Fairness vs Balance
locallyunscene
Feeder of Trolls Join Date: 2002-12-25 Member: 11528Members, Constellation
Feeder of Trolls Join Date: 2002-12-25 Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">Yes again</div>Read a pretty good article about <a href="http://www.strangehorizons.com/2009/20090309/newheiser-a.shtml" target="_blank">Fairness and Balance in Video Games</a>[strangehorizons.com] I think the author does a decent job of outlining the probelms of courting both casual and competitve players even though he has a slight bias against making games entirely skill based. Interestingly enough I saw this on <a href="http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/12/092221" target="_blank">slashdot</a> and Natural Selection was mentioned in the comments with a link to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Selection_(computer_game)" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a>.
I like how the article defines "fairness and balance" as being different for newbies, casual, and competitive players. Newbies want to always have a shot of winning, Competitive players want superior skill to be the ultimate decider, and Casual players want the most variety as possible so as not to be pigeon-holed into a single strat or tactic.
I like how the article defines "fairness and balance" as being different for newbies, casual, and competitive players. Newbies want to always have a shot of winning, Competitive players want superior skill to be the ultimate decider, and Casual players want the most variety as possible so as not to be pigeon-holed into a single strat or tactic.
Comments
more seriously, I think everyone should stop worrying about NS2 being competitive or dumbed down... with the modding capabilities the players that feel they need more added to the game can do so. lest we not forget... NS is a modification. Perhaps NS2 will not be so popular, but "NS2 Pro" or something someone creates will be the real money spinner for the game.
CS sold ALOT of copies of HL <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
more seriously, I think everyone should stop worrying about NS2 being competitive or dumbed down... with the modding capabilities the players that feel they need more added to the game can do so. lest we not forget... NS is a modification. Perhaps NS2 will not be so popular, but "NS2 Pro" or something someone creates will be the real money spinner for the game.
CS sold ALOT of copies of HL <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NS2 most likely isn't HL class game. NS2 can be popular, but I highly doubt it's going sell millions like HL did. Also keep in mind that the competetive scene is still based on the intake from public servers, so separating it to a mod isn't most likely going to work.
I highly doubt NS could've developed without the playerbase HL gave to it. It was interesting and good all the way from start I guess, but the game itself got somehow reasonable somewhere around 1.03 and some of the silly stuff wasn't dropped until 3.0. At least I'd be quite reclutant to buy HL just to play a mod that has lerk legs flying in the ceiling, magically instantly disappearing alien corpses, fades getting stuck while blinking, onoses being unable to navigate on most maps, laser mines crashing servers every other round and ect. Yet they could keep on developing because HL had created a huge potential playerbase that could easily get back to NS every time a new version was published. NS2 has to create that potential, then we can figure out the bigger mods.
Edit: Hmm, I can't say I'd really get the point of that article. A lot of yatta yatta, but quite little conclusions or actual analysis. I better take another read sometime when I'm less tired.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I like how the article defines "fairness and balance" as being different for newbies, casual, and competitive players. Newbies want to always have a shot of winning, Competitive players want superior skill to be the ultimate decider, and Casual players want the most variety as possible so as not to be pigeon-holed into a single strat or tactic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The division between the skill-variability-win and player classes seems kinda blunt. Of course people do look for different things and the needs can be generalized to some extend, but for example saying that competetive gaming is purely skill driven is exaggeration. A lot of people play it because it allows them to take another angle at understanding the game and allows them to avoid the flaws of public servers. I'd generalize it so that organised players look for less random gaming experience. The organised player then can further be divided into purely competetive (eg competetive leagues) and more or less casual organised play (gathers, mixteams and so on). Of course the 'less randomness, more interesting metagame' is still somewhat same for both.
Then the categories blur into each other as casual gamers try to knife the onos and they can turn into newbies... and Pros will sometimes play competitive public games or try to knife the onos feeling the newbie days again and sometimes actually succeed... ... ... and casual gamers will look for something more competitive and try some PUG/scrim/matches maybe...
I like how the article defines "fairness and balance" as being different for newbies, casual, and competitive players. Newbies want to always have a shot of winning, Competitive players want superior skill to be the ultimate decider, and Casual players want the most variety as possible so as not to be pigeon-holed into a single strat or tactic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah it seems like a fair article, as every one plays games for different purposes. The best way really that I can see for NS2 would be to balance skill socially, rather than using a hard stats system. Though using local server statistics might not be a bad idea.
