While I think the subject is interesting, why does it need to be discussed in 5 different threads.
And I agree, there're only few competitive players posting on these forums, although very vocal.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To date I have yet to see a thread on a gaming forum where a self-proclaimed "pro" will not eventually step in and nag about their superiority, or some other bee in their bonnet, whatever... Including this very thread. It doesn't matter how mannered or well-behaved the rest of competitive community is - which I have great doubts it is, partly for aforementioned reasons - this will happen regardless.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Were there some insults here? Sure I think some competitive players more or less straight and radical in what they say. But think about if hockey rules, goal or whatever would be substantially changed and Wayne Gretzky said "this is BS", and NHL would interview some random guy playing hockey as a hobby, and decided to do follow this guy's advice. If you were Wayne Gretzky or some other high-class hockey player, wouldn't you be a bit annoyed? This is obviously an exaggerated analogy but you get the idea.
Ultimately the difference is that some guys want to have fun and others want the game have huge amounts of depth. Think about tennis or golf. They're hard to learn (much harder than NS fyi.), but fun to play after you get around it. But if you would design the whole sports again (ofc the problem you cannot change real world physics to make it easier), some sunday golfers would want to make it easier at the expense of depth and vice versa.
While I think the difference between the two philosophical gaming types, like casual and competitive is very deep indeed (almost justifying different game modes), I think most problems stem from <b>unbalanced</b> teams. There're lots of ways to address this. Just look at Starcraft II. It has lots of competitive depth and still fun for casual.
And I think competitive players are more worried about features' depth than balance, altho nobody wants another 1.04.
The problem with competitive mod is (not the development, I and some others are ready to do one) but how much of a negative impact it'd have on size of the competitive scene. Starcraft, TF2, SSBM etc. never needed such (what I know anyway). The main reason NS1 competitive players are waiting for NS2 is that'd bring back lots of players.
<!--quoteo(post=1760534:date=Mar 22 2010, 02:01 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Mar 22 2010, 02:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760534"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The few competitive players left on these forums that are worth anything don't invade every thread and I can, off the top of my head, name only two people who fit the description you're providing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly. Hence, "Vocal minority". <!--coloro:#696969--><span style="color:#696969"><!--/coloro-->I can name eight.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--quoteo(post=1760534:date=Mar 22 2010, 02:01 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Mar 22 2010, 02:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760534"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What? This discussion has been nothing but civil and not a single person has tried to nag someone or claim they're better than someone. Provide quotes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm afraid I'll have to pass up this chance to start a flamewar.
<!--quoteo(post=1760538:date=Mar 22 2010, 02:24 AM:name=Crispy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Crispy @ Mar 22 2010, 02:24 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760538"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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--> +1 to everything you said, but the "balanced for competition" is a bit of a misnomer, and not exactly fair: a game should be balanced in general, it's something both competitive and casual players are concerned with. As you said, exploits or tactics don't segregate between pubs or scrims.
<b>D-D-D-D-DOUBLE POST</b> <!--quoteo(post=1760543:date=Mar 22 2010, 02:45 AM:name=Jiriki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jiriki @ Mar 22 2010, 02:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760543"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you were Wayne Gretzky or some other high-class hockey player, wouldn't you be a bit annoyed?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, I wouldn't be. But I'm a special case because I know that knowing how to play a game and knowing how to make a game are different things. <!--coloro:#696969--><span style="color:#696969"><!--/coloro-->Also nice Freudian slip.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
I think we've all been through the comp/pub debate before. What I'm trying to get at are ridiculous misconceptions arising from that distinction: everyone wants a fun and balanced game that won't go stale, regardless of how they play it.
<!--quoteo(post=1760543:date=Mar 22 2010, 02:45 AM:name=Jiriki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jiriki @ Mar 22 2010, 02:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760543"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem with competitive mod is (not the development, I and some others are ready to do one) but how much of a negative impact it'd have on size of the competitive scene.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Competitive mod for NS2 will happen less because it's a necessity and more because it's a possibility. Imho.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->which is more dependant on the players in the game than the mechanics<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know I bring it up a lot but I hope there's a way for admins to self label their servers with a set of predetermined tags which would allow players to filter servers out by those tags. I think it would go a long way for matchmaking.
