On Balancing (Dev Team Please Read)
Radix
Join Date: 2005-01-10 Member: 34654Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2005-01-10 Member: 34654Members, Constellation
I'm sure the team has more than enough ideas on how to balance the game once the primary gameplay elements are implemented, but I thought I'd throw this at you just in case it's a slightly different spin than what you're thinking of. I like this method because it intuitively objectifies "worth", whereas a lot of balancing methods tend to be hit-and-miss.
The essence of the idea is to institute <i>checkpoints</i>. A checkpoint is defined as <u>a gameplay element deemed highly enjoyable, fun, or satisfying that has been tweaked to the point where it can be included with no modifications in the final product, assuming no other gameplay elements interfere with its current implementaiton.</u>
Then, once one (or a small set of) checkpoints have been instantiated and are deemed fun enough to keep as an "anchor" for gameplay (by anchor, I don't mean an exhaustive list, just a rough draft for <i>some</i> of the ways the game will function) then implementation of new features by induction ceases in its current form.
At this point adding and balancing new features becomes exponentially more difficult. Up to this point balance is fairly trivial to attain, because the number of gameplay possibilities is easy to quantify in one's head.
My proposed solution is to take "cross-sections" of the gameplay anchors, so for instance, if a shotgun is worth an armory + 10 res, then an equally powerful item should be worth a similar amount of resources.
The problem with this method (which is where most people stop) is that it has many qualitatively different resource models which are hell to keep track of in one's head. My proposed solution is to take all resource costs and convert them to <b>time costs</b> because at the end of the day, time = money.
So consider that the marines (in NS) start with 100 resources at time 0. It would take the one pre-assumed starting RT 100*4 (400) seconds to produce that much starting res, and because any additional captured resources require time (and therefore complicate the understanding of balance) I'll leave them out of the equation.
So at this point the marines are assumed to start with 400 <b>seconds of weight</b> on their side. Assume the aliens have not yet been implemented, since they would (in my mind) qualify as being "orbital", or outside of the initial anchor points defined above.
At this point relative balancing becomes a factor of whatever you're trying to balance, against any defined anchor points - in essence, instead of being forced to ignore parts of the game arbitrarily, you now control how difficult (read: detailed) balancing is to become.
I guess that's about it. The only point I can see that should be expounded upon is how you go about the actual balancing of the shotgun mentioned above. My answer would be math. If a shotgun is worth 10 resources, and if one resource is worth 4 seconds of weight, then a shotgun is (10*4)/400 or 1/10 of your starting weight. At this point I would begin constructing a visual chart that would include total starting weight, and surrounding anchors like the shotgun (which I would consider satisfactory for a gameplay element).
<i>Time factors complicate things, such as the fact that an advanced armory doesn't exactly cost you 3 minutes, but it does involve a wait time (very different from an actual cost, such as the 30*4 seconds the upgrade costs you). I think this would come down to a conversion chart roughly estimating the opportunity cost of 30 resources in relation to 3 minutes of other uses in a given game, factoring in how many resources could be gathered, and translating that to seconds of weight for a generic guess.</i>
Once you finish balancing relative to the anchor model, all balance costs of all orbital elements (outside of the initial anchor points) become dependant variables on the anchor points themselves. You could easily set up an excel spreadsheet or other program to calculate all resource (or other) costs, on the assumption that you were able to institute a conversion rate for different drawbacks such as risk (of losing a weapon). That, I suppose, is where the art of balancing still applies, but I believe this system is much faster (and far more organized) for prototyping balance before testing, for at least the bulk of the elements that you'd seek to implement.
One of the major reasons I'd use a system like this isn't for ease, but expandability - you reach a certain point of overload in a traditional balancing system where you simply can't add new costs, or tech, or classes, because the amount of effort playtesting them becomes prohibitive. This method seeks to solve that problem in part, in order to allow deeper gameplay elements than run-of-the-mill balancing methods via playtesting and reimplementation would permit, and to save you a few headaches.
The essence of the idea is to institute <i>checkpoints</i>. A checkpoint is defined as <u>a gameplay element deemed highly enjoyable, fun, or satisfying that has been tweaked to the point where it can be included with no modifications in the final product, assuming no other gameplay elements interfere with its current implementaiton.</u>
Then, once one (or a small set of) checkpoints have been instantiated and are deemed fun enough to keep as an "anchor" for gameplay (by anchor, I don't mean an exhaustive list, just a rough draft for <i>some</i> of the ways the game will function) then implementation of new features by induction ceases in its current form.
