Complaint about balance complaints
Nex Carnifex
Join Date: 2011-01-06 Member: 76366Members
Join Date: 2011-01-06 Member: 76366Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Why is it that people constantly complain about balancing in games?</div>In all the new multiplayer video games these days, all people do is complain about balancing and what should be nerfed and what shouldn't, there are no threads about "How do I beat this?". All people do is whine to the developers until they finally change the thing. Developers should focus on adding cool things to the game to make it more entertaining instead of nerfing everything from hydras to the Protoss from Star Craft. And all the changes usually just make the game more unbalanced and much less fun. Hydras used to be useful, now they're to weak. The only time something should be nerfed is if it is so powerful that everything else is almost useless (like the shotgun). Other than that, learn to play with what the game is for a change, like people used to do, and they never complained. Do you think there was a ton of nerfing and boosting in NS1? NO! But it was completely balanced once you got used to it, and it was fun. Now no race is allowed to have an advantage, and everything has to be boringly equal. The changes I want to see involving making awesome features that define the title like DI and Commander functions as entertaining and badass as possible. Then if stuff like race advantages REALLY get in the way, they can do something about it later, but until then, everyone is going to be complaining about the other team. I bet it's more unbalanced now then in the beginning, because everyone wants the other team to be weaker.
Comments
omg, this thread is imba!
If you want to talk about balance, I think the thing that upsets me the most is when you have things in the game but you can't apply them to certain tasks.
I.e. You know weapon X is great against problem Y, but is susceptible to Z.
This can be an issue as balance for the weapons are hard to judge without everything in the game.
This sounds a bit like Rosy retrospection. A "back in my day things were better" sentiment. Let me just tell you, they probably weren't. The mind tends to forget the annoying little details of the past in favor of remember the overall positive experiences, which makes the present annoying little details stand out. Those in question have likely always been this whiny and will probably continue to be this whiny, until they go through some shift of perception. Unless you're referring to when the game just came out, in which case you're probably right. The player base has fewer expectations to be met (and less opportunity for disappointment) when they're getting a whole bunch of brand new "whatever". The problem is, like Runteh said, people feel entitled to a working, balanced game when they signed up for a beta.
I feel your pain, and I can say the best strategy is to do what you are suggesting. Adapt, knowing you are the better player for it, and understand that these individuals who would rather complain than adapt are just not at the same playing field (I daresay intellectually) as you.
You know weapon <b>Shotgun</b> is great against problem <b>Skulk</b>, but is susceptible to <b>...</b>.
he should have been asking - how can i defeat wladimir?
no, for real now: you got every second in your life only ONCE,
so if you spend it to a computergame you want to enjoy it.
and at least to be treated fairly.
so, you invest hours and hours to learn a game.
it systems and mechanics and then there is a point,
where some one else, apparently a much worse player,
could simply take you out and you cant do ###### against it.
or at least you have to be superior and perfect to get a chance.
ppl investing less time beating you up like a 5 year old.
and you cant do ###### against it. you know the game
in and outside, you know the code of the game better
then the programmer who wrote it because you can
feel it.
and you know what is much worse?
when you play a person who is even and both know
okay, he will win when he is on side A and i will win
when i am on side A.
there are a game called CHESS - why do you think
is it popular since thousands of years?
because it is so ###### FAIR!
why do you think, that more ppl than EVER are playing
counter strike 1.6 and source just cant beat it?
the game is nearly 12 year old and still the one
competitive team game?!
because it it so ###### FAIR!
only day to day base decides who will win.
why do you think starcraft 1 was ruling the RTS
market like no game before for over 12 years??
you have the right to be treated fairly!
and everyone on this ###### planet should be fighting for it!
why invest 1 microjoule or one microsecond in a system
which is against you? why microkill yourself in every ###### moment
you are attending to it?
WHY?
but you can act like a sheep and play ostrich,
putting your head in the sand and pretend that everything is okay:
go and attend to the system, working in it like a pinion.
good day :P
I 100% agree with you. We have the right to get a game that is fair for both teams.
We have the right to complain when the game isn't fair.
And also, Nex,
Why don't you go and play NS1 before you come up with crap like that.
Have you even played NS2?
If not, go play it and play both teams and see how unbalanced the game currently is.
A little bit of adive for you:
<b>Think before you speech/type</b>
lerk, hydra + crag umbra, fade secondary, teamwork, and eventually onos.
