<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56kd2Fj2kD8" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56kd2Fj2kD8</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Then they failed.
<!--quoteo(post=1904184:date=Feb 17 2012, 10:46 AM:name=Skuggan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Skuggan @ Feb 17 2012, 10:46 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1904184"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I find it very strange that they didnt run the test with 2 and 3 ips aswell. This of course changes alot.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> They were too busy coding shiny GUIs.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56kd2Fj2kD8" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56kd2Fj2kD8</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I saw that video, and was rather perplexed as to the purpose of that tool. Surely it cannot be used in any way, shape or form to determine balance. It appears as an incredibly 1-dimensional simulation that honestly cannot take into consideration the infinite variables at play when humans interact. We're talking how players traverse maps, how often and long they need to camp at places, as well as how impossible it is to determine the outcome of encounters (jumping; strafing; tick-rate; frame-rate; there is just so much that comes into play). Just listen to your play-testers (and the broader beta-public), and don't give even a second thought to what some simulation has to say on the matter.
Isn't it obvious that the spawn rates need to be the same or very similar? I don't understand why they have all these complicated methods to calculate something simple.
The only problem is making the spawns scale with team size. You can't just decrease the spawn time without interfering with lots of other stuff. It makes more sense to allow multiple players to spawn at once, so that the time between spawns is still kept the same. This is already in the game with multiple IPs. If you play a game with more players you just build more IPs and you're sorted. IMO they just need to create equal spawn times for both teams, and then add a similar upgrade for aliens which allows spawn rates to scale with team size. Perhaps the hive can upgrade to allow multiple aliens to hatch at once (just like IPs). From there you see how it goes and wait till the combat feels pretty balanced and then you make small changes to spawn times if needed.
JuCCi-PuCCi, yeah skulk rushes did happen when it was static spawns but it took a lot longer for the aliens to reinforce their attack since they had to cross the entire map. Plus the marine start was open and didn't have any vents which made it easier for marines to defend. With random spawns the time it takes to get from one base to another is generally a lot shorter. The bases are much harder to defend as they have vents and lots of objects around for skulks to use and sometimes the power node can't even be seen from the CC so it's difficult for the com to defend even against single harassing skulks.
<!--quoteo(post=1904238:date=Feb 17 2012, 09:38 AM:name=JuCCi-PuCCi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JuCCi-PuCCi @ Feb 17 2012, 09:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1904238"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you played so long you would know that when we didn't have random spawns there was still skulk rushes then. Random spawns didn't ###### up the game. People that can't aim did....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Skulk rush will exist even without the random spawn, also the issue with random spawn is not only skulk rushes, its simply the distance between marine and aliens. They can spawn to close to each other. Also the maps that are currently aviable were not made with 100% random spawn in mind so they simply don't work very well like that. The random spawn mechanic is awesome but all map's should not have random spawns, it should be a mix. I really dont want to start discussing why its a problem when bases start in such short distance by writing because it will simply take to long, it would be better to take this talk to voicechat if needed.
<!--quoteo(post=1904250:date=Feb 17 2012, 10:27 AM:name=MOOtant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MOOtant @ Feb 17 2012, 10:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1904250"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They were too busy coding shiny GUIs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Really hate useless comments like that, if people start massing comments like that people might start blaming everything on uwe priorities, seen many forums take such small comments and keep using them out of context/in harmful ways. UWE is doing a good job and you can't expect everything to be done perfect in the first try. If you think there is an issue you should give a good reason behind it.
<!--quoteo(post=1904261:date=Feb 17 2012, 11:01 AM:name=player)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (player @ Feb 17 2012, 11:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1904261"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I saw that video, and was rather perplexed as to the purpose of that tool. Surely it cannot be used in any way, shape or form to determine balance. It appears as an incredibly 1-dimensional simulation that honestly cannot take into consideration the infinite variables at play when humans interact. We're talking how players traverse maps, how often and long they need to camp at places, as well as how impossible it is to determine the outcome of encounters (jumping; strafing; tick-rate; frame-rate; there is just so much that comes into play). Just listen to your play-testers (and the broader beta-public), and don't give even a second thought to what some simulation has to say on the matter.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its true they should not base everything on a single simulation. However its good they are creating simulation for many of the problems, that way they can see how much minor chances affect the bigger picture without release a patch each time. However simulations usally give limited infromation so they should also get feedback on it. I'm sure Flayra didn't only change the spawn time because of the simluation, there may have been other factors we don't know about.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Isn't it obvious that the spawn rates need to be the same or very similar? I don't understand why they have all these complicated methods to calculate something simple.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, this is often the case with models, you do all kind of complicated computation and you end up with a boring conclusion.
