A more balanced discussion on game balance
Stoneburg
Join Date: 2002-11-11 Member: 8174Members
Join Date: 2002-11-11 Member: 8174Members
I've read a lot of thoughts on game balance in NS2, and both read and participated in even more discussions on balance in NS1. Unfortunately most of them aren't very constructive but that isn't because of bad intentions, everyone involved has the best intentions, they want the game to be even better. It's because the discussion is being held without a common framework. Basically people are talking past eachother rather than with eachother, and have failed to establish a common basis for the discussion. This sort of thing happens every day in work places and class rooms, not only on gaming forums, and can be pretty easy to 'fix' if people just take a step back and think about some basic things.
First of all there are some basic psychological processes at work here, the main one being a sort of narcissism. We are all narcissist so a certain extent, which means that we are adverse to having to change anything about ourself (because that would mean we aren't perfect, which would be a critisism of ourselfes). Basically I feel much better if something is someone elses fault rather than mine. Also, my ideas are always better than others, because they are mine. Just like my children are always smarter and more beautiful than others.
If I get killed by a skulk, I want it to be because the Com didn't drop a medpack when I wanted one. Or didn't get the upgrades, scan or whatever. Or my teammate didn't cover me or the game is unbalanced. Any reason that doesn't involve there being anyting wrong with ME is better than the alternative. This always holds true. If I don't have a job, it's because of politicians or discrimination or immigrants or because god is punishing me. Because if it's not because of me, I don't have to change. It's natural, but not very constructive. And if your reaction to what I've just said is "Yeah that holds true for other people, but in my case...", that's only natural too.
I've been on servers where after an Alien win, half the marine team complains in the ready room that Aliens are over powered. The next game Marines win and half the Alien team complains that the Marines are overpowered. For some people "I lost" = "The game is unbalanced" just like some people think "I didn't get what I wanted" = "Undemocratic". This is obviously not true, but what would balance look like?
Perfect balance is impossible, you're never going to get 50/50 or even 49/51, so what is acceptable? I think that should be something to agree on. Personally I would consider 60/40 to be balanced. Frankly if someone told me a game was unbalanced I would assume it would be 70/30 or worse. If it was over that, I would think it unacceptable. But the main thing is that if we are going to discuss balance we have to first agree on what balance is, otherwise it is pointless.
The second question is balanced for who and how many? Are we mainly interested in balance for competetive 6vs6 games, or public 12vs12 or 10vs10 games? That of course depends on your perspective. If you're a competetive player, you may think that is the most important goal, and it would make sense. But if you're looking at the larger picture, you will see that the most important aspect isn't to make the game better for the relatively small elite, but for the larger player base. That's because if you cater to the pro's, the amateurs will stop playing and the game will start shrinking. Once it does, it is only a matter of time before it dies.
Think about it. If all competetive 6vs6 games are 50/50 and all pub games are 80/20, new players will get bored/frustrated and quit quickly, and there will be no player base for competetive teams to draw from. If pub games are 50/50 and competetive ones are 80/20, the game will keep growing in popularity and the competetive aspects will grow as well. A competetive game can adjust to imbalance, a pub game can't. You can still have a league or cup even if the sides are horribly unbalanced, because all teams will play both sides equally often.
My last point is about perspective. I have friends who have been shot and mutilated. I know people whos families have been tortured or killed. One thing that always impresses me about them is their ability to put things into perspective. Just the fact that everyone reading this has access to electricity, internet, a reasonably good computer and have time to spend playing a computer game means that you're among the luckiest people ever to live on the face of the earth. And the discussion is about how to make one of our luxorious passtimes even more fun than it already is.
What I've just said can be boiled down to a few suggestions and comments that we can discuss. I suggest the following:
1. That we agree that the game is balanced if no side wins more than X% of the time over a large enough sample. My suggestion is that X=60.