We have the right to complain when the game isn't fair.
And also, Nex,
Why don't you go and play NS1 before you come up with crap like that.
Have you even played NS2?
If not, go play it and play both teams and see how unbalanced the game currently is.
A little bit of adive for you:
<b>Think before you speech/type</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The game isn't even finished yet, there isn't even an Onos yet, it's really hard to know weather it's going to be balanced or not. In my opinion it is endlessly more successful and useful to seek a counter for opposing units or tactics than it is to claim that the race they're a part of is imbalanced. In the long run, I find it more helpful to adopt a basic approach of "How do I beat this?" instead of "X or y is overpowered". Though they're may be certain weapons that are used to much due to there complete monopoly of advantages which should be scaled down to equality, things like nerfing alien structures and giving units more or less health should be saved for later when the game is complete. The most important things in the game right now should be what will actually draw new people in and make them feel its actually worth it to complain about the game and make the balancing better. Things like how naturally the aliens look when they fight and walk or how well the maps drag you into the fictional world. Is it really that unplayable now? I certainly don't think so.
Very true, but none of that applies to NS2 in it's current state (why below).
<!--quoteo(post=1836129:date=Mar 5 2011, 03:54 PM:name=Papayas)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Papayas @ Mar 5 2011, 03:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1836129"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I 100% agree with you. We have the right to get a game that is fair for both teams.
We have the right to complain when the game isn't fair.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have every right to <i>complain</i> because complaining is exercising free speech.
You do not have the right to a game that is fair or balanced or fun. By pre-ordering you are entitled to:
<ul><li> Immediate beta access (updates weekly)</li><li> Full version when it's done (via Steam)</li><li> [UWE's] eternal gratitude</li></ul>
Nowhere does it say that the beta (or the full version, for that matter) have to be balanced, fun, immersive, stable... anything. All that we read about how the devs envision gameplay, all that got us excited about NS2 and made us pre-order, none of that was <i>promised</i> to us and we are not <i>entitled</i> to it. They are developing this game according to their vision, and our input may or may not alter that vision, but they are not <i>obligated</i> to listen to any of our complaints, desires, wishes, idealisms, theories, philosophies... anything (though it may be in their best interests to listen). Of course, it's logical and reasonable that you would only want to play an fair, balanced game, and if they can't provide that then you should not purchase or play the game, but even after you do, they are not required to meet your expectations.
<b><u>TL;DR</u>: You are willingly playing an incomplete (beta) version of the game. If you expect fairness, fun, or balance, then you didn't understand what you were getting in to when you either a) pre-ordered or b) tried to play the beta, and your consequent "complaining" about this fact seems sort of... well... stupid. It's moot. No #### it's imbalanced. No #### it's laggy. That's what you signed up for. It goes without saying that the game is all of these things, and those of us that understand this can't really understand why you are complaining.</b>
<!--quoteo(post=1836138:date=Mar 5 2011, 04:24 PM:name=Nex Carnifex)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nex Carnifex @ Mar 5 2011, 04:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1836138"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The most important things in the game right now should be what will actually draw new people in and make them feel its actually worth it to complain about the game and make the balancing better. Things like how naturally the aliens look when they fight and walk or how well the maps drag you into the fictional world.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are very many different types of players, and some of them gives as few as zero ####s about the quality of animation, or the immersion a game or it's fiction provides. This is just polish for the most part, and like they say, even if you polish a turd, it's still a turd (Disclaimer: NS2 IS NOT A TURD, IMO). Everyone derives value differently, so while I can't say your statement is wrong (esp. considering you used the dreaded word, "should"), I can say that there are probably just as many people who would disagree with you than would agree.
Did you ever play NS1?
What is this NS you speak of?
marines vs skulks is not a linear setup.
over range, marines win with ease, on close distance skulk will normally win. so a good skulk player will not just run
straight forward in the front of a marine stand still and start chewing on the toes of the marine,
nope he will hide and try to create a situation of his own advantage.
a lonely marine in a dark room, who is attracted by something else [use key: chuckle]
think of ns1: good players know EXACTLY how far they can run on roundstart as a skulk
till the rushing marines could hear them. they strafejump up to this position and then
they wait for contact.
i know what you mean, ppl should invest in their training and not lowering the skill requirements of a game
to COD or tf2 level.
you are right at this point, ppl should work on their experience and there should be endless room
to develop. play hard, go pro.
think of the flamethrower when it came into the game. it simply ruled everything.
a team rushed for the second cc, then turtled till they got flamers and gl addon and
then cleared the map - finish. there was no way a alien team could have stopped this
in the beginning.
marines vs kahaara is a very hard setup to balance, but it should be done as good
as possible.
think about it.
i dont mean it bad!!
