I did my best to not interfene but when you talk about things like balance or comp/public please stick with the facts, there might be someone new who would interept them as real.
A small lesson about the balance in NS1, first off its most balanced at 6v6 which is the competitive standard atm. The advantage is clearer in alien side when played in smaller numbers, obvious indeed and the higher we go even past the 20ish the more it leans to a marine side.
If we ignored the 6v6 and make balance for 20v20 effectively making the game "pub" only cause no clan can get 20 players to play would we have perfect game? Perhaps.
I however cant get my kicks off from random mindless gaming thus I thought few reasons pubbers/casuals might approve.
1) Having competitive community and high prized tournaments adds more lifetime/players/esport to the game.
2) Theres time when you think public is not the thing for you want something different. You dont have to be good to be competitive player there will be a lot lower skill clans to give you decent fight.
3) Someone mentioned that the game became boring, mechanical to him after playing for a while for competitive. Understanding basics and getting frustrated about people completely ignoring is normal it happens nothing can be done but the truth is theres always room for improvement unless the game is well lets say too simple.
4) None of these above cannot be accomplished if the community is split apart to promods / casualmods
<!--quoteo(post=1760538:date=Mar 21 2010, 05:24 PM:name=Crispy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Crispy @ Mar 21 2010, 05:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760538"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If the game is broken, there will be exploits, and it won't only be the competitive community who take advantage of these exploits. As soon as an optimal strategy or tactic is uncovered, it will filter down to anyone and everyone who wants to take advantage of it. These people will not solely be those who play competitively, it will be any player who desires a competitive edge. This is why it makes sense to design a game for every/anyone (to make it accessible and attract a wide audience), but to <i>balance</i> a game with competition in mind.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><Most everything marks has said><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would agree.
The key thing is, as many have pointed out, balanced for comp doesn't <b>always</b> translate to fun/balance for noobs. In general, balance for higher level play is a good thing. That's where people will aspire to. That's what gets vidcasted. That's what can invigorate people and make them go "That was awesome, let's go play" (trust me, me and my friends do this quite often after StarCraft matches). It also sets the tone for pub play as the best strats filter into the community. They are the ones that will find your exploit, reveal how OP it is, and force the fix to re-balance the game.
The problem is when competitive "tricks" and "balance" boil down into lame, formulaic gameplay. Nobody would enjoy StarCraft if Medic+Marine won every time against the Zerg. Muta Harass was perhaps the defining StarCraft1 problem that kept coming in and out during the early and mid-years (both being nerfed to heck and to being zomg OP).
What you want is a balanced, multi-strategy game at higher levels of play. You need a variety of viable strategies, some safer, some riskier, some that counter specific other ones, but NONE are true hard counters. You almost never want your players to get stuck in a "oh dear, there's nothing I could have done to prevent that" because then they'll just disband that play altogether. Chris0132's randomization to keep things "fresh" is a poor way to deal with the problem. Instead, build a framework where many strategies are viable. NS1, while we can claim there were many strats, really boiled down to only 1 or 2 with a bunch of crazy gambits. Personally, crazy gambits don't count, so I only see 1 or 2 major strats which created the formulaic gameplay I mentioned in my previous post.
What you also want is a balanced game at higher levels of play that doesn't rely on secret gimmicks. StarCraft2 has gone to extreme ends to try and prevent exploits, or at least make any special gameplay elements transparent (stacking air units for example and special fog-of-war elements on the map). You don't want an artificial barrier of entry into the higher level play. You don't want a giant gap to form between your noobs and your pros that is only jumpable with help (a la the NS Dojo). We've discussed this before, but ideally you want a smooth learning curve that starts out nice and gradual to hook new players, and grows as you go along to help distinguish who's really the best. This is typically the real reason people dislike bunnyhopping. It's not really about the skill ceiling it creates, but rather the non-intuitive leap it takes to get there.
So, yes. Competitive players are really, really important. At the same time, making balance just for competitive players doesn't always translate into a fun game for the rest of the players.
<!--quoteo(post=1760666:date=Mar 22 2010, 07:22 PM:name=WatchMaker)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WatchMaker @ Mar 22 2010, 07:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760666"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Am I the only one that thinks dividing players into "competitive" and "casual" is ###### stupid?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, and other people who think its stupid are just as wrong as you are. Its a very logical and common distinction to draw.
<!--quoteo(post=1760666:date=Mar 22 2010, 07:22 PM:name=WatchMaker)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WatchMaker @ Mar 22 2010, 07:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760666"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Am I the only one that thinks dividing players into "competitive" and "casual" is ###### stupid?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is certainly a bit odd to think that people fit into two discrete categories, with people it's always a spectrum, sometimes even a multidimensional lattice.
Saying someone is either one or the other and that all people exemplify one of the stareotypes is certainly silly, although the distinction can have a use sometimes.
<!--quoteo(post=1760661:date=Mar 22 2010, 06:56 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ Mar 22 2010, 06:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760661"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What you want is a balanced, multi-strategy game at higher levels of play. You need a variety of viable strategies, some safer, some riskier, some that counter specific other ones, but NONE are true hard counters. You almost never want your players to get stuck in a "oh dear, there's nothing I could have done to prevent that" because then they'll just disband that play altogether. Chris0132's randomization to keep things "fresh" is a poor way to deal with the problem. Instead, build a framework where many strategies are viable. NS1, while we can claim there were many strats, really boiled down to only 1 or 2 with a bunch of crazy gambits. Personally, crazy gambits don't count, so I only see 1 or 2 major strats which created the formulaic gameplay I mentioned in my previous post.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Having multiple valid strategies doesn't really help, because as long as the rules stay the same people form habits, and as soon as they form habits the game becomes simply playing out the established pattern over and over again.
If all strategies are equally valid then one strategy is all you need, if only one strategy works then still only that strategy will be used.
In a balanced game it's not that one strategy works better, it might just be popular because it was first, or it might be easiest to learn, or it might have spread by word of mouth, but you always end up with one major strategy being used because most players aren't really looking to try new ones when they are learning, they just want to survive, and eventually surviving occurs by automatically following a very good strategy. Why change when your habitual strategy works so well?
The way to get people to change strategy is to change the rules, make it so their habitual strategy doesn't work, and you can either do that by changing the entire game, or by making a game which throws things you can't anticipate at you.