Speaking of boring conclusion, I made a mistake in my awesome model, in fact to be balanced the spawn rate ratio should be equal to the kill ratio, i.e. if a marine can kill two aliens while an alien can kill only one marine, then the aliens should spawn twice faster... So, the spawn rates do not need to be very similar in general, but only if the battles are balanced. But I guess we want balanced battle between skulk and marines, no ?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It appears as an incredibly 1-dimensional simulation that honestly cannot take into consideration the infinite variables at play when humans interact. We're talking how players traverse maps, how often and long they need to camp at places, as well as how impossible it is to determine the outcome of encounters (jumping; strafing; tick-rate; frame-rate; there is just so much that comes into play).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The only assumptions you need here is that all theses effects don't matter on average, but I agree that play-testers feedback is probably more reliable. A model is more a discussion tool in my opinion.
<!--quoteo(post=1904261:date=Feb 17 2012, 04:01 PM:name=player)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (player @ Feb 17 2012, 04:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1904261"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I saw that video, and was rather perplexed as to the purpose of that tool.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Me too. At first I thought it was some very simple calculation to observe some spawning mechanic functionality somehow, but when I look at the factors involved it seems like some more complex game flow modelling attempt.
ArgathorJoin Date: 2011-07-18Member: 110942Members, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1904238:date=Feb 17 2012, 02:38 PM:name=JuCCi-PuCCi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JuCCi-PuCCi @ Feb 17 2012, 02:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1904238"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you played so long you would know that when we didn't have random spawns there was still skulk rushes then. Random spawns didn't ###### up the game. People that can't aim did....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I am well aware, skulk'ing is my speciality. I have finished more games in under 2minutes than I care to remember. The difference Random Spawns made is huge.
I have always been good at rushing and getting to the Marine Base very quickly. Random Spawns putting both teams next to each other made it easy (and obvious) for most of the team to do it. If I had no trouble doing it while crossing the whole map mostly solo, why would an entire team who realise the marines are right next-door struggle with it.
Random Spawns are a terrible idea (unless the map is solely designed with them in mind). They amplify many current imbalances.
I played 1 game last night that lasted over 2 hours (on one of the the Inversion servers... the map was tram).
It was insanely fun. A lot of back and fourth, but I had a blast.
The JP + Flame combo was really crazy.
Things seemed pretty balanced for the most part.
I did notice that skulks required 4 bites to kill a marine at level 3 armor. I'm not sure if this was like this before the 196 patch, but it made things a lot more challenging.
<!--quoteo(post=1904328:date=Feb 17 2012, 02:28 PM:name=Daphisto)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Daphisto @ Feb 17 2012, 02:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1904328"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I played 1 game last night that lasted over 2 hours (on one of the the Inversion servers... the map was tram).
It was insanely fun. A lot of back and fourth, but I had a blast.
The JP + Flame combo was really crazy.
Things seemed pretty balanced for the most part.
I did notice that skulks required 4 bites to kill a marine at level 3 armor. I'm not sure if this was like this before the 196 patch, but it made things a lot more challenging.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's awesome the game can have 2 hour good games, its the same effect ns1 had for me when I started playing - 2 hour epic games that were just amazing, hopefully you will have plenty of those. It's to bad I have a different view of the game today, but I do enjoy it just as much. -- It's true that you need 4 bites to kill a marine with lvl 3 armor, you also need 4 bites to kill marines with lvl2 armor, its kinda pointless atm to upgrade it to lvl 3 :). But I agree that it can be painfully difficult to get down a marine with 4 bitesc
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1904261:date=Feb 17 2012, 08:01 AM:name=player)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (player @ Feb 17 2012, 08:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1904261"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I saw that video, and was rather perplexed as to the purpose of that tool. Surely it cannot be used in any way, shape or form to determine balance. It appears as an incredibly 1-dimensional simulation that honestly cannot take into consideration the infinite variables at play when humans interact. We're talking how players traverse maps, how often and long they need to camp at places, as well as how impossible it is to determine the outcome of encounters (jumping; strafing; tick-rate; frame-rate; there is just so much that comes into play). Just listen to your play-testers (and the broader beta-public), and don't give even a second thought to what some simulation has to say on the matter.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Except the variables are not infinite because the players are constrained by the parameters of the game. Quickly prototyping different changes via a spreadsheet or simulation program are a good way to get an order of magnitude estimate of the value of various variables. Then they can be tweaked or overhauled based on playtester/beta player feedback on how balanced it feels or how the change affects the fun of gameplay.
