<!--quoteo(post=2031293:date=Nov 21 2012, 10:07 AM:name=tarquinbb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tarquinbb @ Nov 21 2012, 10:07 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031293"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i want to see deaths... if you can't see deaths then how do you know if you're improving? how do prevent players from falling into a false sense of playing well - when they're actually playing terrible?
i use my teammates deaths compared to my own in order to gauge why we're losing the match etc... it would just be super obstructive if i'm just meant to 'guess' that my team sucks.
i was on marine earlier and had 30 kills 1 death; it felt good knowing that any decent alien player would behave differently when they suspected that i was in the vicinity. they would be more cautious and try harder, breaking free of the "lolz nub mareens are ez!" shackles.
people should learn to not care about deaths, not have the deaths censored... otherwise we might as well just boycott the game entirely to stop people caring about deaths.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A good KDR might just as easily give you the false impression that you are good at the game. Marines running deep into alien territory soloing harvesters and sniping upgrades, luring out skulks from enclosed spaces for teammates, willing to chase down and tank onos for exos or going 1v1 against fades to protect a power node etc. will have a terrible KDR yet do a lot for their team. As opposed to that zero death dude always hanging back in fights - preferably in an exo -, legging it as soon as the odds are not strongly in his favor, not going anywhere near any lifeform more dangerous than a gorge, running back to an armory after every point of damage he takes. An example I see so very often is people dying on end as skulks without a single kill to show for it then the second they get 75 res they evolve into an onos and spend the rest of the game as such which of course skyrockets their KDR. And they are convinced that they are awesome.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=2031569:date=Nov 21 2012, 02:12 PM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Nov 21 2012, 02:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031569"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Good players know that you don't win by having a 85857 kdr.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you had such a high KDR, I'd think you have to deliberately try to lose to not win the game. KDR isn't the sole determination of victory in NS2 (this is not deathmatch), but that doesn't mean it isn't a primary factor in victory. Higher KDR's make everything else easier and lower KDR's make everything else harder in NS2.
<!--quoteo(post=2031596:date=Nov 21 2012, 11:41 PM:name=HeatSurge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (HeatSurge @ Nov 21 2012, 11:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031596"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The majority of the marine losses I've seen aren't because of bad teams necessarily. They're because of EXTREMELY poor early game. Lose the early game -> lose the entire game. In RTS, it's very hard to come back from behind, I would say even impossible if players are evenly matched - unless one player makes an amazingly huge mistake.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By the time the game finally loaded the map for many players, the early game is over already before they even joined a team.
I was following you up until you brought score into the equation. Are you really arguing that changing scoring metrics are going to change balance? Removing deaths? If you don't want to see your deaths, then don't look at them. There's no reason for you to remove information from me because you don't like a number on the scoreboard.
Good players understand that kills, deaths, and score don't mean everything. They're all only part of the story. Good players know that you don't win by having a 85857 kdr. IMO, this whole thread is ridiculous. Balance is out of whack at different skill levels and game times for a number of varying reasons. I think a much more intuitive answer to the current pub imbalance would be cloak being 100% invisible while moving.
And all this is moot when you realize that pub winrates really don't mean ######. Anything can win in a pub and anything can lose in a pub. When UWE comes out with those 50/50 numbers and mention balance in the same sentence, please just throw that crap in the garbage. There are such varying differences in skill, team sizes, and strategy across the pub spectrum that it is impossible to draw any reasonable conclusion from win/loss rates. At best, the ratio of wins can serve to lead you to areas in which there may or may not be a balance issue.
For example: do aliens have a 30% winrate in the timeframe until the onos comes out and then it skyrockets to 80%? The overall winrate could be 50/50 in this scenario. Is it balanced? No. The aliens are <i>probably</i> too weak before the onos and the onos is <i>probably</i> too strong. Do we know that for sure from looking at it? No. Maybe the marines are too strong early and lack the firepower lategame. Or perhaps performance dies late game and marines are now unable to aim, therefore losing. But if you look at that 50/50 winrate, everything seems fine.
Kind of like the current 65/35 winrate in favor of aliens. If you look at the detailed time graph for pub games on b230&b231, you see marines tend to hold around 50% winrate (+/- 10) from 5 minutes to 15 minutes. What starts to happen about then?
TL;DR Score doesn't matter for balance. Win rates are misleading in balance discussions.
And lastly as a classic example from Yuuki & the intermediate value theorem: If an LMG does 0 damage, marines will win 0% of the games. If an LMG does 1000 damage, marines will win 100% of the games. By the IVT, there exists such a number between 0 and 1000 where marines will win 50% of their games. Now consider the impact this has on the rest of the game. If "balance" as defined by 50/50 winrate can be achieved without looking at 99% of the game, how can a 50/50 winrate be indicative of balance within different portions of the game (ie onos or fade or shotguns).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> this is an excellent post
winrate shouldn't even be brought into discussions until the game is in a state where you want it gameplay-wise
actually it's not entirely worthless - it's detrimental. I recall a Q&A where a developer said they were afraid of touching the 6 minute Onos due to the "winrates being so close!". that turned out well
<!--quoteo(post=2031756:date=Nov 21 2012, 05:23 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Nov 21 2012, 05:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031756"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you had such a high KDR, I'd think you have to deliberately try to lose to not win the game. KDR isn't the sole determination of victory in NS2 (this is not deathmatch), but that doesn't mean it isn't a primary factor in victory. Higher KDR's make everything else easier and lower KDR's make everything else harder in NS2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> it's not necessarily the amount of kills but <i>where</i> the kills are that matter. the game is more about map control than the amount of kills
<!--quoteo(post=2031767:date=Nov 21 2012, 06:39 PM:name=CrushaK)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CrushaK @ Nov 21 2012, 06:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031767"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->By the time the game finally loaded the map for many players, the early game is over already before they even joined a team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Warm-up period or game doesn't start until there's coms in both chairs and at least 4v4 or 5v5. I've suggested it, and looking forward to seeing it happen someday.
<!--quoteo(post=2031569:date=Nov 21 2012, 07:12 PM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Nov 21 2012, 07:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031569"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I was following you up until you brought score into the equation. Are you really arguing that changing scoring metrics are going to change balance? Removing deaths? If you don't want to see your deaths, then don't look at them. There's no reason for you to remove information from me because you don't like a number on the scoreboard.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Hey, you're free to count your own deaths, I'm sure anyone could manage that. My point is that death counts have no place in a TEAM game. This isn't TF2 or CS. The goal of this game is NOT to kill as many opponents as you can. People shouldn't be gauging their performance on their K/D ratio. If they are then they are playing the wrong game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Good players understand that kills, deaths, and score don't mean everything. They're all only part of the story. Good players know that you don't win by having a 85857 kdr.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->That's great, too bad that on public servers there are a lot of players who aren't 'good'. So do we give a collective finger to all the 'average' players who bought the game? If we are going to build this game we have to balance it around the players that actually play the game, and not your idea of what a 'good player' would do in a given situation.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->all this is moot when you realize that pub winrates really don't mean ######. Anything can win in a pub and anything can lose in a pub. When UWE comes out with those 50/50 numbers and mention balance in the same sentence, please just throw that crap in the garbage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I disagree with you, and the developers disagree with you. Pub winrates *do* mean something, and they *WILL* be used the balance the game. That's why the last 3 patches have directly addressed pub gameplay.
While I still respectfully disagree with Charlie on the concept of having separate balance for public and competitive servers, the reality is that the developers will be balancing the game with public servers in mind when you have marine winrates dropping below 40%. Yeah there are wildly varying aspects on public servers that come into play here, but when you aggregate the winrates from hundreds of thousands of games, that's gonna average out.
Some quotes from the developers: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Balance began to swing towards the aliens after the first week, without us making any changes to the game. This is a fascinating phenomenon in game balance: As the community gets better at the game, you become better at exploiting wrinkles in the fabric of its design. The discrepancy continued to widen to an unacceptable 40% marine wins. ... General balance has been improving a lot at the competitive level, but it's not great on pubs. I believe that competitive play is a microcosm of pub play, and that it's not a smart move to have two different versions of the game, balanced for each side. However, there certainly are differences between the two play-styles, and this patch's changes are addressing pub play directly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Public server winrates matter since that's where 99.9% of the games are played.
When push comes to shove, if the developers have to choose between a game that is popular with with the public, or popular with competitive groups, they will choose the former.
The latter doesn't pay the bills.