<!--quoteo(post=1760544:date=Mar 21 2010, 07:47 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 21 2010, 07:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760544"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm afraid I'll have to pass up this chance to start a flamewar.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cop-out.
The words you used were so specific and clearly none of the behavior you described has taken place in this thread. If you didn't speak english so well I would have assumed you were using the incorrect words.
<!--quoteo(post=1760518:date=Mar 22 2010, 07:59 AM:name=marks)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (marks @ Mar 22 2010, 07:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760518"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A healthy competetive scene, is beneficial for everybody.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would dispute that. NS1 had a healthy competitive scene, and look at it now. You might say "But it's 8 years old, you can't expect it to still be going strong now!". Starcraft is still going strong. Counter-strike, a mod from the same era, is still going very strong, with it's only change being some updated graphics. Diablo II is still going strong.
The problem is that the comp players end up forcing the developers to change the game further and further so that it can be balanced <i>for them</i>. Balanced for comp doesn't always mean balanced for casuals.
Take NS1 nowadays. You need a good Fade player on the alien side to have a reasonable chance at victory, and that player has to get that Fade out quickly. You need a good Commander on the Marine side for a reasonable chance at victory too. This is all well and good when it's a comp team playing against a comp team, but when said pro Fade player joins a public game full of noobs, he dominates the whole team. Or when a good Marine side plays against an alien side without a good Fade, they steamroll them.
This, ultimately, is what killed NS1. It's not the graphics; aside from the fact NS1's graphics have held up surprisingly well over time, gamers have always shown that if the gameplay is good enough, graphics don't matter too much (Quake, Starcraft, Diablo). It's the fact that NS1 these days is balanced for comp players, and if you're not one of those players, tough luck. Back in the days of 1.04, even <i>I</i> managed to com and win games, and my experience with commanding was, and still is, 2 games. The Alien side wasn't crippled without a good Fade; Fades were more ranged attackers with Acid Rocket and you couldn't single-handedly take out an infinite number of LA marines. Games were usually long and most importantly, FUN.
You cant do that these days. The game is so balanced around comp play that new players stand no chance whatsoever. They can't learn to become good commanders because no-one lets them comm, and even if they did, they'd just lose over and over again. They can't learn how to become excellent Fades because they'll just die to Marines over and over again without ever getting the required resources. When NS2 was announced, I started playing NS1 again and brought a whole swag of my Steam friends list with me. As soon as I told them the concept they were beyond keen to try it. The best of them lasted a week. When I asked them about it, one summed it up perfectly: "When I'm a Marine, I feel like I can't kill anything. When I'm an Alien, I feel like I can't kill anything either". These are not unskilled players, nor are they young. Most of them are around the same age as me (28) and have many years experience playing both FPS and RTS games.
The ultimate result of the changes that comp players pushed for was to produce a game that was even more inaccessible for the new player, and even more biased in favour of comp players being able to destroy new players. The cycle feeds off itself until only the comp players are left, when they suddenly discover that there's virtually no-one left to play against. If there were enough newbie players around to form servers with just newbie players on them, and comp players agreed to stay off them, it might just work, except it doesn't. Comp players did and still will happily join servers full of new players and delight in slaughtering the lot of them, as well as pouring scorn on them for failing to understand tactics and gameplay mechanics that they've had 8 years to perfect.
"To date I have yet to see a thread on a gaming forum where a self-proclaimed "pro" will not eventually step in and nag about their superiority, or some other bee in their bonnet, whatever... Including this very thread."
You say that you have yet to see a thread, on any gaming forum, where a self proclaimed pro does not step in and say how awesome they are. Normally, I would take this for the clear exaggeration it is however you go on to say you see it in the current thread. When I ask you to back up why you're throwing around accusations of someone trying to be a jerk you tell me to grow up.
When you make a ridiculous statement you should back it up.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would dispute that. NS1 had a healthy competitive scene, and look at it now. You might say "But it's 8 years old, you can't expect it to still be going strong now!". Starcraft is still going strong. Counter-strike, a mod from the same era, is still going very strong, with it's only change being some updated graphics. Diablo II is still going strong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're nitpicking a handful of literally industry changing games and saying since NS1 didn't live up to them the competitive scene didn't expand NS1's life or contribute to NS1 being a better game. I mean, look counter argument you gave. Games that are 8 years old do not 'go strong.' They die. The handful of games that defined the genre live on. Not every game can be like that.