2. That we agree that it is more important that the game is balanced for public rather than competetive games.
3. That we are honest with ourselved with what we can do to have a positive influence over balance on the servers. If we think that Aliens are overpowered and consider ourself better than average players, we could play Marines more often, or vice versa. And if we think a certain strategy, weapon or life form is overpowered, we think about how we could effectively counter or negate it within the current rules of the game.
4. That we assume that everyone who wants to discuss this issue has the best intention, and that even though we may not agree it is valuable to get the different perspectives.
5. That we consider how freaking awesome it really is that people from all over the planet can join up with others and play a really cool game together. How many people would have believed that 30 years ago?
And remember, If the commanders name is [CoFR]Stoneburg and he asks you to do something that sounds really stupid, do it anyway. It's either gonna be fun, or fail in a spectacular way. Either way you win (at life).
First of all there are some basic psychological processes at work here, the main one being a sort of narcissism. We are all narcissist so a certain extent, which means that we are adverse to having to change anything about ourself (because that would mean we aren't perfect, which would be a critisism of ourselfes). Basically I feel much better if something is someone elses fault rather than mine. Also, my ideas are always better than others, because they are mine. Just like my children are always smarter and more beautiful than others.
If I get killed by a skulk, I want it to be because the Com didn't drop a medpack when I wanted one. Or didn't get the upgrades, scan or whatever. Or my teammate didn't cover me or the game is unbalanced. Any reason that doesn't involve there being anyting wrong with ME is better than the alternative. This always holds true. If I don't have a job, it's because of politicians or discrimination or immigrants or because god is punishing me. Because if it's not because of me, I don't have to change. It's natural, but not very constructive. And if your reaction to what I've just said is "Yeah that holds true for other people, but in my case...", that's only natural too.
I've been on servers where after an Alien win, half the marine team complains in the ready room that Aliens are over powered. The next game Marines win and half the Alien team complains that the Marines are overpowered. For some people "I lost" = "The game is unbalanced" just like some people think "I didn't get what I wanted" = "Undemocratic". This is obviously not true, but what would balance look like?
Perfect balance is impossible, you're never going to get 50/50 or even 49/51, so what is acceptable? I think that should be something to agree on. Personally I would consider 60/40 to be balanced. Frankly if someone told me a game was unbalanced I would assume it would be 70/30 or worse. If it was over that, I would think it unacceptable. But the main thing is that if we are going to discuss balance we have to first agree on what balance is, otherwise it is pointless.
The second question is balanced for who and how many? Are we mainly interested in balance for competetive 6vs6 games, or public 12vs12 or 10vs10 games? That of course depends on your perspective. If you're a competetive player, you may think that is the most important goal, and it would make sense. But if you're looking at the larger picture, you will see that the most important aspect isn't to make the game better for the relatively small elite, but for the larger player base. That's because if you cater to the pro's, the amateurs will stop playing and the game will start shrinking. Once it does, it is only a matter of time before it dies.
Think about it. If all competetive 6vs6 games are 50/50 and all pub games are 80/20, new players will get bored/frustrated and quit quickly, and there will be no player base for competetive teams to draw from. If pub games are 50/50 and competetive ones are 80/20, the game will keep growing in popularity and the competetive aspects will grow as well. A competetive game can adjust to imbalance, a pub game can't. You can still have a league or cup even if the sides are horribly unbalanced, because all teams will play both sides equally often.
My last point is about perspective. I have friends who have been shot and mutilated. I know people whos families have been tortured or killed. One thing that always impresses me about them is their ability to put things into perspective. Just the fact that everyone reading this has access to electricity, internet, a reasonably good computer and have time to spend playing a computer game means that you're among the luckiest people ever to live on the face of the earth. And the discussion is about how to make one of our luxorious passtimes even more fun than it already is.
What I've just said can be boiled down to a few suggestions and comments that we can discuss. I suggest the following:
1. That we agree that the game is balanced if no side wins more than X% of the time over a large enough sample. My suggestion is that X=60.