It's the public players that matter here, since they are the ones who are paying for all of this.
kills AND deaths are hidden in tf2 (well, strictly you can see kills by opening server browser and looking at the server info), and it creates big problems imo.
if you want to analyse a defeat; you NEED access to number of kills, deaths, assists... even damage taken, damage received, damage per minute etc.
if you don't have that information then you don't know whether it was due to bad strategy/teamplay or just getting 'out fragged' by the other team, it's extremely frustrating to improve.
let's say the reason you lost was because their demoman did twice as much damage as your demoman. how the F*** are you meant to know that? at least if you see he has very few deaths and a couple of dominations; you could make a safe assumption.
sorry, but hiding deaths would really frustrate the hell out of me... it seems like it would only benefit the self-conscious.
<!--quoteo(post=2031569:date=Nov 21 2012, 10:12 PM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Nov 21 2012, 10:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031569"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For example: do aliens have a 30% winrate in the timeframe until the onos comes out and then it skyrockets to 80%? The overall winrate could be 50/50 in this scenario. Is it balanced? No. The aliens are <i>probably</i> too weak before the onos and the onos is <i>probably</i> too strong. Do we know that for sure from looking at it? No. Maybe the marines are too strong early and lack the firepower lategame. Or perhaps performance dies late game and marines are now unable to aim, therefore losing. But if you look at that 50/50 winrate, everything seems fine.
Kind of like the current 65/35 winrate in favor of aliens. If you look at the detailed time graph for pub games on b230&b231, you see marines tend to hold around 50% winrate (+/- 10) from 5 minutes to 15 minutes. What starts to happen about then?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My thoughts exactly. Winrate seems to be absurdly overvalued by Charlie.
Random is OP. Random has all the moves, all the tech. I always join Random.
p.s. a scoring overhaul like OP suggests is worth pursuing. Not even going to get into the balance discussions, but because people get an intrinsic brain chemical reward from making their meaningless numbers go up, giving players points for following comm/khamm's orders is a good way to at least help this. Not a panacea, but it would help.
<!--quoteo(post=2031834:date=Nov 21 2012, 07:26 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Nov 21 2012, 07:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031834"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hey, you're free to count your own deaths, I'm sure anyone could manage that. My point is that death counts have no place in a TEAM game. This isn't TF2 or CS. The goal of this game is NOT to kill as many opponents as you can. People shouldn't be gauging their performance on their K/D ratio. If they are then they are playing the wrong game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't have a problem with it either way as I usually only pull up the scoreboard to look at the time. I don't understand what hiding deaths accomplishes, though. players don't just get upset over the number - dying just isn't <i>fun</i> in games (especially not in NS2, when it's around the corner ^^). hiding a number isn't going to make skulks any more likely to suicide for good causes.
in the end, it's just a question of skill - better players will realize when it's a good idea to die instead of saving yourself.
additionally, it seems silly to have information like that be "hidden" or not readily available. it would be amazing if ns2stats was able to become something like <a href="http://dota-academy.com/home/" target="_blank">http://dota-academy.com/home/</a>.
<!--quoteo(post=2031834:date=Nov 21 2012, 07:26 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Nov 21 2012, 07:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031834"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's great, too bad that on public servers there are a lot of players who aren't 'good'. So do we give a collective finger to all the 'average' players who bought the game? If we are going to build this game we have to balance it around the players that actually play the game, and not your idea of what a 'good player' would do in a given situation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> this is really backwards logic. if you want strong gameplay, why would you not balance around the highest level of play?
I don't know if you played Starcraft 2 but this is a nice example: at lower levels of play, banelings destroy marines, as units are typically clumped up and they do massive splash damage. at higher levels of play, the Terran player is able to micro and split the marines to reduce the splash damage, allowing him to trade effectively in engagements. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGJP0BgvUPA" target="_blank">see here</a>.
once this was initially showcased at a large-scale tournament, players naturally started to catch on (as trends typically follow the competitive scene), and now it's not uncommon to see mid-level players attempt to split their marines. if Blizzard had listened to the average players playing the game complaining about the banelings instead of allowing skill-based play to come out ahead, then this entire mechanic and depth of the game would be completely gone.
the same can be said for Dota-like games with regards to hero picks, item builds, or skill builds.
I hope the same can be said about NS2 one day for Lerk vs. a non-random shotgun.
<!--quoteo(post=2031834:date=Nov 21 2012, 07:26 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Nov 21 2012, 07:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031834"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I disagree with you, and the developers disagree with you. Pub winrates *do* mean something, and they *WILL* be used the balance the game. That's why the last 3 patches have directly addressed pub gameplay.
While I still respectfully disagree with Charlie on the concept of having separate balance for public and competitive servers, the reality is that the developers will be balancing the game with public servers in mind when you have marine winrates dropping below 40%. Yeah there are wildly varying aspects on public servers that come into play here, but when you aggregate the winrates from hundreds of thousands of games, that's gonna average out.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> "winrates are a bad method of balancing" - "you are wrong because the developers used winrate to balance"
I think you're misinterpreting the purpose of the winrate discussion. it's not a question of whether or not they're accurate*. the idea is to not use winrate at all, because the numbers don't actually mean anything useful. I don't know if you just skipped over this part, but this sums it up better than I could:
<!--quoteo(post=2031569:date=Nov 21 2012, 02:12 PM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Nov 21 2012, 02:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031569"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For example: do aliens have a 30% winrate in the timeframe until the onos comes out and then it skyrockets to 80%? The overall winrate could be 50/50 in this scenario. Is it balanced? No. The aliens are <i>probably</i> too weak before the onos and the onos is <i>probably</i> too strong. Do we know that for sure from looking at it? No. Maybe the marines are too strong early and lack the firepower lategame. Or perhaps performance dies late game and marines are now unable to aim, therefore losing. But if you look at that 50/50 winrate, everything seems fine.
Kind of like the current 65/35 winrate in favor of aliens. If you look at the detailed time graph for pub games on b230&b231, you see marines tend to hold around 50% winrate (+/- 10) from 5 minutes to 15 minutes. What starts to happen about then?
TL;DR Score doesn't matter for balance. Win rates are misleading in balance discussions. [...] And lastly as a classic example from Yuuki & the intermediate value theorem: If an LMG does 0 damage, marines will win 0% of the games. If an LMG does 1000 damage, marines will win 100% of the games. By the IVT, there exists such a number between 0 and 1000 where marines will win 50% of their games. Now consider the impact this has on the rest of the game. If "balance" as defined by 50/50 winrate can be achieved without looking at 99% of the game, how can a 50/50 winrate be indicative of balance within different portions of the game (ie onos or fade or shotguns).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2031834:date=Nov 21 2012, 07:26 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Nov 21 2012, 07:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031834"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Some quotes from the developers: Public server winrates matter since that's where 99.9% of the games are played.
When push comes to shove, if the developers have to choose between a game that is popular with with the public, or popular with competitive groups, they will choose the former.
The latter doesn't pay the bills.
It's the public players that matter here, since they are the ones who are paying for all of this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eqk9C1wVT0U" target="_blank">not necessarily</a>. maybe a few years ago this was true. taking a look at the last few major competitve multiplayer titles such as Starcraft 2 or Dota 2 - it seems a massive part of their success comes directly from the competitive scene.
* a developer argued that ns2stats.org was only on some servers and therefore wasn't an accurate measurement of winrates.
<!--quoteo(post=2031743:date=Nov 21 2012, 08:01 PM:name=RMJ)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RMJ @ Nov 21 2012, 08:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031743"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In general the gameplay of NS2 doesnt feel like it rewards teamwork in any shape. Thats a bit of a shame..<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
... What?
How about you conduct an experiment and have 2 equally skilled sides. Get one to work as a team, and the other to specifically not work as a team (rambo around the map on their own, don't follow orders or respond to alerts etc). Then tell me that NS2 doesn't reward teamwork.
<!--quoteo(post=2032173:date=Nov 22 2012, 10:54 AM:name=Gliss)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gliss @ Nov 22 2012, 10:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2032173"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->in the end, it's just a question of skill - better players will realize when it's a good idea to die instead of saving yourself.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I don't disagree, but not every player is one of these 'better players'. We have loads of 'average players' who come from FPS games that don't understand that the K/D ratio is not what is most important in this game. Seeing as we have no training mode, this isn't something we can readily change.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->this is really backwards logic. if you want strong gameplay, why would you not balance around the highest level of play?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Since the number of people who are capable of that highest level are only a fraction of the player base. I feel the game should be balanced around the skill of the <b>majority </b>of players. That will mean the game will be 'hard' for some, and it may be 'easy' for others. I don't see how balancing for the highest skilled players makes the game desirable for those who are lesser skilled. They're gonna get tired of playing a game they aren't 'good enough' at, and then they'll leave. With that will leave the chance that they'll tell their friends of this game. Yes the game needs to be a challenge, but you can't balance the game for the #1 players because there are too many players who will never achieve that skill level.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"winrates are a bad method of balancing" - "you are wrong because the developers used winrate to balance"
I think you're misinterpreting the purpose of the winrate discussion. it's not a question of whether or not they're accurate*. the idea is to not use winrate at all, because the numbers don't actually mean anything useful.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Sure they do. Every statistic has use. The winrates are most certainly important since they represent the epitome of balance. Once you put *everything* else aside, people play a game to WIN it. They don't play to do well for the 'first 10 minutes'.
