<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->there is a trend recently in game design to make the gameplay perfectly balanced, every even the smallest addition that *might* ruin the whole equilibrium is dreaded like nothing else. this leads to extremities like in Day of Defeat: Source where maps are more or less symetrical and the opossing teams have exactly the same weapons.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> did you play NS? its kinda hard to give dog like creatures as a skulks maschine guns.. short: this will never happen in NS2
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Dumbing down, I'm sure you all have heard of this and can agree that is not the way to go, nor is it the intention of NS2 developers<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> this was never the intention of the game, actually, one of the five pillars the gameplay stands on is called "asymmetrical gameplay"
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I also see the reason behind making games balanced - players these days tend to quickly work out the game mechanisms and come up with the most efficient gameplay style, exploiting every map irregularity, thus intimidating new players and dominating the battlefield. Giving every player the same chances is obviously the solution to this, but it fnally ends up with symetricallity. And even then, the smallest difference in time makes a certain game tactic the best and repeated to death. I offer another approach to consider however<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> hey hey hey! slow down a bit, do<b> not</b> mix up "symmetrical" whit "balanced" symmetrical is, like you said, 2 completely same teams, whit same tactics and the same weapons. you should know that this is impossible in NS2 to come happen. balanced; quoted from wiki <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_balance" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_balance</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In a suitably balanced game, players would make such choices based on their personal preference, strengths, and playing style, rather than on an inherent advantage in one option. If one option were weaker than the others, then it would rarely be selected by any player and will not contribute to the complexity of the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
to have a game 100% pure balanced, everything needs to be mirrored. and even then one side will win. becouse the players whit more expierimence has the upper hand. that is basic common sense. <i>is a skulk vs marine balanced? this question is impossible to answer, due the simple fact that human beings make mistakes and are fairly random. </i> in short terms; no class, site or weapon should have a direct adventage as other of its kind <i>whitout</i> any counter as abilty, tactic or class.( HA=onos)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tsa.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::tsa::" border="0" alt="tsa.gif" /> <!--coloro:#FFA500--><span style="color:#FFA500"><!--/coloro-->randomness<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> - glorifying not only personal skill but teamwork, randomness (for example weapon recoil) makes single players less confident but it also has minor affect on the group of players. it also applies to the map design, more interactive elements (completely taken out by Valve in their MP games) affecting the game flow, indirect ways to fight, less predictability<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> the players, the humans, are already random, each round is different, has different tactics and different people to play whit. isnt that random enough? randomness is a tool, a tool to nerf a weapon/class/etc that would otherwise, whitout randomness, be overly powerfull. a well balanced game dont need randomness.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tsa.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::tsa::" border="0" alt="tsa.gif" /> <!--coloro:#FFA500--><span style="color:#FFA500"><!--/coloro-->often updates<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> - put one strategy in favor this time, force another strategy next time etc. - constant balance-shifting small updates, can be weapons udates, can be game logic updates, but never let players get used to a given elaborated strategy making the gameplay stall<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->========== READ THIS ==========<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
strategy cant make gameplay stall. the main POINT of the game is to beat and counter the enemy strategy. each map, each player has different strategys, and comon, ITS <b>never</b> a good idea to put one strategy over other strategys. actually, there are none, a game flows smoothly, this is a shooter, not a RTS, randomness in form of player skill and his ability to adapt to different situations will determind win or lose, are there 2 skulks in the room? or 2 lerks? the player will adapt smootly to it, they dont plan. they dont argue, THEY DO. or if the base is under attack? will the player return or fight to the enemy base? thats the players choise. each "strategy" is made for different situations, it will form specifely to the situation, giving you the upper hand, but so does the enemy, he will adapt to your strategy, and counter it, now you need to alter it again. this is how game works! dont take the main part of NS out for what?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->what this gives us? freedom to implement more features! for example istead of 4 solicitously configured and balanced weapons we can have 15 to choose from, after 3 weeks good players make 3 of that better than the others, and a week after an update comes, rebalancing the whole set. <b>personal skills wont be lost</b> - players will just have to put it again to use instead of blindly practising one and only strategy<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> so, you say you dont want to have 4 perfectly balanced fair weapons, each one fullfill his role in combat. none is useless, but you want 15 weapons, in which 3 are used. and whit the new patch everything is changed again complicating everything again, becouse old players tell the new ones that these weapons are better then those others, and the new players get lost in the options of 15 weapons, best example for this mistake is tremoulus. no, just no.
weapons are not tactics. they are tools.
PS: i love to own OPs. especialy when they call symmetrical = balanced.
The balance in NS comes from situational advantages. In some instances bite is more powerful than the LMG and in other instances the pistol clearly outshines everything else. But the asymmetry comes from the fact that aliens don't have a pistol and marines don't have bite so they are forced to adapt to avoiding those instances as much as possible. Marines avoid bite range combat and aliens avoid getting pistoled from half the map away. These situations are balanced, yet asymmetrical. (now THAT would be pretty bad ass, skulk killed with weapon_marinebitegun)
<img src="http://bkmarcus.com/blog/images/art/ManBitesDog.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /> i cant get rid of the picture seeing a marine biting a skulk...