At this point adding and balancing new features becomes exponentially more difficult. Up to this point balance is fairly trivial to attain, because the number of gameplay possibilities is easy to quantify in one's head.
My proposed solution is to take "cross-sections" of the gameplay anchors, so for instance, if a shotgun is worth an armory + 10 res, then an equally powerful item should be worth a similar amount of resources.
The problem with this method (which is where most people stop) is that it has many qualitatively different resource models which are hell to keep track of in one's head. My proposed solution is to take all resource costs and convert them to <b>time costs</b> because at the end of the day, time = money.
So consider that the marines (in NS) start with 100 resources at time 0. It would take the one pre-assumed starting RT 100*4 (400) seconds to produce that much starting res, and because any additional captured resources require time (and therefore complicate the understanding of balance) I'll leave them out of the equation.
So at this point the marines are assumed to start with 400 <b>seconds of weight</b> on their side. Assume the aliens have not yet been implemented, since they would (in my mind) qualify as being "orbital", or outside of the initial anchor points defined above.
At this point relative balancing becomes a factor of whatever you're trying to balance, against any defined anchor points - in essence, instead of being forced to ignore parts of the game arbitrarily, you now control how difficult (read: detailed) balancing is to become.
I guess that's about it. The only point I can see that should be expounded upon is how you go about the actual balancing of the shotgun mentioned above. My answer would be math. If a shotgun is worth 10 resources, and if one resource is worth 4 seconds of weight, then a shotgun is (10*4)/400 or 1/10 of your starting weight. At this point I would begin constructing a visual chart that would include total starting weight, and surrounding anchors like the shotgun (which I would consider satisfactory for a gameplay element).
<i>Time factors complicate things, such as the fact that an advanced armory doesn't exactly cost you 3 minutes, but it does involve a wait time (very different from an actual cost, such as the 30*4 seconds the upgrade costs you). I think this would come down to a conversion chart roughly estimating the opportunity cost of 30 resources in relation to 3 minutes of other uses in a given game, factoring in how many resources could be gathered, and translating that to seconds of weight for a generic guess.</i>
Once you finish balancing relative to the anchor model, all balance costs of all orbital elements (outside of the initial anchor points) become dependant variables on the anchor points themselves. You could easily set up an excel spreadsheet or other program to calculate all resource (or other) costs, on the assumption that you were able to institute a conversion rate for different drawbacks such as risk (of losing a weapon). That, I suppose, is where the art of balancing still applies, but I believe this system is much faster (and far more organized) for prototyping balance before testing, for at least the bulk of the elements that you'd seek to implement.
One of the major reasons I'd use a system like this isn't for ease, but expandability - you reach a certain point of overload in a traditional balancing system where you simply can't add new costs, or tech, or classes, because the amount of effort playtesting them becomes prohibitive. This method seeks to solve that problem in part, in order to allow deeper gameplay elements than run-of-the-mill balancing methods via playtesting and reimplementation would permit, and to save you a few headaches.
Comments
Aliens need their own anchors as well - such as life forms, factoring in chambers, hives, etc...
NS is an RTS/FPS, which is itself probably the most difficult game format to balance. Add on that the two sides are completely different, then add the competitive/pub divide, then add on any other number of things.
My point is that I don't believe you can balance such a game by normal means. My theoretical best approach to balancing would go something like this:
1. Plan out all the 'experiences' of the game. E.g. each tech that isnt simply '+10 damage' (so MT, PGs, SC, etc), the different hive takedowns, locking down areas, etc. Basically every separate type game moment that all come together to form the end product.
2. Implement these pieces, including preliminary, quick attempts at balance. This would be the longest stage.
3. Once all implemented, do a balance-sweep in the abstract. Don't look at how damage a skulk does; look at how many bites it takes to kill a marine (in this case, a great balancing issue for the 3-or-2 bite number is the parasite factor). Decide how you want things to be countered, but again, in the abstract. This would be the second longest stage.
4. Once those are laid out nicely, then you'd go through and tweak the numbers, but keeping them within the guidelines laid out in step 3. While it takes a skulk X bites to kill a marine, the amount of damage a skulk does affects all classes and structures on the marine side. If you found that being at 75 damage per bite would make a skulk take too long to kill an RT, you can either raise the bite damage (they had a leeway of 4 damage here), lower the RT hp (which they did in the end), or lower the Bite damage in sync with the Marine hp. This stage would take a lot of work, but if the framework of step 3 was done thoroughly, it wouldn't be too bad.