If marines are only winning 40% of games, it really doesn't matter when those games are won or lost. The bottom line is that people are playing an imbalanced game. It's up to the developers to figure out HOW to alter that balance to best affect the parts of the game that need it, while not affecting the parts of the game that don't.
Suggesting developers should ignore winrates ignores the fact that winning is why people play the game. Should people ever stop playing this game to 'win', then by all means I'll agree with you. Since that is not in human nature, winrates most certainly need to be balanced overall.
<!--quoteo(post=2031257:date=Nov 21 2012, 11:26 AM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Nov 21 2012, 11:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031257"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Right off the top, let's change how the game is scored. Remove 'deaths'. Leave in kills, but deaths are not indicative of player skill. I will often find myself dying repeatedly to attain a particular objective, something don't mind doing if it benefits the team. While I may be at the bottom of the scoreboard that game. I'm the one protecting resources and responding when players need assistance. Let's not penalize players who may 'sacrifice' for the team with a higher number in their death column.
Next, introduce a scoring system that puts less emphasis on kills, and more on teamwork. Give players points for building structures. Give players points for defending a teammate (killing an enemy attacking a player on your team). Give players points for kills that are in the vicinity of other players. Give players points for killing enemies attacking your res nodes. Give players points for following orders. Get the idea? Points should represent a player's contribution to the TEAM, not an indication of how good a shot he is. The guy with the most points on a team should be the one with the best teamwork ethic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep, today I was playing a game where an onos was attacking one of our bases and I was the only marine responding to it. I ended up dying a whole bunch before anyone came to help. At the end of the game I wasn't helping much to keep the marine last base turtle going and had mentioned this in chat. The game was about 20 minutes longer than it should have been. My team was pissed at me for not doing anything, and kept talking about how my score was the reason for our loss... I'm not a great player, but I'm always doing stuff to keep the team going even if I'm suiciding into a bunch of aliens.
I've seen in other games where the K/D ratio is set aside for the individual to look at, but the other players on the team are hidden. Something like this might help. I still like to know my k/d ratio sometimes just to see how my skills are doing.
I agree 100% to remove the death column. Especially as Marine, DYING HELPS YOUR TEAM.
- If you chase a Onos you probably die - If you run into a alien Hive to kill upgrades you die - If u use a pg which is attacked by an onos chances are you die - If you build a power node/rt your chances of dying are higher than usual etc...
Shouldn't we chase oni, kill upgrades, help attacked bases? Of course! These thing decide games on a regular basis. On top of that, dying is absolutely free. Wheter a marine dies once or 20 times a game does just not matter, as IPs spawn unlimited rines... Agreed, aliens need to watch out at the beginning of a game, but other than that spawning ist free for aliens as well.
Ever been in that situation where a PG was attacked but the rines in the main base would not intanty use the pg but wait for someone else to go first? Thats because they were afraid to ruin their K/D Why do rines hump the armory after an onos attack instead of chasing it? It's the K/D...
<!--quoteo(post=2032308:date=Nov 22 2012, 12:36 PM:name=gnoarch)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gnoarch @ Nov 22 2012, 12:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2032308"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree 100% to remove the death column. Especially as Marine, DYING HELPS YOUR TEAM.
- If you chase a Onos you probably die - If you run into a alien Hive to kill upgrades you die - If u use a pg which is attacked by an onos chances are you die - If you build a power node/rt your chances of dying are higher than usual etc...
Shouldn't we chase oni, kill upgrades, help attacked bases? Of course! These thing decide games on a regular basis. On top of that, dying is absolutely free. Wheter a marine dies once or 20 times a game does just not matter, as IPs spawn unlimited rines... Agreed, aliens need to watch out at the beginning of a game, but other than that spawning ist free for aliens as well.
Ever been in that situation where a PG was attacked but the rines in the main base would not intanty use the pg but wait for someone else to go first? Thats because they were afraid to ruin their K/D Why do rines hump the armory after an onos attack instead of chasing it? It's the K/D...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This
Not to give the impression you want to die intentionally, but you want to be as aggressive as possible and live as long as possible while doing it. If you're alive for 2 minutes killing upgrades in the alien hive, you were more useful than that marine that was alive for 10 minutes sitting in base waiting for buildings to be dropped.
I was following you up until you brought score into the equation. Are you really arguing that changing scoring metrics are going to change balance? Removing deaths? If you don't want to see your deaths, then don't look at them. There's no reason for you to remove information from me because you don't like a number on the scoreboard.
Good players understand that kills, deaths, and score don't mean everything. They're all only part of the story. Good players know that you don't win by having a 85857 kdr. IMO, this whole thread is ridiculous. Balance is out of whack at different skill levels and game times for a number of varying reasons. I think a much more intuitive answer to the current pub imbalance would be cloak being 100% invisible while moving.
And all this is moot when you realize that pub winrates really don't mean ######. Anything can win in a pub and anything can lose in a pub. When UWE comes out with those 50/50 numbers and mention balance in the same sentence, please just throw that crap in the garbage. There are such varying differences in skill, team sizes, and strategy across the pub spectrum that it is impossible to draw any reasonable conclusion from win/loss rates. At best, the ratio of wins can serve to lead you to areas in which there may or may not be a balance issue.
For example: do aliens have a 30% winrate in the timeframe until the onos comes out and then it skyrockets to 80%? The overall winrate could be 50/50 in this scenario. Is it balanced? No. The aliens are <i>probably</i> too weak before the onos and the onos is <i>probably</i> too strong. Do we know that for sure from looking at it? No. Maybe the marines are too strong early and lack the firepower lategame. Or perhaps performance dies late game and marines are now unable to aim, therefore losing. But if you look at that 50/50 winrate, everything seems fine.
Kind of like the current 65/35 winrate in favor of aliens. If you look at the detailed time graph for pub games on b230&b231, you see marines tend to hold around 50% winrate (+/- 10) from 5 minutes to 15 minutes. What starts to happen about then?
TL;DR Score doesn't matter for balance. Win rates are misleading in balance discussions.
And lastly as a classic example from Yuuki & the intermediate value theorem: If an LMG does 0 damage, marines will win 0% of the games. If an LMG does 1000 damage, marines will win 100% of the games. By the IVT, there exists such a number between 0 and 1000 where marines will win 50% of their games. Now consider the impact this has on the rest of the game. If "balance" as defined by 50/50 winrate can be achieved without looking at 99% of the game, how can a 50/50 winrate be indicative of balance within different portions of the game (ie onos or fade or shotguns).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2032236:date=Nov 22 2012, 08:54 AM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Nov 22 2012, 08:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2032236"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't see how balancing for the highest skilled players makes the game desirable for those who are lesser skilled.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then you are truly lost in any balance discussion.
It gives players something to work up to: a challenge. Otherwise they really have nothing to aspire to.. They are already the best they can be at the game so they move on to something else. A continual challenge is necessary. One that doesn't stop even when you're near to mastering the game or sport.. whatever it may be. The challenge to win along with the road to that victory is important.. killing your first skulk, learning how to wall jump etc. It applies to real life sports too.. the challenge to catch a fish.. or to throw that 60 yard pass. It's just a basic thing that you need to have in a game.
Say you mastered killing skulks at a public level.. what's to keep you interested? It's the same old thing, over and over and there's no longer a challenge to it. But.. then you play a competitive 6v6 game.. Wow! That was challenging! I think I might play this game more!
It's when a game works like that, an upward challenge.. while easy to learn but hard to master (as quoted several times in the wall jumping thread) that makes a game thrive and become something really awesome.
If those who were pretty terrible at video games just started playing a game at the maximum skill level in the first hour then the game would wither and die and never expand to something awesome like StarCraft 2 where you have a healthy competitive community alongside the casual community.
<!--quoteo(post=2031535:date=Nov 21 2012, 01:26 PM:name=tarquinbb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tarquinbb @ Nov 21 2012, 01:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031535"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->imagine you're the marine commander and need a good player to go kill an RT somewhere, do you pick the guy with 20 kills 30 deaths or the guy with 18 kills 0 deaths? because if it was my choice, my money is on the KDR guy having a better shot.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This I totally agree with, KDR is still useful to see and shouldn't be removed completely, but rewarding people for aiding the team via points and/or res is great reinforcement. I'm most often the guy with an 8/25 ratio, I have a terrible shot, and almost always try to take a supporting role in FPS games, "work work" is my mantra. In smaller populated servers I get nervous when the comm asks me to take a room solo, but man do I smile when i hear "Good job guys in Cargo" from the comm after I've spent the last 5 minutes staring at that glowing blue dot on the exo's ass.
