What Is "balance?"
CrazedMonkOnaMission
Join Date: 2002-11-06 Member: 7429Members
Join Date: 2002-11-06 Member: 7429Members
<div class="IPBDescription">This is the problem that I see</div> From reading a good deal of threads about "balance" I have come to a conclusion that a good deal of people do not understand what balance is. Balance should be that "both teams have a equal opputurnity of winning, given that both teams are equal in players and skill" While it seems many people think the game is unbalanced because a certain gun does too much damage for example. Let us look at one example-
"Siege cannons are ridiculous." Ok all posts dealing with this topic suggest that siege cannons are invincible because they can shoot through walls, kill healing gorges, does massive damage to structures. And that they cannot be stopped as aliens can't shoot through walls, or sensories don't nullify there effects, etc. People think this is inbalanced, because not clear "counter unit" exists. It is true, when a siege <b>goes up</b> that room is going to get pounded. Notice how "goes up" is bolded. Now inorder to build a siege it takes 25 resources for a factory, 35 resources for upgrade, 25 resources for the turret. That resources total of 85, yes it is true one turret costs only 25 resources, but look at the money needed to be spent to get one up. You could easily kill marines building them up with skulks even (6 resources max with upgrades each). Well ok, so HMG using marines with heavy armor are hard to kill as skulks, but guess what, they cost 25 R for armor, 27 R for HMG, a total of 52 R. Just looking at the resource numbers, you can tell as an alien you should be able to get several fades and even onos. So another arguement is what if I dont have fades or onos, well obviously if you only still have 1 hive, you must be losing the match, and therefore losing to the siege turret seems only natural in my opinion. In conclusion, most people do not look at the "big picture" of balance. Sure examined invidually, 25 resources for a high damaging turret that can shoot through walls.(yes cost of a turret has been used a few times as an arguement) But when this is said, all other factors must be considered as well. It is true, directly there is nothing aliens can do to stop a "siege turret" they don't have there own "siege turret" or "siege killer unit/chamber" but there are many indirect stratagies against this <!--emo&::siege::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/siege.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='siege.gif'><!--endemo--> . In order to setup a firm "siege" in a given area, another area must be undefended. So what your gonna lose this node, attack one of there nodes. If marines pull back to defend that, then go take out the siege, since no HMG Armored Marines guarding it anymore.
Lets assume you still think sieges are not "balanced," what unit clearly counters an Onos for instance. Would you want to give the marines a comparable "tank?" Ok so a HMG welding marines can shoot an Onos to death, it is not like a siege turret is "invincible" either, you can claw, gore, bite whatever one to death.
In conclusion, balance is much more complicated then "object x on team 1 is nearly impossible to stop, it is unbalancing the game" are you sure team 2 does not have object y that is also nearly impossible to stop? How do LMG using marines kill Fades? Well they simply can't its not unbalanced, yes Fades should beable to to kill unupgraded marines easily. How can aliens take out a fortified position without ample fades or onos? well you can't, 1 hive skulks and lerks are not designed to take on heavy armored marines. It is possible in both scenarios, that the weaker "unit" takes out the stronger one, but chances are low of course, and if you posses weaker units it must mean (o no) they are winning. It isn't because they can magically start throwing down Armor for instance, but they must work there way up.