Hmm, well after reading what's been said I think I can reach a conclusion.
<b>vote <!--coloro:#00DD00--><span style="color:#00DD00"><!--/coloro-->yes<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b> to asymmetry in tech tree & counter-tech, map design, combat style, etc.
<b>vote <!--coloro:#DD0000--><span style="color:#DD0000"><!--/coloro-->no<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b> to "often updates" as described. Although, if there is something <i>broken</i> the released version, it should be fixed with clever logic and all due haste with a patch. Hopefully that shouldn't happen much as long as ample time, care, and enough people are involved in the playtesting process.
Sorry that I couldn't participate more, I've been quite busy.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1694541:date=Nov 28 2008, 12:25 AM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Nov 28 2008, 12:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1694541"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No he's right. We should add crits to football so that every once in awhile more than one of Dallas' players can break through the opposing defense.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Bad example. Football is pretty random. Injuries and weather can have huge impacts on the game. I would go with baseball since they play a series of games and pitching depth is important to the strategy. I've already said what I think about randomness in this topic.
Randomness is what developers toss in because they're too lazy to design a game that is deep enough to be dynamic and unpredictable. Crits "improving" TF2's gameplay should be taken as evidence of TF2's weakness, not randomness' strength.
well it doesnt matter if there are pro gamers and n00bs cuz they are there they will alway excist no matter what you do and it comes to flames and yelling cuz NS is so much team depending that to much n00bs will lead you to defeat.
but this ist bad at all i think the worst thing (subconscious) for most people is how devestating a defead is
(rines got ip raped and cant even fire a shot and die u r helpless and aliens have no chance to gestate the little skulks faces the shotgun barrel, of five mins earlyer in gamplay the base got raped by GL/HMG jetpack/havys or focus fading onosstomping eating)
so this is what makes a defeat so bitter and frustrating and what makes player that take the game a bit more serius make so angry if they face to lose the game
a solution would be end the round "faster" if one team has already won without a doubt that everyone can rejoin team on the next map!
maybe then the complaining about newbie flaming ends ... maybe....
and for game dynamics as randomness and crits mhh i dont think crits fit in ns you got hitboxes and that has a reason!
randomness on the right way could be nice so i.e. map dynamics(working machines on the map so on) or let on every round every res node prodce randomly resource (so one day the res in messhall gives you 1 res next round only 0,5 and then 2) so tactics change and people fight harder for everytime different places....
If anyone is interested, we have previously debated something similar on these forums: <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=104237&st=0&p=1678234&#entry1678234" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...p;#entry1678234</a>
The theory goes that it is lack of meaningful choices that make a game boring, regardless of how fair it is. If something is far more powerful than everything else with no set back, then you don't have any real choice but to use it, and so there is no meaningful decision to make. If everything is exactly the same as everything else, then it doesn't matter which one you use and so you still don't have any meaningful decisions to make.
<!--quoteo(post=1694842:date=Dec 1 2008, 08:14 PM:name=Revenge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Revenge @ Dec 1 2008, 08:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1694842"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If anyone is interested, we have previously debated something similar on these forums: <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=104237&st=0&p=1678234&#entry1678234" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...p;#entry1678234</a>
The theory goes that it is lack of meaningful choices that make a game boring, regardless of how fair it is. If something is far more powerful than everything else with no set back, then you don't have any real choice but to use it, and so there is no meaningful decision to make. If everything is exactly the same as everything else, then it doesn't matter which one you use and so you still don't have any meaningful decisions to make.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Which seems to be the argument for constantly changing the variables with updates. No one has time to settle into the "best" pattern. This is based on the reasoning that it's difficult to balance multiple viable choices in a complex game, which is true, but isn't necessarily a bad goal.
I think the best design article I read on this subject argued for weighted rock-paper-scissor decisions. This means rock is the most powerful, but it's susceptible to paper, the weakest tactic. Scissors is a decent tactic, and it beats paper but fails to rock. Weighted RPS -- this can play out in micro and macro gameplay decisions. So, I guess in NS essentially you'd just have to give the other team some kind of strategy to counter their opponent's strongest strategy; instead of, you know, nerfing the strongest strategy, let it be strong except against one opposing tactic. This'll make recon much more important. Could it also make NS more enjoyable? (Not that I don't thoroughly enjoy myself when playing NS. I mean for others.) What kind of weighted micro decisions can we make?
The issue with NS is that there is no guaranteed tactic because everything is dependent on the collective's individual player ability to accomplish goals cohesively. The commander could have a perfect strategy exploiting every single weakness of the opposition that fails because his or he team is not as experienced as the enemy. This not preventable because the game needs a skill ceiling to be enjoyable. Ideally, players will always be evenly matched but there is such a large gap between new, intermediate and experienced players that makes that happening somewhat difficult. You could increase the effectiveness of the commander to artificially close those gaps, but then that would put too much responsibility on the commander and make learning to become commander a process filled with guilt knowing that someone else could have led the team to victory.