I've only been playing NS2 for a few weeks now, but after the first few rounds I knew this was the game for me. It is my first experience where I can play an FPS and not be constantly harassed/self-conscious for a low KDR. During a recent match, I noticed the comm was directing me around between bases more so then others to repair and build, even though he most likely knew I was a terrible shot. And that's when it hit me how important communication and team work are in order to get a win, to me this is one of the most fascinating things about Pub games, regardless of whether the team I am on wins or loses. It's seeing how as a group of fairly random people are thrown together onto a team are able to communicate with each other. I'm curious if the game saves any information on how many times the mics were used, b/c I would assume that the more time people talk to each other, the more likely they will work well together more efficiently. I've seen the same thing when playing SC2 3v3 matches, when no one talks we lose regardless of game balance issues.
I have a strong urge to start attempting the role of comm myself, but am hesitant on public servers because if I wanted to get yelled for my mistakes while trying to learning I would just have called my parents. This is why I am also trying to find a clan/group to play with more regularly. Also, being new to the game and not anywhere near having enough playtime to be able to give an informed opinion on balance, but I am curious about these type of big picture issues;
<!--quoteo(post=2032173:date=Nov 22 2012, 05:54 AM:name=Gliss)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gliss @ Nov 22 2012, 05:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2032173"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->if you want strong gameplay, why would you not balance around the highest level of play?
I don't know if you played Starcraft 2 but this is a nice example: at lower levels of play, banelings destroy marines, as units are typically clumped up and they do massive splash damage. at higher levels of play, the Terran player is able to micro and split the marines to reduce the splash damage, allowing him to trade effectively in engagements. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGJP0BgvUPA" target="_blank">see here</a>.
once this was initially showcased at a large-scale tournament, players naturally started to catch on (as trends typically follow the competitive scene), and now it's not uncommon to see mid-level players attempt to split their marines. if Blizzard had listened to the average players playing the game complaining about the banelings instead of allowing skill-based play to come out ahead, then this entire mechanic and depth of the game would be completely gone.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know exactly what Gliss means, but to me one of the major differences tho with it is that in SC2 players are sorted into leagues. I am gold (so I suck basically) but when I play on the ladder I am placed against other gold players with roughly the same skill (i know this isn't exactly true since if one loses multiple matches in a row Blizzard tosses you a match against a lower league player b/c they know people won't keeping playing if they NEVER win), whereas with most FPS games I've played and NS2 you could join a pub game and be thrown into a match with players who simply have a better FPS skill set and faster reaction times. This is the main reason I don't play COD multiplayer, and I have no problem with that. Another thing is that with SC2 I can watch pro players streaming, read teamliquid for strategy tips, etc. NS2 due to its smaller community size and exposure at the moment doesn't have the same diversity of options when trying to learning new skills and knowledge from the top players (I have found it hard even to find a decent organized list of NS2 competitive teams).
TL:DR I am in love with this game and TIL that there is so much more to balance then just crunching the numbers. Time to start practicing and challenging myself more.
<!--quoteo(post=2032483:date=Nov 22 2012, 06:14 PM:name=Locklear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Locklear @ Nov 22 2012, 06:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2032483"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't see how balancing for the highest skilled players makes the game desirable for those who are lesser skilled.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Then you are truly lost in any balance discussion. It gives players something to work up to: a challenge. Otherwise they really have nothing to aspire to.. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->First of all, you're spinning my remarks far out of context. I'm not suggesting to reduce the skill level to the lowest common denominator. What I am saying is that 'challenge' in NS is less about *individual* play and more about *team* play. That's why you are the one lost in any balance discussion. You are still looking at this from one dimension.
Furthermore you are taking this discussion off topic. As I mentioned in my original post, I'm not talking about individual player balance.
What is needed to 'balance' this game is to get people (like yourself) looking away from individual player balance as the epitome of balance for the game.
This thread is about encouraging TEAMWORK. That's the missing 'balance' in the game right now, and too many people are still blinded by individual player balance that they can't see that.
<!--quoteo(post=2032604:date=Nov 23 2012, 12:38 AM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Nov 23 2012, 12:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2032604"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Then you are truly lost in any balance discussion. It gives players something to work up to: a challenge. Otherwise they really have nothing to aspire to.. First of all, you're spinning my remarks far out of context. I'm not suggesting to reduce the skill level to the lowest common denominator. What I am saying is that 'challenge' in NS is less about *individual* play and more about *team* play. That's why you are the one lost in any balance discussion. You are still looking at this from one dimension.
Furthermore you are taking this discussion off topic. As I mentioned in my original post, I'm not talking about individual player balance.
What is needed to 'balance' this game is to get people (like yourself) looking away from individual player balance as the epitome of balance for the game.
This thread is about encouraging TEAMWORK. That's the missing 'balance' in the game right now, and too many people are still blinded by individual player balance that they can't see that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
teamwork != skill, strategic knowledge or game sense.
teamwork = 8 marines building armory at the start and then all running to the first RT so that all 8 of them can build the RT... that's total crap and will lose you the game.
ergo teamwork is arguably less useful than individual skill.
<!--quoteo(post=2032639:date=Nov 22 2012, 07:23 PM:name=tarquinbb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tarquinbb @ Nov 22 2012, 07:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2032639"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->teamwork != skill, strategic knowledge or game sense.
teamwork = 8 marines building armory at the start and then all running to the first RT so that all 8 of them can build the RT... that's total crap and will lose you the game.
ergo teamwork is arguably less useful than individual skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, teamwork would be those Marines splitting into two groups of four and three while one builds initial structures.
Teamwork would be every one of those players using voice communication to relay important events so that everyone could act on them.
Teamwork is coordinating with your commander to get the upgrades you need based on your players' abilities.
Teamwork is covering your teammates' asses.
A Marine team with good teamwork is much more effective than a bunch of rambos. You can argue that competitive players with near inhuman levels of skill will win by spreading out and doing everything, but in your average pub game, teamwork will always win the day.
actually it's the actual game and not the players that makes aliens easier to play for low-mid skilled players. that's why aliens win ALL the games where teams are fair.
lol @ choosing a guy with a better K/D ratio to do tasks. I can easily sit on a no death score while not doing anything and rushing back to heal. Most of the time as a marine I am doing well and if a hive needs to be taken down I tend to keep placing pressure on it even if it means I die. 5 deaths to keep attacking an almost dying hive while my team is placing pressure somewhere else. It is usually when I see my team is at a draw for a key location so I tend to go with another guy to harass the alien hives that are not being looked after. Knowing I will die as soon as they all swarm me but at least it takes pressure and allows the team to break the standstill at another location. If I see the main base being attacked and NO ONE wants to go back and stop that one skulk I tend to type kill in console to get me there asap. So yea deaths do not mean much if it means saving key points. On alien you have to be a bit more careful though. But it is more manageable since alien is all about hit and runs and harassing unguarded points.
The RTS elements are damn near opaque to new players, and even somewhat experienced players. If every player had at some point played commander, spectated a competitive match, or even had a good commander with skill and voice chat, this problem would fade away more quickly. As it is, a large portion of the player base doesn't understand the sheer amount of teamwork required for a team to be effective. I play with a group of about 5 people. We aren't particularly skilled (some of us are pretty good at fighting, some are pretty bad,) and whatever team we are on pretty much always wins. It's not because we are skilled, it's because we communicate everything and understand territorial control. Even if we are only 5/12 players on the team, that amount of communication and coordination dominates a team that doesn't communicate. It also encourages the other players on the team to start communicating. The majority of games I play by myself are damn near silent in terms of communication, and a bunch of players that don't understand that they need to push forward <i>and</i> deny areas of the map to aliens. The most frustrating thing to see as a commander is a team that ###### about not having upgrades when they are letting your extractors die. This is a thing I see on the Marine team far more than on the aliens. It's terrible, and you have to be a ###### about it and say, "Hey, you can't have Jetpacks because I don't have any res. I don't have any res because you guys aren't saving our extractors." Then, miraculously, the teams become unbalanced (5v8), and soon enough you lose the game. I wish you could force every player to play commander ONCE. Then, I think they would understand the game a bit better.
EDIT:
<!--quoteo(post=2032639:date=Nov 23 2012, 03:23 AM:name=tarquinbb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tarquinbb @ Nov 23 2012, 03:23 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2032639"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->teamwork != skill, strategic knowledge or game sense.
teamwork = 8 marines building armory at the start and then all running to the first RT so that all 8 of them can build the RT... that's total crap and will lose you the game.
ergo teamwork is arguably less useful than individual skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is amazing. This right here is what I am talking about. The majority of people playing this game do not understand what teamwork is. Teamwork != 8 marines building an armory. Team work is 2-3 marines scouting for res in different directions, 1-2 marines building the base structures.