matsoMaster of PatchesJoin Date: 2002-11-05Member: 7000Members, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, Squad Five Gold, Reinforced - Shadow, NS2 Community Developer
Fixed egg spawn rates are fragile. Especially with high miniumum egg spawn rates, as the team size only gives you a bonus if you already HAVE eggs. As soon as you get into a situation where at least one alien is dead all the time, teamsize do not affect how quickly aliens spawn - they will spawn one every 10 seconds, even if there are 10 dead aliens in queue.
This is of course not viable for tight games, like when you spawn adjecent to each other, or large games (10v10 or bigger). So it will get fixed once it becomes bleeding obvious that it has to be fixed.
One easy fix would be to decrease minimum spawn time depending on how many aliens are dead, assuming you want to keep the "can't upgrade spawn capacity" for aliens.
matso raises a good point, and it's pretty obvious to me in-game that the egg spawning system still needs work
I'd like to see an alien buildable structure that improves respawn speed. Like how the marines can build IPs at each of their chair sites, only alien-styled somehow.
<!--quoteo(post=1904204:date=Feb 17 2012, 07:56 AM:name=twiliteblue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (twiliteblue @ Feb 17 2012, 07:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1904204"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Agreed that Shotguns are just too effective for pushing/rushing. They would more balanced if they are tweaked to play a more defensive role. (eg faster rate-of-fire, lower damage per shot, so Shotguns don't always instanta kill Skulks, even when charge into each other).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The proper way to balance this is around shell count and weapon upgrade level. As the shell count rises, carapace makes the shotgun kill in more hits. As weapon upgrade level rises to compensate, things even out again. Just like armor/damage upgrades in Starcraft. You should always be 'racing' the opposing side's upgrades, with some plateau effect at the top tier upgrades where you're better off than you were to begin with (like skulks now take 2 shotguns even with weapons 3 on marines).
The shotgun itself doesn't need to change, I don't think. Getting it before aliens can have lerks, and having lerks get completely dominated by shotguns even at range...that's a different story.
These forums perplex me. I've been playing this game intensely for the last 2 weeks or so, and Aliens have a clear advantage. They win 90% of matches. And yet, the forums are loaded with "make aliens better" threads. I know the "hardcore" players won't want to hear this, but public servers will always be the overwhelming majority, and will comprise the clear majority of your player base, and on public servers, Marines get curb stomped way more often than not. So why is everybody talking about how to make the aliens more effective, and not about how to adjust gameplay so Fades aren't the game winner nine times out of ten?
This is just since 196 patch Halcyon - before that you'd be correct that aliens dominated but its quickly swung the other way now due to the free IP/spawn changes.
It's really hard to discuss balance in general, which is why we spend a lot of time on stats.
I'm still waiting to get some real data on 196/197, and in general it takes days or weeks for gameplay changes to "sink in" to the community. So saying that something is really broken or imbalanced right after it's released isn't actionable - have to wait a bit before knowing where the truth lies.
The spawning simulator was a big step in the right direction for trying to get asymmetrical spawning balanced across different sized games. Now I'm doing something similar for combat: to get a handle on carapace, marine upgrades and alien late-game strength.
invTempestJoin Date: 2003-03-02Member: 14223Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
While I agree the simulator was a step in the right direction, I don't think it takes into account all the variables. Very rarely do marines only have 1 IP, so the spawn rate usually is one or two orders of magnitude higher than what was simulated.
In the current build, it is very easy for marines to just continuously rush the hive since they can drop as many IPs as they want and there are little to no penalties to doing so (no RFK for aliens and very little wait time to respawn).
I would like to see how the simulation turns out when you factor in 2-3 IPs for the marines as this is what we are currently experiencing in the game right now.