<!--quoteo(post=1694853:date=Dec 2 2008, 05:36 AM:name=PseudoKnight)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PseudoKnight @ Dec 2 2008, 05:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1694853"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the best design article I read on this subject argued for weighted rock-paper-scissor decisions. This means rock is the most powerful, but it's susceptible to paper, the weakest tactic. Scissors is a decent tactic, and it beats paper but fails to rock.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I spy a Sirlin reader.
One thing I'd like to push forward is whether or not hard counters should exist. The RPS system is the classic style of hard counters easily beating the one they are designed to beat, and failing when they are designed to fail.
However, why not multipurpose and specific variants? Let's take for example StarCraft. The basic Marine can shoot air and ground, not too much damage, not huge amount of health. In a straight one-on-one, no surprises, it loses to a Zealot and wins against a Zergling. However, Zealots cost more res and are melee, so careful micro can let a Marine + something else beat a Zealot. Similarly, Zerglings never attack individually, so they could overwhelm the Marine without taking losses. If the Terran were tricky, they could throw in a Firebat which decimates Zerglings, a hard counter, but is weak to ranged and air units like a Mutalisk and a Hyrdalisk. So, the Marine is a kind of general purpose unit, the Firebat a more specialized unit with harder counters. However, even the Firebat isn't completely all powerful against Zerglings, since its splash only hits in a certain area, surrounding and microing Zerglings can result in no losses.
Basically, why only have hardcounters? Soft counters are more viable in my opinion, and more fun. Sure there's the easier way to do things, but a creative combination still stands a chance. See RA3 where hard counters are more prevalent, and I personally find it painful that my entire force can get wiped out by a few hardcounter units.
Granted, soft counters are more complex and can be harder to balance.
The only hard counters that exist in SC defend from "cheese" strategies. Also, hard counters are usually actions a player takes and not actual units. For example, if a terran gases before a depot, the correct play by a toss would be to send all probes to the terran and possibly set up a shield battery. The counter to fast DT is fast detection. The counter to air is antiair and good micro.
<!--quoteo(post=1694916:date=Dec 2 2008, 06:53 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spellman23 @ Dec 2 2008, 06:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1694916"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Basically, why only have hardcounters? Soft counters are more viable in my opinion, and more fun. Sure there's the easier way to do things, but a creative combination still stands a chance. See RA3 where hard counters are more prevalent, and I personally find it painful that my entire force can get wiped out by a few hardcounter units.
Granted, soft counters are more complex and can be harder to balance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> In RTS games hard counters may be ok as long as the units are controllable enough so that you can have the counters and counter-counters where you want them.
On NS the present system seems nice, lerk > LMG, SG > lerk, a few skulks + lerk > sg. Of course SGs could be a little more counterable and so on, but the general direction is nice. Too hard counters make it quite merciless for the newbies if they end up having the only counter in the team.
I feel that one of the main things this game will need is the ability to properly handle 16 or 32 player games. <i>Sometimes</i> in the larger games it is hard to get momentum during certain scenarios like hive lock-downs et cetera... But yes I do feel that this game should still retain the "asymmetry" of the gameplay concerning the kharaa and the marines.
<!--quoteo(post=1694972:date=Dec 3 2008, 06:58 AM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spellman23 @ Dec 3 2008, 06:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1694972"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Tell that to the LMGer in my Onos belly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you have w3a3 and an LMG, you're doing something terribly wrong.
Ok, for those of you who insist a skill gap is normal, let me reiterate by stressing the fact that <i>Natural Selection has a notoriously bad skill gap</i>. If you disagree with that, that's your own opinion, though that doesn't change the fact that natural selection has a very difficult time retaining players. I believe natural selection is a kickass mod, and I refuse to think new players leave natural selection because they simply didn't like it (at least not in terms of the game concept).
The only conclusion left for me to gather is that it isn't the game but the players which cause this. Go into your typical natural selection game and tell me what types of players you find. You find a good many veteran players who bunny hop and do very well in general. Then you have the elite few who completely dominate, taking at least 2 or 3 other players with full focus on that player before he'll fall.
The rest are complete newbies. On the scoreboard, they score next to nothing on most games and they're usually the ones getting owned by the veterans. Some will ask stupid questions, but most stay silent.
Skill gap is acceptable if it reflects the normal learning curve. When it's like this, there doesn't exist a learning curve because 9 veterans out of 10 got good playing in an environment in which everybody was learning how to play natural selection for the first time. Combine the fact that natural selection isn't the quickest mod to learn how to play with the fact that you're likely going to encounter veterans, not newbies in your encounters with other players.. it's no wonder natural selection is losing player base.
If you say there's not a problem here, that's your opinion, but I strongly disagree.