<!--quoteo(post=1760666:date=Mar 22 2010, 10:22 PM:name=WatchMaker)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WatchMaker @ Mar 22 2010, 10:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760666"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Am I the only one that thinks dividing players into "competitive" and "casual" is ###### stupid?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not at all. It's a fairly retarded classification created solely for the reason of denoting participating in officially organised play as being "l33t", from which nothing but pointless divide and bad stereotypes can spring up.
Like Mac VS PC thing.
<!--quoteo(post=1760678:date=Mar 22 2010, 11:11 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Mar 22 2010, 11:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760678"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The way to get people to change strategy is to change the rules, make it so their habitual strategy doesn't work, and you can either do that by changing the entire game, or by making a game which throws things you can't anticipate at you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You seem to be on the cutting edge of modern design philosophy. Good job with that.
Unfortunately we haven't really seen if that can be done at all. Left 4 Dead (Worms?..) went pretty far with the concept, but nevertheless succumbed to predictability in the end.
<!--quoteo(post=1760678:date=Mar 23 2010, 12:11 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Mar 23 2010, 12:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760678"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Having multiple valid strategies doesn't really help, because as long as the rules stay the same people form habits, and as soon as they form habits the game becomes simply playing out the established pattern over and over again.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is weakness. This happens in competitive community aswell there is one most standard tactic and teams with no real interests just go with flow for it is the easiest. However that doesnt mean the others are bad quite the opposite if the opponents has no experience lets say scs or mass rts it can easily change the flow of the game especially in lower tier games. Certain maps allow certain tactics works better thus creating a bit of predictablity but what I mean to say is that the tactics should exist even if they are not widely used.
I've always argued that the reason NS gameplay went stale is because of the actual lack of competitiveness. There have really only been a few "waves" of hungry new players getting into competitive play and forcing change. Really why would you want to take your team that has played on and off together (or with common other people) for years and change everything about how you play and losing position temporarily if there is no reason? Why take months to perfect a new way of doing things when no one is forcing you.
No, the reason NS tactics and strategies have been stale has mostly been because of the limited playerbase, and that's nothing good game design can do anything about unfortunately.
And this of course leads to a need to conform numerical and formal balance to the current way the game is played (those game changes lamented in this thread), as opposed to ie Starcraft where seamingly huge imbalances have existed for years before being beaten by a new technique or strategical focus. Just look at silly ###### like cannon exp into one stargate corsair harass and a +1 speedlot timing push becoming standard play.
To repeat: the size (and inherently thereof the quality) of the playerbase defines balance and strategy and depending on the situation of the playerbase developers are forced to react accordingly to keep the game playable.
<!--quoteo(post=1760678:date=Mar 22 2010, 04:11 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Mar 22 2010, 04:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760678"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Having multiple valid strategies doesn't really help, because as long as the rules stay the same people form habits, and as soon as they form habits the game becomes simply playing out the established pattern over and over again.
If all strategies are equally valid then one strategy is all you need, if only one strategy works then still only that strategy will be used.
In a balanced game it's not that one strategy works better, it might just be popular because it was first, or it might be easiest to learn, or it might have spread by word of mouth, but you always end up with one major strategy being used because most players aren't really looking to try new ones when they are learning, they just want to survive, and eventually surviving occurs by automatically following a very good strategy. Why change when your habitual strategy works so well?
The way to get people to change strategy is to change the rules, make it so their habitual strategy doesn't work, and you can either do that by changing the entire game, or by making a game which throws things you can't anticipate at you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You must be joking. Would you like me to name all of the usable strategies for all races in SC1 right now? A good 12 years after the game has been released? StarCraft is the only strategic game that is played professionally, so in essence, it's our only example.
You can start by looking through the TL wiki matchup specific strategies: <a href="http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Terran_Strategy" target="_blank">http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Terran_Strategy</a> <a href="http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Zerg_Strategy" target="_blank">http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Zerg_Strategy</a> <a href="http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Protoss_Strategy" target="_blank">http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Protoss_Strategy</a>
And this doesn't stop top foreigners like F91, bratok and whitera from doing their own, completely outlandish strategies as they play. Long after the game has had a chance to get played out.
The difference between StarCraft and any other game is the additional complexity perfect balance (at the top level) brings to the game. People have the freedom to try anything as long as their mechanics are solid. I can recommend you some VODs if you're interested.
There is no person who is better or more qualified to suggest changes to the game than anyone else. My girlfriends 11 year old is as qualified to make suggestions to the game than the most bad-assed competitive or pub player here.
Why? Because he plays the game (to this day, using my name .. unfortunately.) and he has things he likes about it and things he doesn't. Just because he's younger than you or less experienced, doesn't mean he can't tell you why X feature sucks or is awesome. Some of the best ideas come from children even, because they have a unique way of looking at the world and aren't quite as jaded as the majority of people.
There is no right or wrong person, there are only different opinions. I suggest all parties stop trying to convince the other that their side is 'right' because it degenerates into a flame fest. Present your <b>opinions</b> and then discuss those <b>opinions</b>. There is no reason to tell someone they are stupid because they don't believe what you do or think the way you do.
I'm not the best player in the world and I'll be the first to admit it. I'm rather causal and have no interest in joining any sort of clan. But I may have suggested a feature, while the game was still in beta, that you enjoyed a great deal.
No one person is 'better' than anyone else. Just different.
<!--quoteo(post=1760692:date=Mar 22 2010, 10:28 PM:name=Silver_Fox)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Silver_Fox @ Mar 22 2010, 10:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760692"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is no person who is better or more qualified to suggest changes to the game than anyone else.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1760696:date=Mar 23 2010, 12:48 AM:name=marks)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (marks @ Mar 23 2010, 12:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760696"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I stopped reading here. You're wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Hmm, I guess you misinterpreted it. The post was probably the best I've seen in this thread, because it's true :P
<!--quoteo(post=1760692:date=Mar 22 2010, 11:28 PM:name=Silver_Fox)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Silver_Fox @ Mar 22 2010, 11:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760692"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is no person who is better or more qualified to suggest changes to the game than anyone else. My girlfriends 11 year old is as qualified to make suggestions to the game than the most bad-assed competitive or pub player here.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not true.
Anyone can identify an issue with game (doing X is boring, fighting Y is too hard, I keep getting lost, etc), since those are defined primarily by their own experiences.