The previous no free ip ver was fine if the marine team was not mentally challenged (no comm for like 15 sec, no one builds and runs off solo). Also the fact that you now have to balance the timings around THE WHOLE TEAM getting shotguns as soon as they pop is just silly. The mass of higher tier weapons and LFs skyrockets with individual pres income/extractor.
<!--quoteo(post=1904459:date=Feb 17 2012, 10:53 PM:name=invTempest)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (invTempest @ Feb 17 2012, 10:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1904459"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In the current build, it is very easy for marines to just continuously rush the hive since they can drop as many IPs as they want and there are little to no penalties to doing so (no RFK for aliens and very little wait time to respawn).
I would like to see how the simulation turns out when you factor in 2-3 IPs for the marines as this is what we are currently experiencing in the game right now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
Alien win rate at 58% in B197 so far: <a href="http://unknownworldsstats.appspot.com/displayendgamestats?version=197&output=chart" target="_blank">http://unknownworldsstats.appspot.com/disp...mp;output=chart</a>
It might fluctuate a bit more, but I'd say balance is improved from B194/195, but still favors aliens.
swalkSay hello to my little friend.Join Date: 2011-01-20Member: 78384Members, Squad Five Blue
edited February 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1904452:date=Feb 18 2012, 04:21 AM:name=Flayra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Flayra @ Feb 18 2012, 04:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1904452"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's really hard to discuss balance in general, which is why we spend a lot of time on stats.
I'm still waiting to get some real data on 196/197, and in general it takes days or weeks for gameplay changes to "sink in" to the community. So saying that something is really broken or imbalanced right after it's released isn't actionable - have to wait a bit before knowing where the truth lies.
The spawning simulator was a big step in the right direction for trying to get asymmetrical spawning balanced across different sized games. Now I'm doing something similar for combat: to get a handle on carapace, marine upgrades and alien late-game strength.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> How about using competetive players for balance changes? Like other competetive titles do, Starcraft 2 comes to mind. I just don't see the public stats doing balancing much good so far. And you could spend less of your time thinking about balance. And I see alot of changes that does not make sense balance wise, because of the stats usage. The stats are inaccurate, due to alot of things.
<!--quoteo(post=1904687:date=Feb 18 2012, 09:58 PM:name=NurEinMensch)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NurEinMensch @ Feb 18 2012, 09:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1904687"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->99% of NS2 games that are ever going to played will be random pub games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's true, but lets say you play ns alot you will probably get better at the game and get better at understanding the game mechanics. From that point you will most likely start seeking servers with better players and a strong community, where team play is the norm. Do you really want the game to get more unbalance the better you get at the game? Do you really want the game to be broken when you have gotten really good at the game?
For some players this simply isn't enough, they want to start a team or join other teams to play on even higher level, with more team play where your skill matters even more. This creates many fun factors such as competitive live streams that can be fun to watch and attract many new players to the game.
The game needs to work on all levels but it's really important that it's not broken when everything is used to it's full Potencial. If something is broken and cannot really be countered in competitive play it will eventually make it's way into ,,pub games" and be abused there.
I could go on about this for hours probably but the simple truth is, if they want to make a really really good game that will last over 9 years(like ns1 has already done) they must have solid play for competitive as well.
The thing that I always find humourous in the 'public vs competitive' debates is that public/casual players still play and enjoy games that are balanced for competition. Like Quake, Counterstrike, Starcraft, NS....the list goes on and on. Why is there even a debate like this?
I always thought Natural Selection was a casual game.
Played it since 2005, so yeah, not anywhere near the start, but I always felt it was a very casual game. TO be honest, I was super shocked when I found out it was competitive.
Then again, until probably 2009, I had no idea StarCraft was a competitive game either. I always found it casual, and having played it for 9 years at that point. I am kind of oblivious to the competition in games.
<!--quoteo(post=1904722:date=Feb 19 2012, 04:56 PM:name=Mkilbride)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mkilbride @ Feb 19 2012, 04:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1904722"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I always thought Natural Selection was a casual game.
Played it since 2005, so yeah, not anywhere near the start, but I always felt it was a very casual game. TO be honest, I was super shocked when I found out it was competitive.
Then again, until probably 2009, I had no idea StarCraft was a competitive game either. I always found it casual, and having played it for 9 years at that point. I am kind of oblivious to the competition in games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well NS is an RTS/FPS.. both genres which are competitive by the very nature of their design. Whether you play it on a 'casual' basis or a much more regular basis, the game is all about killing the enemy players some way or the other...