"Siege cannons are ridiculous." Ok all posts dealing with this topic suggest that siege cannons are invincible because they can shoot through walls, kill healing gorges, does massive damage to structures. And that they cannot be stopped as aliens can't shoot through walls, or sensories don't nullify there effects, etc. People think this is inbalanced, because not clear "counter unit" exists. It is true, when a siege <b>goes up</b> that room is going to get pounded. Notice how "goes up" is bolded. Now inorder to build a siege it takes 25 resources for a factory, 35 resources for upgrade, 25 resources for the turret. That resources total of 85, yes it is true one turret costs only 25 resources, but look at the money needed to be spent to get one up. You could easily kill marines building them up with skulks even (6 resources max with upgrades each). Well ok, so HMG using marines with heavy armor are hard to kill as skulks, but guess what, they cost 25 R for armor, 27 R for HMG, a total of 52 R. Just looking at the resource numbers, you can tell as an alien you should be able to get several fades and even onos. So another arguement is what if I dont have fades or onos, well obviously if you only still have 1 hive, you must be losing the match, and therefore losing to the siege turret seems only natural in my opinion. In conclusion, most people do not look at the "big picture" of balance. Sure examined invidually, 25 resources for a high damaging turret that can shoot through walls.(yes cost of a turret has been used a few times as an arguement) But when this is said, all other factors must be considered as well. It is true, directly there is nothing aliens can do to stop a "siege turret" they don't have there own "siege turret" or "siege killer unit/chamber" but there are many indirect stratagies against this <!--emo&::siege::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/siege.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='siege.gif'><!--endemo--> . In order to setup a firm "siege" in a given area, another area must be undefended. So what your gonna lose this node, attack one of there nodes. If marines pull back to defend that, then go take out the siege, since no HMG Armored Marines guarding it anymore.
Lets assume you still think sieges are not "balanced," what unit clearly counters an Onos for instance. Would you want to give the marines a comparable "tank?" Ok so a HMG welding marines can shoot an Onos to death, it is not like a siege turret is "invincible" either, you can claw, gore, bite whatever one to death.
In conclusion, balance is much more complicated then "object x on team 1 is nearly impossible to stop, it is unbalancing the game" are you sure team 2 does not have object y that is also nearly impossible to stop? How do LMG using marines kill Fades? Well they simply can't its not unbalanced, yes Fades should beable to to kill unupgraded marines easily. How can aliens take out a fortified position without ample fades or onos? well you can't, 1 hive skulks and lerks are not designed to take on heavy armored marines. It is possible in both scenarios, that the weaker "unit" takes out the stronger one, but chances are low of course, and if you posses weaker units it must mean (o no) they are winning. It isn't because they can magically start throwing down Armor for instance, but they must work there way up.
Comments
Everyone could use a dose of your logic.
look, this is a VIDEOGAME
balance does not mean that **obscenity** you posted, balance means balance.
e.g. the lightning gun in quake, is unBALANCED.
the siege cannon is unbalanced because it is often defended by a few marines in heavy armour with either hmgs or grenade launchers, with a tele up, and a few normal sentries.
and because the alien hives are only in 3 set places, the marines could easily find out the max range ingame and place 2 or so sieges so that they can pound ALL the hives at the same time.
also, aliens have no significant anti-building weapon.
even acid rockets and bile bombs are super weak against most buildings.
also, the aliens have no major weapon to counter the marines "super weapons"
even an onos can get ripped up pretty quickly by just a few turrets and a hmg. especially since his head is so big.
i say make the acid rocket chew threw marines like butter, and the bile bomb really eat away at the buildings.
acid against flesh, bile against metal.
1. There is no locational damage in this game.
2. 3 HMG Armored Marines vs. 2 carapaced/celeretied Onos (Equal R cost for both sides) Unless the onos keep charging down a long corridor, how the marines have a clear advantage?
3. Define "few," an Onos takes 70 R. Tell me what defense you would setup (same cost) that would stop one (unless long corridor)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->e.g. the lightning gun in quake, is unBALANCED.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Notice how I used resources in comparision, all guns in this game cost resources. In Quake they do not cost resources, well obviously if you get to the lightning gun pickup location in Quake, then you are controlling a "strategic location/weapon" much the same as holding all three hives in this game. In FPS games if you have taken all the best guns, it is much like beating the other team down to their last few bases, it is hard to swing things around, it shouldn't be easy. Yes and HMG is strong compared to a skulk and lerk, but they are not comapred to equivlent level units.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and because the alien hives are only in 3 set places, the marines could easily find out the max range ingame and place 2 or so sieges so that they can pound ALL the hives at the same time.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is a design flaw in the "map" not the game itself, unless it is placed purposefully (key room in the map), it should be fixed, as it was not intened. Please point out on what map currently it is possible to do this? This is more then just "team deathmatch," controlling important strategic locations is what you should have done.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->also, the aliens have no major weapon to counter the marines "super weapons"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You need to actually support your opinion, please elaborate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->ok, first go play ns, then come back and tell us about balance.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you saying, that from playing NS, you have found it impossible to win as one team or another?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->ok, first go play ns, then come back and tell us about balance.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You do know in "debate" you attack the ideas, not other people?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->balance does not mean that **obscenity** you posted, balance means balance.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh, ok.