<!--quoteo(post=1760551:date=Mar 22 2010, 03:14 AM:name=Ryo-Ohki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ryo-Ohki @ Mar 22 2010, 03:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760551"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> A painful lot of good games die this way. Competitive players, in the end, are just as clueless about what makes a good as are the rest of us. It's why we have developers.
So ultimately youre saying that a pub team with a highly skilled player, will steamroll another pub team ... and that this is the fault of the game design? Surely its just common sense that better players WILL BEAT worse players?
I do agree with your points about the skill-gap being inordinately large, but this is for the most part because the game just ended up that way, changes were made with the short-term in mind and without an adequate roadmap for where the core gameplay should end up. This is precisely the kind of fundamental flaw in the game which I want to not happen in NS2.
In fact, I'm pretty sure it was brought up before on the ENSL forums that too much of the game relies on having strong fades in NS1 (in response to a "what do we want from NS2/what do we think was wrong with NS1" thread).
<!--quoteo(post=1760554:date=Mar 22 2010, 12:36 AM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 22 2010, 12:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760554"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A painful lot of games die this way. Competitive players, in the end, are just as clueless about what makes a good as are the rest of us. It's why we have developers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats quite a painfully inaccurate picture to paint. I would contend that competetive players have a better grasp of what makes the gameplay mechanics of NS1 good, than probably most of the current and past developers do.
<!--quoteo(post=1760555:date=Mar 22 2010, 03:37 AM:name=marks)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (marks @ Mar 22 2010, 03:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760555"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So ultimately youre saying that a pub team with a highly skilled player, will steamroll another pub team ... and that this is the fault of the game design? Surely its just common sense that better players WILL BEAT worse players?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Beat, yes. Steamroll, no.
<b>Derp, one more post.</b> <!--quoteo(post=1760555:date=Mar 22 2010, 03:37 AM:name=marks)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (marks @ Mar 22 2010, 03:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760555"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thats quite a painfully inaccurate picture to paint. I would contend that competetive players have a better grasp of what makes the gameplay mechanics of NS1 good, than probably most of the current and past developers do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is the very basic elitism that leads to think of competitive players as snobs. Grats.
No, knowing how to play a game does not make you an expert on making it. This applies to both pub and comp scenes.
<!--quoteo(post=1760557:date=Mar 21 2010, 08:45 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 21 2010, 08:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760557"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>Derp, one more post.</b>
This is the very basic elitism that leads to think of competitive players as snobs. Grats.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Making fun of mentally challenged people and name calling?
Grow up.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, knowing how to play a game does not make you an expert on making it. This applies to both pub and comp scenes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are unbelievable. It's like you didn't even read what he said.
a_civilianLikes seeing numbersJoin Date: 2003-01-08Member: 12041Members, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead
<!--quoteo(post=1760544:date=Mar 21 2010, 07:47 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 21 2010, 07:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760544"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm afraid I'll have to pass up this chance to start a flamewar.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--quoteo(post=1760550:date=Mar 21 2010, 08:02 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 21 2010, 08:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760550"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Grow up.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> But I guess you won't pass up that one.
I think this meta-discussion is useless (and turning into even more meaningless flamewar), until we have something of substance (like new feature, alpha release or whatever) to talk about.
Mr. EpicJoin Date: 2003-08-01Member: 18660Members, Constellation
edited March 2010
<!--quoteo(post=1760542:date=Mar 21 2010, 07:42 PM:name=marks)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (marks @ Mar 21 2010, 07:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760542"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Dumbed down" is a ridiculous blanket statement. Define what you mean.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Dumb down refers to mechanics like the hive system, like upgrade paths, like potential strategies, like having economy, etc... I don't think they will make that significantly less complicated, with the exception of the known no-longer-random starting hive.
Now I have a question for you: do you see what I'm trying to say now? WHAT exactly is it that "competitive" players are asking for or hoping to keep? Are they hoping to keep mechanics, or are they hoping to keep the unintended "Features"/exploits?