<!--quoteo(post=1694986:date=Dec 3 2008, 01:26 PM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Dec 3 2008, 01:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1694986"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ok, for those of you who insist a skill gap is normal, let me reiterate by stressing the fact that <i>Natural Selection has a notoriously bad skill gap</i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> CS has a far bigger skill gap. If a new player went up against a CAL-I player, he'd have 0 chances of scoring a kill. In NS, new players can piggyback on a decent team and go onos, or gorge or something that requires minimal competency.
Well ok, granted.. a newbie can make a kill as an onos, but most veterans will chase an escaping onos, which makes it easy for a newbie to make the mistake of running away when health begins to drop too low and getting owned by a veteran with a shotgun and a bit of persistence.
It'd be all to easy for that to happen. I know because I've been that veteran and that newbie (before I got to be veteran) many times before.
You could say it's worse for Counterstrike, and all I have to say to that is that counterstrike also has a notorious skill gap. I don't think it's any better. At least I can say that the skill gap is not based on learning how the game works as the gameplay is fairly straightforward. In that sense, at least it's more acceptable. Though again I say that if a newbie has enough to worry about learning the game in general, how is a newbie going to overcome the skill gap as well?
We're probably talking apples and oranges here. A skill gap in CS is something new players can get over due to the simplicity of the basics of the game. The higher complexity of the basics of NS might be turning off people from fighting against the skill gap. I'm not arguing that either the complexity or skill gap needs to be reduced. (though I'm one of those that is leaning towards the modification or removal of bunny-hopping) I'm just not sure the comparison has any utility for this discussion. It seems people are making the comparison just because they enjoy comparing the two, rather than being able to derive any lessons from it.
<!--quoteo(post=1695018:date=Dec 3 2008, 08:01 PM:name=PseudoKnight)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PseudoKnight @ Dec 3 2008, 08:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695018"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We're probably talking apples and oranges here. A skill gap in CS is something new players can get over due to the simplicity of the basics of the game. The higher complexity of the basics of NS might be turning off people from fighting against the skill gap. I'm not arguing that either the complexity or skill gap needs to be reduced. (though I'm one of those that is leaning towards the modification or removal of bunny-hopping) I'm just not sure the comparison has any utility for this discussion. It seems people are making the comparison just because they enjoy comparing the two, rather than being able to derive any lessons from it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's actually a lot easier to improve in NS than it is in CS because the only way to improve in NS is by improving your aim and learning strategies. In other words, improvement in CS is quadratic. Improvement in NS is cubic because it includes learning strategies, improving aim AND improving movement.
The disproportionate amount of good players is the result of a dead game, not the game design itself. You have to remember NS is a third party mod, and to still have players playing it to this day is testament to the fact that there really is nothing fundamentally wrong with NS1.
<!--quoteo(post=1694986:date=Dec 3 2008, 08:26 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Dec 3 2008, 08:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1694986"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Skill gap is acceptable if it reflects the normal learning curve. When it's like this, there doesn't exist a learning curve because 9 veterans out of 10 got good playing in an environment in which everybody was learning how to play natural selection for the first time. Combine the fact that natural selection isn't the quickest mod to learn how to play with the fact that you're likely going to encounter veterans, not newbies in your encounters with other players.. it's no wonder natural selection is losing player base.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it is much easier to learn something when there are people who can show you the way, either directly or indirectly. Even if a new player is too shy to ask questions, they can still observe the actions of the better performing players in the third person, or by spectating. Of course the player needs to have a certain level of interest in order to really improve him or herself. I think your estimate of 9 out of 10 veterans is pretty far off the mark. If you were to poll competitive and ex-competitive players, I think you would find that the majority got good, or at least better, by playing against people who could wipe the floor with them. As for the distribution of skill among the remaining players, I agree with enigma that it is due to the declining community. The influx of players has slowed to almost nothing and it is not surprising that many of the dedicated players still hanging on would also be relatively skilled.
If the skill gap in CS didn't prevent it from losing players, it isn't the fault of the gap that NS has a dead middle class. That's a problem with intuition, which <i>is</i> the fault of the game designer, but the fault lies not in the difficulty of the game, or its competitive ceiling.
<!--quoteo(post=1695026:date=Dec 3 2008, 04:08 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Dec 3 2008, 04:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695026"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's actually a lot easier to improve in NS than it is in CS because the only way to improve in NS is by improving your aim and learning strategies. In other words, improvement in CS is quadratic. Improvement in NS is cubic because it includes learning strategies, improving aim AND improving movement.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you know what you're saying when you say learning is cubic? That means all of the learning is done at the end, which is almost the same as quadratic but less extreme. You mean to say that, because that argues for my point. You're saying with more effort, the payoff is virtually insignificant until you're virtually at the experience of a veteran.