2. That we agree that it is more important that the game is balanced for public rather than competetive games.
3. That we are honest with ourselved with what we can do to have a positive influence over balance on the servers. If we think that Aliens are overpowered and consider ourself better than average players, we could play Marines more often, or vice versa. And if we think a certain strategy, weapon or life form is overpowered, we think about how we could effectively counter or negate it within the current rules of the game.
4. That we assume that everyone who wants to discuss this issue has the best intention, and that even though we may not agree it is valuable to get the different perspectives.
5. That we consider how freaking awesome it really is that people from all over the planet can join up with others and play a really cool game together. How many people would have believed that 30 years ago?
And remember, If the commanders name is [CoFR]Stoneburg and he asks you to do something that sounds really stupid, do it anyway. It's either gonna be fun, or fail in a spectacular way. Either way you win (at life).
Comments
Although I know you didn't mean it that way.
Recently I started playing the beta to MechWarrior Online. Being an online, team based game, it has some of the same "L2P" problems as NS2. First time I started a match in that game I experienced the same thing as the first time I fired up a match of Natural Selection 2: I did terribly. Both were fun, but my experience with the two diverged from there. Learning to play the other game involved a lot of customization of my own mech. NS2 involved running around with the same machine gun or biting with the same skulk teeth for 90% of a match. Being an asymmetrical game, which MWO is not, there are obviously greater considerations in NS2. The point is, I enjoyed the process of learning to play with Mechwarrior because it was fun, the process of learning to play NS2 became so frustrating I've all but stopped playing. Now, this may sound like a wild idea, but why not increase the level of customizability? What I mean is: set up a class based system that scales with player controlled resources. Something like this. Aliens get a choice of three starting classes: something like skulk, gorge, lerk. From there you have evolutionary options that are unique to that base class, and those options cost the same player controlled resources the game uses already. Similarly, marines could have three classes: marine, medic, engineer (a bit team fortressy here I suppose, they could be whatever as long as they were unique) Rather than a specific set of weapons for all marine players, the commander could unlock a more generic "weapon set 2" and "weapon set 3" that would let marine players utilize their individual resources on weapons that were unique to their class (also, I suppose it would be unfair to allow a differing class to pick up that weapon if a marine drops it on death). For top tier options a choice would have to be made. Is the ultimate evolutionary option for aliens of all classes Onos or will there be two additional top tier options introduced. Similarly, would all marine classes get the same result from an exosuit or would each class get unique exosuits. Personally I say the more unique the options the better, but that is a lot of work for a company like Unknown Worlds that isn't very large.
I know some people may be thinking: "class based shooter, this is natural selection!" and I'll give you that. This isn't Team Fortress. It is a game that has some very hardcore fans and developed organically (dare I say "evolved" :-j ) from a team of modders producing a well liked mod for Half Life. These ideas were most certainly not a part of Natural Selection 1, but this isn't Natural Selection: Graphics Update, it's a whole new game. I don't see as many people complaining about balance issues that may or may not boil down to "L2P" if they are having more fun playing the game. From my personal standpoint, being able to customize things always increases my enjoyment of a gaming experience.
Thanks for the post Stoneburg, good to know even anonymous people can be polite lol. I hope they figure something out because I love the concepts behind the game and, as I said, few games with this kind of potential come into existence. Hate to see it squandered.
You may be right, at least on some servers I guess, but I also see a lot of the opposite. As a marine I've had up to four rookies on the team at the same time. It seems that new and inexperienced players prefer Marines. I don't think I've ever had more than one rookie on the Alien side.
If I had no stats to go on and someone asked me which side I thought was the "over powered" one I wouldn't be able to answer that. In my experience the team with the best communication and teamwork wins, unless the individual skill difference is very big or one side gets a horrible commander. So my answer would be that it's pretty balanced, but that the smaller the teams get, the easier it is for Aliens. The way the game plays now I don't feel like any side has too much of an advantage as long as the teams are 8-12 players.
In one-on-one situations I would say that a skilled marine has an advantage over a skilled skulk, mainly because I find it almost impossible to win as a skulk against a skilled marine, but can sometimes win if the roles are reversed. But that is compensated for by higher mobility/independence.
