the long term implications of his actions. On the other hand an "Play for Fun" player is more likely to look for mechanics that deliver instant gratification without bothering much about the long term consequences of said actions (either because he can't understand them yet or because he simply does not care).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A good game manages to have non-repetitive, non-boring tasks that also have long term implications. Competitive players would always prefer that over the opposite, just like a public player. You're positing scenarios that simply make no sense.
<!--quoteo(post=1989733:date=Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989733"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To fix that you need complex and deep mechanics that keep everything dynamic, these make it more difficult to figure out the "optimal strategy" simply because of the involved complexity. So a certain obscurity to game mechanics is actually pretty important to prevent the game from just turning into one giant theorycraft fest.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All the necessary obscurity is already inherent in the teamplay and FPS aspects of the game. This isn't chess, where you know that x move will always beat y move, this is a FPS/RTS blend, where, amazingly, the board pieces have a mind of their own, and where sometimes y move will beat x move, even though you'd expect it not to.
<!--quoteo(post=1989733:date=Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989733"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If SC would have been released as an MP only game even with modding tools and only an "competitive XvX" mode i bet money it would have bombed big time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good thing then, that nobody is suggesting that it should be.
<!--quoteo(post=1989733:date=Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989733"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes NS2 has mod support and that's something i'm certainly happy about, i still feel like the optimal route would have been to focus on "fun random public gameplay" and lock away additional values about balance in an separate "Competitive config". CS did it like that, NS1 did it like that, no reason not do to it in NS2 like that (besides the very vocal comp. scene).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No idea what you're talking about here. Both CS and NS were played vanilla as far as balance is concerned.
<!--quoteo(post=1989733:date=Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 11 2012, 05:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989733"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->RPS described it best in one of it's previews: Hunting down giant space cows with Flamerthrowers and Jetpacks, that's what makes NS stick out from other games. The "perfect competitive balance" is mostly a nostalgic footnote for former NS1 players but hardly a deal-breaker for new players coming to the franchise.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That might make somebody buy the game, but it won't keep them playing it for years on end.
Thank you for providing realistic feedback about this. It seems to be lost on many. Some seem to have to this idea that if it isn't done how they have it in their mind, then it's automatically wrong. This thread is truly hilarious to look at, the game isn't complete. It is being constantly tweaked but we get paragraphs about the terrible direction the game is taking. Or really whatever insane armchair game developer idea they've spent too much time distorting in their brain.
THIS GAME WILL TAKE A LOT OF BALANCE FIXES AND PATCHES. If you are freaking out about it now, welcome to beta testing video games. Especially ones done by an extremely tiny team, that are very complex and innovative.
Both casual and competitive players would happily live in the same world, and the game would be so perfect, that someone who put 30 hours into a game would enjoy the experience just like someone who put 3 000 hours into it.
A player booting up his computer after school/work, looking for 2-3 hours of shooting at aliens/munching marines, would be like a player waking up at 8 am on Saturday for his team training.
A player using the flamethrower "because it's a cool weapon, burning stuff is so funny", is just like the player who know how much damages a pellet of a shotgun shell does.
A player morphing into Lerk because "flying in corridors and throwing gas on marines is hilarious" is the just like the player who knows the damage type of all Aliens attacks.
...
I've played more than an hundred of different multiplayer FPS (mostly mods), and had the chance of enjoying the competitive side of the coin on a few of them (not on NS though, sadly). I've only went to "high" levels of comp play on quite unknown mods, but still had the opportunity to find out about the difficulties in organizing matches on a worldwide scale (the latency, it hurts !).
And I almost never found a gameplay dynamic/mechanic working the same way in public plays and in competitive plays. The gameplay really change a lot, especially in terms of tactics and strategies, you're no longer "capturing a point" or "killing the enemy team", you're controlling very specific areas, holding vital choke-points, managing the timing of the round.
Suddenly tricking or surprising the other team is not a matter of timing and slightly-above-average skill, it's (mostly) a matter of chance (a risk & reward bet). Suddenly failing to perform decently at any moment results in an immediate lose, full of consequences on the game (due to the lose of an area, respawn and walking from base to front delay, lose of an opportunity, etc).