Ergo, bad teamwork is arguably less useful than individual skill, which is definitely (not arguably) less useful than actual competent teamwork.
<!--quoteo(post=2033037:date=Nov 23 2012, 07:50 PM:name=biz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (biz @ Nov 23 2012, 07:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2033037"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->actually it's the actual game and not the players that makes aliens easier to play for low-mid skilled players. that's why aliens win ALL the games where teams are fair.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sometimes I wonder if I'm playing the same game as other people.
SC2 is actually not very well balanced around the top level of play. If it were, they would just remove Battle Cruisers and hydralisks from the game. Pro players don't build them, but average players will. High yield expansions are in Blizzard maps but not used in most tournaments. Hell, most of the balance in SC2 revolves around map design. That's not to say that there isn't good balance among GM level players, but look at Terran win rates in games that go to tier 3 and you can see there's a clear imbalance in how the game is designed.
Pro play emphasizes a certain subset of skills that are very useful in a very specific set of circumstances and often leaves out whole aspects of the game that the average player would happily waste time on in the pursuit of "fun".
That having been said, to properly balance any game that has a competitive element (which is organically grown from the player base unless the game is designed for pro play like Shootmania is) the dev has to grasp the core game model that pros will exploit for maximum efficiency. I'd say that the damage output of the hatchet/welder is probably more important than the damage output of the LMG for example, because the hatchet is the anti-rt tool given to the marine player. If it is outclassed by the LMG, then the LMG will be spammed into RT's from range and this will drastically affect game balance for competitive players as they will have almost no incentive to move up to an RT that has any sort of LMG angle-of-attack on it. The cost of T-res ammo drops would need to be factored in and could be adjusted to compensate for the meta shift, but this would have major impacts on pub play where ammo drops on marines are the "life-cost" associated with otherwise "free" marines... you get the idea.
The point is that once your min/maxing pros have pulled the game apart, you just have to balance the game elements that they exploit most while making alternative "competing" elements more or less fun for anyone that chooses to use them. Ideally, the whole game would be viable with side-grades rather than a clear path to maximum efficiency... but hey, that's really hard to do and really we just want a fun game that is also enough of a challenge to keep a pro-circuit alive.
Final thought... The aliens are still winning pubs after the Onos nerf because aliens are still very strong in pubs without Onos. The Onos egg was a shortcut, it was never necessary from what I saw... except for the occasional fall back plan when the marines were out to an early lead. Because low-rate khamms were going fast Onos, the games were skewed and balance wasn't fully fleshed out on the rest of the tech tree. Turns out, alien design is still superior to marine design in pubs... while pros seem to curb stomp aliens because range > melee. The balance seems to actually skew marine in the early game because no-recoil hitscan favors people who can aim and alien tech paths are actually pretty expensive to tip the balance back to skulks. (just my assessment, I'm not a comp player)
I'd like to see recoil added and Aim-down-sights included to compensate and put a hard limit on the firing speed of the pistol. This would help pub marines aim properly while rewarding wolf pack tactics (since ADS would hinder peripheral vision/awareness.)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->in the end, it's just a question of skill - better players will realize when it's a good idea to die instead of saving yourself.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Last night I played a game of ns_docking (as a marine) where I kept rushing out into Stability Monitoring and killing the harvester there. I just went there, shot any skulks along the way and axed the harvester to death, or close to death. If the harvester starts getting low and I see two or more skulks coming towards me, I shoot the harvester down with my rifle and pistol while dancing around on the skulk heads. I must have killed 7 harvesters by game's end...4 of which were in Stability, 1 in Maintenance, 2 in Courtyard...this set the alien comm back so much that we rolled in with JPs and cleaned up the mess.
My K/D was 4 kills/12 deaths or something, but I had the highest score because I dedicated myself to crippling the alien economy while everyone else kept them busy elsewhere.
People who obsess over their K/D to the point of being afraid to take risks and DO something will end up losing the game for their team. A death should mean something - one free marine/skulk for a 10 res extractor/harvester, sounds like a good trade to me.
It's interesting, but I think we need to look down the road a little. . .
How long before someone who only knows "respawn and shoot" becomes a valuable member of your team?
It's probably going to be a much shorter time than you think <i>(even shorter with good commanders whipping people into shape)</i>
I'd say give it a month, why even that long, how about just 2 weeks. . . 2 weeks from today and I bet people will stop fearing the new cloak, new regen, and a bunch of the other coordinated alien rushes
Comments
i use my teammates deaths compared to my own in order to gauge why we're losing the match etc... it would just be super obstructive if i'm just meant to 'guess' that my team sucks.
i was on marine earlier and had 30 kills 1 death; it felt good knowing that any decent alien player would behave differently when they suspected that i was in the vicinity. they would be more cautious and try harder, breaking free of the "lolz nub mareens are ez!" shackles.
people should learn to not care about deaths, not have the deaths censored... otherwise we might as well just boycott the game entirely to stop people caring about deaths.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A good KDR might just as easily give you the false impression that you are good at the game. Marines running deep into alien territory soloing harvesters and sniping upgrades, luring out skulks from enclosed spaces for teammates, willing to chase down and tank onos for exos or going 1v1 against fades to protect a power node etc. will have a terrible KDR yet do a lot for their team. As opposed to that zero death dude always hanging back in fights - preferably in an exo -, legging it as soon as the odds are not strongly in his favor, not going anywhere near any lifeform more dangerous than a gorge, running back to an armory after every point of damage he takes. An example I see so very often is people dying on end as skulks without a single kill to show for it then the second they get 75 res they evolve into an onos and spend the rest of the game as such which of course skyrockets their KDR. And they are convinced that they are awesome.
Someone was talking about buffs or something when aliens was together in groups.
I mean there is lots of options.
But there should definitely be less focus on kill and death ratio and more on teamwork, survival and such.
2. statistical coveragance, namely the law of large numbers
By the time the game finally loaded the map for many players, the early game is over already before they even joined a team.
I was following you up until you brought score into the equation. Are you really arguing that changing scoring metrics are going to change balance? Removing deaths? If you don't want to see your deaths, then don't look at them. There's no reason for you to remove information from me because you don't like a number on the scoreboard.
Good players understand that kills, deaths, and score don't mean everything. They're all only part of the story. Good players know that you don't win by having a 85857 kdr. IMO, this whole thread is ridiculous. Balance is out of whack at different skill levels and game times for a number of varying reasons. I think a much more intuitive answer to the current pub imbalance would be cloak being 100% invisible while moving.
And all this is moot when you realize that pub winrates really don't mean ######. Anything can win in a pub and anything can lose in a pub. When UWE comes out with those 50/50 numbers and mention balance in the same sentence, please just throw that crap in the garbage. There are such varying differences in skill, team sizes, and strategy across the pub spectrum that it is impossible to draw any reasonable conclusion from win/loss rates. At best, the ratio of wins can serve to lead you to areas in which there may or may not be a balance issue.
For example: do aliens have a 30% winrate in the timeframe until the onos comes out and then it skyrockets to 80%? The overall winrate could be 50/50 in this scenario. Is it balanced? No. The aliens are <i>probably</i> too weak before the onos and the onos is <i>probably</i> too strong. Do we know that for sure from looking at it? No. Maybe the marines are too strong early and lack the firepower lategame. Or perhaps performance dies late game and marines are now unable to aim, therefore losing. But if you look at that 50/50 winrate, everything seems fine.
Kind of like the current 65/35 winrate in favor of aliens. If you look at the detailed time graph for pub games on b230&b231, you see marines tend to hold around 50% winrate (+/- 10) from 5 minutes to 15 minutes. What starts to happen about then?
TL;DR Score doesn't matter for balance. Win rates are misleading in balance discussions.