You bring up a good point, since one easy "fix" would be to just make it Marine vs Marine or Alien vs Alien (the last one would be kind of interesting... mod anyone?).
What you fail to consider are the perceptions of the players involved. You may not find losing 3 games for every 2 you win to be a problem, but many people do.
I look at it this way, if people can tell the game is unbalanced, then the level of imbalance is too great. It's when people can't tell that there is an imbalance that you can generally ignore minor levels of imbalance.
Right now 8vs8 is what the developers have primarily been balancing for. (this is kinda obvious when one looks at all the official servers and sees that they are all 16 player servers)
We had the same problem in NS1 with trying to balance for really small games and it causing issues on larger servers. The reality is that the majority of the player base likes playing on larger servers. Just look at the server list (with hide full and hide empty unchecked) and see which servers are full and which are not.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Give the people what they want. I've been in this business a while, and you learn very fast that to be successful you can't dictate to the players what you want them to play. You can make your game and offer it up, and if people like it they will play it. However, if people like larger games and you say "screw you, we're not going to give that to you" then these people are going to take their money elsewhere. Now let's not be silly here saying, "if people wanted flying Onos would you give it to them?" There is a huge difference.
This is where I disagree in principle, and not just on the 60 number. A game should *always* be striving for perfect balance, even if they never achieve it. It's like saying "would you be OK with your internet going down 20% of the time, or would you rather see that number closer to zero?"
While you'll get backlash for this, I do feel the game should be *primarily* balanced for public play. I don't feel that the needs of competitive play should be ignored, but we have chicken and egg here. Without a strong public player base, competitive games won't survive.
A game can survive without a competitive gameplay base, but it can't survive without a public gameplay base.
I think this is a bit too idealistic. We need to be pragmatic here and recognize that people play a game to win, and they will use all tools in the game at their disposal to do so. While I personally play marines more often, (since I'm a 'strong' player that usually causes imbalance if I play aliens) I don't expect anyone else to restrict their gameplay to only one part of the game because of balance issues.
Just fix the game.
We don't need to make this any more complicated than it already is.
Is the game balanced?
Yes? OK, we're good to go.
No? Then make changes to address those balance issues.
Stacking to me just means creating an imbalance in team skill levels. If there's an imbalance in the game mechanics, it's up to the devs to fix it. I know why you're suggesting it, but by countering the problem like this you'll be skewing the data into making the game look more balanced than it really is, which is ultimately counter-productive.
Balance is 50/50, it is not an opinion up for debate it is a fact. You won't ever reach it but that doesn't make it any less relevant as an objective and no self respecting game developer would settle for less. Offering a framework to facilitate balance discussion with the first assumption positing that the game is already balanced is... peculiar. Should we just pack our things then and dance in the sunset?
It is a lot easier to balance for top level play: Less variance in player skill, less collective skill shift over time. You want to isolate the effect of your changes as much as possible to evaluate them and that's nigh impossible in pubs. Not disagreeing with you, just offering another perspective.
Good assumption, bad example. Masking underlying problems won't improve the game.
You can't write half a page about how people are narcissistic and then make an assumption like that. This is the main point that made me consider your post idealistic.
Not done being grateful for the opposable thumbs my ancestors evolved.
I think the phrasing "what you fail" is a poor choice of words, you may want to consider putting making your argument without implying that someone has failed to understand something. It's akin to saying someone is stupid, which tends to put people on the defensive.
There is nothing in my post that indicates that I do not understand or am sympathetic to other peoples view on this, nor am I claiming that my personal preferences are more "right" than others. However, I am curious to your reasoning here. Having a 60/40 winrate for either team doesn't in my mind mean that I lose 3 for every 2 I win. No matter what the balance is, a player will statistically win 50/50 because the average player will play both teams an equal amount. You may lose 60% as team X, but that will also mean you win 60% as Team Y.