However, actually suggesting a useful solution will most likely demand an understanding of the game and its interactions. Someone without that insight is likely to come up with solutions to their problems that create bigger problems in other places, simply because they don't know how elements of the game interact.
a_civilianLikes seeing numbersJoin Date: 2003-01-08Member: 12041Members, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead
<!--quoteo(post=1760692:date=Mar 22 2010, 06:28 PM:name=Silver_Fox)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Silver_Fox @ Mar 22 2010, 06:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760692"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is no person who is better or more qualified to suggest changes to the game than anyone else. My girlfriends 11 year old is as qualified to make suggestions to the game than the most bad-assed competitive or pub player here.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Qualified in what sense? Anyone can make a suggestion, but it is obvious that someone with a better understanding of the game will on average make better suggestions.
<!--quoteo(post=1760666:date=Mar 22 2010, 01:22 PM:name=WatchMaker)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WatchMaker @ Mar 22 2010, 01:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760666"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Am I the only one that thinks dividing players into "competitive" and "casual" is ###### stupid?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not purely binary, true, but they are the ends of a (hopefully) continuous spectrum.
Also, dividing your community into two disparate parts is a bad idea, but allowing groups to coalesce due to similar skill rating is a good thing. It's why I typically only play 1600+ games on HoN and why the 1700+ people won't play with me. It's best to be challenged by your peers. However, HoN doesn't prevent me from playing with 1800+ players who join the 1600+ game, nor does it intentionally prevent me from joining a low-level game to stomp.
<!--quoteo(post=1760692:date=Mar 22 2010, 04:28 PM:name=Silver_Fox)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Silver_Fox @ Mar 22 2010, 04:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760692"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is no person who is better or more qualified to suggest changes to the game than anyone else. My girlfriends 11 year old is as qualified to make suggestions to the game than the most bad-assed competitive or pub player here.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In some respects I agree. Neither the "competitive" players nor the "casual" players should dictate a game like this. They both have merits as well as huge blind spots. Also, this game is not being designed for one at the exclusion of the other (unlike say Farmville).
That being said, there are many parties who should be listened to for specific things and all opinions weighed. Competitive players have a very strong sense of balance, counters, strategic development, and what it takes to keep competitive players interested. Casuals have a stronger idea of a new player's experience, which is what you need to consider when trying to engage new players to join your playerbase. I for one almost never listen to casual players about balance, they just don't see it the way I do or those I respect do. However, I also listen intently when they talk about the entry barriers or basic gameplay transparency because they're the ones who have trouble with it first hand.
So, in general, no one should be the sole voice for the game. No one should be prematurely excluded. However, certain parties excel at certain things and that should still be taken into account.
<!--quoteo(post=1760692:date=Mar 23 2010, 01:28 AM:name=Silver_Fox)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Silver_Fox @ Mar 23 2010, 01:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760692"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is no person who is better or more qualified to suggest changes to the game than anyone else. My girlfriends 11 year old is as qualified to make suggestions to the game than the most bad-assed competitive or pub player here.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes and no. Yes because argument from authority indeed has no place in decision-making, and no because not everyone is equally knowledgeable on the gaming theory to come up with a working solution.
Thats basically what I wanted to say in my previous post, but couldnt be bothered wasting my time typing out. Its very true. The only problem is that HoN works on the presumption that <b>everybody</b> is playing competetively - the entire game design and balance is based on that supposition. So although its an interesting point, I dont think you can really compare the two games.
<!--quoteo(post=1760700:date=Mar 22 2010, 11:00 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ Mar 22 2010, 11:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760700"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hmm, I guess you misinterpreted it. The post was probably the best I've seen in this thread, because it's true :P<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It also misunderstood the entire basis of my argument, hes talking about things which are irrelevant to the current discussion. I do agree with a lot of his points though.
<!--quoteo(post=1760692:date=Mar 22 2010, 11:28 PM:name=Silver_Fox)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Silver_Fox @ Mar 22 2010, 11:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760692"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is no person who is better or more qualified to suggest changes to the game than anyone else. My girlfriends 11 year old is as qualified to make suggestions to the game than the most bad-assed competitive or pub player here.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1760708:date=Mar 22 2010, 05:27 PM:name=marks)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (marks @ Mar 22 2010, 05:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760708"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only problem is that HoN works on the presumption that <b>everybody</b> is playing competetively - the entire game design and balance is based on that supposition. So although its an interesting point, I dont think you can really compare the two games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very true, which then makes it a prime candidate for looking at how a purely competitive driven game will look. Contrast to LoL who wanted to try and keep competitive parts but also wanted to open up to new players. It's unclear who is right, or who even got it right (philosophy doesn't equate to execution), but it's an interesting case study nonetheless.
That being said, I know a few who play HoN very casually and really enjoy the fact that 1700+ rated players don't come in and stomp on their 1400-1500 games. Well, except for some smurf jerks, but that's because you can make accounts for free during the beta. Won't work once they attach a price tag.
My real point though in the first half of my post was that even though we can label the twos ends of the spectrum we don't want to intentionally divide and keep isolated those two extremes. There needs to be a way to start as a casual and move up to being a competitive player. This is a mix of both a smooth learning curve as well as me being against isolated skill-rating servers. If it's advertised as a high-level server, noobs shouldn't join and will learn that for a casual game, stay away from those. However, enforcing this using some sort of skill ranking system and preventing people who want to become high-level to join and learn is a bad thing.
<!--quoteo(post=1760706:date=Mar 22 2010, 11:20 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 22 2010, 11:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760706"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes and no. Yes because argument from authority indeed has no place in decision-making, and no because not everyone is equally knowledgeable on the gaming theory to come up with a working solution.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Argument from authority is only bad if the authority isn't actually related to the subject.
If you ask an actual game designer or someone who had demonstrable experience in the field, their suggestions are more valid than people who don't have any ability in that area.
Hence why developers hire capable people and not just anybody who walks in off the street.
<!--quoteo(post=1760679:date=Mar 22 2010, 08:31 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 22 2010, 08:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760679"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You seem to be on the cutting edge of modern design philosophy. Good job with that.
Unfortunately we haven't really seen if that can be done at all. Left 4 Dead (Worms?..) went pretty far with the concept, but nevertheless succumbed to predictability in the end.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Left4dead doesn't really do very much with it, I think the general idea is good, considering it only has like 4 maps (or campaigns but as you play through them quickly and don't backtrack like you do in an unreal map for example, and they follow strong themes, each one is like a map in any other game.) it's lasted pretty damn long.
The problem with it is that a lot of the stuff isn't very varied, tanks shake the game up nicely but the rest of the monsters are just decent filler, it needs more set pieces and big changes in order to really pull it off. Really it needs a randomised layout, like it spawns random rooms and things and you have to explore through them, as well as some puzzle elements that require you to go into different parts of the map, and different parts of the map should have their own hazards that you have to navigate.