The above description also fits the vast majority of players, hence why balance threads (in any game forum) are so common.
The above description also fits the vast majority of players, hence why balance threads (in any game forum) are so common.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, generalize much? I don't see how we can help balance NS2 without 1) stating what we feel to be imbalanced and 2) suggesting ways to solve said imbalance. Now, there is a valid argument to be made that we can't balance everything until the game is feature complete. However, some degree of balance is needed so that we can test all of the existing features for bugs. For example, if marines could never get flamethrowers because they would lose to skulk rushes before they could research that far, then it would justify some balancing.
Skulk/Marine rushing is balanced because both sides can to do it effectively.
I have something else to say:
<!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b>If we do NOT tell them what is imbalanced and what is causing lag/bugs then how the hell are they supposed to know how to make the game better?</b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
Notice the distinction between "discuss" and "complain"?
Obviously if we do not discuss gameplay we can't come to a consensus on balance, but what many people do in these forums is not discuss, it's more akin to the whining that little children exhibit when they aren't getting their way.
Until the performance issues are fixed you can't judge 'balance', as you don't have the full playing experience available to you.
Amen, OK, Roger, absolutely, affirmative, affirmative attitude, affirmativeness, agreed, all right, alright, alrighty, as you say, assuredly, aye, be it so, by all means, certainly, da, done, exactly, fine, good, good enough, hear, indeed, indeedy, it is that, ja, just so, mais oui, most assuredly, naturally, naturellement, nod, nod of assent, of course, okay, oui, positively, precisely, quite, rather, really, right, right as rain, right you are, righto, so be it, so is it, so it is, sure, sure thing, surely, that is so, thumbs-up, to be sure, truly, very well, well and good, why yes, yea-saying, yea, yeah, yep, yes, yes indeed, yes indeedy, yes sir, yes sirree, you are right, you bet, you said it, you speak truly
source: <a href="http://freethesaurus.net/s.php?q=amen" target="_blank">http://freethesaurus.net/s.php?q=amen</a>
was that enough ? ;-)
Me playing as fade. lol.
Skulk/Marine rushing is balanced because both sides can to do it effectively.
I have something else to say:
<!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b>If we do NOT tell them what is imbalanced and what is causing lag/bugs then how the hell are they supposed to know how to make the game better?</b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
you are doing it wrong *facepalm*
mixing bugs and performance issues with balancing?
When I see the current implementation of these things and others, it simply looks placeholder. e.g. DI, flamethrower. Like they just wanted to get it in, in some state. But people assume that they are the final implementations, and judge 'balance' based on that. Like being able to spam marine start with (or not being able to spam at all), due to the current discrete-patch player-spread static infestation implementation. Or, the death ray flamethrower with massive area of effect that takes literally no skill to use, of which the damage has been prematurely nerfed because of this, instead of actually making the flamethrower a skilful, viable weapon.
I would actually prefer if they stopped putting in new features, and focused on refining current features - bringing the current features up to the intended state, from a coding perspective. It's the same time that's going to be spent fixing these later anyway, but if you shuffle the schedule so refining current features comes before adding new features, I imagine it would be twice as enjoyable for current players - ignoring performance.
Now, some make the argument that we should add more features and it will balance itself (e.g. "once the onos goes in...") - but if the features themselves are broken and incomplete then there's still going to be imbalances, and it's going to be even worse later when you fix these things and must re-balance.
And the idea that higher tier / more costly weapons/classes should be inherently significantly stronger than lower cost/tier weapons, is a bad one. That kind of mechanic isn't fun for the players on the ground. Make these higher tiers require more skill, and make them more effective if you have the skill, but lower tier classes should never be useless or obsolete.