<!--quoteo(post=1695026:date=Dec 3 2008, 04:08 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Dec 3 2008, 04:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695026"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If counter strike has no problem with a big skill gap, NS2 will certainly have no problem with one.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Funny, because I have heard that this was one of the biggest problems with counter strike. If you think Natural Selection 2 will be fine like natural selection is fine now, then you're denying the existance of any problem whatsoever. I'd like to hear your reason for why the player base is falling then? Must be because natural selection is so awesome, right?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think it is much easier to learn something when there are people who can show you the way, either directly or indirectly. Even if a new player is too shy to ask questions, they can still observe the actions of the better performing players in the third person, or by spectating. Of course the player needs to have a certain level of interest in order to really improve him or herself. I think your estimate of 9 out of 10 veterans is pretty far off the mark. If you were to poll competitive and ex-competitive players, I think you would find that the majority got good, or at least better, by playing against people who could wipe the floor with them. As for the distribution of skill among the remaining players, I agree with enigma that it is due to the declining community. The influx of players has slowed to almost nothing and it is not surprising that many of the dedicated players still hanging on would also be relatively skilled.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're assuming that most players are patient and have long attention spans. I'm sure they exist, but most players aren't that way, and more people leave this mod than there are new and patient players with long attention spans are trying this mod. Maybe not 9 out of 10, but 7 out of 10 or 8 out of 10, surely. Otherwise, you're essentially saying that a newbie spent hours getting trashed by veterans and insulted by making newbie mistakes and generally not making any difference on a team actually stayed with the mob until they got to be veterans? I don't even think I would have tollerated that, honestly, and I probably wouldn't still be playing if I sucked at this mod, no matter how decent natural selection may be.
<!--quoteo(post=1695065:date=Dec 3 2008, 11:54 PM:name=)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE( @ Dec 3 2008, 11:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695065"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If the skill gap in CS didn't prevent it from losing players, it isn't the fault of the gap that NS has a dead middle class. That's a problem with intuition, which <i>is</i> the fault of the game designer, but the fault lies not in the difficulty of the game, or its competitive ceiling.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, I didn't think natural selection was that <i>hard</i> to learn. Could have been because I was playing in the 1.0 days, but I don't think newbies frequently die in natural selection because they don't *know* how to play. They know perfectly that if they bite the marine, the marine dies. Problem is a matter of skill. If there was ever a problem with intuition on gameplay, it'd be knowing what to do at any given moment. Though newbies don't stop playing because they poorly choose to go to a rather uninteresting section of the map in terms of activity.
<!--quoteo(post=1695102:date=Dec 4 2008, 04:57 PM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Dec 4 2008, 04:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695102"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you know what you're saying when you say learning is cubic? That means all of the learning is done at the end, which is almost the same as quadratic but less extreme. You mean to say that, because that argues for my point. You're saying with more effort, the payoff is virtually insignificant until you're virtually at the experience of a veteran.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I guess I forgot to mention that I haven't described the whole function/the rules, just the leading coefficient. Most of the learning done is done at the beginning when the player realizes what a resource tower is and in the middle when people realize that they can improve past their 1:1 ratio.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Funny, because I have heard that this was one of the biggest problems with counter strike. If you think Natural Selection 2 will be fine like natural selection is fine now, then you're denying the existance of any problem whatsoever. I'd like to hear your reason for why the player base is falling then? Must be because natural selection is so awesome, right?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Natural Selection was never a really popular game because of insufficient publicity. What makes you think that NS is unpopular for a mod? It's been alive for over 6 years dude. Name ALL of the games that have been alive for at least that long. The general consensus among people who have been here since the start is that NS failed because of website hacks/abandonment by Charlie for a while.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I probably wouldn't still be playing if I sucked at this mod, no matter how decent natural selection may be.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's how it is with everyone and with every game except for stuff like zen of sudoku or something.
Comments
You don't need identical sides for balance.
Starcraft.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->there is a trend recently in game design to make the gameplay perfectly balanced, every even the smallest addition that *might* ruin the whole equilibrium is dreaded like nothing else. this leads to extremities like in Day of Defeat: Source where maps are more or less symetrical and the opossing teams have exactly the same weapons.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
did you play NS? its kinda hard to give dog like creatures as a skulks maschine guns.. short: this will never happen in NS2
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Dumbing down, I'm sure you all have heard of this and can agree that is not the way to go, nor is it the intention of NS2 developers<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> this was never the intention of the game, actually, one of the five pillars the gameplay stands on is called "asymmetrical gameplay"
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I also see the reason behind making games balanced - players these days tend to quickly work out the game mechanisms and come up with the most efficient gameplay style, exploiting every map irregularity, thus intimidating new players and dominating the battlefield. Giving every player the same chances is obviously the solution to this, but it fnally ends up with symetricallity. And even then, the smallest difference in time makes a certain game tactic the best and repeated to death.
I offer another approach to consider however<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
hey hey hey! slow down a bit, do<b> not</b> mix up "symmetrical" whit "balanced"
symmetrical is, like you said, 2 completely same teams, whit same tactics and the same weapons. you should know that this is impossible in NS2 to come happen.
balanced;
quoted from wiki <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_balance" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_balance</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In a suitably balanced game, players would make such choices based on their personal preference, strengths, and playing style, rather than on an inherent advantage in one option. If one option were weaker than the others, then it would rarely be selected by any player and will not contribute to the complexity of the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
to have a game 100% pure balanced, everything needs to be mirrored. and even then one side will win. becouse the players whit more expierimence has the upper hand. that is basic common sense.