Basically the left4dead habit is more or less 'kill everything using established tactics and hope a tank doesn't come at the wrong time'. What it needs is more things like the tank which you can't form a habit around.
It should be possible, just need the right engine for it that can support that sort of thing, as well as maybe a couple of attempts to perfect it. More games that try and don't quite manage to do it would be helpful as you can look for common working elements and see if they have any common traits that make them work.
<!--quoteo(post=1760687:date=Mar 22 2010, 09:25 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aNytiMe @ Mar 22 2010, 09:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760687"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You must be joking. Would you like me to name all of the usable strategies for all races in SC1 right now? A good 12 years after the game has been released? StarCraft is the only strategic game that is played professionally, so in essence, it's our only example.
You can start by looking through the TL wiki matchup specific strategies: <a href="http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Terran_Strategy" target="_blank">http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Terran_Strategy</a> <a href="http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Zerg_Strategy" target="_blank">http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Zerg_Strategy</a> <a href="http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Protoss_Strategy" target="_blank">http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Protoss_Strategy</a>
And this doesn't stop top foreigners like F91, bratok and whitera from doing their own, completely outlandish strategies as they play. Long after the game has had a chance to get played out.
The difference between StarCraft and any other game is the additional complexity perfect balance (at the top level) brings to the game. People have the freedom to try anything as long as their mechanics are solid. I can recommend you some VODs if you're interested.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Professional competitive play is hardly relevant to anyone other than professional competitive players.
In chess for example, if I was playing a competitive match against a documented player I would research their previous games, gain an encyclopedic knowledge of their tendencies, try to look for them when I play against them but also be aware that they can break from them. Simultaneously I would try to work out the high level aims of their actions, if I can't guess their strategy exactly I can at least try to figure out what they want to do, I would also get a solid grounding in psychology to try and get an idea of their state of mind, so I can tell what effect my actions are having on them, and then use that to further understand what they are trying to do. The game would not be chess, it would be 'how well can I guess the intentions of my opponent and hide my own while keeping track of everything going on on the board.' And it would be that regardless of the game. The game is just a way of facilitating that.
Conversely, if I were to play chess how I actually play chess, I'd just move the pieces without really thinking about it and wish I was playing something else, and anyone who tries strategy against me wouldn't be helped by it, the best way to beat someone like that is to simply be more observant than them and exploit the holes they create because they aren't thinking very much, purely reactional play, rather than actually trying to read intents and things.
High level competitive play in any strategic game has nothing really to do with the game, it has to do with the people playing it, of course in starcraft it has the whole 'click fifty million times a second in order to maximise the performance of your units' element as well but that's not strategic, that's just like being able to aim in an FPS. The strategic side is about misdirecting your opponent and not being predictable but also being observant to try and tell if your opponent is doing the same. Which is fine and dandy, but that only really applies to games when you know your opponent, and you know they're doing the same thing you are. If you try to employ that sort of thing against someone who isn't thinking at all about strategy then it doesn't work, because you can't guess what they don't have.
It also doesn't work against something so fragmented as a team, in a team everyone has their own idea of what's going on and what they need to do, even in competitive games, it's less pronounced than in normal games but it's still there, you can't say 'oh the enemy is going to do this' because somewhere, someone on the enemy team will not be planning to do that at all, generally the enemy team will be doing everything at once, as will yours.
All you get is everyone doing what they think works, which will probably be more or less what you're doing because the same thing usually works for everyone, they just do it in different parts of the map.
Look at this dude trying to sound smart. Who are you trying to impress?
Basically Marks said it best when he said:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What we need in order for the vanilla game to be viable for competetive play, is really the same stuff that most pubbers want. No ridiculously dominant strategies (1.04 JP HMG rush), no stupid siege spots that can hit like 5 rts or 2 hives, individual gameplay mechanics which make sense and work well together to promote teamplay aswell as personal skill. Things like that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's basically it. I honestly think half of the problem is with the casual players who are instantly on the attack when they see someone they deem competitive posting (this thread's mere creation as proof or <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=109124&view=findpost&p=1760557" target="_blank">Drako's incredibly over sensitive reply to Marks</a>). Competitive players worth a damn aren't trying to make sure they still kick ass in NS2 by influencing game development and they're not trying to keep features that should be gone. It's like the casual players think there's a big conspiracy to destroy their game brought solely by people interested in competitive play.
It's an over reaction that isn't valid. Some people are jerks, no doubt, but they exist on both sides and I see people dishing out flames from both sides.
If UWE has proven nothing else to us it's that they're listening to the community. Because of this I think they will strike a very good balance between casual and competitive play once alpha/beta hit.
<!--quoteo(post=1760730:date=Mar 22 2010, 09:40 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Mar 22 2010, 09:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760730"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That would give you a normal game, and if you make more normal games you'll steadily make money and get generally good reviews.
Personally I think it's worth trying to improve games as a whole.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A game with a good balance between casual and competitive aspects is normal? That would be really awesome, if it was true.
Also, funny that you think a game a good balance between casual/competitive aspects should be improved upon. I think a lot of us would agree that success would be defined as NS2 being easy to pick up but with enough strategy and skill development to keep players coming back for more.
Here's to hoping UWE will "make a normal game that will steadily make money and get generally good reviews." Too bad Chris will hate it.
<!--quoteo(post=1760737:date=Mar 23 2010, 02:09 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Mar 23 2010, 02:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760737"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A game with a good balance between casual and competitive aspects is normal? That would be really awesome, if it was true.
Also, funny that you think a game a good balance between casual/competitive aspects should be improved upon. I think a lot of us would agree that success would be defined as NS2 being easy to pick up but with enough strategy and skill development to keep players coming back for more.
Here's to hoping UWE will "make a normal game that will steadily make money and get generally good reviews." Too bad Chris will hate it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> A normal good game then, a game which is enjoyable but more or less like every other, a game which people will get bored of quickly, just like every other online shooter, and a type of game which I imagine will eventually stop being viable, because eventually you'll have made every game possible like that.
A game which adresses the fundamental limitations of that approach would be a better game, and would produce more better games further down the line.
NS has a nice visual theme, and spark's solid construction using older technology and low requirements, combined with its capacity for extensive modification would make it the ideal platform for building such a game. I don't expect UWE to change anything about NS2, NS as a game would have to change a hell of a lot to become anything other than a normal online shooter, but the platform itself has potential. As I said the modifiability itself is one route to making an enduring product, as it will likely spawn many different games, and it could be used to make a game<i>mode</i> which doesn't stagnate either.