I think I'll go with Monk's version.
Thanks for the well-thought-out post, CMOM. Your point here about people losing focus of the overal picture in balance is something I've always felt needed stressing (even during playtesting). Maybe some folks will listen. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Whether or not every technical detail or cost is correct, this guy has a really good point...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, does that mean if I take a skulk and put him on a balence beam, and then take a mirene and put him on a balence beam, that means the game is balenced?
Hey buddy, you wanna try explaining your <span style='color:blue'><b>*</b></span> views a little pal?
The only...AND I MEAN ONLY....problem I have with this game is the bugs. That is freaking it. I say you guys just concentrate on fixing the bugs...give us a few more of your coolio map designs....and maybe my name in the credits. Thats is it and you guys will have one exeptional mod. Ok...so it wasnt just one problem...but who the hell cares.
HMMMMM...
Gotta' be SOMETHIN' wrong when the <b>majority</b> comes in here saying there are some room for improvements.
I see the 80% of complainers giving perfectly good examples of what they think needs balancing, and the 20% people have only one response again and again:
"You stupid n00bs, we tested this game forever, it's perfect! You have no idea what balance is!"
Good argument you 20% people, very nice.
plus, people arent going to just make posts about how its perfect, people are going to complain and THEN other people will reply saying they are wrong etc etc.
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
The simple fact is, NS is an RTS. It takes time to learn an RTS, and until you learn strategies and counter strategies, some elements will seem unbalanced to you. I *still* learn new tactics every day. Did you know that a skulk can use parasite to activate buttons at a distance?
My point is, stop whining and learn to play. Not how to shoot - how to PLAY. Then we'll see if balance needs tweaking.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For one I think your percentages are a bit off. For another, even if this was true that's probably because the majority of people who enjoy the game are too busy playing it to come here and whine about every little thing that gets under their skin.
"You stupid n00bs, we tested this game forever, it's perfect! You have no idea what balance is!"
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's a good idea to study on previous posts before saying anything, that's like me saying you suck at commanding because I have never seen you do it before, total bs eh?
That's the problem, I think. There are a few people who claim that the game is "unbalanced", actually a lot, originally. Then, predictably, comes the backlash: The game is "perfect". I think the game is very close to a good equilibrium, but it's not "perfect". I think some people are going over board with the unbalanced ideas (example: the seige turrets, which I think are fine), but, in my opinion, the game is not at its best. What's wrong with stating that you don't think the game is "perfectly balanced" and why?
Case in point, I'm not positive the game is balanced yet. But I don't know which side has the upper hand since it all depends on the situation of each individual game. And you gotta factor in your team's ability vs. opponents'. I just don't see how anyone who says it is unbalanced can have it all cut and dry already. So if I can't decide which side is getting screwed in the deal, I can't really say it's unbalanced.
Case in point, I'm not positive the game is balanced yet. But I don't know which side has the upper hand since it all depends on the situation of each individual game. And you gotta factor in your team's ability vs. opponents'. I just don't see how anyone who says it is unbalanced can have it all cut and dry already. So if I can't decide which side is getting screwed in the deal, I can't really say it's unbalanced.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree. I don't think it makes sense for someone saying that it's unbalanced to have it all cut and dry. But, in that same vein, I don't think it makes sense for someone to say that it's perfectly balanced (not speaking of you specifically) to have it cut and dry either. Why should someone be able to make a better argument for the game being perfectly balanced than someone who says the game is unbalanced. Shouldn't they need the same kind of evidence?
Personally I do not think the game is perfectly balanced either, nothing in this world can be perfect for that matter in my opinion. It just seems many people are saying a certain advantage one team has is impossible to counter, therefore creating inbalance. Well that is the point of having two "different teams," each of course has its own strengths and weaknesses (and different styles of play). Marines should beable to "own" aliens in a certain way, that does not unbalance the team. Since aliens have another method of "owning" marines. Since both teams have a type of "super" strategy to deal with the other team, they do not need direct "counters" to each others "super" strategy, as many posts are suggestion (eg. anti siege cannon unit or something) If marines are using their "super" strat to take all your nodes on the right side of the map, why not use the alien ones to take the left side?