I suggested a system that would give easy access to admins to provide reserve slots to those who would be deemed worthy on a community server. I also suggested listing a server as either open, casual, competitive or locked.
You see, there has been a raging debate that has been going on for years about which community is better, the competitive or casual. The truth is, both communities are "right" in their own sense. Both groups are entitled to play the way they choose. The problem occurs is when when you mix the mindsets and you get flack thrown on both sides.
This is why I suggest a label system. It is a "soft" way of basically segregating the communities so that players can play on the style of server he or she chooses.
If a player wanders on to a competitive server, he or she would know that the players generally on competitive servers "play to win" are more <i>result</i> oriented than casual players (speaking in generalities of course).
If a player wanders on to a casual server, he or she would know that the players generally on casual servers are more relaxed and <i>Process</i> oriented (i.e. regardless of win or loss, did everyone have a good time; again speaking in generalities).
Now of course, there would be no restrictions based on the player (i.e. he or she can join any server unless its locked and has no access to that server). The point is not to isolate and punish players, but to educate and reward them for the appropriate sytle of play on a particular server (i.e. Reserve Slot).
I feel that this would be a huge benefit for those who want to play around players that share a similar mindset that they do.
If playing on a ranked server, each player starts with rank 0 and only increased in rank when defeating teams of similar or higher skill (proportional to the difference) and dropped if he lost to weaker one. Basically, how often the team itself wins when you are on the team decides your rank, not how well you played. You are assumed to have contributed to that team well enough to help in that victory. It's hard to gauge the impact of a player since there are too many factors to consider, so this is the next best thing. Each match, teams are balanced according to player rank. This is not an exact system, but the simplest one to implement. A weak player might be given a boost by accidentally on a strong team, but over many games - his true ranking will surface. A rank goes from 0 to 20. So there is a ceiling and a floor to this, where 10 is average.
Casual is anybody can join and there are no artificial restrictions.
I basically don't trust people to decide by themselves if they casual or competitive. To illustrate my point, I will make a game called "Do not join" in Dawn of War 2 and more people will join it than if I had it called "3 vs 3 english".
Thanks!
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If playing on a ranked server, each player starts with rank 0 and only increased in rank when defeating teams of similar or higher skill (proportional to the difference) and dropped if he lost to weaker one. Basically, how often the team itself wins when you are on the team decides your rank, not how well you played. You are assumed to have contributed to that team well enough to help in that victory. It's hard to gauge the impact of a player since there are too many factors to consider, so this is the next best thing. Each match, teams are balanced according to player rank. This is not an exact system, but the simplest one to implement. A weak player might be given a boost by accidentally on a strong team, but over many games - his true ranking will surface. A rank goes from 0 to 20. So there is a ceiling and a floor to this, where 10 is average.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahhh I think basing it just won W:L Ratio is a bad idea, also you will probably get people that want to pad their stats. I don't think that system would reliable for the purposes of balance.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Casual is anybody can join and there are no artificial restrictions.
I basically don't trust people to decide by themselves if they casual or competitive. To illustrate my point, I will make a game called "Do not join" in Dawn of War 2 and more people will join it than if I had it called "3 vs 3 english".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well thats why there are open servers. Neverless I feel that players can accurately gauge the playstyle that suits them best. Notice I am not saying they rate themselves based on Skill. this would turn out to be a nightmare to implement. What I beleive is that NS appears to be on the surface a more community oriented game due to the strategy/tactical part of the game. The community forms several sub-communities within the game (i.e. Fr13ns, NSA etc....) these communities often gave out reserve slots to members (often times for donations) that followed the rules of the server. Almost of all of the subcommunities were casual communities. These sub communities would be able to label themselves as casual to let people know that the process is more important than the result, and if everyone has fun then it was a good game.
I think players in this community are more than capable of knowing what they want out out of their game experience. Now of course, I expect part of the status quo to remain (i.e. pub stompers) but an active admin team can take care of that. The point would be that potential community members can earn reserve slots and the devs can make it much easier for admins to add players to a reserve slot system. This is based on the fact that a lot of communities have rules that involve keeping the teams fair.
I like Servers, I like being able to play with a single community. That is something that I want to stay in Natural Selection 2 because it's my favorite part of PC games. I also like games with good matchmaking. I don't facing people who are vastly weaker or better than me. It's not fun for anyone involved. Ask someone how good they are and you would often get a vague answer. Two people's definition of calling themselves "good" could result in a very one-sided match if they go to head to head. I can't describe a perfect system for this, but there should be a way to categorize a person's ability in a number for the pure sake of increasing the chance of having a more even game. Not for ranking, just for ease of game selection. That's why I recommended a ranking ceiling and floor, so there is less incentive to cheat the system.