I am looking forward to NS2, I think it is a very interesting game, although probably not for the same reasons you do. I don't think you have really understood most of what I've said.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
I saw this topic's name, saw it was posted yesterday, saw it had five pages of replies...
And was pleasantly surprised that the 5th page was not full of flame. I'm going to go back and read the rest at some point.
Of course there are times when people in this forum fight for a philosophy beyond what seems to make sense, It's usually due to a combination of knee-jerk plus stubbornness, and this type of topic seems to bring out the worst in people.
I hope this statement will echo most of what I find here. There is no "voice of the competitive community", nor "voice for the rest". Everyone has their say and has to back up their proposal/criticism/commentary with reasoned(hopefully) argument. Sometimes competitive and casual goals conflict, but as <b>marks</b> pointed out earlier, usually they don't.
In the case where they do conflict, I hope the devs work out a compromise that doesn't diminish either scene. The second they start thinking the casual community doesn't matter, or the competitive community doesn't matter, NS2 will be in trouble. Given how they've operated in the past I'm not too worried about it. If a feature is too slanted one way or another, it comes out in testing and is changed.
That's not dissimilar from my point, competitive and casual are not really at odds, stagnation of the game occurs because of neither and harms both, it's the major problem with NS, NS was fine for both when it began but it's been played so much that it's impossible to get into now, and so the noncompetitive players are unable to start, and the game is clogged with people who have mastered it.
A game that changes often prevents that, because everyone is always adapting, so new players can always join, the game is always new, the only real problem is graphical outdating and to be honest, NS2 looks to have such good graphical design that it's no more likely to go out of date than the alien films themselves are, it doesn't rely on fancy tech, it's just well put together and staged.
In a game with a good sized playerbase and a constant stream of new players you will be able to keep competitive and noncomptitive apart, competitive players can have clan matches or whatever and everyone else can just drift around servers playing where they land, it's when you run out of players that you get a problem.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1760686:date=Mar 22 2010, 04:09 PM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ Mar 22 2010, 04:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760686"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I've always argued that the reason NS gameplay went stale is because of the actual lack of competitiveness. There have really only been a few "waves" of hungry new players getting into competitive play and forcing change. Really why would you want to take your team that has played on and off together (or with common other people) for years and change everything about how you play and losing position temporarily if there is no reason? Why take months to perfect a new way of doing things when no one is forcing you.
No, the reason NS tactics and strategies have been stale has mostly been because of the limited playerbase, and that's nothing good game design can do anything about unfortunately.
And this of course leads to a need to conform numerical and formal balance to the current way the game is played (those game changes lamented in this thread), as opposed to ie Starcraft where seamingly huge imbalances have existed for years before being beaten by a new technique or strategical focus. Just look at silly ###### like cannon exp into one stargate corsair harass and a +1 speedlot timing push becoming standard play.
To repeat: the size (and inherently thereof the quality) of the playerbase defines balance and strategy and depending on the situation of the playerbase developers are forced to react accordingly to keep the game playable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe this was your point, but just to spell it out, this is exactly why the devs can't alienate either community through design decisions. If you alienate competitive players you lose their input for balancing at high levels of play which will trickle down to lower levels of play. If you alienate the casual community the competitive community will stagnate and fail.
Comments
A small lesson about the balance in NS1, first off its most balanced at 6v6 which is the competitive standard atm. The advantage is clearer in alien side when played in smaller numbers, obvious indeed and the higher we go even past the 20ish the more it leans to a marine side.
If we ignored the 6v6 and make balance for 20v20 effectively making the game "pub" only cause no clan can get 20 players to play would we have perfect game? Perhaps.
I however cant get my kicks off from random mindless gaming thus I thought few reasons pubbers/casuals might approve.
1) Having competitive community and high prized tournaments adds more lifetime/players/esport to the game.
2) Theres time when you think public is not the thing for you want something different. You dont have to be good to be competitive player there will be a lot lower skill clans to give you decent fight.
3) Someone mentioned that the game became boring, mechanical to him after playing for a while for competitive. Understanding basics and getting frustrated about people completely ignoring is normal it happens nothing can be done but the truth is theres always room for improvement unless the game is well lets say too simple.
4) None of these above cannot be accomplished if the community is split apart to promods / casualmods
I was going to have to type everything he just said.
Now I can sit back and eat cake.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><Most everything marks has said><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would agree.
The key thing is, as many have pointed out, balanced for comp doesn't <b>always</b> translate to fun/balance for noobs. In general, balance for higher level play is a good thing. That's where people will aspire to. That's what gets vidcasted. That's what can invigorate people and make them go "That was awesome, let's go play" (trust me, me and my friends do this quite often after StarCraft matches). It also sets the tone for pub play as the best strats filter into the community. They are the ones that will find your exploit, reveal how OP it is, and force the fix to re-balance the game.
The problem is when competitive "tricks" and "balance" boil down into lame, formulaic gameplay. Nobody would enjoy StarCraft if Medic+Marine won every time against the Zerg. Muta Harass was perhaps the defining StarCraft1 problem that kept coming in and out during the early and mid-years (both being nerfed to heck and to being zomg OP).
What you want is a balanced, multi-strategy game at higher levels of play. You need a variety of viable strategies, some safer, some riskier, some that counter specific other ones, but NONE are true hard counters. You almost never want your players to get stuck in a "oh dear, there's nothing I could have done to prevent that" because then they'll just disband that play altogether. Chris0132's randomization to keep things "fresh" is a poor way to deal with the problem. Instead, build a framework where many strategies are viable. NS1, while we can claim there were many strats, really boiled down to only 1 or 2 with a bunch of crazy gambits. Personally, crazy gambits don't count, so I only see 1 or 2 major strats which created the formulaic gameplay I mentioned in my previous post.
What you also want is a balanced game at higher levels of play that doesn't rely on secret gimmicks. StarCraft2 has gone to extreme ends to try and prevent exploits, or at least make any special gameplay elements transparent (stacking air units for example and special fog-of-war elements on the map). You don't want an artificial barrier of entry into the higher level play. You don't want a giant gap to form between your noobs and your pros that is only jumpable with help (a la the NS Dojo). We've discussed this before, but ideally you want a smooth learning curve that starts out nice and gradual to hook new players, and grows as you go along to help distinguish who's really the best. This is typically the real reason people dislike bunnyhopping. It's not really about the skill ceiling it creates, but rather the non-intuitive leap it takes to get there.