I agree that the conversation here is devolving but its only because there is little definition of what people are arguing over. Define exactly what the problem is and people can have a real discussion over what people say rather than how they say it.
<!--quoteo(post=1760555:date=Mar 22 2010, 10:37 AM:name=marks)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (marks @ Mar 22 2010, 10:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760555"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So ultimately youre saying that a pub team with a highly skilled player, will steamroll another pub team ... and that this is the fault of the game design? Surely its just common sense that better players WILL BEAT worse players?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not at all. A skilled team will generally beat an unskilled team of course, but what I'm saying is that with NS being the way it is currently, it is designed around the skilled players, and only the skilled players. Release NS had skilled and unskilled players, but they didn't define the entire game. Current NS is based around having at least 1 highly skilled player on both sides; the Fade and the Commander. Without these elements, 95% of the time you're going to lose. That simply wasn't the case with NS originally; a team with a couple of skilled players had an advantage, but nothing like what NS today provides. Res For Kills is the perfect example of the philosophy I'm talking about here; a skilled player, who is already inherently at an advantage, is given more and more advantages the better they do.
NS1, as it is now, is specifically designed to allow balanced matches between two highly skilled teams. Effectively, this means it is set up to allow one side to steamroll the other as soon as the skill balance changes.
Ultimately a game shouldn't be designed specifically around this format. If players want to play competitively, it's up to them to modify the game accordingly. Look at Starcraft, the most competitive game in the industry and widely considered to be one of the most balanced. But only when played 1v1, on specially designed maps, over a LAN connection. Take any one of those parameters out and the balance vanishes. TF2, a popular game, has a thriving competitive community, but Valve do not balance the game around that. The players defined what was the right format for competitive TF2 (6v6, class limits, certain weapons being banned, specific maps only) and happily went about their business. Meanwhile the rest of the game's community happily played the game they liked.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're nitpicking a handful of literally industry changing games and saying since NS1 didn't live up to them the competitive scene didn't expand NS1's life or contribute to NS1 being a better game. I mean, look counter argument you gave. Games that are 8 years old do not 'go strong.' They die. The handful of games that defined the genre live on. Not every game can be like that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yet NS died long before it's time. When I stopped playing back in 2004, it was already hard to find servers. And why wouldn't NS still be going strong when it offers such unique gameplay? What other games offer a blend of FPS and RTS action like NS does? NS still has great appeal even today. Whenever I mention it to people who've never heard of it, they always say it sounds awesome, and want to try it. Old games usually die because they get sequels, or because they were flawed. NS most certainly falls into the second category, at least by the end.
<!--quoteo(post=1760563:date=Mar 22 2010, 01:46 AM:name=CyberMantis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CyberMantis @ Mar 22 2010, 01:46 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760563"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Now I have a question for you: do you see what I'm trying to say now? WHAT exactly is it that "competitive" players are asking for or hoping to keep? Are they hoping to keep mechanics, or are they hoping to keep the unintended "Features"/exploits?
I agree that the conversation here is devolving but its only because there is little definition of what people are arguing over. Define exactly what the problem is and people can have a real discussion over what people say rather than how they say it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Okay yeah, I think I see what you're getting at now. The things which competetive players (I dont want to speak for every comp player, but I feel like I speak for a lot of them) are scared of losing are not the 'exploits' and micro-skills (wiggle walking, bhop etc) which were unique to the GldSrc engine. Bhop might be arguable, but at the end of the day its another debate entirely and even if it does get completely removed with no replacement - people will deal with it.
What I'm talking about when I said that it will be a problem if the competetive community needs to create a 'promod' for NS2 if the gameplay needs to be substantially changed in order for the game to be competetively viable - is things like the core gameplay mechanics, the basic (shallow part of the) metagame and individual gameplay features. 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.
I think the main concern is that we dont want a game which is competetively broken on release in the same way that 1.04 and to a lesser degree 2.1 were. The amount of backtracked decisions we've heard about (the taser, as an example) really does not instill confidence. If NS2 needs to change as much as NS1 did from 1.04 to 3.5 or whatever version we're on now, we're in real trouble. Retail games do not change substantially post-release. Its just something that doesnt happen. If the competetive community needs to change NS2 substantially in order for it to be suitable for competetive play, its going to foster an "us and them" divide between comp and pub players which hurts everybody.