I think the point he was trying to make was that making sure both playstyles are balanced isn't really a priority because each will have their own play configs. Competitive servers will use CAL configs or something similar, and casual servers will have house rules and other mods.
I don't really agree because you run the potential of making large parts of the game unplayable for various "groups".
<!--quoteo(post=1702563:date=Mar 12 2009, 12:02 PM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bacillus @ Mar 12 2009, 12:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1702563"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Edit: Hmm, I can't say I'd really get the point of that article. A lot of yatta yatta, but quite little conclusions or actual analysis. I better take another read sometime when I'm less tired.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The author wasn't really positing a thesis, which is part of the reason I posted it. Seeing the viewpoint of a casual, newbie, or competitive player is a roadblock I see a lot of people run into on these forums. This stuff will seem basic for some, and make things a little more sensible for others, I hope.
<!--quoteo(post=1702563:date=Mar 12 2009, 12:02 PM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bacillus @ Mar 12 2009, 12:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1702563"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The division between the skill-variability-win and player classes seems kinda blunt. Of course people do look for different things and the needs can be generalized to some extend, but for example saying that competetive gaming is purely skill driven is exaggeration. A lot of people play it because it allows them to take another angle at understanding the game and allows them to avoid the flaws of public servers. I'd generalize it so that organised players look for less random gaming experience. The organised player then can further be divided into purely competetive (eg competetive leagues) and more or less casual organised play (gathers, mixteams and so on). Of course the 'less randomness, more interesting metagame' is still somewhat same for both.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that at this point you're breaking the main groups into subgroups. We could also talk about "beginner competitive" or "extreme casual", but I don't think the edge cases are where the focus should be. Not that these groups should be ignored, but their interests are often served best by maintaining a balance of competitive and casual play.
I've understood modding as some way more dramatic changes than any CAL configs or such do. Even the biggest changes in ENSL plugin do practically nothing to the gameplay itself, they just squish elements like stucking, flashlight spam and rate/fps abuses. As long as the game is competetively playable only by running a config or plugin like the present ENSL plugin it's definitely fine. Then again forcing the competetive community to heavily tweak gameplay mechanics such as movement physics, lifeform roles or res model isn't that acceptable anymore.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think that at this point you're breaking the main groups into subgroups. We could also talk about "beginner competitive" or "extreme casual", but I don't think the edge cases are where the focus should be. Not that these groups should be ignored, but their interests are often served best by maintaining a balance of competitive and casual play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm, you're right about the subgrouping. I guess the point I tried to make was that it's really difficult to categorise gamers into few groups. At least I feel much more comfortable breaking the game itself into pieces like 'skill', 'variability', 'teamwork', 'strategical depth', 'learning curve' and so on. Those can then be given more or less bias when designing a feature for certain groups. I guess it's still the same result from a little different approach though.
The problem is, how do you create a ranking system that measures skill effectively? Also, I understand that casual and competitive players are not black and white, which is why I seperated the groups based on process rather than skill.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I like Servers, I like being able to play with a single community. That is something that I want to stay in Natural Selection 2 because it's my favorite part of PC games. I also like games with good matchmaking. I don't facing people who are vastly weaker or better than me. It's not fun for anyone involved. Ask someone how good they are and you would often get a vague answer. Two people's definition of calling themselves "good" could result in a very one-sided match if they go to head to head. I can't describe a perfect system for this, but there should be a way to categorize a person's ability in a number for the pure sake of increasing the chance of having a more even game. Not for ranking, just for ease of game selection. That's why I recommended a ranking ceiling and floor, so there is less incentive to cheat the system.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, a matchmaking system would be vastly difficult to create because of the amount of external factors that are beyond a player's control when playing NS. For example, if I Fade at a "pro" level, but my team during a particular pub game for one reason or another does not drop resource towers. Now I am forced to skulk, which is fine for the early game, but when the shotguns and higher tech comes out, it becomes more of a burden. The game winds up ending and I never got to fade.
Should I be ranked lower because of that particular game? Because if I get a lower rank, next time I play NS2 I will probably be on a team with higher ranked players (Due to balancing). Now that team gets the advantage of a player with a low rank that is capable of performing at a high level with players that already perform at a high level.
That is just one of the many examples that why ranking, at least on a global perspective, is bad way to attempt balance for NS2.