<i>is a skulk vs marine balanced? this question is impossible to answer, due the simple fact that human beings make mistakes and are fairly random.
</i>
in short terms; no class, site or weapon should have a direct adventage as other of its kind <i>whitout</i> any counter as abilty, tactic or class.( HA=onos)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tsa.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::tsa::" border="0" alt="tsa.gif" /> <!--coloro:#FFA500--><span style="color:#FFA500"><!--/coloro-->randomness<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> - glorifying not only personal skill but teamwork, randomness (for example weapon recoil) makes single players less confident but it also has minor affect on the group of players. it also applies to the map design, more interactive elements (completely taken out by Valve in their MP games) affecting the game flow, indirect ways to fight, less predictability<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the players, the humans, are already random, each round is different, has different tactics and different people to play whit. isnt that random enough? randomness is a tool, a tool to nerf a weapon/class/etc that would otherwise, whitout randomness, be overly powerfull.
a well balanced game dont need randomness.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tsa.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::tsa::" border="0" alt="tsa.gif" /> <!--coloro:#FFA500--><span style="color:#FFA500"><!--/coloro-->often updates<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> - put one strategy in favor this time, force another strategy next time etc. - constant balance-shifting small updates, can be weapons udates, can be game logic updates, but never let players get used to a given elaborated strategy making the gameplay stall<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->==========
READ THIS
==========<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
strategy cant make gameplay stall. the main POINT of the game is to beat and counter the enemy strategy. each map, each player has different strategys, and comon, ITS <b>never</b> a good idea to put one strategy over other strategys. actually, there are none, a game flows smoothly, this is a shooter, not a RTS, randomness in form of player skill and his ability to adapt to different situations will determind win or lose, are there 2 skulks in the room? or 2 lerks? the player will adapt smootly to it, they dont plan. they dont argue, THEY DO.
or if the base is under attack? will the player return or fight to the enemy base? thats the players choise. each "strategy" is made for different situations, it will form specifely to the situation, giving you the upper hand, but so does the enemy, he will adapt to your strategy, and counter it, now you need to alter it again. this is how game works! dont take the main part of NS out for what?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->what this gives us? freedom to implement more features! for example istead of 4 solicitously configured and balanced weapons we can have 15 to choose from, after 3 weeks good players make 3 of that better than the others, and a week after an update comes, rebalancing the whole set. <b>personal skills wont be lost</b> - players will just have to put it again to use instead of blindly practising one and only strategy<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so, you say you dont want to have 4 perfectly balanced fair weapons, each one fullfill his role in combat. none is useless, but you want 15 weapons, in which 3 are used. and whit the new patch everything is changed again complicating everything again, becouse old players tell the new ones that these weapons are better then those others, and the new players get lost in the options of 15 weapons, best example for this mistake is tremoulus. no, just no.
weapons are not tactics. they are tools.
PS: i love to own OPs. especialy when they call symmetrical = balanced.
i cant get rid of the picture seeing a marine biting a skulk...
<b>vote <!--coloro:#00DD00--><span style="color:#00DD00"><!--/coloro-->yes<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b> to asymmetry in tech tree & counter-tech, map design, combat style, etc.
<b>vote <!--coloro:#DD0000--><span style="color:#DD0000"><!--/coloro-->no<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b> to "often updates" as described. Although, if there is something <i>broken</i> the released version, it should be fixed with clever logic and all due haste with a patch. Hopefully that shouldn't happen much as long as ample time, care, and enough people are involved in the playtesting process.
Sorry that I couldn't participate more, I've been quite busy.
Lies. What could be more important? That thing called real life? It doesn't exist!!!!!
Bad example. Football is pretty random. Injuries and weather can have huge impacts on the game. I would go with baseball since they play a series of games and pitching depth is important to the strategy. I've already said what I think about randomness in this topic.
Randomness is what developers toss in because they're too lazy to design a game that is deep enough to be dynamic and unpredictable. Crits "improving" TF2's gameplay should be taken as evidence of TF2's weakness, not randomness' strength.
but this ist bad at all i think the worst thing (subconscious) for most people is how devestating a defead is
(rines got ip raped and cant even fire a shot and die u r helpless and aliens have no chance to gestate the little skulks faces the shotgun barrel, of five mins earlyer in gamplay the base got raped by GL/HMG jetpack/havys or focus fading onosstomping eating)
so this is what makes a defeat so bitter and frustrating and what makes player that take the game a bit more serius make so angry if they face to lose the game
a solution would be end the round "faster" if one team has already won without a doubt that everyone can rejoin team on the next map!
maybe then the complaining about newbie flaming ends ... maybe....
and for game dynamics as randomness and crits mhh i dont think crits fit in ns you got hitboxes and that has a reason!
randomness on the right way could be nice so i.e. map dynamics(working machines on the map so on) or let on every round every res node prodce randomly resource (so one day the res in messhall gives you 1 res next round only 0,5 and then 2) so tactics change and people fight harder for everytime different places....