So, yes. Competitive players are really, really important. At the same time, making balance just for competitive players doesn't always translate into a fun game for the rest of the players.
No, and other people who think its stupid are just as wrong as you are. Its a very logical and common distinction to draw.
It is certainly a bit odd to think that people fit into two discrete categories, with people it's always a spectrum, sometimes even a multidimensional lattice.
Saying someone is either one or the other and that all people exemplify one of the stareotypes is certainly silly, although the distinction can have a use sometimes.
Having multiple valid strategies doesn't really help, because as long as the rules stay the same people form habits, and as soon as they form habits the game becomes simply playing out the established pattern over and over again.
If all strategies are equally valid then one strategy is all you need, if only one strategy works then still only that strategy will be used.
In a balanced game it's not that one strategy works better, it might just be popular because it was first, or it might be easiest to learn, or it might have spread by word of mouth, but you always end up with one major strategy being used because most players aren't really looking to try new ones when they are learning, they just want to survive, and eventually surviving occurs by automatically following a very good strategy. Why change when your habitual strategy works so well?
The way to get people to change strategy is to change the rules, make it so their habitual strategy doesn't work, and you can either do that by changing the entire game, or by making a game which throws things you can't anticipate at you.
Not at all. It's a fairly retarded classification created solely for the reason of denoting participating in officially organised play as being "l33t", from which nothing but pointless divide and bad stereotypes can spring up.
Like Mac VS PC thing.
<!--quoteo(post=1760678:date=Mar 22 2010, 11:11 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Mar 22 2010, 11:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760678"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The way to get people to change strategy is to change the rules, make it so their habitual strategy doesn't work, and you can either do that by changing the entire game, or by making a game which throws things you can't anticipate at you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You seem to be on the cutting edge of modern design philosophy. Good job with that.
Unfortunately we haven't really seen if that can be done at all. Left 4 Dead (Worms?..) went pretty far with the concept, but nevertheless succumbed to predictability in the end.
That is weakness. This happens in competitive community aswell there is one most standard tactic and teams with no real interests just go with flow for it is the easiest. However that doesnt mean the others are bad quite the opposite if the opponents has no experience lets say scs or mass rts it can easily change the flow of the game especially in lower tier games. Certain maps allow certain tactics works better thus creating a bit of predictablity but what I mean to say is that the tactics should exist even if they are not widely used.
No, the reason NS tactics and strategies have been stale has mostly been because of the limited playerbase, and that's nothing good game design can do anything about unfortunately.
And this of course leads to a need to conform numerical and formal balance to the current way the game is played (those game changes lamented in this thread), as opposed to ie Starcraft where seamingly huge imbalances have existed for years before being beaten by a new technique or strategical focus. Just look at silly ###### like cannon exp into one stargate corsair harass and a +1 speedlot timing push becoming standard play.
To repeat: the size (and inherently thereof the quality) of the playerbase defines balance and strategy and depending on the situation of the playerbase developers are forced to react accordingly to keep the game playable.
If all strategies are equally valid then one strategy is all you need, if only one strategy works then still only that strategy will be used.
In a balanced game it's not that one strategy works better, it might just be popular because it was first, or it might be easiest to learn, or it might have spread by word of mouth, but you always end up with one major strategy being used because most players aren't really looking to try new ones when they are learning, they just want to survive, and eventually surviving occurs by automatically following a very good strategy. Why change when your habitual strategy works so well?
The way to get people to change strategy is to change the rules, make it so their habitual strategy doesn't work, and you can either do that by changing the entire game, or by making a game which throws things you can't anticipate at you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You must be joking. Would you like me to name all of the usable strategies for all races in SC1 right now? A good 12 years after the game has been released? StarCraft is the only strategic game that is played professionally, so in essence, it's our only example.
You can start by looking through the TL wiki matchup specific strategies:
<a href="http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Terran_Strategy" target="_blank">http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Terran_Strategy</a>
<a href="http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Zerg_Strategy" target="_blank">http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Zerg_Strategy</a>
<a href="http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Protoss_Strategy" target="_blank">http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Protoss_Strategy</a>
And this doesn't stop top foreigners like F91, bratok and whitera from doing their own, completely outlandish strategies as they play. Long after the game has had a chance to get played out.
The difference between StarCraft and any other game is the additional complexity perfect balance (at the top level) brings to the game. People have the freedom to try anything as long as their mechanics are solid. I can recommend you some VODs if you're interested.
How is the weather up there?
There is no person who is better or more qualified to suggest changes to the game than anyone else. My girlfriends 11 year old is as qualified to make suggestions to the game than the most bad-assed competitive or pub player here.
Why? Because he plays the game (to this day, using my name .. unfortunately.) and he has things he likes about it and things he doesn't. Just because he's younger than you or less experienced, doesn't mean he can't tell you why X feature sucks or is awesome. Some of the best ideas come from children even, because they have a unique way of looking at the world and aren't quite as jaded as the majority of people.
There is no right or wrong person, there are only different opinions. I suggest all parties stop trying to convince the other that their side is 'right' because it degenerates into a flame fest. Present your <b>opinions</b> and then discuss those <b>opinions</b>. There is no reason to tell someone they are stupid because they don't believe what you do or think the way you do.
I'm not the best player in the world and I'll be the first to admit it. I'm rather causal and have no interest in joining any sort of clan. But I may have suggested a feature, while the game was still in beta, that you enjoyed a great deal.
No one person is 'better' than anyone else. Just different.
I stopped reading here. You're wrong.
That's not true.
Anyone can identify an issue with game (doing X is boring, fighting Y is too hard, I keep getting lost, etc), since those are defined primarily by their own experiences.
However, actually suggesting a useful solution will most likely demand an understanding of the game and its interactions. Someone without that insight is likely to come up with solutions to their problems that create bigger problems in other places, simply because they don't know how elements of the game interact.
Qualified in what sense? Anyone can make a suggestion, but it is obvious that someone with a better understanding of the game will on average make better suggestions.
It's not purely binary, true, but they are the ends of a (hopefully) continuous spectrum.
Also, dividing your community into two disparate parts is a bad idea, but allowing groups to coalesce due to similar skill rating is a good thing. It's why I typically only play 1600+ games on HoN and why the 1700+ people won't play with me. It's best to be challenged by your peers. However, HoN doesn't prevent me from playing with 1800+ players who join the 1600+ game, nor does it intentionally prevent me from joining a low-level game to stomp.