For NS I'd say this is true, but for TF2 originally the CAL config was much more radical than the casual servers. The kritzkreig literally did not work at all because crits were turned off(This was due to limits of what could be modded, not "ALL CRITS BAD" yelling by some players). I haven't played much TF2 recently, but I'd heard that(I think since the pyro patch) crits chance is still set to off while weapons like the Kritzkrieg, axe-tinguisher, and backburner now work correctly. Also the limits on class selection were/are very strict. Interestingly wrt to that, I see a bit of a convergence on the casual servers where there are a lot of class limiter mods showing up.
In support of <b>killkrazy's</b> point TF2 shows that a competitive community will survive despite adversity as long as the game is fun and has enough players. However, it is also lambasted in the competitive community. Not only that, but NS2 will never be like TF2, just from what we know about the game already. The competitive community will not be cut out of the design process like TF2 so I agree that the changes of the CAL configs(or tournament mode if there is one) will most likely be minor in comparison to most things the casual community mods.
Hmm, I'm not too familiar with the TF2 competetive play. However, I feel that turning crits off is still relatively mild modification. The game still has the core gameplay unchanged. No class mechanics were changed although some combinations probably got a lot more viable and some bonus unlockables didn't function anymore. They weren't forced to add new classes or guns or necessarily even tweak the roles of the classes that much. I'm fine as long as NS2 doesn't need to be tweaked more than that for competetive.
As what I've understood TF2's metagame is relatively simple and it has the setup for competetive play by nature due to mirrored teams and maps. NS on the other hand is quite complex with its res system, lifeforms, tech, melee vs ranged, map layouts and such. The transition from public game to competetive game might be a little different than it was in TF2's case. Still, TF2 did prove was that the very public biased game can still create a competetive community if the public game is attractive enough.
The point I'm trying to make is that competetive play shouldn't be completely ignored. The vanilla game can be tuned towards the public play, but still the competetive community shouldn't be forced to create their own content and gameplay for the game. Scrapping a few unwanted features is far more simple job both for the players and modders than trying to add completely new features to get the game playable and interesting.
As what I've understood TF2's metagame is relatively simple and it has the setup for competitive play by nature due to mirrored teams and maps. NS on the other hand is quite complex with its res system, lifeforms, tech, melee vs ranged, map layouts and such. The transition from public game to competitive game might be a little different than it was in TF2's case. Still, TF2 did prove was that the very public biased game can still create a competitive community if the public game is attractive enough.
The point I'm trying to make is that competetive play shouldn't be completely ignored. The vanilla game can be tuned towards the public play, but still the competitive community shouldn't be forced to create their own content and gameplay for the game. Scrapping a few unwanted features is far more simple job both for the players and modders than trying to add completely new features to get the game playable and interesting.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe you should have quoted my whole post since the second paragraph says basically the same thing you just did <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Glad we're in agreement.
Glad we're in agreement.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Heh, so be it. I somehow got the idea you were in favor of focusing even more for the public and leaving the competetive on its own completely. English reading comprehension has never been my best skill.
For NS, there are obvious skill differences in players just like in TFC. A good player can go 50-0 in both NS and TFC if they decide to go against lesser skilled people and position themselves to survive. In both games there are 'resupplies' so that a good players can keep living for an indefinite period of time.
Because of this, in both TFC and NS, you saw 'pro' servers spring up [Phat farms and others for TFC, and even more varied naming schemes for pro servers in NS] so that the pros didn't get bored slaughtering noobies/get angry b/c their team can't seem to do anything (literally...they do nothing, I've seen it in both TFC and NS).
I think a mechanism to label a server as New, Amateur, Intermediate, Advanced, and Pro would be sufficient coupled with a "time played" number that could be visible if you clicked that player's name on the scoreboard. Time played does not directly result in skill, but I think that it'd eliminate noobs from being slaughtered without knowing that the dude there has played 100+hrs... External mods or checks could be introduced to servers so that no one under 250hrs gets into a pro server, and similar measures could be introduced for other classifications.
<!--quoteo(post=1702616:date=Mar 13 2009, 09:13 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Mar 13 2009, 09:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1702616"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Again, a matchmaking system would be vastly difficult to create because of the amount of external factors that are beyond a player's control when playing NS. For example, if I Fade at a "pro" level, but my team during a particular pub game for one reason or another does not drop resource towers. Now I am forced to skulk, which is fine for the early game, but when the shotguns and higher tech comes out, it becomes more of a burden. The game winds up ending and I never got to fade.