And lastly as a classic example from Yuuki & the intermediate value theorem: If an LMG does 0 damage, marines will win 0% of the games. If an LMG does 1000 damage, marines will win 100% of the games. By the IVT, there exists such a number between 0 and 1000 where marines will win 50% of their games. Now consider the impact this has on the rest of the game. If "balance" as defined by 50/50 winrate can be achieved without looking at 99% of the game, how can a 50/50 winrate be indicative of balance within different portions of the game (ie onos or fade or shotguns).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
this is an excellent post
winrate shouldn't even be brought into discussions until the game is in a state where you want it gameplay-wise
actually it's not entirely worthless - it's detrimental. I recall a Q&A where a developer said they were afraid of touching the 6 minute Onos due to the "winrates being so close!". that turned out well
<!--quoteo(post=2031756:date=Nov 21 2012, 05:23 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Nov 21 2012, 05:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031756"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you had such a high KDR, I'd think you have to deliberately try to lose to not win the game. KDR isn't the sole determination of victory in NS2 (this is not deathmatch), but that doesn't mean it isn't a primary factor in victory. Higher KDR's make everything else easier and lower KDR's make everything else harder in NS2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
it's not necessarily the amount of kills but <i>where</i> the kills are that matter. the game is more about map control than the amount of kills
Warm-up period or game doesn't start until there's coms in both chairs and at least 4v4 or 5v5. I've suggested it, and looking forward to seeing it happen someday.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Good players understand that kills, deaths, and score don't mean everything. They're all only part of the story. Good players know that you don't win by having a 85857 kdr.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->That's great, too bad that on public servers there are a lot of players who aren't 'good'. So do we give a collective finger to all the 'average' players who bought the game? If we are going to build this game we have to balance it around the players that actually play the game, and not your idea of what a 'good player' would do in a given situation.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->all this is moot when you realize that pub winrates really don't mean ######. Anything can win in a pub and anything can lose in a pub. When UWE comes out with those 50/50 numbers and mention balance in the same sentence, please just throw that crap in the garbage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I disagree with you, and the developers disagree with you. Pub winrates *do* mean something, and they *WILL* be used the balance the game. That's why the last 3 patches have directly addressed pub gameplay.
While I still respectfully disagree with Charlie on the concept of having separate balance for public and competitive servers, the reality is that the developers will be balancing the game with public servers in mind when you have marine winrates dropping below 40%. Yeah there are wildly varying aspects on public servers that come into play here, but when you aggregate the winrates from hundreds of thousands of games, that's gonna average out.
Some quotes from the developers:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Balance began to swing towards the aliens after the first week, without us making any changes to the game. This is a fascinating phenomenon in game balance: As the community gets better at the game, you become better at exploiting wrinkles in the fabric of its design. The discrepancy continued to widen to an unacceptable 40% marine wins.
...
General balance has been improving a lot at the competitive level, but it's not great on pubs. I believe that competitive play is a microcosm of pub play, and that it's not a smart move to have two different versions of the game, balanced for each side. However, there certainly are differences between the two play-styles, and this patch's changes are addressing pub play directly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Public server winrates matter since that's where 99.9% of the games are played.
When push comes to shove, if the developers have to choose between a game that is popular with with the public, or popular with competitive groups, they will choose the former.
The latter doesn't pay the bills.
It's the public players that matter here, since they are the ones who are paying for all of this.
if you want to analyse a defeat; you NEED access to number of kills, deaths, assists... even damage taken, damage received, damage per minute etc.
if you don't have that information then you don't know whether it was due to bad strategy/teamplay or just getting 'out fragged' by the other team, it's extremely frustrating to improve.
let's say the reason you lost was because their demoman did twice as much damage as your demoman. how the F*** are you meant to know that? at least if you see he has very few deaths and a couple of dominations; you could make a safe assumption.
sorry, but hiding deaths would really frustrate the hell out of me... it seems like it would only benefit the self-conscious.
Kind of like the current 65/35 winrate in favor of aliens. If you look at the detailed time graph for pub games on b230&b231, you see marines tend to hold around 50% winrate (+/- 10) from 5 minutes to 15 minutes. What starts to happen about then?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My thoughts exactly. Winrate seems to be absurdly overvalued by Charlie.
p.s. a scoring overhaul like OP suggests is worth pursuing. Not even going to get into the balance discussions, but because people get an intrinsic brain chemical reward from making their meaningless numbers go up, giving players points for following comm/khamm's orders is a good way to at least help this. Not a panacea, but it would help.
I don't have a problem with it either way as I usually only pull up the scoreboard to look at the time. I don't understand what hiding deaths accomplishes, though. players don't just get upset over the number - dying just isn't <i>fun</i> in games (especially not in NS2, when it's around the corner ^^). hiding a number isn't going to make skulks any more likely to suicide for good causes.
in the end, it's just a question of skill - better players will realize when it's a good idea to die instead of saving yourself.
additionally, it seems silly to have information like that be "hidden" or not readily available. it would be amazing if ns2stats was able to become something like <a href="http://dota-academy.com/home/" target="_blank">http://dota-academy.com/home/</a>.
<!--quoteo(post=2031834:date=Nov 21 2012, 07:26 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Nov 21 2012, 07:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031834"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's great, too bad that on public servers there are a lot of players who aren't 'good'. So do we give a collective finger to all the 'average' players who bought the game? If we are going to build this game we have to balance it around the players that actually play the game, and not your idea of what a 'good player' would do in a given situation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
this is really backwards logic. if you want strong gameplay, why would you not balance around the highest level of play?
I don't know if you played Starcraft 2 but this is a nice example: at lower levels of play, banelings destroy marines, as units are typically clumped up and they do massive splash damage. at higher levels of play, the Terran player is able to micro and split the marines to reduce the splash damage, allowing him to trade effectively in engagements. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGJP0BgvUPA" target="_blank">see here</a>.
once this was initially showcased at a large-scale tournament, players naturally started to catch on (as trends typically follow the competitive scene), and now it's not uncommon to see mid-level players attempt to split their marines.
if Blizzard had listened to the average players playing the game complaining about the banelings instead of allowing skill-based play to come out ahead, then this entire mechanic and depth of the game would be completely gone.
the same can be said for Dota-like games with regards to hero picks, item builds, or skill builds.
I hope the same can be said about NS2 one day for Lerk vs. a non-random shotgun.
<!--quoteo(post=2031834:date=Nov 21 2012, 07:26 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Nov 21 2012, 07:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031834"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I disagree with you, and the developers disagree with you. Pub winrates *do* mean something, and they *WILL* be used the balance the game. That's why the last 3 patches have directly addressed pub gameplay.
While I still respectfully disagree with Charlie on the concept of having separate balance for public and competitive servers, the reality is that the developers will be balancing the game with public servers in mind when you have marine winrates dropping below 40%. Yeah there are wildly varying aspects on public servers that come into play here, but when you aggregate the winrates from hundreds of thousands of games, that's gonna average out.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"winrates are a bad method of balancing"
- "you are wrong because the developers used winrate to balance"
I think you're misinterpreting the purpose of the winrate discussion. it's not a question of whether or not they're accurate*. the idea is to not use winrate at all, because the numbers don't actually mean anything useful. I don't know if you just skipped over this part, but this sums it up better than I could:
<!--quoteo(post=2031569:date=Nov 21 2012, 02:12 PM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Nov 21 2012, 02:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031569"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For example: do aliens have a 30% winrate in the timeframe until the onos comes out and then it skyrockets to 80%? The overall winrate could be 50/50 in this scenario. Is it balanced? No. The aliens are <i>probably</i> too weak before the onos and the onos is <i>probably</i> too strong. Do we know that for sure from looking at it? No. Maybe the marines are too strong early and lack the firepower lategame. Or perhaps performance dies late game and marines are now unable to aim, therefore losing. But if you look at that 50/50 winrate, everything seems fine.
Kind of like the current 65/35 winrate in favor of aliens. If you look at the detailed time graph for pub games on b230&b231, you see marines tend to hold around 50% winrate (+/- 10) from 5 minutes to 15 minutes. What starts to happen about then?
TL;DR Score doesn't matter for balance. Win rates are misleading in balance discussions.
[...]
And lastly as a classic example from Yuuki & the intermediate value theorem: If an LMG does 0 damage, marines will win 0% of the games. If an LMG does 1000 damage, marines will win 100% of the games. By the IVT, there exists such a number between 0 and 1000 where marines will win 50% of their games. Now consider the impact this has on the rest of the game. If "balance" as defined by 50/50 winrate can be achieved without looking at 99% of the game, how can a 50/50 winrate be indicative of balance within different portions of the game (ie onos or fade or shotguns).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2031834:date=Nov 21 2012, 07:26 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Nov 21 2012, 07:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031834"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Some quotes from the developers:
Public server winrates matter since that's where 99.9% of the games are played.
When push comes to shove, if the developers have to choose between a game that is popular with with the public, or popular with competitive groups, they will choose the former.
The latter doesn't pay the bills.
It's the public players that matter here, since they are the ones who are paying for all of this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eqk9C1wVT0U" target="_blank">not necessarily</a>. maybe a few years ago this was true. taking a look at the last few major competitve multiplayer titles such as Starcraft 2 or Dota 2 - it seems a massive part of their success comes directly from the competitive scene.
* a developer argued that ns2stats.org was only on some servers and therefore wasn't an accurate measurement of winrates.
... What?