A game with two completely different sides will never be balanced. A game with different classes or even different weapons will never ever be balanced. Why? It comes down to the individual player... and it's a fact of life, there is always going to be someone better, faster and stronger then you in some area.. games are no different.
When it comes to games you have good players and bad players. A good player will find a winning tactic or exploit and use it to its full potential, to win or get a high score or whatever. Then the players that is beaten by that trick soon learns the tactic or exploit and it passes from game to game. Like sheep, everyone will pick it up and before you know it you have whole teams using that tactic and winning the game. The same sheep that normalised the use of that tactic soon complain about it being over powered (when on the losing side), and then unless another good player comes up with a tactic that beats it, it will stay overpowered until the game developer nerfs it in some way.
(Then ofcourse, the other team becomes over powered and the cycle starts again.)
Look at WoW, that thing has been nerfed liek a million times which has probably created more problems and tears then anything, all because people wanted to have a whinge. The only reason WoW ever became popular is because Blizzard had a good reputation and history of developing well planned, balanced and constructed games. Yet even they couldn't get it right. I'd almost be willing to bet too that the first classes they nerfed weren't the ones they thought were going to be the problem... it just comes down to the player's perception and grasp of the game.
All popular multiplayer games have players whinging "this is gun too over powered", "that team is easier then this one" or "I'd win if my team wasn't so noob". If you want a game that's completely balanced and comes down to the individual player's skill, try chess or dance dance revolution.
I'm sure the developing team will be doing everything in their power to create a game as balanced as humanly possible without being told what to do... just give them your thoughts on what you currently like and dislike about the game, they will compile the info and do the best job they can. You will never see a multiplayer game that is 100% balanced from the get go.
....peace yo
EDIT:
Something I forgot to mention is that imbalance can be a beautiful thing. Imagine if everything went to the extreme and an Onos had the same HP as a marine, and shot lasers from its eyes just to equal everything out. Sure it'll be balanced as all hell, but chances are you won't enjoy it and it would kill everything NS is about.
The slight imbalances of a game can be good for both the individual player and it's overall popularity. CS:S is a good example of that, and why it is still a massively popular recipe today. it holds many different weapons, alot of which can not be argued that in the wrong hands are overpowered. This can be overlooked however, basically because it caters for many different skill levels. A new player can jump in and spray and pray around the map, hide in corners, get a few kills and find some enjoyment along the way. A better player might pick a weapon like the scout or m4a1 and try to make every shot a headshot.
Computer games aren't about winning, it's about the entertainment drawn from challenge. You have the basic structure of the game in front of you and it is up to you to interpret it your own personal way and overcome those challenges for your own enjoyment. Don't take the easy way out and complain that if the game isn't fair and/or set specifically to your standards, if you really enjoy playing it you will try different things until you strike that goldmine that puts a smile on your face. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
I suppose a <b>good</b> game will make losing more fun; but it doesn't change that if you're losing (or not-winning) 5 games in a row, it's not going to be any fun for you at all. *shrug* unless you're <b>aiming</b> to lose.
On the blog that CanadianWolverine posted, there's an article entitled "Free-for-all falls flat"; s/he makes a good point about 'winning', give that a read.
...and anywayz, cheaters exist because it hurts to lose, not because they didn't win. Are you saying everytime you play a game and lose it, you had no fun at all? And do you really think an obvious hacker is proud of his high score, or happy with the fact that he just spoiled the game for up to 20 other people? If you can cheat in a game and still see it as a victory then you're a pretty sad individual.
But thats beside the point, I might have gone off track there or emphasised the wrong thing but my post was about balancing and how the game won't be perfect no matter what, significant changes are just going to cause problems and that the Dev team will be more then capable of releasing a well balanced game.
Seconded.
Winning gives you a sense of satisfaction that after your effort you finally come out on top. However, when you play, it's the struggle itself that makes the game fun. If the only thing that makes you want to play a game is winning, then every time you lose you will hate the game. Chances are, there's always going to be someone out there that's better than you. Granted, you may never meet that person more than once...but a single experience can shatter someone's view of something for a long time.
The great thing about NS is it also, to some extent, can cater to multiple levels of skill and game taste. When I first started out, I was horrible. So, I went gorge and strategically placed OCs. Eventually, in a few weeks, people complained about how broken OCs were because I kept putting them in good spots and bsically could cutoff an entire section of the map with a skulk helping me. Was I a good Fade? nope. A good lerk? nope. I just knew how to drop buildings well and how to defend them.