I'm sorry if that isnt very coherent, its 2.30am here.
<!--quoteo(post=1760564:date=Mar 22 2010, 02:19 AM:name=Ryo-Ohki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ryo-Ohki @ Mar 22 2010, 02:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760564"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Not at all. A skilled team will generally beat an unskilled team of course, but what I'm saying is that with NS being the way it is currently, it is designed around the skilled players, and only the skilled players. Release NS had skilled and unskilled players, but they didn't define the entire game. Current NS is based around having at least 1 highly skilled player on both sides; the Fade and the Commander. Without these elements, 95% of the time you're going to lose. That simply wasn't the case with NS originally; a team with a couple of skilled players had an advantage, but nothing like what NS today provides. Res For Kills is the perfect example of the philosophy I'm talking about here; a skilled player, who is already inherently at an advantage, is given more and more advantages the better they do.
NS1, as it is now, is specifically designed to allow balanced matches between two highly skilled teams. Effectively, this means it is set up to allow one side to steamroll the other as soon as the skill balance changes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did my previous post not register in your brain? I agree with you in part.
<!--quoteo(post=1760555:date=Mar 22 2010, 12:37 AM:name=marks)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (marks @ Mar 22 2010, 12:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760555"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I do agree with your points about the skill-gap being inordinately large, but this is for the most part because the game just ended up that way, changes were made with the short-term in mind and without an adequate roadmap for where the core gameplay should end up. <b>This is precisely the kind of fundamental flaw in the game which I want to not happen in NS2. </b>
In fact, I'm pretty sure it was brought up before on the ENSL forums that too much of the game relies on having strong fades in NS1 (in response to a "what do we want from NS2/what do we think was wrong with NS1" thread).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1760564:date=Mar 22 2010, 02:19 AM:name=Ryo-Ohki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ryo-Ohki @ Mar 22 2010, 02:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760564"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ultimately a game shouldn't be designed specifically around this format. If players want to play competitively, it's up to them to modify the game accordingly. Look at Starcraft, the most competitive game in the industry and widely considered to be one of the most balanced.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Starcraft was balanced by Blizzard, the original developers, through around 8+ years of balance patches and one expansion. This was in part, directly due to issues exposed by competetive players. Nice contradiction. Oh and during the development of Starcraft2, Blizzard actually hired S.Korean professional SC players to help them balance it. And anyway, Starcraft is not anywhere near the "most competetive" game in any industry. It has a hugely skilled and dedicated following in South Korea and is pretty much not played anywhere else anymore. In Starcraft, the term "Foreigner" refers to any Starcraft player not from South Korea...
<!--quoteo(post=1760564:date=Mar 22 2010, 02:19 AM:name=Ryo-Ohki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ryo-Ohki @ Mar 22 2010, 02:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760564"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But only when played 1v1, on specially designed maps, over a LAN connection. Take any one of those parameters out and the balance vanishes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Entirely wrong. SC is just as balanced on ICCup (online) and I'm fairly sure that Lost Temple (probably the most popular SC map ever) was included in Broodwar retail. SC is also played in 2v2 format in various Korean tournaments. The only reason its played most as a 1v1 game is that <u>all rts games are most popularly played as 1v1</u>. I am aware there are holes in my argument here (muta stacking online, things like that) but frankly its pretty just pedantic to take the debate in that direction because it doesnt undermine my point in the slightest.
<!--quoteo(post=1760564:date=Mar 22 2010, 02:19 AM:name=Ryo-Ohki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ryo-Ohki @ Mar 22 2010, 02:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760564"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->TF2, a popular game, has a thriving competitive community, but Valve do not balance the game around that. The players defined what was the right format for competitive TF2 (6v6, class limits, certain weapons being banned, specific maps only) and happily went about their business. Meanwhile the rest of the game's community happily played the game they liked.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I heard chess was pretty balanced also. Its kinda hard to unbalance a symmetrical game.
<!--quoteo(post=1760557:date=Mar 22 2010, 12:45 AM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 22 2010, 12:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760557"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is the very basic elitism that leads to think of competitive players as snobs. Grats.