How about you conduct an experiment and have 2 equally skilled sides. Get one to work as a team, and the other to specifically not work as a team (rambo around the map on their own, don't follow orders or respond to alerts etc). Then tell me that NS2 doesn't reward teamwork.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->this is really backwards logic. if you want strong gameplay, why would you not balance around the highest level of play?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Since the number of people who are capable of that highest level are only a fraction of the player base. I feel the game should be balanced around the skill of the <b>majority </b>of players. That will mean the game will be 'hard' for some, and it may be 'easy' for others. I don't see how balancing for the highest skilled players makes the game desirable for those who are lesser skilled. They're gonna get tired of playing a game they aren't 'good enough' at, and then they'll leave. With that will leave the chance that they'll tell their friends of this game. Yes the game needs to be a challenge, but you can't balance the game for the #1 players because there are too many players who will never achieve that skill level.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"winrates are a bad method of balancing"
- "you are wrong because the developers used winrate to balance"
I think you're misinterpreting the purpose of the winrate discussion. it's not a question of whether or not they're accurate*. the idea is to not use winrate at all, because the numbers don't actually mean anything useful.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Sure they do. Every statistic has use. The winrates are most certainly important since they represent the epitome of balance. Once you put *everything* else aside, people play a game to WIN it. They don't play to do well for the 'first 10 minutes'.
If marines are only winning 40% of games, it really doesn't matter when those games are won or lost. The bottom line is that people are playing an imbalanced game. It's up to the developers to figure out HOW to alter that balance to best affect the parts of the game that need it, while not affecting the parts of the game that don't.
Suggesting developers should ignore winrates ignores the fact that winning is why people play the game. Should people ever stop playing this game to 'win', then by all means I'll agree with you. Since that is not in human nature, winrates most certainly need to be balanced overall.
Next, introduce a scoring system that puts less emphasis on kills, and more on teamwork. Give players points for building structures. Give players points for defending a teammate (killing an enemy attacking a player on your team). Give players points for kills that are in the vicinity of other players. Give players points for killing enemies attacking your res nodes. Give players points for following orders. Get the idea? Points should represent a player's contribution to the TEAM, not an indication of how good a shot he is. The guy with the most points on a team should be the one with the best teamwork ethic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep, today I was playing a game where an onos was attacking one of our bases and I was the only marine responding to it. I ended up dying a whole bunch before anyone came to help. At the end of the game I wasn't helping much to keep the marine last base turtle going and had mentioned this in chat. The game was about 20 minutes longer than it should have been. My team was pissed at me for not doing anything, and kept talking about how my score was the reason for our loss... I'm not a great player, but I'm always doing stuff to keep the team going even if I'm suiciding into a bunch of aliens.
I've seen in other games where the K/D ratio is set aside for the individual to look at, but the other players on the team are hidden. Something like this might help. I still like to know my k/d ratio sometimes just to see how my skills are doing.
- If you chase a Onos you probably die
- If you run into a alien Hive to kill upgrades you die
- If u use a pg which is attacked by an onos chances are you die
- If you build a power node/rt your chances of dying are higher than usual
etc...
Shouldn't we chase oni, kill upgrades, help attacked bases? Of course! These thing decide games on a regular basis. On top of that, dying is absolutely free. Wheter a marine dies once or 20 times a game does just not matter, as IPs spawn unlimited rines...
Agreed, aliens need to watch out at the beginning of a game, but other than that spawning ist free for aliens as well.
Ever been in that situation where a PG was attacked but the rines in the main base would not intanty use the pg but wait for someone else to go first? Thats because they were afraid to ruin their K/D
Why do rines hump the armory after an onos attack instead of chasing it? It's the K/D...
- If you chase a Onos you probably die
- If you run into a alien Hive to kill upgrades you die
- If u use a pg which is attacked by an onos chances are you die
- If you build a power node/rt your chances of dying are higher than usual
etc...
Shouldn't we chase oni, kill upgrades, help attacked bases? Of course! These thing decide games on a regular basis. On top of that, dying is absolutely free. Wheter a marine dies once or 20 times a game does just not matter, as IPs spawn unlimited rines...
Agreed, aliens need to watch out at the beginning of a game, but other than that spawning ist free for aliens as well.
Ever been in that situation where a PG was attacked but the rines in the main base would not intanty use the pg but wait for someone else to go first? Thats because they were afraid to ruin their K/D
Why do rines hump the armory after an onos attack instead of chasing it? It's the K/D...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This
Not to give the impression you want to die intentionally, but you want to be as aggressive as possible and live as long as possible while doing it. If you're alive for 2 minutes killing upgrades in the alien hive, you were more useful than that marine that was alive for 10 minutes sitting in base waiting for buildings to be dropped.
I was following you up until you brought score into the equation. Are you really arguing that changing scoring metrics are going to change balance? Removing deaths? If you don't want to see your deaths, then don't look at them. There's no reason for you to remove information from me because you don't like a number on the scoreboard.
Good players understand that kills, deaths, and score don't mean everything. They're all only part of the story. Good players know that you don't win by having a 85857 kdr. IMO, this whole thread is ridiculous. Balance is out of whack at different skill levels and game times for a number of varying reasons. I think a much more intuitive answer to the current pub imbalance would be cloak being 100% invisible while moving.
And all this is moot when you realize that pub winrates really don't mean ######. Anything can win in a pub and anything can lose in a pub. When UWE comes out with those 50/50 numbers and mention balance in the same sentence, please just throw that crap in the garbage. There are such varying differences in skill, team sizes, and strategy across the pub spectrum that it is impossible to draw any reasonable conclusion from win/loss rates. At best, the ratio of wins can serve to lead you to areas in which there may or may not be a balance issue.
For example: do aliens have a 30% winrate in the timeframe until the onos comes out and then it skyrockets to 80%? The overall winrate could be 50/50 in this scenario. Is it balanced? No. The aliens are <i>probably</i> too weak before the onos and the onos is <i>probably</i> too strong. Do we know that for sure from looking at it? No. Maybe the marines are too strong early and lack the firepower lategame. Or perhaps performance dies late game and marines are now unable to aim, therefore losing. But if you look at that 50/50 winrate, everything seems fine.
Kind of like the current 65/35 winrate in favor of aliens. If you look at the detailed time graph for pub games on b230&b231, you see marines tend to hold around 50% winrate (+/- 10) from 5 minutes to 15 minutes. What starts to happen about then?
TL;DR Score doesn't matter for balance. Win rates are misleading in balance discussions.
And lastly as a classic example from Yuuki & the intermediate value theorem: If an LMG does 0 damage, marines will win 0% of the games. If an LMG does 1000 damage, marines will win 100% of the games. By the IVT, there exists such a number between 0 and 1000 where marines will win 50% of their games. Now consider the impact this has on the rest of the game. If "balance" as defined by 50/50 winrate can be achieved without looking at 99% of the game, how can a 50/50 winrate be indicative of balance within different portions of the game (ie onos or fade or shotguns).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
inv.math
+1
Then you are truly lost in any balance discussion.
It gives players something to work up to: a challenge. Otherwise they really have nothing to aspire to.. They are already the best they can be at the game so they move on to something else. A continual challenge is necessary. One that doesn't stop even when you're near to mastering the game or sport.. whatever it may be. The challenge to win along with the road to that victory is important.. killing your first skulk, learning how to wall jump etc. It applies to real life sports too.. the challenge to catch a fish.. or to throw that 60 yard pass. It's just a basic thing that you need to have in a game.
Say you mastered killing skulks at a public level.. what's to keep you interested?
It's the same old thing, over and over and there's no longer a challenge to it. But.. then you play a competitive 6v6 game.. Wow! That was challenging! I think I might play this game more!
It's when a game works like that, an upward challenge.. while easy to learn but hard to master (as quoted several times in the wall jumping thread) that makes a game thrive and become something really awesome.
If those who were pretty terrible at video games just started playing a game at the maximum skill level in the first hour then the game would wither and die and never expand to something awesome like StarCraft 2 where you have a healthy competitive community alongside the casual community.
This I totally agree with, KDR is still useful to see and shouldn't be removed completely, but rewarding people for aiding the team via points and/or res is great reinforcement. I'm most often the guy with an 8/25 ratio, I have a terrible shot, and almost always try to take a supporting role in FPS games, "work work" is my mantra. In smaller populated servers I get nervous when the comm asks me to take a room solo, but man do I smile when i hear "Good job guys in Cargo" from the comm after I've spent the last 5 minutes staring at that glowing blue dot on the exo's ass.