This makes a lot of sense to me. It's also an argument that 50/50 is not neccesary.
Right now 8vs8 is what the developers have primarily been balancing for. (this is kinda obvious when one looks at all the official servers and sees that they are all 16 player servers)[/quote]
I have a personal preference for the larger games, but wouldn't mind balance being focused on 8vs8.
I generally agree, but I think it is more complicated than that. What people want and what people think they want, or what they think will get them what they want are not the same thing.
Assuming that the game developers run a serious business, which I assume they do, they will not be setting goals that are impossible to achieve. That's something you learn in business and is an important part of good leadership. If you were to have as a personal goal when you play to win 100% of the games and have an infinite kill:death ratio, that would not be a smart goal. Goals need to be achievable, making them unrealistic is worse than not having any goals at all. Consider a class where your teacher says your goal is to a have a perfect score on every test in every subject, would that be a good motivational drive for you or would you feel frustrated?
I think we should be able to get 100% consensus on this across the board. It's simply a matter of short term and long term interests colliding. In those cases, you need to prioritize long term goals.
This seems like a misunderstanding, I am not suggesting people "restrict their gameplay" by softplaying the opposition, if that is what you mean. I also don't think that it's very idealistic to encourage sportsmanlike behaviour, I encounter it all the time. For example, people "giving back" someones dropped shotgun is incredibly common.
I personally find it more satisfying to win when the odds are stacked against me, and I find that I develop faster as a player that way. The way I got good at CS when I played it competetively, was by always picking the harder side and trying to do the more difficult things. Some prefer to play that way, some prefer to chose the easier path. It's a preference thing.
Oh, why didn't anyone think of that!
I am trying to make the issue more constructive, not more complicated.
And to do that, we first need to decide what "balanced" means. Your post has proven that we haven't agreed on what "balanced" is, so what you suggest is obviously impossible.
I agree with your definition of what stacking is, and I am saying that it is only "lame" depending on context. If you stack in order to get an easy win, I think it is lame. If you stack in order to get a more balanced match to increase everyones enjoyment, it's a good thing.
Sure it is up to the devs to fix it, but since it is in your interest too, I don't see why you wouldn't want to be a positive influence on that process. Trying to make the game more fun may skew the data, but for me that's not a very strong argument. First off, it will likely not have a big impact, and it happens whether you or I approve of it anyway. Secondly, if it improves the quality of my gaming experience, I'm not going to let "possibly skewing statistics" stop me from having fun. My objective when playing the game is to have fun, creating perfect statistical data for the developers is not a high priority. I will gladly sacrifice statistical accuracy for more fun. And having a perfectly or near perfectly balanced game is not neccesary for me to have a good gaming experience.
For example, if I had a hypothetical choice between having a 60/40 balance with the gorges being as cute as they are, or achieving the perfect balance but with a non-cute gorge class, I'd go with the cute gorges. Perfect balance is not a requirement for fun unless you make it one.
Because even though there is an impressive amount of knowledge on different game related issues present here, as well as a lot of great committment, the process itself does not have the same quality, which is why the end result is dissapointing. Smart people, lots of knowledge and committment, but it doesn't have a professional structure to the process (for obvious reasons).
Let me just be blunt here and say no. You are correct that one definition of balanced could be 50/50, but that is the least relevant of the available definitions. What matters is the perception of balance, and it matters to the extent that people think it detracts from their experience.
As I wrote in a previous response, having unrealistic or impossible objectives is destructive to any individual or organisation, and to use your phrasing, no self respecting professional would settle for it. I am sure you would feel the same way if you put yourself in that position. No matter what your current occuptation is, do you think that the only objective you could have with self respect is absolute perfection? I think not. The same holds true for a game developer.
I hope you are not intentionally misrepresenting what I have said. At no point have I claimed that the game is balanced, only that it is balanced enough for me. That means that the issue of game balance is of no great personal importance to me, but since I also care about others game enjoyment (because if other players are happy, I have more happy players to game with) it is of some indirect importance to me.