No, knowing how to play a game does not make you an expert on making it. This applies to both pub and comp scenes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm a competetive player. I'm also a game developer by trade. In my personal and professional experience, it helps a lot.
Mr. EpicJoin Date: 2003-08-01Member: 18660Members, Constellation
Thanks for the reply, as I see it EVERYBODY wants the same thing and the concern is that if the game is unbalanced in its release form you guys are afraid the devs won't address the issues and then someone will try to make the fixes and then the community will be split and then the universe will explode... :D
I think, at this point, the concerns are valid but unfounded. NS2 is pre-alpha, pre-test, and all of the evidence points to UW being both willing to and able to make modifications to their releases. I think they "get it" and I think at the same time if they didn't make an effort to make this a balanced and deep game they would "get it" from their purchasers. They aren't EA, they can't just make a ###### sequel to a successful franchise and guarantee success through advertisement. They had to work to get to where they are now and I don't see them turning their back on that process or that goal.
If people have concerns they need to clearly articulate them and not become hysterical with hypothetical slippery slope arguments.
<!--quoteo(post=1760567:date=Mar 22 2010, 03:13 AM:name=CyberMantis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CyberMantis @ Mar 22 2010, 03:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760567"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thanks for the reply, as I see it EVERYBODY wants the same thing and the concern is that if the game is unbalanced in its release form you guys are afraid the devs won't address the issues and then someone will try to make the fixes and then the community will be split and then the universe will explode... :D<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Basically yeah. The concern isnt that UWE wont make the necessary fixes though, its that the fixes will take long enough that huge amounts of players will be turned away from the game. How long did it take to get 1.04 into the first truly balanced state in 3.0b4? A long time. If they dont, we're left with the situation you described.
<!--quoteo(post=1760567:date=Mar 22 2010, 03:13 AM:name=CyberMantis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CyberMantis @ Mar 22 2010, 03:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760567"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think, at this point, the concerns are valid but unfounded. NS2 is pre-alpha, pre-test, and all of the evidence points to UW being both willing to and able to make modifications to their releases. I think they "get it" and I think at the same time if they didn't make an effort to make this a balanced and deep game they would "get it" from their purchasers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Given the track record, and other sources of info which I'm not willing to disclose (which totally makes this a shaky point and I understand that), I'm fairly sure theres a decent foundation to the concern. Not enough to be crying "the sky is falling", but enough to raise concern.
I remember playing NS when it first came out. A friend told me about it. I said to my self "it must be like an MMORPG, people running around, doing nothing, with bad models and crappy graphics." Turned out, I got hooked. A half hour turned into an hour, hour turned into a night, so on. Learning how to play was pretty fun ( with out people screaming at you about where certain buildings went. ) Tried to commander mode, not for me. I guess I don't have the leadership thing in me :D
I specifically remember having a marathon for eight hours straight! I believe it was on NS_Hera, still not too sure. Wound up on the Marines, we practically were surrounded, having nothing but one RT left. The team and my self practically ran a train on every RT on the map, at least 30 seconds to a minute away from a hive in every direction. We wound up getting a Heavy Train going with HMG and a few other perks.
2 hours into the game, we were cornered yet again with the uprising of the 3rd hive. We took it down, and grabbed the area before the Kharaa could take it again. They started to attack the main base, where we set out to make another base near the closest RT, and electrify it. ( When that function first came to be. ) We wound up having to train back to the new base, build it, and escort the Commander from harms way... Took us a good 1/2 hour to do it too!
We geared up again, this time with grenade launchers, HMG's, and mines. We set mines ALL OVER the place, ran a train on both of the hives at the same time from 2 minutes apart, and won the game around 3am...