<!--quoteo(post=1760692:date=Mar 22 2010, 04:28 PM:name=Silver_Fox)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Silver_Fox @ Mar 22 2010, 04:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760692"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is no person who is better or more qualified to suggest changes to the game than anyone else. My girlfriends 11 year old is as qualified to make suggestions to the game than the most bad-assed competitive or pub player here.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In some respects I agree. Neither the "competitive" players nor the "casual" players should dictate a game like this. They both have merits as well as huge blind spots. Also, this game is not being designed for one at the exclusion of the other (unlike say Farmville).
That being said, there are many parties who should be listened to for specific things and all opinions weighed. Competitive players have a very strong sense of balance, counters, strategic development, and what it takes to keep competitive players interested. Casuals have a stronger idea of a new player's experience, which is what you need to consider when trying to engage new players to join your playerbase. I for one almost never listen to casual players about balance, they just don't see it the way I do or those I respect do. However, I also listen intently when they talk about the entry barriers or basic gameplay transparency because they're the ones who have trouble with it first hand.
So, in general, no one should be the sole voice for the game. No one should be prematurely excluded. However, certain parties excel at certain things and that should still be taken into account.
Yes and no. Yes because argument from authority indeed has no place in decision-making, and no because not everyone is equally knowledgeable on the gaming theory to come up with a working solution.
Thats basically what I wanted to say in my previous post, but couldnt be bothered wasting my time typing out. Its very true. The only problem is that HoN works on the presumption that <b>everybody</b> is playing competetively - the entire game design and balance is based on that supposition. So although its an interesting point, I dont think you can really compare the two games.
<!--quoteo(post=1760700:date=Mar 22 2010, 11:00 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ Mar 22 2010, 11:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760700"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hmm, I guess you misinterpreted it. The post was probably the best I've seen in this thread, because it's true :P<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It also misunderstood the entire basis of my argument, hes talking about things which are irrelevant to the current discussion. I do agree with a lot of his points though.
I vote yes on Sparkly Pony Princess Island :D
Very true, which then makes it a prime candidate for looking at how a purely competitive driven game will look. Contrast to LoL who wanted to try and keep competitive parts but also wanted to open up to new players. It's unclear who is right, or who even got it right (philosophy doesn't equate to execution), but it's an interesting case study nonetheless.
That being said, I know a few who play HoN very casually and really enjoy the fact that 1700+ rated players don't come in and stomp on their 1400-1500 games. Well, except for some smurf jerks, but that's because you can make accounts for free during the beta. Won't work once they attach a price tag.
My real point though in the first half of my post was that even though we can label the twos ends of the spectrum we don't want to intentionally divide and keep isolated those two extremes. There needs to be a way to start as a casual and move up to being a competitive player. This is a mix of both a smooth learning curve as well as me being against isolated skill-rating servers. If it's advertised as a high-level server, noobs shouldn't join and will learn that for a casual game, stay away from those. However, enforcing this using some sort of skill ranking system and preventing people who want to become high-level to join and learn is a bad thing.
Argument from authority is only bad if the authority isn't actually related to the subject.
If you ask an actual game designer or someone who had demonstrable experience in the field, their suggestions are more valid than people who don't have any ability in that area.
Hence why developers hire capable people and not just anybody who walks in off the street.
<!--quoteo(post=1760679:date=Mar 22 2010, 08:31 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 22 2010, 08:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760679"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You seem to be on the cutting edge of modern design philosophy. Good job with that.
Unfortunately we haven't really seen if that can be done at all. Left 4 Dead (Worms?..) went pretty far with the concept, but nevertheless succumbed to predictability in the end.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Left4dead doesn't really do very much with it, I think the general idea is good, considering it only has like 4 maps (or campaigns but as you play through them quickly and don't backtrack like you do in an unreal map for example, and they follow strong themes, each one is like a map in any other game.) it's lasted pretty damn long.
The problem with it is that a lot of the stuff isn't very varied, tanks shake the game up nicely but the rest of the monsters are just decent filler, it needs more set pieces and big changes in order to really pull it off. Really it needs a randomised layout, like it spawns random rooms and things and you have to explore through them, as well as some puzzle elements that require you to go into different parts of the map, and different parts of the map should have their own hazards that you have to navigate.
Basically the left4dead habit is more or less 'kill everything using established tactics and hope a tank doesn't come at the wrong time'. What it needs is more things like the tank which you can't form a habit around.
It should be possible, just need the right engine for it that can support that sort of thing, as well as maybe a couple of attempts to perfect it. More games that try and don't quite manage to do it would be helpful as you can look for common working elements and see if they have any common traits that make them work.
<!--quoteo(post=1760687:date=Mar 22 2010, 09:25 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aNytiMe @ Mar 22 2010, 09:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760687"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You must be joking. Would you like me to name all of the usable strategies for all races in SC1 right now? A good 12 years after the game has been released? StarCraft is the only strategic game that is played professionally, so in essence, it's our only example.
You can start by looking through the TL wiki matchup specific strategies:
<a href="http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Terran_Strategy" target="_blank">http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Terran_Strategy</a>
<a href="http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Zerg_Strategy" target="_blank">http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Zerg_Strategy</a>
<a href="http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Protoss_Strategy" target="_blank">http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Protoss_Strategy</a>
And this doesn't stop top foreigners like F91, bratok and whitera from doing their own, completely outlandish strategies as they play. Long after the game has had a chance to get played out.
The difference between StarCraft and any other game is the additional complexity perfect balance (at the top level) brings to the game. People have the freedom to try anything as long as their mechanics are solid. I can recommend you some VODs if you're interested.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Professional competitive play is hardly relevant to anyone other than professional competitive players.
In chess for example, if I was playing a competitive match against a documented player I would research their previous games, gain an encyclopedic knowledge of their tendencies, try to look for them when I play against them but also be aware that they can break from them. Simultaneously I would try to work out the high level aims of their actions, if I can't guess their strategy exactly I can at least try to figure out what they want to do, I would also get a solid grounding in psychology to try and get an idea of their state of mind, so I can tell what effect my actions are having on them, and then use that to further understand what they are trying to do. The game would not be chess, it would be 'how well can I guess the intentions of my opponent and hide my own while keeping track of everything going on on the board.' And it would be that regardless of the game. The game is just a way of facilitating that.