<!--quoteo(post=1904687:date=Feb 19 2012, 03:58 AM:name=NurEinMensch)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NurEinMensch @ Feb 19 2012, 03:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1904687"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->99% of NS2 games that are ever going to played will be random pub games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nothing says you can't use the competetive players and their understanding to make the pub games better. The devs are the ones ultimately deciding what goes into the game, not anyone they discuss to get feedback from the game. For example if a competetive player gives the devs 5 reasons why something unwanted happens in gameplay, the devs are still free to pick their pub friendly approach on adressing the issue.
Oftentimes the positive elements of competetive play - such as teamwork or strategical coordination - can also be brough to the public through well designed UI or features. For example a competetive player usually has a good understanding on what kind of communication is necessary for a team in various situations. Making the UI support and encourage that kind of communication can help public games to become much more satisfying for everyone.
Comments
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56kd2Fj2kD8" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56kd2Fj2kD8</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then they failed.
They were too busy coding shiny GUIs.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56kd2Fj2kD8" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56kd2Fj2kD8</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I saw that video, and was rather perplexed as to the purpose of that tool. Surely it cannot be used in any way, shape or form to determine balance. It appears as an incredibly 1-dimensional simulation that honestly cannot take into consideration the infinite variables at play when humans interact. We're talking how players traverse maps, how often and long they need to camp at places, as well as how impossible it is to determine the outcome of encounters (jumping; strafing; tick-rate; frame-rate; there is just so much that comes into play). Just listen to your play-testers (and the broader beta-public), and don't give even a second thought to what some simulation has to say on the matter.
The only problem is making the spawns scale with team size. You can't just decrease the spawn time without interfering with lots of other stuff. It makes more sense to allow multiple players to spawn at once, so that the time between spawns is still kept the same. This is already in the game with multiple IPs. If you play a game with more players you just build more IPs and you're sorted. IMO they just need to create equal spawn times for both teams, and then add a similar upgrade for aliens which allows spawn rates to scale with team size. Perhaps the hive can upgrade to allow multiple aliens to hatch at once (just like IPs). From there you see how it goes and wait till the combat feels pretty balanced and then you make small changes to spawn times if needed.
JuCCi-PuCCi, yeah skulk rushes did happen when it was static spawns but it took a lot longer for the aliens to reinforce their attack since they had to cross the entire map. Plus the marine start was open and didn't have any vents which made it easier for marines to defend. With random spawns the time it takes to get from one base to another is generally a lot shorter. The bases are much harder to defend as they have vents and lots of objects around for skulks to use and sometimes the power node can't even be seen from the CC so it's difficult for the com to defend even against single harassing skulks.
Skulk rush will exist even without the random spawn, also the issue with random spawn is not only skulk rushes, its simply the distance between marine and aliens. They can spawn to close to each other. Also the maps that are currently aviable were not made with 100% random spawn in mind so they simply don't work very well like that. The random spawn mechanic is awesome but all map's should not have random spawns, it should be a mix.
I really dont want to start discussing why its a problem when bases start in such short distance by writing because it will simply take to long, it would be better to take this talk to voicechat if needed.
<!--quoteo(post=1904250:date=Feb 17 2012, 10:27 AM:name=MOOtant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MOOtant @ Feb 17 2012, 10:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1904250"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They were too busy coding shiny GUIs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Really hate useless comments like that, if people start massing comments like that people might start blaming everything on uwe priorities, seen many forums take such small comments and keep using them out of context/in harmful ways. UWE is doing a good job and you can't expect everything to be done perfect in the first try. If you think there is an issue you should give a good reason behind it.
<!--quoteo(post=1904261:date=Feb 17 2012, 11:01 AM:name=player)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (player @ Feb 17 2012, 11:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1904261"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I saw that video, and was rather perplexed as to the purpose of that tool. Surely it cannot be used in any way, shape or form to determine balance. It appears as an incredibly 1-dimensional simulation that honestly cannot take into consideration the infinite variables at play when humans interact. We're talking how players traverse maps, how often and long they need to camp at places, as well as how impossible it is to determine the outcome of encounters (jumping; strafing; tick-rate; frame-rate; there is just so much that comes into play). Just listen to your play-testers (and the broader beta-public), and don't give even a second thought to what some simulation has to say on the matter.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its true they should not base everything on a single simulation. However its good they are creating simulation for many of the problems, that way they can see how much minor chances affect the bigger picture without release a patch each time. However simulations usally give limited infromation so they should also get feedback on it. I'm sure Flayra didn't only change the spawn time because of the simluation, there may have been other factors we don't know about.