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=104237&st=0&p=1678234&#entry1678234" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...p;#entry1678234</a>
The theory goes that it is lack of meaningful choices that make a game boring, regardless of how fair it is. If something is far more powerful than everything else with no set back, then you don't have any real choice but to use it, and so there is no meaningful decision to make. If everything is exactly the same as everything else, then it doesn't matter which one you use and so you still don't have any meaningful decisions to make.
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=104237&st=0&p=1678234&#entry1678234" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...p;#entry1678234</a>
The theory goes that it is lack of meaningful choices that make a game boring, regardless of how fair it is. If something is far more powerful than everything else with no set back, then you don't have any real choice but to use it, and so there is no meaningful decision to make. If everything is exactly the same as everything else, then it doesn't matter which one you use and so you still don't have any meaningful decisions to make.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Which seems to be the argument for constantly changing the variables with updates. No one has time to settle into the "best" pattern. This is based on the reasoning that it's difficult to balance multiple viable choices in a complex game, which is true, but isn't necessarily a bad goal.
I think the best design article I read on this subject argued for weighted rock-paper-scissor decisions. This means rock is the most powerful, but it's susceptible to paper, the weakest tactic. Scissors is a decent tactic, and it beats paper but fails to rock. Weighted RPS -- this can play out in micro and macro gameplay decisions. So, I guess in NS essentially you'd just have to give the other team some kind of strategy to counter their opponent's strongest strategy; instead of, you know, nerfing the strongest strategy, let it be strong except against one opposing tactic. This'll make recon much more important. Could it also make NS more enjoyable? (Not that I don't thoroughly enjoy myself when playing NS. I mean for others.) What kind of weighted micro decisions can we make?
I spy a Sirlin reader.
One thing I'd like to push forward is whether or not hard counters should exist. The RPS system is the classic style of hard counters easily beating the one they are designed to beat, and failing when they are designed to fail.
However, why not multipurpose and specific variants? Let's take for example StarCraft. The basic Marine can shoot air and ground, not too much damage, not huge amount of health. In a straight one-on-one, no surprises, it loses to a Zealot and wins against a Zergling. However, Zealots cost more res and are melee, so careful micro can let a Marine + something else beat a Zealot. Similarly, Zerglings never attack individually, so they could overwhelm the Marine without taking losses. If the Terran were tricky, they could throw in a Firebat which decimates Zerglings, a hard counter, but is weak to ranged and air units like a Mutalisk and a Hyrdalisk. So, the Marine is a kind of general purpose unit, the Firebat a more specialized unit with harder counters. However, even the Firebat isn't completely all powerful against Zerglings, since its splash only hits in a certain area, surrounding and microing Zerglings can result in no losses.
Basically, why only have hardcounters? Soft counters are more viable in my opinion, and more fun. Sure there's the easier way to do things, but a creative combination still stands a chance. See RA3 where hard counters are more prevalent, and I personally find it painful that my entire force can get wiped out by a few hardcounter units.
Granted, soft counters are more complex and can be harder to balance.
Granted, soft counters are more complex and can be harder to balance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In RTS games hard counters may be ok as long as the units are controllable enough so that you can have the counters and counter-counters where you want them.
On NS the present system seems nice, lerk > LMG, SG > lerk, a few skulks + lerk > sg. Of course SGs could be a little more counterable and so on, but the general direction is nice. Too hard counters make it quite merciless for the newbies if they end up having the only counter in the team.
Tell that to the LMGer in my Onos belly.
If you have w3a3 and an LMG, you're doing something terribly wrong.
The only conclusion left for me to gather is that it isn't the game but the players which cause this. Go into your typical natural selection game and tell me what types of players you find. You find a good many veteran players who bunny hop and do very well in general. Then you have the elite few who completely dominate, taking at least 2 or 3 other players with full focus on that player before he'll fall.
The rest are complete newbies. On the scoreboard, they score next to nothing on most games and they're usually the ones getting owned by the veterans. Some will ask stupid questions, but most stay silent.
Skill gap is acceptable if it reflects the normal learning curve. When it's like this, there doesn't exist a learning curve because 9 veterans out of 10 got good playing in an environment in which everybody was learning how to play natural selection for the first time. Combine the fact that natural selection isn't the quickest mod to learn how to play with the fact that you're likely going to encounter veterans, not newbies in your encounters with other players.. it's no wonder natural selection is losing player base.
If you say there's not a problem here, that's your opinion, but I strongly disagree.
CS has a far bigger skill gap. If a new player went up against a CAL-I player, he'd have 0 chances of scoring a kill. In NS, new players can piggyback on a decent team and go onos, or gorge or something that requires minimal competency.
It'd be all to easy for that to happen. I know because I've been that veteran and that newbie (before I got to be veteran) many times before.