Should I be ranked lower because of that particular game? Because if I get a lower rank, next time I play NS2 I will probably be on a team with higher ranked players (Due to balancing). Now that team gets the advantage of a player with a low rank that is capable of performing at a high level with players that already perform at a high level.
That is just one of the many examples that why ranking, at least on a global perspective, is bad way to attempt balance for NS2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the outcome of a single game would in/decrease ur rank only slightly. So let's say u got a rank of 18.51 (pretty high, huh?) and u loose one game -> your rank goes to 18.03. Won't change the balance of the next game much. Yeah these numbers are made up, but i think u get my point. If u r a very good player, ur team will win more often and u'll slowly rise in rank - if u suck, ur team looses a lot and u stay at the lower end and the overall balance is allright. It's not perfect, but i think theres no better way.
Anyways I'm not sure, if i like autobalancing/-join, but if it gets implemented a simple win/loss ranking would be my prefered way
Using time played as a method to define one's skill status is a bad idea. While time played certainly factor's into one's experience, that experience does not equate to skill directly. If a player has 250 hours of non-chalont play developing bad habits and tactics he or she should logically get destroyed by someone who has 50 hours of play who developing tactics and skills that could be used competitively.
If any ranking system is used, it needs to be based on skill based activities, not simply just time played.
We did this thread already: <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=104138" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=104138</a>
Also, this article has a lot of problems in its (obviously casually-inspired) logic. For one thing, it's a misuse of the word unfair to say that competitive players would call a newbie winning without skill an unfair thing to happen. If there is no skill (which is the only way to guarantee a bad player a win against a good player) then competitive players will complain that there is no skill; obviously a total lack of skill is always fair. It's simply bad game design; just look at baseball or chess.
Also, starting with the premise that the three opinions are equal is absurd. It doesn't matter where you come from or who you are, believing that a game is good when "I can always win" is an immature opinion based on a belief system that has no idea how to construct a good game in the long run.
Last, simplifying the competitive mindset to "I will be guaranteed a win" is hyperbole. The real reason competitive players want this is because a good game will allow for skill; not because they have a selfish desire to dominate newbies (Makaveli exempted from this comment).
<b>The point is, none of these views address the fundamental design of a game; they are all romantically-inspired personal views of what makes a game fun, but they're apparent paradoxes to reconcile with one another because they are all being approached from a "me-first" attitude.</b>
The solution is to design a game that is fun and intuitive, while keeping high skill caps in the game so that good players have a reason to stick around, and newbies will be able to enjoy themselves for as many years as they want to remain clueless on how to play.
Game Design, like Interaction Design, is not about giving the user what they want. It's about giving them what is good for them so that they will enjoy the product over the long haul as well as tolerate its irritations in the short run as they are overshadowed by an enjoyable overall experience.
Also, this article has a lot of problems in its (obviously casually-inspired) logic. For one thing, it's a misuse of the word unfair to say that competitive players would call a newbie winning without skill an unfair thing to happen. If there is no skill (which is the only way to guarantee a bad player a win against a good player) then competitive players will complain that there is no skill; obviously a total lack of skill is always fair. It's simply bad game design; just look at baseball or chess.
Also, starting with the premise that the three opinions are equal is absurd. It doesn't matter where you come from or who you are, believing that a game is good when "I can always win" is an immature opinion based on a belief system that has no idea how to construct a good game in the long run.
Last, simplifying the competitive mindset to "I will be guaranteed a win" is hyperbole. The real reason competitive players want this is because a good game will allow for skill; not because they have a selfish desire to dominate newbies (Makaveli exempted from this comment).
<b>The point is, none of these views address the fundamental design of a game; they are all romantically-inspired personal views of what makes a game fun, but they're apparent paradoxes to reconcile with one another because they are all being approached from a "me-first" attitude.</b>
The solution is to design a game that is fun and intuitive, while keeping high skill caps in the game so that good players have a reason to stick around, and newbies will be able to enjoy themselves for as many years as they want to remain clueless on how to play.
Game Design, like Interaction Design, is not about giving the user what they want. It's about giving them what is good for them so that they will enjoy the product over the long haul as well as tolerate its irritations in the short run as they are overshadowed by an enjoyable overall experience.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty solid post, though I think the creator of the article mentioned was just trying to gather all of the viewpoints from all sides. Granted, he misused the word "unfair" a few times, but overall it was a decent article.
I will only agree with stats if they are stored on the local server, not some grandmaster scheme (though we discussed that) I am also interested in discussing some tweaks with that system that you mentioned (however, this thread is not appropriate for that discussion and this time).