^---- That's Natural Selection for you. Not a 15-20 minute game. It should be based on how WELL we play the game, and not how long it should be preset to. I for one disagree with the preset times of 15-20 minutes for a game. Quite ridiculous if you ask me. Oh well... We'll see how it goes :]
<!--quoteo(post=1760565:date=Mar 22 2010, 12:34 PM:name=marks)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (marks @ Mar 22 2010, 12:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760565"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Entirely wrong. SC is just as balanced on ICCup (online) and I'm fairly sure that Lost Temple (probably the most popular SC map ever) was included in Broodwar retail. SC is also played in 2v2 format in various Korean tournaments. The only reason its played most as a 1v1 game is that <u>all rts games are most popularly played as 1v1</u>. I am aware there are holes in my argument here (muta stacking online, things like that) but frankly its pretty just pedantic to take the debate in that direction because it doesnt undermine my point in the slightest.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lost Temple is NOT played in the professional leagues any more. The cliffs next to bases make it blatantly unbalanced. The Korean leagues spend a lot of time producing specifically balanced maps, because most of the ones Blizzard shipped with even Brood War aren't balanced for all races and matchups. 2v2's and even 3v3s with major players draw big crowds in Korea, but they're only played as fun or showmanship matches, because they understand that it's not balanced for those kind of numbers. My point with this was simply that even games which are considered extremely balanced still require the players to change the game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I heard chess was pretty balanced also. Its kinda hard to unbalance a symmetrical game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually Chess isn't balanced; white wins a majority of matches. With regards to TF2, both sides might be the same but without the class limits and map selections, you'd just end up with 3 Demos 3 Medics on each team in a constant stalemate. The class limits and map selection allows for more exciting and balanced gameplay at the competitive level.
You still haven't managed to convince me as to why a game should exclusively balance itself according to the whims of the competitive community, especially when they themselves inevitably alter the game to suit themselves. Why not balance it according to the way the majority of the community plays it and leave the competitive players to sort out what changes they need to make on their own servers to make the game suit their desires?
<!--quoteo(post=1760571:date=Mar 22 2010, 04:15 AM:name=Ryo-Ohki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ryo-Ohki @ Mar 22 2010, 04:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760571"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You still haven't managed to convince me as to why a game should exclusively balance itself according to the whims of the competitive community<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didnt expect to, and I'm not going to try to. Its pretty evident from your attitude that you wont take an open-minded stance on the debate and frankly if you havent been swayed by the arguments presented thus far, theres little point chasing it further. The fact that you either havent read, or havent comprehended my previous posts just compounds the issue.
<!--quoteo(post=1760572:date=Mar 22 2010, 02:27 PM:name=marks)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (marks @ Mar 22 2010, 02:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760572"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I didnt expect to, and I'm not going to try to. Its pretty evident from your attitude that you wont take an open-minded stance on the debate and frankly if you havent been swayed by the arguments presented thus far, theres little point chasing it further. The fact that you either havent read, or havent comprehended my previous posts just compounds the issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not my fault you haven't raised any points that I've found persuasive. I suppose it's my fault that I haven't managed to do persuade you. Regardless, let's leave it here.
<!--quoteo(post=1760528:date=Mar 21 2010, 11:23 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 21 2010, 11:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760528"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To date I have yet to see a thread on a gaming forum where a self-proclaimed "pro" will not eventually step in and nag about their superiority, or some other bee in their bonnet, whatever... Including this very thread. It doesn't matter how mannered or well-behaved the rest of competitive community is - which I have great doubts it is, partly for aforementioned reasons - this will happen regardless.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh well, one more response...
The beauty of Internet there. Everybody gets their share of the bad stuff in it.
There isn't a single thread where I wouldn't have to correct completely false assumptions, trolling and ignorant opinions directed at competetive play. Things like bunnyhop get totally ignored because people only see the negative sides and keep repeating them without discussing or trying to understand the positive effects. It's not particularly easy to discuss about changes that benefit everyone, while half of the community denies the existence of the features that you enjoy in NS.
At least I want to make this game functional both on public games and on competetive play. It's just not that easy to discuss that until people decide to step outside their own viewpoint for a moment.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You still haven't managed to convince me as to why a game should exclusively balance itself according to the whims of the competitive community, especially when they themselves inevitably alter the game to suit themselves. Why not balance it according to the way the majority of the community plays it and leave the competitive players to sort out what changes they need to make on their own servers to make the game suit their desires?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Balancing a game around anything but that is just no possible, here's why :
One thing I read on the TLiquid forums about Terran of Starcraft II, is that beginners/pub tend to play the game suboptimally. Therefore some synergies might not appear useful when they actually are, some mechanics may be underused when they're good. Imagine whichever game, where you have a role that is 99% boring but also 99% powerful. Actually this role makes the game alone. So in your logical system, well, this class is not fun. Therefore nobody's gonna play it. The rest of the game being well balanced, therefore your game is balanced. Of course, no need to tell that on the comp. side, 95% of players play that role. Is the game balanced ? Well, ... kind of. It is balanced... if you use that "role". Otherwise well you're screwed.