I don't think NS is "perfectly" balanced, no game can be. Games that have been around much longer don't even have "perfect" balance. In short, nothing is perfect. The reason many people use the term however can be explained in this way. Many posts claiming inbalance use "extreme" langauge as well, claiming the game needs to be "fixed right away" or "it is impossible to stop this strategy." Is the "siege cannon (example)" really that unbalancing as people claim, making the game unplayable? Is it really "impossible?" In order for this to be true, as soon as marines setup their first "siege cannon," aliens will have lost and cannont come back in anyway. Therefore, people who think the game is balanced pretty good will use the term "perfect."
First and foremost, great post there, Monk. Great post indeed.
Natural Selection is one of THE best games I've come upon in my long gaming career.
I find it to be fairly balanced as far as individual units and such goes.
One thing I feel I must point out, however, is the difference in speed of getting certain levels of abilities. Now, this may just be a design feature to create uniqueness and individuality between the two sides, but in case it isn't I thought I'd point it out anyway.
Marines have the ability get their high-level equipment much earlier than the aliens can get their equivalent evolutions.
For instance, let's create a hypothetical game scenario. Early in the game, the commander has his troops stay at base and defend against any and all alien rushes. Whilst the team is defending the exits, the commander places an armory, upgrades it to advanced once built, builds an arms lab, and builds a prototype lab (and the requisite spawns). If he does this all in short order without focusing on turrets, he can have his high-level weapons and armament really before the aliens can get their 3rd hive.
Granted, this scenario is very assailable by the aliens and it is most definitely possible to overcome it. I am simply stating an advantage the Frontiersman have against the aliens. Once more, perhaps it was all planned as such.
My point is not to complain about balance issues. This game is damned balanced. I'll take it as it is. I love it.
That said, a paraphrase on a famous cliche is "A game is never finished, it's just forgotten." There's always room for improvement.
But this is damned near perfect. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Aliens simply don't suffer so much from bad team work, since the kind of team work they need is a lot of the time "co-operative soloplay" or what every you want to call it. Really good alien teams that DO co-operate are magnificent foes. So the reason they win right now isn't because the marine's guns are too expensive, or the weapons are doing too little daamge. they lose because their commander isn't fully trained yet, or they themselves are fiercely independent and screw the team over in their selfishness ("I wanna frag! GImme HMG PLZ!!!").
One tactic to beating aliens that I have observed and read is to capture a hive and relocate your base there. If this tactic is bullet proof, works every time, then the game is unbalanced. But I don't think it is. If the aliens find out and can coordinate their efforts, they can manage to dislodge the marines from a hive before they have settled in too deeply. Perhaps not. We will see and learn in the next month.
If you have a problem with some of the posts don't respond to them, it's as simple as that.
<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'> P.S. I hope you get the point </span>
HMMMMM...
Gotta' be SOMETHIN' wrong when the <b>majority</b> comes in here saying there are some room for improvements.
I see the 80% of complainers giving perfectly good examples of what they think needs balancing, and the 20% people have only one response again and again:
"You stupid n00bs, we tested this game forever, it's perfect! You have no idea what balance is!"
Good argument you 20% people, very nice.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. Game design is not a democratic process. Posts like yours do a great job of illuminating why democracy is imperfect. Many, many people are ill-informed, and sometimes just flat-out stupid. We use democracy as a governing system basically because it's too much of a hassle to pick out the well-informed, reasonable people and get them to try and agree on something. Luckily for us, NS is programmed by just one man, and he only has to agree with himself, and he is reasonable and well-informed enough to ignore crack smoking monkeys like you.
2. I don't know if you actually read the first post in this thread. It's well thought out and reasonable, a far cry from "You stupid n00bs, we tested this game forever, it's perfect! You have no idea what balance is!". But, for the record, you are stupid, you are a n00b, and you clearly have no idea what balance is. Please get cancer.