That's a good point that I hadn't considered.
That depends on what you consider "the game" to be. If you consider the experience of the game to be the game, then yes it will improve it. If you consider the actual code of the game to be the game, no it won't.
I also don't see it as masking underlying problems, I see it as improving my gaming experience within the current framework. My aim is to have the best possible game experience with the actual game (and in this case build) I am playing.
Just because people are narcissists to varying degrees doesn't mean they don't have good intentions. I'm not using the term in a derogatory way, but as a way of explaining why we tend to act certain ways in certain contexts. Our natural instinct is to blame the external world for bad things, and assume personal credit for good things.
Your outlook seems a bit pessimistic. My argument is not "Be happy that you're not lying in a ditch dying from a gunshot wound", but rather a more philosophical attempt at saying "It's just a game, we're only here to have fun, let's keep it in that perspective and we will be able to solve problems more easily."
No. As far as I know, only incompetent leaders set those kinds of goals, and they are generally abhorred by professionals. Here's an article in the financial post about why these "stretch goals" are bad: http://business.financialpost.com/2010/08/26/why-stretch-goals-are-a-waste-of-time/
I think you answered your own question really. The question is indeed when should the devs stop working on balance altogether. it obviously can't be at 50/50 because then they will have to work until they die without ever accomplishing their task, so we should come up with a number that is realistic for them to achieve that we would be happy with.
You ask how this would improve the discussion and my point is that this and other things has to be done in order to improve the disussion. There is an abundance of threads and replies on the topic of game balance, and they have all failed to even decide what game balance is. For some, only asolute statistical perfection is considered balanced, for others it is whether it feels balanced that matters, and there are other definitions and variations as well. We need to agree on a common definition and a goal that is realistic, before we start suggesting specific solutions or making demands.
I would suggest that you do what most people would do, both have a painkiller AND see the doctor. Your argument is that you should do nothing to make yourself more comfortable, because it is the doctors job to fix it. And at the same time, you have made it impossible to fix it, because you'll only be happy with perfection. This is an example of what I have been talking about, where you have completely externalised the issue, which is the first and most natural reaction to any problem.
You don't have to explain how it will influence the statics, I think everyone understands that and nobody is contesting that as far as I know. I think that it is unrealistic to expect any such actions to have significant effects on it, but that is not really relevant. Because it happens whether you, I or anyone else likes it or not. I might just jump on a server right now and suicide 20 times as a fade just to skew the statistics...
I don't understand what your point is here. I think we are looking at this from different perspectives, you from a "judging" perspective, me from a "percieving" perspective.
No, that's necessary but not a sufficient condition for balance.
Award one team a million res nodes at the start of the game by random chance and they will have a 99% chance of victory; yet the overall win rate will be 50/50. Is the game balanced?
First you indirectly say that good players should consider playing marines more, because then you'll have more balanced games, and thus more fun, right? Later you then say you don't really need perfect balance to have fun. It's true that imbalance only bothers you when you let it, but the realtity is that imbalance will always bother a lot of people. Isn't that why you made suggestion 3. in the first place?
Anyway, I know chess isn't perfectly balanced. I was just trying to explain how important balance is, is in a competitive game, by using it as an analogy. If your intent is winning, having the disadavantage of not starting first is not as annoying as having to play with one less rook than your opponent, for example. Ergo, balance can affect enjoyment, and the more imbalanced the game is, the less fun it is. And that's why I think it might be more important not to wilfully skew the data that actually quantifies any imbalances the game has. You understand, right?
If you're above average in skill level, and you feel like playing marines to compensate any alien advantage, that's your choice. I just think, if every experienced player would start doing this on a regular basis, it wouldn't be in the best interest of the game in the long term.
I played almost exclusively on the old [CoFR] server back in the day. The games there were always awesome. One of the reasons was the regulars. Another was that it was always random teams. I don't think he was suggesting it as a cure for game imbalance at all. I think he was suggesting it as a treatment for the symptom.