You could say it's worse for Counterstrike, and all I have to say to that is that counterstrike also has a notorious skill gap. I don't think it's any better. At least I can say that the skill gap is not based on learning how the game works as the gameplay is fairly straightforward. In that sense, at least it's more acceptable. Though again I say that if a newbie has enough to worry about learning the game in general, how is a newbie going to overcome the skill gap as well?
It's actually a lot easier to improve in NS than it is in CS because the only way to improve in NS is by improving your aim and learning strategies. In other words, improvement in CS is quadratic. Improvement in NS is cubic because it includes learning strategies, improving aim AND improving movement.
I think it is much easier to learn something when there are people who can show you the way, either directly or indirectly. Even if a new player is too shy to ask questions, they can still observe the actions of the better performing players in the third person, or by spectating. Of course the player needs to have a certain level of interest in order to really improve him or herself. I think your estimate of 9 out of 10 veterans is pretty far off the mark. If you were to poll competitive and ex-competitive players, I think you would find that the majority got good, or at least better, by playing against people who could wipe the floor with them. As for the distribution of skill among the remaining players, I agree with enigma that it is due to the declining community. The influx of players has slowed to almost nothing and it is not surprising that many of the dedicated players still hanging on would also be relatively skilled.
Do you know what you're saying when you say learning is cubic? That means all of the learning is done at the end, which is almost the same as quadratic but less extreme. You mean to say that, because that argues for my point. You're saying with more effort, the payoff is virtually insignificant until you're virtually at the experience of a veteran.
<!--quoteo(post=1695026:date=Dec 3 2008, 04:08 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Dec 3 2008, 04:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695026"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If counter strike has no problem with a big skill gap, NS2 will certainly have no problem with one.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny, because I have heard that this was one of the biggest problems with counter strike. If you think Natural Selection 2 will be fine like natural selection is fine now, then you're denying the existance of any problem whatsoever. I'd like to hear your reason for why the player base is falling then? Must be because natural selection is so awesome, right?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think it is much easier to learn something when there are people who can show you the way, either directly or indirectly. Even if a new player is too shy to ask questions, they can still observe the actions of the better performing players in the third person, or by spectating. Of course the player needs to have a certain level of interest in order to really improve him or herself. I think your estimate of 9 out of 10 veterans is pretty far off the mark. If you were to poll competitive and ex-competitive players, I think you would find that the majority got good, or at least better, by playing against people who could wipe the floor with them. As for the distribution of skill among the remaining players, I agree with enigma that it is due to the declining community. The influx of players has slowed to almost nothing and it is not surprising that many of the dedicated players still hanging on would also be relatively skilled.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're assuming that most players are patient and have long attention spans. I'm sure they exist, but most players aren't that way, and more people leave this mod than there are new and patient players with long attention spans are trying this mod. Maybe not 9 out of 10, but 7 out of 10 or 8 out of 10, surely. Otherwise, you're essentially saying that a newbie spent hours getting trashed by veterans and insulted by making newbie mistakes and generally not making any difference on a team actually stayed with the mob until they got to be veterans? I don't even think I would have tollerated that, honestly, and I probably wouldn't still be playing if I sucked at this mod, no matter how decent natural selection may be.
<!--quoteo(post=1695065:date=Dec 3 2008, 11:54 PM:name=)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE( @ Dec 3 2008, 11:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695065"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If the skill gap in CS didn't prevent it from losing players, it isn't the fault of the gap that NS has a dead middle class. That's a problem with intuition, which <i>is</i> the fault of the game designer, but the fault lies not in the difficulty of the game, or its competitive ceiling.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I didn't think natural selection was that <i>hard</i> to learn. Could have been because I was playing in the 1.0 days, but I don't think newbies frequently die in natural selection because they don't *know* how to play. They know perfectly that if they bite the marine, the marine dies. Problem is a matter of skill. If there was ever a problem with intuition on gameplay, it'd be knowing what to do at any given moment. Though newbies don't stop playing because they poorly choose to go to a rather uninteresting section of the map in terms of activity.
I guess I forgot to mention that I haven't described the whole function/the rules, just the leading coefficient. Most of the learning done is done at the beginning when the player realizes what a resource tower is and in the middle when people realize that they can improve past their 1:1 ratio.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Funny, because I have heard that this was one of the biggest problems with counter strike. If you think Natural Selection 2 will be fine like natural selection is fine now, then you're denying the existance of any problem whatsoever. I'd like to hear your reason for why the player base is falling then? Must be because natural selection is so awesome, right?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Natural Selection was never a really popular game because of insufficient publicity. What makes you think that NS is unpopular for a mod? It's been alive for over 6 years dude. Name ALL of the games that have been alive for at least that long. The general consensus among people who have been here since the start is that NS failed because of website hacks/abandonment by Charlie for a while.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I probably wouldn't still be playing if I sucked at this mod, no matter how decent natural selection may be.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's how it is with everyone and with every game except for stuff like zen of sudoku or something.