And yes, you have to "Play to Win" in competitive play, otherwise you're exposing your teammates to defeat just because you refused to follow the "rules". And the whole point of competitive play is mastering these rules, if you're "Playing For Fun" then tactics and roles have no meaning.
...
On NS2, a Marine not realizing he left his fellow teammates and wandering alone in a corridor is:
- a common mistake on public play, the rule more than the exception
- a failure in comp play, the exception more than the rule
- offering an easy kill to the Alien team on public play
- preventing his teammates from launching the planned assault and RT room capture on comp play, delaying that plan for 30 vital seconds
- encouraging the nearby Aliens nearby to attack further ("whee we're the best !") on public play
- sending a strong signal to the Alien team: "there's only 3 in the Generator Room now, 1 is respawning in Server Room, ok let's storm the Satellite Control while Joe harass the Generator Room and prevent them from moving further"
...
In comp play, there isn't any ignorance of the rules, of the gameplay dynamics and mechanics. Everyone know how each upgrade/item/weapon/attack works and how they each cost. Just with that lack of ignorance, nobody's gonna misunderstand how a thing work and die from it.
While pubbers will keep falling for that ignorance, because they haven't bought the game to stare at a spreadsheet and make tactics with these data.
Same with players behaviors:
- public play => a marine will sneak inside Aliens bases and solo some buildings with the hatchet, just to annoy the Comm, who will be yelling at Aliens players to go and defend the base.
- comp play => a marine won't do that (unless it's really needed), because he perfectly knows only 1 or 2 players will have to turn back to the base to kill him, and they'll come immediately (and not with a 15-20 seconds delay, because the Comm can't get his troops to listen and obey)
...
That's why I think UWE, if it wants to have a solid competitive scene, need to make a competitive mode, along with a board featuring the designated speakers of all major clans of NS2, who will debate and write some recommendations regarding the competitive mode balance.
If they need to buff or nerf something, they'll be able to do it without having to worry about "pubbers" not getting it and turning most games into some cheap steamrolling stomping.
Like the Fade recent nerf: necessary for pub servers (when the experienced players aren't mass-joining the Marines to stomp noobs "for fun" :|, Fade are okay), it's far from being what the competitive players want (and need).
Two modes: competitive and public.
Otherwise, the game will either listen to the comp scene requests, and pubbers will stop playing it, emptying the pool of potential future comp players, or will listen to the pubbers, and the comp players will just give up on it, no point in trying to set up tactics on a game made for pubbers.
Both casual and competitive players would happily live in the same world, and the game would be so perfect, that someone who put 30 hours into a game would enjoy the experience just like someone who put 3 000 hours into it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Obviously a casual player will approach the game differently, play the game differently, enjoy different aspects of the game, and so forth, than a competitive player. This is, however, irrelevant to the discussion. There is no reason why a game can't cater to both sides. This has already been proved by hugely popular games like Counter-Strike, StarCraft and even Natural Selection. All of these titles have had public play and competitive play flourish under vanilla gameplay.
The rest of your post is just a repeat of the same theme; that public and competitive play is so different that the two can't exist in the same universe. Permit me to also repeat; that is rubbish. As long as the fundamental gameplay mechanics are properly designed, a game can appeal equally, or almost equally, to all players within a particular group (in NS2's case, primarily FPS gamers).
The only interesting, and difficult to solve, problem caused by different player "groups", is that of intermingling. When you have players of wildly differing skill levels playing against each other on the same servers, the experience is bound to be a frustrating one for many of the players on the low end of the skill spectrum. This isn't a game breaking problem, but some sort of matchmaking to alleviate the problem would be beneficial.
<!--quoteo(post=1990085:date=Oct 12 2012, 05:15 AM:name=Inspector Canardo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Inspector Canardo @ Oct 12 2012, 05:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990085"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And yes, you have to "Play to Win" in competitive play, otherwise you're exposing your teammates to defeat just because you refused to follow the "rules". And the whole point of competitive play is mastering these rules, if you're "Playing For Fun" then tactics and roles have no meaning.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You've missed my point entirely. I'd also advise you to be mindful of who it is you're discussing with. I can guarantee you that you don't want to try to lecture me on what is required to succeed in competitive play.