Aliens get all three hives up and running and well defended the humans tend to be pushed back in to their base and die.
While on the other hand humans have control of two hive spots aliens tend to be pushed back and confined in to their hive to lose.
If you happen to be in a game and your team is in that situation you got a big up hill battle to get out of it and the opposition will seam unbalanced and rightly so for they have worked hard to tip the balance in to their favor it is a common tactic and it works full stop.
the siege cannon is unbalanced because it is often defended by a few marines in heavy armour with either hmgs or grenade launchers, with a tele up, and a few normal sentries.
2
and because the alien hives are only in 3 set places, the marines could easily find out the max range ingame and place 2 or so sieges so that they can pound ALL the hives at the same time.
3
also, aliens have no significant anti-building weapon.
even acid rockets and bile bombs are super weak against most buildings.
4
also, the aliens have no major weapon to counter the marines "super weapons". even an onos can get ripped up pretty quickly by just a few turrets and a hmg. especially since his head is so big.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1
So you're saying that because the commander used good base layout and has a well outfitted squad with varied weapons defending it, that the seige turret is unbalanced? Thats like saying Onos are unbalanced when they are supported by a lerk for umbra, with 2 fades doing long range damage on the marines, and all of them can fall back on some well placed defense chamber. Its not the seige turret or Onos that is unbalanced, you just got outplayed.
2
Like someone said before, if the mapper makes it such that the three hives are close enough together that a couple of seiges can hit all of them, then that map certainly wont become official.
3
Thats because its bugged right now. Bile bomb shreds buildings with 160 damage on target and a very large splash area, but in the current 1.01 it has a bug that makes it only do a few points of damage. Once that gets fixed, aliens will have their building killer back.
4
By superweapons, i'm assuming you mean HMG and Gren launcher. Seeing as you are saying that a lone Onos vs an HA/HMG and 4 turrets is at a disadvantage, why dont you consider a similar situation for the marines? Do you think that one HA/HMG can take out several OCs with a fully upgraded fade nearby? I dont think so.
Just because you point out that so-and-so will lose in some totally lopsided setup does not mean theres an imbalance. An imbalance is when both teams use similar amounts of teamwork, similar amounts of resources, and have pretty much equivalent skill, but one team still wins more than another. In every example you used, you saw an imbalance because (for example) you were putting a 76RP Onos up against about 100RP of marine power. Ofcourse its going to lose. Now throw in a 33RP lerk for support, and suddenly its looking like a closer, more balanced fight.
1
So you're saying that because the commander used good base layout and has a well outfitted squad with varied weapons defending it, that the seige turret is unbalanced? Thats like saying Onos are unbalanced when they are supported by a lerk for umbra, with 2 fades doing long range damage on the marines, and all of them can fall back on some well placed defense chamber. Its not the seige turret or Onos that is unbalanced, you just got outplayed.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
YES. When will people realize that good strategy does not mean the game is unbalanced. This game is about strategy, and the game can easily go either way, it's totally dependent on how good the commander/the alien team is. The game is balanced because there is an answer to every problem either team could encounter, if you can't counter that problem then it's a problem with your team, not the game.
The simple fact is, NS is an RTS. It takes time to learn an RTS, and until you learn strategies and counter strategies, some elements will seem unbalanced to you. I *still* learn new tactics every day. Did you know that a skulk can use parasite to activate buttons at a distance?
My point is, stop whining and learn to play. Not how to shoot - how to PLAY. Then we'll see if balance needs tweaking.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
amen to that coil!
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sweet, I didn't know that myself, thanks coil. [on topic] The reason that people see more unbalanced issues posted is because:
A: Why do you need to post to say that its balanced.
B: If someone thinks its unbalanced they automaticly come to the official forums and start flaming, people who like the game many time don't bother to come here.
C: Many people just plain don't like to get into flame wars, period.
it's not the game who is unbalanced. it's the experians of the players who plays it.
if you ar good you will win wiht marines and aliens...
<!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo--> + <!--emo&::gorge::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/pudgy.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='pudgy.gif'><!--endemo--> = depends on the player.......