Conversely, if I were to play chess how I actually play chess, I'd just move the pieces without really thinking about it and wish I was playing something else, and anyone who tries strategy against me wouldn't be helped by it, the best way to beat someone like that is to simply be more observant than them and exploit the holes they create because they aren't thinking very much, purely reactional play, rather than actually trying to read intents and things.
High level competitive play in any strategic game has nothing really to do with the game, it has to do with the people playing it, of course in starcraft it has the whole 'click fifty million times a second in order to maximise the performance of your units' element as well but that's not strategic, that's just like being able to aim in an FPS. The strategic side is about misdirecting your opponent and not being predictable but also being observant to try and tell if your opponent is doing the same. Which is fine and dandy, but that only really applies to games when you know your opponent, and you know they're doing the same thing you are. If you try to employ that sort of thing against someone who isn't thinking at all about strategy then it doesn't work, because you can't guess what they don't have.
It also doesn't work against something so fragmented as a team, in a team everyone has their own idea of what's going on and what they need to do, even in competitive games, it's less pronounced than in normal games but it's still there, you can't say 'oh the enemy is going to do this' because somewhere, someone on the enemy team will not be planning to do that at all, generally the enemy team will be doing everything at once, as will yours.
All you get is everyone doing what they think works, which will probably be more or less what you're doing because the same thing usually works for everyone, they just do it in different parts of the map.
|
|
Look at this dude trying to sound smart. Who are you trying to impress?
Basically Marks said it best when he said:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What we need in order for the vanilla game to be viable for competetive play, is really the same stuff that most pubbers want. No ridiculously dominant strategies (1.04 JP HMG rush), no stupid siege spots that can hit like 5 rts or 2 hives, individual gameplay mechanics which make sense and work well together to promote teamplay aswell as personal skill. Things like that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's basically it. I honestly think half of the problem is with the casual players who are instantly on the attack when they see someone they deem competitive posting (this thread's mere creation as proof or <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=109124&view=findpost&p=1760557" target="_blank">Drako's incredibly over sensitive reply to Marks</a>). Competitive players worth a damn aren't trying to make sure they still kick ass in NS2 by influencing game development and they're not trying to keep features that should be gone. It's like the casual players think there's a big conspiracy to destroy their game brought solely by people interested in competitive play.
It's an over reaction that isn't valid. Some people are jerks, no doubt, but they exist on both sides and I see people dishing out flames from both sides.
If UWE has proven nothing else to us it's that they're listening to the community. Because of this I think they will strike a very good balance between casual and competitive play once alpha/beta hit.
Personally I think it's worth trying to improve games as a whole.
Personally I think it's worth trying to improve games as a whole.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A game with a good balance between casual and competitive aspects is normal? That would be really awesome, if it was true.
Also, funny that you think a game a good balance between casual/competitive aspects should be improved upon. I think a lot of us would agree that success would be defined as NS2 being easy to pick up but with enough strategy and skill development to keep players coming back for more.
Here's to hoping UWE will "make a normal game that will steadily make money and get generally good reviews." Too bad Chris will hate it.
Also, funny that you think a game a good balance between casual/competitive aspects should be improved upon. I think a lot of us would agree that success would be defined as NS2 being easy to pick up but with enough strategy and skill development to keep players coming back for more.
Here's to hoping UWE will "make a normal game that will steadily make money and get generally good reviews." Too bad Chris will hate it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A normal good game then, a game which is enjoyable but more or less like every other, a game which people will get bored of quickly, just like every other online shooter, and a type of game which I imagine will eventually stop being viable, because eventually you'll have made every game possible like that.
A game which adresses the fundamental limitations of that approach would be a better game, and would produce more better games further down the line.
NS has a nice visual theme, and spark's solid construction using older technology and low requirements, combined with its capacity for extensive modification would make it the ideal platform for building such a game. I don't expect UWE to change anything about NS2, NS as a game would have to change a hell of a lot to become anything other than a normal online shooter, but the platform itself has potential. As I said the modifiability itself is one route to making an enduring product, as it will likely spawn many different games, and it could be used to make a game<i>mode</i> which doesn't stagnate either.
I am looking forward to NS2, I think it is a very interesting game, although probably not for the same reasons you do. I don't think you have really understood most of what I've said.
And was pleasantly surprised that the 5th page was not full of flame. I'm going to go back and read the rest at some point.
Of course there are times when people in this forum fight for a philosophy beyond what seems to make sense, It's usually due to a combination of knee-jerk plus stubbornness, and this type of topic seems to bring out the worst in people.
I hope this statement will echo most of what I find here. There is no "voice of the competitive community", nor "voice for the rest". Everyone has their say and has to back up their proposal/criticism/commentary with reasoned(hopefully) argument. Sometimes competitive and casual goals conflict, but as <b>marks</b> pointed out earlier, usually they don't.
In the case where they do conflict, I hope the devs work out a compromise that doesn't diminish either scene. The second they start thinking the casual community doesn't matter, or the competitive community doesn't matter, NS2 will be in trouble. Given how they've operated in the past I'm not too worried about it. If a feature is too slanted one way or another, it comes out in testing and is changed.
A game that changes often prevents that, because everyone is always adapting, so new players can always join, the game is always new, the only real problem is graphical outdating and to be honest, NS2 looks to have such good graphical design that it's no more likely to go out of date than the alien films themselves are, it doesn't rely on fancy tech, it's just well put together and staged.
In a game with a good sized playerbase and a constant stream of new players you will be able to keep competitive and noncomptitive apart, competitive players can have clan matches or whatever and everyone else can just drift around servers playing where they land, it's when you run out of players that you get a problem.
No, the reason NS tactics and strategies have been stale has mostly been because of the limited playerbase, and that's nothing good game design can do anything about unfortunately.
And this of course leads to a need to conform numerical and formal balance to the current way the game is played (those game changes lamented in this thread), as opposed to ie Starcraft where seamingly huge imbalances have existed for years before being beaten by a new technique or strategical focus. Just look at silly ###### like cannon exp into one stargate corsair harass and a +1 speedlot timing push becoming standard play.
To repeat: the size (and inherently thereof the quality) of the playerbase defines balance and strategy and depending on the situation of the playerbase developers are forced to react accordingly to keep the game playable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe this was your point, but just to spell it out, this is exactly why the devs can't alienate either community through design decisions. If you alienate competitive players you lose their input for balancing at high levels of play which will trickle down to lower levels of play. If you alienate the casual community the competitive community will stagnate and fail.