I keep hearing that. Could someone explain why, for those of us who didn't play NS1?
When playing marines. That's what this is all about.
If the game is 51/49 and people can't detect a difference, then no, 50/50 isn't necessarily necessary. However, you're trying to suggest that people should 'settle' with the current state of game balance. That's the basis for this entire thread.
No, it's not. We don't have to decide what 'balanced' is since the term 'balanced' in of itself implies a certain set of conditions.
balanced: 'being in harmonious or proper arrangement or adjustment'
60/40 is not balanced. You're trying to play semantic games on this issue, and I'm not falling for it. 50/50 is balanced, and that is where balance should be headed. Either the game is balanced or it is not. It can't be 'partly' balanced or 'good enough' balanced. Either it is balanced or it is not.
It's that simple.
In practice, our measure of this type of balance (win rate of a limited number of matches) is imperfect, so we say that the measured winrate is indistinguishable from the balanced winrate when its within some range of 50%. From my balance analysis thread, this range is based on the number of matches counted in the winrate as follows (using a 95% confidence interval): If we're using ns2stats, which typically counts several thousand matches, then the range would something like 47-53% or 48-52%. Since NS2's winrate's have been outside this range for the past couple of patches, its safe to say its not balanced.
Because you always had a chance to make a comeback. Sure there was the same F4ing going on but it got you banned on most servers i played on. The game was slower paced and killing players was more meaningful (longer respawntime, slower marines, aliens spawning in queues). There was less action going on in the early game, unless one side decided to rush.
Games were not decided by the 5 minute mark, games were balanced around 2 hive aliens vs 2 hive marines but with a little alien favour. At any time in midgame, either side had the chance of getting an advantage by killing players rather than structures - RFK helped aliens a lot, on the other hand killing the early fades often won you the game. No powernodes, unguarded marinebases still had (and have) valuable, semi-low hp buildings a lone skulk can attack: Advanced Armory and Prototype Lab. Beacon respawned every dead player so marines had more base defense and turtling was easier. On the other hand, winning the game because of the action of a single player was much much harder, you needed teamwork to kill an enemy base.
Heavy armored marines were better at killing skulks than exos (they could shoot skulks at their feet). Onos could eat marines but his normal attack was less effective vs players. He was also way less tanky thanks to heavy machineguns, which jetpacks could equip to hunt oni down and free their buddy who got eaten. This meant no instagibs: if you moved in a team there was no way a single enemy could definitly take you all out, at the very least you had a fighting chance. Although I acknowledge, good fades were pretty borderline. UWE stated something about not wanting hard-counters in game mechanics and I think ns1 did that much better.
- Perfect balance is impossible to achieve.
- Impossible objectives are demotivational, since they guarantee failure.
Therefore we need to agree on a target game balance that is possible for the developers to achieve and is acceptable to most players.
- The game plays differently depending on the size of the teams.
- The game plays differently depending on if it is a competetive game or a public one.
Therefore we need to decide what sort of size and type of game we are trying to balance.
Ps. Hi! And you are right! I don't think anyone can disagree with that. And it leads to two questions:
1. How much does it influence the process of "finding a cure".
2. How important is the long term goal of increasing balance compared to the short term goal of having a more fun and balanced game when you play it right now?
You make a statement but do not follow up with any arguments, and to me the statements are simply not defensible.
1. "Games need to be balanced 50/50". Says who? Chess is 55/45 and have been around for 1500 years. It is probably the best known game in the world and still has a huge following. Obviously that game didn't need to be balanced 50/50.
One of the most popular maps in one of the most popular online games ever was de_dust in Counter Strike, it was also one of the most unbalanced maps (cs_assault and cs_siege were probably the only standard maps that were more unbalanced). Obviously that game didn't need to be balanced 50/50.
2. "no one should have to 'settle' for a game that is not balanced". Says who? And what does it mean? Is it a human right to have perfectly balanced games provided to oneself? A game designer creates a game, then people have the choice of playing it or not. In the case of NS2 I have the opportunity to be part of the development process, which is a privilidge, but I don't have the "right" to anything other than what is stipulated in the EULA.