However, as we move more towards individual attacker/defenders, then it's not quite as fun. In a team, you can help cover each other, even if you're bad. And really, the fine differences don't make a huge difference until you start power gaming in the competitive leagues. That's it's appeal. It's when some players start having a huge skill gap over others that the game becomes boring for both sides.
That's why I like pushing the game to relying on teamwork more. However, we have to be careful that we don't force teamwork into the game, or else it will require a server to maintain huge amounts of players to stay active. That's what's killing Empires Mod right now.
As for the original topic, I'm very much a fan. Equating things roughly into time values is a great idea. Simple, clean, and relatively objective. My only concern is that you've illustrated equivalent amounts of time and worth, but quantifying how useful something is can be hard. For example, if a HMG necessarily better than a Shotgun? For the huge extra time cost, you'd think so, but when you're taking down buildings and Fades, Shotguns tend to work better due to the close range damage and they don't suffer the 50% to buildings to HMGs do.
Just my 2 cents.
Balance is nice, freedom to have fun with others is nice too. It sure would be nice if we could be tricked or actually have both at the same time.
Sounds like good game design in general.
It just makes the devs balancing harder.
Sounds like good game design in general.
It just makes the devs balancing harder.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
QTF
It comes down to these four powerful words: <b>pwning nubs is fun</b>.
Especially when you're a lot better than they are.
Unfortunately thats the harsh truth, and the reason for custom NS's unnatural lifespan.
Especially when you're a lot better than they are.
Unfortunately thats the harsh truth, and the reason for custom NS's unnatural lifespan.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I feel sorry for you that that’s the only way you have fun, and the "harsh truth" is that not everybody is like you and there ARE people who play for challenge over "win over all else." Yes defeating other people is fun and it's expected that the game will not be impossible to make kills, and yes it's nice to have good skills but those are not my driving motivation.
"pwning nubs" can be fun but it gets REALLY old quick without real challenge and will kill a game to new players (and old players) of not balanced for everyone. Personally when I play a game for a little while that I haven’t played before and I get completely dominated all the time by people who seem to have nothing to do but play the game and there are next to NO other new people, I just stop playing. Versatility in a game to cater to ALL skill levels ultimately will make it thrive.
It's a reasonable point to make, but what happens when you end up with an artifact from situation A being brought into situation B where the artifact is being balanced in a completely different way?
Say they implement one of those drivable siege (just for an example) things that somebody was talking about a few months ago. Ok, so we drive one of those down the ramp in cargo on tanith and start shooting the hive. Turns out there's a gorge on top of the hive and it won't go down. Well, the drivability has to be worth more than just a siege turret right? So it's more than 15 res, but you're going to need 3-4 of them to get the hive down, is the siege worth 80 res? Ok, then each one costs 20, which makes sense in this context.
If these "siege tank" things are worth 20 res, then what happens when I give one to my pressure team instead of a shotgun/welder and hold off on 2 meds and an ammopack? I'm sure you'll agree how daunting that would be in a real game, especially if the players were good.
Do you reduce its speed to a crawl to compensate, or maybe make its damage lower, but wait changing the damage ruins the first situation. And what about dealing with chambers in vents?
Maybe this form of artistic balance is better? But I think it's objectively much, much slower for prototyping and responsible for creating artifacts in the system that you might not have intended in the first place.
PS: I'm holding back a few points here, if Stix isn't interested in fleshing them out and no one else does it, I might post them later.
Quoted for truth. See Counter Strike: Source.
Wow, yes you are right. In the current and recent versions of NS, there has been trouble with a phenomenon called "stacking" by the general public. It is undeniably something that many servers in the community have struggled with and we should not be blind to anticipating consideration in NS2.
~edit~
Yeah like CS:S, or DoD:S, or HL2DM
...but not so much with TF2. Yes it is fairly new, but there is something to the game mechanics and even the layout and map game-play entities that make it get balanced from game to game and thus allow everybody from newbies to ridiculously good players to have some fun. (although I admittedly miss 'nade spam sometimes *sniffle* I never thought I'd say that)
What you're noticing is the game's complete lack of a skill curve.
I don't think that's fair. Soldier and sniper are rather straightforward clases but pyro and demo take more time to master. I know sniper could be a class with more depth and I think valve made a mistake dumbing him down, but saying the game has no skill curve is wrong.
by more depth, do you mean more potential power? :/
besides, it's a cartoony game, it doesn't need depth. the other day some guy commented 'this game isn't very realistic' and it's like 'well no ######, sherlock'
Why?