Yeah, this is often the case with models, you do all kind of complicated computation and you end up with a boring conclusion.
Speaking of boring conclusion, I made a mistake in my awesome model, in fact to be balanced the spawn rate ratio should be equal to the kill ratio, i.e. if a marine can kill two aliens while an alien can kill only one marine, then the aliens should spawn twice faster...
So, the spawn rates do not need to be very similar in general, but only if the battles are balanced. But I guess we want balanced battle between skulk and marines, no ?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It appears as an incredibly 1-dimensional simulation that honestly cannot take into consideration the infinite variables at play when humans interact. We're talking how players traverse maps, how often and long they need to camp at places, as well as how impossible it is to determine the outcome of encounters (jumping; strafing; tick-rate; frame-rate; there is just so much that comes into play).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The only assumptions you need here is that all theses effects don't matter on average, but I agree that play-testers feedback is probably more reliable. A model is more a discussion tool in my opinion.
Me too. At first I thought it was some very simple calculation to observe some spawning mechanic functionality somehow, but when I look at the factors involved it seems like some more complex game flow modelling attempt.
I am well aware, skulk'ing is my speciality. I have finished more games in under 2minutes than I care to remember. The difference Random Spawns made is huge.
I have always been good at rushing and getting to the Marine Base very quickly. Random Spawns putting both teams next to each other made it easy (and obvious) for most of the team to do it. If I had no trouble doing it while crossing the whole map mostly solo, why would an entire team who realise the marines are right next-door struggle with it.
Random Spawns are a terrible idea (unless the map is solely designed with them in mind). They amplify many current imbalances.
It was insanely fun. A lot of back and fourth, but I had a blast.
The JP + Flame combo was really crazy.
Things seemed pretty balanced for the most part.
I did notice that skulks required 4 bites to kill a marine at level 3 armor. I'm not sure if this was like this before the 196 patch, but it made things a lot more challenging.
It was insanely fun. A lot of back and fourth, but I had a blast.
The JP + Flame combo was really crazy.
Things seemed pretty balanced for the most part.
I did notice that skulks required 4 bites to kill a marine at level 3 armor. I'm not sure if this was like this before the 196 patch, but it made things a lot more challenging.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's awesome the game can have 2 hour good games, its the same effect ns1 had for me when I started playing - 2 hour epic games that were just amazing, hopefully you will have plenty of those. It's to bad I have a different view of the game today, but I do enjoy it just as much.
--
It's true that you need 4 bites to kill a marine with lvl 3 armor, you also need 4 bites to kill marines with lvl2 armor, its kinda pointless atm to upgrade it to lvl 3 :). But I agree that it can be painfully difficult to get down a marine with 4 bitesc
Except the variables are not infinite because the players are constrained by the parameters of the game. Quickly prototyping different changes via a spreadsheet or simulation program are a good way to get an order of magnitude estimate of the value of various variables. Then they can be tweaked or overhauled based on playtester/beta player feedback on how balanced it feels or how the change affects the fun of gameplay.
This is of course not viable for tight games, like when you spawn adjecent to each other, or large games (10v10 or bigger). So it will get fixed once it becomes bleeding obvious that it has to be fixed.
One easy fix would be to decrease minimum spawn time depending on how many aliens are dead, assuming you want to keep the "can't upgrade spawn capacity" for aliens.
I'd like to see an alien buildable structure that improves respawn speed. Like how the marines can build IPs at each of their chair sites, only alien-styled somehow.
<!--quoteo(post=1904204:date=Feb 17 2012, 07:56 AM:name=twiliteblue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (twiliteblue @ Feb 17 2012, 07:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1904204"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Agreed that Shotguns are just too effective for pushing/rushing. They would more balanced if they are tweaked to play a more defensive role. (eg faster rate-of-fire, lower damage per shot, so Shotguns don't always instanta kill Skulks, even when charge into each other).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The proper way to balance this is around shell count and weapon upgrade level. As the shell count rises, carapace makes the shotgun kill in more hits. As weapon upgrade level rises to compensate, things even out again. Just like armor/damage upgrades in Starcraft. You should always be 'racing' the opposing side's upgrades, with some plateau effect at the top tier upgrades where you're better off than you were to begin with (like skulks now take 2 shotguns even with weapons 3 on marines).