I've only been playing NS2 for a few weeks now, but after the first few rounds I knew this was the game for me. It is my first experience where I can play an FPS and not be constantly harassed/self-conscious for a low KDR. During a recent match, I noticed the comm was directing me around between bases more so then others to repair and build, even though he most likely knew I was a terrible shot. And that's when it hit me how important communication and team work are in order to get a win, to me this is one of the most fascinating things about Pub games, regardless of whether the team I am on wins or loses. It's seeing how as a group of fairly random people are thrown together onto a team are able to communicate with each other. I'm curious if the game saves any information on how many times the mics were used, b/c I would assume that the more time people talk to each other, the more likely they will work well together more efficiently. I've seen the same thing when playing SC2 3v3 matches, when no one talks we lose regardless of game balance issues.
I have a strong urge to start attempting the role of comm myself, but am hesitant on public servers because if I wanted to get yelled for my mistakes while trying to learning I would just have called my parents. This is why I am also trying to find a clan/group to play with more regularly. Also, being new to the game and not anywhere near having enough playtime to be able to give an informed opinion on balance, but I am curious about these type of big picture issues;
<!--quoteo(post=2032173:date=Nov 22 2012, 05:54 AM:name=Gliss)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gliss @ Nov 22 2012, 05:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2032173"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->if you want strong gameplay, why would you not balance around the highest level of play?
I don't know if you played Starcraft 2 but this is a nice example: at lower levels of play, banelings destroy marines, as units are typically clumped up and they do massive splash damage. at higher levels of play, the Terran player is able to micro and split the marines to reduce the splash damage, allowing him to trade effectively in engagements. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGJP0BgvUPA" target="_blank">see here</a>.
once this was initially showcased at a large-scale tournament, players naturally started to catch on (as trends typically follow the competitive scene), and now it's not uncommon to see mid-level players attempt to split their marines.
if Blizzard had listened to the average players playing the game complaining about the banelings instead of allowing skill-based play to come out ahead, then this entire mechanic and depth of the game would be completely gone.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know exactly what Gliss means, but to me one of the major differences tho with it is that in SC2 players are sorted into leagues. I am gold (so I suck basically) but when I play on the ladder I am placed against other gold players with roughly the same skill (i know this isn't exactly true since if one loses multiple matches in a row Blizzard tosses you a match against a lower league player b/c they know people won't keeping playing if they NEVER win), whereas with most FPS games I've played and NS2 you could join a pub game and be thrown into a match with players who simply have a better FPS skill set and faster reaction times. This is the main reason I don't play COD multiplayer, and I have no problem with that. Another thing is that with SC2 I can watch pro players streaming, read teamliquid for strategy tips, etc. NS2 due to its smaller community size and exposure at the moment doesn't have the same diversity of options when trying to learning new skills and knowledge from the top players (I have found it hard even to find a decent organized list of NS2 competitive teams).
TL:DR I am in love with this game and TIL that there is so much more to balance then just crunching the numbers. Time to start practicing and challenging myself more.
Furthermore you are taking this discussion off topic. As I mentioned in my original post, I'm not talking about individual player balance.
What is needed to 'balance' this game is to get people (like yourself) looking away from individual player balance as the epitome of balance for the game.
This thread is about encouraging TEAMWORK. That's the missing 'balance' in the game right now, and too many people are still blinded by individual player balance that they can't see that.
Furthermore you are taking this discussion off topic. As I mentioned in my original post, I'm not talking about individual player balance.
What is needed to 'balance' this game is to get people (like yourself) looking away from individual player balance as the epitome of balance for the game.
This thread is about encouraging TEAMWORK. That's the missing 'balance' in the game right now, and too many people are still blinded by individual player balance that they can't see that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
teamwork != skill, strategic knowledge or game sense.
teamwork = 8 marines building armory at the start and then all running to the first RT so that all 8 of them can build the RT... that's total crap and will lose you the game.
ergo teamwork is arguably less useful than individual skill.
teamwork = 8 marines building armory at the start and then all running to the first RT so that all 8 of them can build the RT... that's total crap and will lose you the game.
ergo teamwork is arguably less useful than individual skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, teamwork would be those Marines splitting into two groups of four and three while one builds initial structures.
Teamwork would be every one of those players using voice communication to relay important events so that everyone could act on them.
Teamwork is coordinating with your commander to get the upgrades you need based on your players' abilities.
Teamwork is covering your teammates' asses.
A Marine team with good teamwork is much more effective than a bunch of rambos. You can argue that competitive players with near inhuman levels of skill will win by spreading out and doing everything, but in your average pub game, teamwork will always win the day.
EDIT:
<!--quoteo(post=2032639:date=Nov 23 2012, 03:23 AM:name=tarquinbb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tarquinbb @ Nov 23 2012, 03:23 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2032639"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->teamwork != skill, strategic knowledge or game sense.
teamwork = 8 marines building armory at the start and then all running to the first RT so that all 8 of them can build the RT... that's total crap and will lose you the game.
ergo teamwork is arguably less useful than individual skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is amazing. This right here is what I am talking about. The majority of people playing this game do not understand what teamwork is. Teamwork != 8 marines building an armory. Team work is 2-3 marines scouting for res in different directions, 1-2 marines building the base structures.
Ergo, bad teamwork is arguably less useful than individual skill, which is definitely (not arguably) less useful than actual competent teamwork.
<!--quoteo(post=2033037:date=Nov 23 2012, 07:50 PM:name=biz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (biz @ Nov 23 2012, 07:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2033037"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->actually it's the actual game and not the players that makes aliens easier to play for low-mid skilled players. that's why aliens win ALL the games where teams are fair.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sometimes I wonder if I'm playing the same game as other people.
Pro play emphasizes a certain subset of skills that are very useful in a very specific set of circumstances and often leaves out whole aspects of the game that the average player would happily waste time on in the pursuit of "fun".
That having been said, to properly balance any game that has a competitive element (which is organically grown from the player base unless the game is designed for pro play like Shootmania is) the dev has to grasp the core game model that pros will exploit for maximum efficiency. I'd say that the damage output of the hatchet/welder is probably more important than the damage output of the LMG for example, because the hatchet is the anti-rt tool given to the marine player. If it is outclassed by the LMG, then the LMG will be spammed into RT's from range and this will drastically affect game balance for competitive players as they will have almost no incentive to move up to an RT that has any sort of LMG angle-of-attack on it. The cost of T-res ammo drops would need to be factored in and could be adjusted to compensate for the meta shift, but this would have major impacts on pub play where ammo drops on marines are the "life-cost" associated with otherwise "free" marines... you get the idea.
The point is that once your min/maxing pros have pulled the game apart, you just have to balance the game elements that they exploit most while making alternative "competing" elements more or less fun for anyone that chooses to use them. Ideally, the whole game would be viable with side-grades rather than a clear path to maximum efficiency... but hey, that's really hard to do and really we just want a fun game that is also enough of a challenge to keep a pro-circuit alive.
Final thought... The aliens are still winning pubs after the Onos nerf because aliens are still very strong in pubs without Onos. The Onos egg was a shortcut, it was never necessary from what I saw... except for the occasional fall back plan when the marines were out to an early lead. Because low-rate khamms were going fast Onos, the games were skewed and balance wasn't fully fleshed out on the rest of the tech tree. Turns out, alien design is still superior to marine design in pubs... while pros seem to curb stomp aliens because range > melee. The balance seems to actually skew marine in the early game because no-recoil hitscan favors people who can aim and alien tech paths are actually pretty expensive to tip the balance back to skulks. (just my assessment, I'm not a comp player)
I'd like to see recoil added and Aim-down-sights included to compensate and put a hard limit on the firing speed of the pistol. This would help pub marines aim properly while rewarding wolf pack tactics (since ADS would hinder peripheral vision/awareness.)
Last night I played a game of ns_docking (as a marine) where I kept rushing out into Stability Monitoring and killing the harvester there. I just went there, shot any skulks along the way and axed the harvester to death, or close to death. If the harvester starts getting low and I see two or more skulks coming towards me, I shoot the harvester down with my rifle and pistol while dancing around on the skulk heads. I must have killed 7 harvesters by game's end...4 of which were in Stability, 1 in Maintenance, 2 in Courtyard...this set the alien comm back so much that we rolled in with JPs and cleaned up the mess.
My K/D was 4 kills/12 deaths or something, but I had the highest score because I dedicated myself to crippling the alien economy while everyone else kept them busy elsewhere.
People who obsess over their K/D to the point of being afraid to take risks and DO something will end up losing the game for their team. A death should mean something - one free marine/skulk for a 10 res extractor/harvester, sounds like a good trade to me.
It's interesting, but I think we need to look down the road a little. . .
How long before someone who only knows "respawn and shoot" becomes a valuable member of your team?
It's probably going to be a much shorter time than you think <i>(even shorter with good commanders whipping people into shape)</i>
I'd say give it a month, why even that long, how about just 2 weeks. . .
2 weeks from today and I bet people will stop fearing the new cloak, new regen, and a bunch of the other coordinated alien rushes