Bottom line though, people play games for different reasons. If a game is created that will meet the needs of the majority of players, then it will develop a nice player base have a long lifespan.
In support of <b>killkrazy's</b> point TF2 shows that a competitive community will survive despite adversity as long as the game is fun and has enough players. However, it is also lambasted in the competitive community. Not only that, but NS2 will never be like TF2, just from what we know about the game already. The competitive community will not be cut out of the design process like TF2 so I agree that the changes of the CAL configs(or tournament mode if there is one) will most likely be minor in comparison to most things the casual community mods.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just to clarify, when crits are turned off the "special" crits still work, such as backstab crit, sniper hs crit, blitz (possibly backburner and fireaxe)
That's really the point of the article. If you design a game for a narrow subset of players, that's all you'll get.
<!--quoteo(post=1702776:date=Mar 16 2009, 03:39 AM:name=steppin'razor)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(steppin'razor @ Mar 16 2009, 03:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1702776"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just to clarify, when crits are turned off the "special" crits still work, such as backstab crit, sniper hs crit, blitz (possibly backburner and fireaxe)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's what I said, those "special crit" weapons work now, but originally they didn't.
That's true, but not what we're talking about...
Also, while we may not know what we want in our game during its development, we are very good at being pretentious and making the devs' lives a living hell for nitpicking every little design flaw and thing that doesn't meet our expectations in the presented product.
=]
Go team stupid.
I thought they always did, well at least sniper and back stab right?
I don't remember, I remember it being a problem with the Kritzkreig. I don't know if headshot and back stab are the same as "normal" crits either.
<!--quoteo(post=1702862:date=Mar 17 2009, 09:52 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Mar 17 2009, 09:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1702862"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's really the point of the article. If you design a game for a narrow subset of players, that's all you'll get.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1702913:date=Mar 17 2009, 03:15 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Mar 17 2009, 03:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1702913"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's true, but not what we're talking about...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you design a game for what a wide berth of players think they want they will disburse quickly because of the shortsighted nature of their design proclivities. You should design for competitive players while keeping intuition as a primary focus of the game, that way you will have a longlived game that is easy to get into.
What the quoted text above implies to me is that you should design for what the masses think they want. That's silly, because the majority of players have no concept of how to effectively <i>play</i> Natural-Selection, let alone how to design a sequel. This holds true for other games with any semblance of depth as well.
You could just as easily rewrite that: "If you design a game for what a narrow group of players think they want they will disburse quickly because of the shortsighted nature of their design proclivities. You should design for casual players while keeping depth as a primary focus of the game, that way you will have a longlived game that is easy to get into."
In reality neither is accurate and both are too general to mean anything.
<!--quoteo(post=1702962:date=Mar 18 2009, 01:55 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Mar 18 2009, 01:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1702962"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What the quoted text above implies to me is that you should design for what the masses think they want.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well disabuse yourself of that notion, it's a trap statement anyway. If you're a gamer making a suggestion on this forum then you fall into that broad category of "not a developer". You can say everything discussed on this forum is invalidated because it's "what gamers want, not what the devs are making", but then why post at all? It's self-defeating.
If you take that axiom and apply it to specific ideas that are ill-fitted for the game(with specific reasoning to back it up) then it's valid. The meat of the logic is why it's an ill-fit anyway.
In this case we're not looking at what the masses want, but what everyone doesn't want, which is to feel cheated by game mechanics or that the game is "unbalanced". We're also looking at what that means for several broad categories of players. To rephrase what I said earlier: "New players don't want to fight impossible fights, Competitive players don't want randomness or steal a "win", and Casual players don't want to be pigeon-holed into a single strat or tactic." (Maybe if I had stated it this way earlier there would be less confusion)
On the face of it, it seems that the Newbie and Competitive perspective are at odds. How can you give a losing player a "fair chance" to win if the game is based on skill?(which I agree it should be) The general consensus has been to softly segregate the three communities with matchmaking/ranking/server types. However, what could fail in this implementation is if the game is "broken" according to one of these view points. With segregation, the newbie should usually have a "fair fight" because he's against other newbies.
The real problem comes from the competitive and casual communities where a strat could be "broken" in one but not in the other. Let's say there's an fairly easy to use technique that can be countered effectively by good bhop, but not by anything else. I'd contend the game is still broken, even if it is not at the highest levels of play. (I think that's why Blizzard nerfed the 6 pool btw)
Nah they definitely aren't, remember listening to the valve devs discussing that they were different.