The shotgun itself doesn't need to change, I don't think. Getting it before aliens can have lerks, and having lerks get completely dominated by shotguns even at range...that's a different story.
I'm still waiting to get some real data on 196/197, and in general it takes days or weeks for gameplay changes to "sink in" to the community. So saying that something is really broken or imbalanced right after it's released isn't actionable - have to wait a bit before knowing where the truth lies.
The spawning simulator was a big step in the right direction for trying to get asymmetrical spawning balanced across different sized games. Now I'm doing something similar for combat: to get a handle on carapace, marine upgrades and alien late-game strength.
In the current build, it is very easy for marines to just continuously rush the hive since they can drop as many IPs as they want and there are little to no penalties to doing so (no RFK for aliens and very little wait time to respawn).
I would like to see how the simulation turns out when you factor in 2-3 IPs for the marines as this is what we are currently experiencing in the game right now.
Someone plz share the stats when theyre available thanks.
I would like to see how the simulation turns out when you factor in 2-3 IPs for the marines as this is what we are currently experiencing in the game right now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
+1, QFT, blah, blah
It might fluctuate a bit more, but I'd say balance is improved from B194/195, but still favors aliens.
I'm still waiting to get some real data on 196/197, and in general it takes days or weeks for gameplay changes to "sink in" to the community. So saying that something is really broken or imbalanced right after it's released isn't actionable - have to wait a bit before knowing where the truth lies.
The spawning simulator was a big step in the right direction for trying to get asymmetrical spawning balanced across different sized games. Now I'm doing something similar for combat: to get a handle on carapace, marine upgrades and alien late-game strength.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about using competetive players for balance changes?
Like other competetive titles do, Starcraft 2 comes to mind.
I just don't see the public stats doing balancing much good so far. And you could spend less of your time thinking about balance.
And I see alot of changes that does not make sense balance wise, because of the stats usage.
The stats are inaccurate, due to alot of things.
That's true, but lets say you play ns alot you will probably get better at the game and get better at understanding the game mechanics. From that point you will most likely start seeking servers with better players and a strong community, where team play is the norm. Do you really want the game to get more unbalance the better you get at the game? Do you really want the game to be broken when you have gotten really good at the game?
For some players this simply isn't enough, they want to start a team or join other teams to play on even higher level, with more team play where your skill matters even more. This creates many fun factors such as competitive live streams that can be fun to watch and attract many new players to the game.
The game needs to work on all levels but it's really important that it's not broken when everything is used to it's full Potencial. If something is broken and cannot really be countered in competitive play it will eventually make it's way into ,,pub games" and be abused there.
I could go on about this for hours probably but the simple truth is, if they want to make a really really good game that will last over 9 years(like ns1 has already done) they must have solid play for competitive as well.
Played it since 2005, so yeah, not anywhere near the start, but I always felt it was a very casual game. TO be honest, I was super shocked when I found out it was competitive.
Then again, until probably 2009, I had no idea StarCraft was a competitive game either. I always found it casual, and having played it for 9 years at that point. I am kind of oblivious to the competition in games.
Played it since 2005, so yeah, not anywhere near the start, but I always felt it was a very casual game. TO be honest, I was super shocked when I found out it was competitive.
Then again, until probably 2009, I had no idea StarCraft was a competitive game either. I always found it casual, and having played it for 9 years at that point. I am kind of oblivious to the competition in games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well NS is an RTS/FPS.. both genres which are competitive by the very nature of their design. Whether you play it on a 'casual' basis or a much more regular basis, the game is all about killing the enemy players some way or the other...
Nothing says you can't use the competetive players and their understanding to make the pub games better. The devs are the ones ultimately deciding what goes into the game, not anyone they discuss to get feedback from the game. For example if a competetive player gives the devs 5 reasons why something unwanted happens in gameplay, the devs are still free to pick their pub friendly approach on adressing the issue.
Oftentimes the positive elements of competetive play - such as teamwork or strategical coordination - can also be brough to the public through well designed UI or features. For example a competetive player usually has a good understanding on what kind of communication is necessary for a team in various situations. Making the UI support and encourage that kind of communication can help public games to become much more satisfying for everyone.