On the other hand, the idea that higher tier "weapons" should be nothing but support gimmicks.... I mean, really? The idea that my only choice is between a rifle and a shotgun if I want to do damage to players, is somewhat offensive. In NS there were at least 4 weapons - equipment actually deserving of the label 'weapon'. LMG, SG, HMG, GL. That's not even a lot of variety, especially if you consider the GL as a more support role - but it's still much more variety than NS2. It doesn't appear that the HMG will make a return (sadly), and I was hoping the FT would take that position as the 3rd weapon, but it's been prematurely nerfed to some strange un-intuitive adrenaline-hindering support tool, when really the functionality just needed to be fixed (volumetric flames, anyone?).
Of course, that variety might simply appear through the exo with its specialised equipment, but that would necessarily require a lot of people on the team to go exo, rather than just a few - and you could facilitate this with lower cost and requirements. If this is the intended design, I worry for it, but I'll try to keep an open mind.
bleh. looks tl;dr. but too lazy to fix.
I don't this this will fix balances. Even if the Onos is balanced then weapons like the shotgun will still need to change triggering a chain re-action causing the Onos to then be changed.
If they start making the weapons (Including Kharaa) that we have right now and make them balanced then they won't have to change future features because they do not fit in with the current features.
<!--quoteo(post=1836287:date=Mar 7 2011, 09:27 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Mar 7 2011, 09:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1836287"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->On the other hand, the idea that higher tier "weapons" should be nothing but support gimmicks.... I mean, really? The idea that my only choice is between a rifle and a shotgun if I want to do damage to players, is somewhat offensive. In NS there were at least 4 weapons - equipment actually deserving of the label 'weapon'. LMG, SG, HMG, GL. That's not even a lot of variety, especially if you consider the GL as a more support role - but it's still much more variety than NS2. It doesn't appear that the HMG will make a return (sadly).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree with the Higer Tier weapons being support gimmicks because when the Onos comes out that will be the main finisher/base-destroyer and that will go against the idea of 'Higher Tier Weapons' being support ones.
I think they will still keep the HMG and implement it in NS2. I read some rumours that the H.E.X.O will be abled to wield Dual machine guns or something like that.
???
I don't know how I'm supposed to respond to that.
Either that or I'm misreading what you're saying because it's not very clear.
Edit: Nope, judging by your exo comment, clearly you've done some selective skim-reading. I don't blame you, it was very tl;'dr.
Let's go back. Recap. Here's what I'm saying:
1. Fix current things now - FIX features CODE-WISE, NOT just balance NUMBERS; add new features later, refine before adding new features, don't just lump them all together; you can balance numbers as you go easily. This confusion between current function and intended (final) function, leads to all these balance complaints. For example? Death-ray flamethrower. They prematurely nerfed it, then to balance the nerf, added some adrenaline-inhibiting gimmick.
2. Higher tier/cost weapons/classes <u>should not be</u> <b>significantly</b> stronger than lower tier/cost weapons - by extension, lower tier/cost weapons should never be worthless, useless or obsolete. Though this works from an RTS perspective, it isn't very fun from an FPS perspective. Case in point, the shotgun.
3. Following on from point 2, rock-paper-scissors mechanics in general, at least on the ground level (FPS perspective), should be discouraged. Failing that, the option to gtfo of there if you do see a rock to your scissors should always be there. However, this is not really fun for rock or scissors, so try to avoid this anyway.
4. CURRENTLY, using the flamethrower as an example, higher tier weapons are just some support gimmick. This is done to account for point 2. But, this is bad. I want variety. I want the flamethrower to be a viable, skilful weapon (failing the addition of another weapon like the HMG), and not merely some alien-gardening tool that prunes adrenaline in a shower of flame and clears away DI weeds.
5. Following on from point 4, this game needs more variety. The exo (with pick-any-two: minigun, claw and railgun) might provide that variety, but should necessarily have to be more frequent (lower cost, lower requirements) to be considered viable (from an add-variety perspective). This is not necessarily a bad thing. Choosable weapon upgrades(!) might provide that variety. Regardless, considering hte cost, the flamethrower should be a weapon at least as effective as the other two, rather than have some adren-drain gimmick.
But UWE are listening and they are making modifications on the fly, see flame throwers.
I don't think, I know.
Aliens had to be constantly nerfed because 90% players are marine *happy panda* but when the abilitys of kharaa were discovered it became apparent that the frontiersmen were heavily outgunned;
I beleive it is still the case in NS1, if you have an evenly matched team that know what they're doing..