Simple. To start, they are easy to get into. None of this hour explaining basic moves or classes and stuff like when I try to explain Empires or even NS to a bunch of newbies at my LAN games. TF2 you look at a medic and think "oh, a medic, moderate health, crappy weapons, but heals people". Secondly, they have enormous depth. Just watch pro games of StarCraft (which, btw, GomTV is now broadcasting with English Commentary by my friend's brother) and you see a whole new level of intricacy and slight advantages that could easily be missed, but also easily explained. Which brings up the final point, fluid skill curve. Whereas some games, such as NS, has this skill gap that only a few can surmount (you realize how hard it is just to learn to bunny hop consistently? Then to get to pro air control?). However, the skill gap in other games is accessible. There is much less of a binary skill progression and many ways to win which are varied and equally viable. The Civ series is a perfect example. Take over by force, diplomacy, influence, or whatever. Of course, a good mix of all is the best, but you're free to mix and match however you'd like and it responds appropriately. There's no cookbook victory.
Perfect bad example: CS. Sure it's a point-buy-and-shoot game, so easy to get into. Drop the bomb, shoot the dude, OK. However, it suffers from a giant skill gap that no one fills. There's the noobs and the pros. Nothing in between. NS is currently suffering from the same issue.
Why'd I mention HL2? Because it too performs similarly. Easy to get into, wonderful depth (although story depth is mixed with difficultly depth here instead of pure tactical depth), and a smooth learning curve that introduces and makes you master new skills progressively. No giant wall of can't go further until you grind to level 20 or something, just a nice fluid motion up. And that's what makes it so satisfying and such an awesome game.
What part of pyro or demo takes any time to master? Pyro runs in, sprays, and leaves hoping not to die, and demo chucks nades and sets traps. Contrast this with a fade or the combat system in warsow, isn't it pretty bland?
Anyone can suicide pyro, but hit and run pyros or a pyro paired with a medic are harder to use effectively. And there are many levels of "chucking nades and setting traps". With your descriptions playing marine in NS is just "shooting bullets". I find the demo class to actually be pretty deep in terms of finding places to put nades, nade jumping, and using stickies and pipes in combat. The indirect fire makes you think ahead and set traps with your pipes even while in combat if you wan to be effective.
I haven't played warsow because it never appealed to me. The story and visuals looked bland so I never picked it up. I'm glad neither NS nor TF2 are like warsow.
As for fade, they're completely different things. You're comparing a melee class with infinite air control to an indirect fire trap-setter. All of the classes in TF2 are fairly standard FPS tropes so none of them could have the depth of the fade, but I would say the same of any class in any FPS game without blink/teleport/flight.
However, losing to a game mechanic rather than a player, is the most debilitating kind of loss someone can experience.
No, because in NS your aim is constantly tempered by your level of airspeed control. In TF2 it really is just chucking explosives over and over expecting to hit a rogue scout, or bursting flames expecting to hit a rogue spy.
And as far as staying alive as a pyro, that's directly proportionate to your opponents' lack of situational awareness. If you want to argue for ambushing as a pyro that's fine, but it isn't any more rewarding as a technique than it would be with a class like scout or demo - it's just more fiery.
Look, if you're going do just turn everything reductio ad absurdum then I'm just going to ignore your posts. You can take the simplest case of anything and make it sound skill-less. I understand it's "cool" to bash TF2, but I see plenty of depth there.
I understand how crits are bad for the competitive community but the fact that there is a strong competitive community despite that shows that there is depth to the game. Maybe we'll see a mp_nocrits variable.(I know mods all ready exist for it)
In some respects the giant amount of required air control and such to get to a pro level is what makes it hard to become pro level. As I mentioned before, there needs to be a continuous skill curve, not giant skill gaps. I mean, sure there will be the pros and the newbs at either end, but hopefully there will be even more filling in the middle so people don't suddenly run into a wall that they have to grind to get past to enter the next level of competence.
However, Radix makes a good point that NS tends to require a certain level of skill to be competent, whereas TF2 can be accessible to even the lame random nade/pyro spammer. I don't think he's necessarily bashing TF2, just making a very astute observation.
In some respects, though, allowing at least basic entry skill to be basic competence is good, in my opinion. It gives them a sense of accomplishment. Sure a good demo or spy or scout or whatever can beat them, but at least they get a few frags and feel like they're contributing. I've had too many people turn away from NS because they felt it took too long to get a grasp on the game before they could have any fun. Yet the moment they pick up TF2 they go "whoa, this is so fun and easy to learn".
Just add in assists, then people can feel like they're doing something, even if they just put in a single bullet or healspray.
Agreed, IMHO assists encourage team play.