I don't mind settling for games that are unbalanced as long as they have other qualities. In fact, since I have actively chosen this assymetrical game you could argue that I have already accepted a degree of imbalance. If perfect balance was the most important game quality for me, I should never pick an assymetrical game.
If the game is 51/49 and people can't detect a difference, then no, 50/50 isn't necessarily necessary.[/quote]
Good. Then we agree that 50/50 isn't neccesary, so we can start discussing what would be a reasonable goal.
No. What is happening is that you are trying to interpret my intent in a way that is as objectionable as possible to you. You are trying to polarise the issue by making my position into the opposite of yours, when in fact our positions are very close to eachother.
We both want the game to be more balanced than it is today. We would both prefer it to be 55/45 rather than 60/40. We would both in fact prefer it to be 50/50, but I think that is impossible if it is still going to be assymetrical. You have now indicated that you no longer think 50/50 is neccesary for the game to be balanced enugh, so now our positions are even more aligned.
Now you are arguing against yourself. Contrast this quote with your previous one: "the game is 51/49 and people can't detect a difference, then no, 50/50 isn't necessarily necessary."
You've already agreed that 50/50 isn't neccesary for game balance, so let's move on from there instead.
Your quote also contains another attack on my character (the first was when you claimed I was trying to make people "settle" for the current condition), where you claim I am trying to play a "semantic game". So what you are saying is that not only do I have a bad intention (trying to stop the game from becoming more balanced), I am also dishonest about it (by claiming to want to make the game more balanced) and willing to use underhanded tactics (semantic games) to achieve it. That makes me quite a villain!
Now you have to ask yourself, what is more likely:
1. Stoneburg is a villain out to destroy the game of NS2 by stopping it from becoming more balanced because.... uhm... he hates when people have fun?
2. Stoneburg also wants the game to become better and more balanced, but has a different perspective from yours, that may or may not be helpful.
Which of those two makes most sense? I have already plainly stated my intentions but will repeat them for the sake of clarity:
1. Creating a more balanced discussion on game balance (as well as a meta-discussion)
2. Coming to an agreement on what game balance constitutes
3. Coming to an agreement on which types of games are most important to increase balance in
Whether we agree on 60/40, 53/47 or any other number is not relevant to me, for me the agreement is what matters. I would also like the game to be balanced mainly for larger numbers (like 20-24 player servers), but once again, I would have no problem if the main objetive was to balance it for 8vs8 either.
Rather than try to "interpret" what I am saying, I think you're better off just taking it at face value. If something seems unclear or contradictory, just ask me to clarify.
It's also interesting to note that even a perfectly balanced game will not appear balanced to the actual player, because the sample size will always be too small and the player himself will influence the results.
1. A good player will typically win >50% of his games and vice versa.
2. People do not understand standard deviation on an emotional level.
Consider the coin flip, a perfectly balanced game. Yet every time you lose, there's a 12.5% chance you're going to have a 4 game losing streak. Right now there's probably a NS2 player who has won 10 games in a row as Marine, and one that has lost 10 games in a row as Alien. Whether the game is 55/45 or 50/50 will probably not have an influence on peoples experience of game balance.
1. Depends on how many people would follow your suggestion. If one person does this, he might improve his personal experiences, but it won't make much of an impact on a larger scale. When enough people do it to skew the overall winrate into a seemingly balanced 50/50, you can no longer trust the raw data of public games to evaluate balance changes, and then the influence is pretty substantial I'd say.
2. Depends on the target audience probably. How long you intend to play this game, and in what intensity? For the casual player, the short term goal of having fun and balanced (albeit by masking an inherent imbalance) games would be more important I guess. For the veteran and competitive players, it might be more important to have the game inherently as balanced as possible as soon as possible, so they can enjoy it more in the long run. Although I can only speak for myself.