Now that's a situation which could happen in such a "pub balance world".
In most of the gaming communities, you could range people, depending on their level and implication in the game, on a scale that goes from "professional player" to "fun/beginner player". But all the way from one to another, there are people there. Let's range these people in three categories ( to simplify, but it is like a "continous" function you see my point ). Pro - Amateur - Beginner. Pros are likely to create the tactics, build orders or whatever, that use all of the mechanics of the game at its best. This is logical, they want to beat their opponent very hard. Now, the amateurs, they're the ones that are gonna watch their replays/demos. They're gonna reproduce these techniques in their own game area. And beginners, well, they're gonna learn that on the field I guess. Just like everyone knows why putting a TF in base is bad.
There are many examples of this throughout many games. You could think of fakeflash on .6, FE or bisu builds on SC, as well as BH or classic PG spot for NS. They all kind of apply to this scheme.
Now, you understand there's FAR MORE chances that you will balance the whole game by balancing out the "pro" level rather than the beginner level. I say FAR MORE and not 100%, because some tactics cannot be transfered from one tier to another. One good example being the mass DotT on war3 vs orcs, which requires a lot of micro. Some SC tactics also apply in here. And NS ones also.
<!--quoteo(post=1760566:date=Mar 22 2010, 06:00 AM:name=marks)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (marks @ Mar 22 2010, 06:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760566"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm a competetive player. I'm also a game developer by trade. In my personal and professional experience, it helps a lot.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I can't argue with your personal experience. I am in similar position, and my experience runs contrary to that. I'm sure this is just as useless trivia to you.
What I'm trying to get at is that the skillsets discussed here are simply different: that knowing how to balance a game from balance standpoint for a comp player, or from fun standpoint for a casual, are misconceptions stemming from what the players generally deal with by their trade.
Or, to be more concise: playing a game is one thing, building it is another.
<!--quoteo(post=1760571:date=Mar 22 2010, 07:15 AM:name=Ryo-Ohki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ryo-Ohki @ Mar 22 2010, 07:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760571"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actually Chess isn't balanced; white wins a majority of matches.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hah. They should get a patch out for that.
<!--quoteo(post=1760578:date=Mar 22 2010, 08:54 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Mar 22 2010, 08:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760578"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There isn't a single thread where I wouldn't have to correct completely false assumptions, trolling and ignorant opinions directed at competetive play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I would only advise you to think less in terms of group mentality: just because you share a playstyle with them doesn't mean you represent them any more than the aforementioned vocal minority does. After that you can be justified in telling people not to stereotype either, to tell them what you're really arguing about (bhopping, projectile speed, whatever).
Sorry if this sounds patronizing, I'm not in habit of letting etiquette get in the way of honesty. Group mentality and stereotyping are incredibly common in general, you'd be amazed just how often we do that...
<!--quoteo(post=1760588:date=Mar 22 2010, 11:51 AM:name=huhuh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huhuh @ Mar 22 2010, 11:51 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760588"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Imagine whichever game, where you have a role that is 99% boring but also 99% powerful. Actually this role makes the game alone. So in your logical system, well, this class is not fun. Therefore nobody's gonna play it. The rest of the game being well balanced, therefore your game is balanced. Of course, no need to tell that on the comp. side, 95% of players play that role. Is the game balanced ? Well, ... kind of. It is balanced... if you use that "role". Otherwise well you're screwed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's simply bad design. Hidden or boring features are a big no-no.
<!--quoteo(post=1760551:date=Mar 21 2010, 08:14 PM:name=Ryo-Ohki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ryo-Ohki @ Mar 21 2010, 08:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760551"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would dispute that. NS1 had a healthy competitive scene, and look at it now. You might say "But it's 8 years old, you can't expect it to still be going strong now!". Starcraft is still going strong. Counter-strike, a mod from the same era, is still going very strong, with it's only change being some updated graphics. Diablo II is still going strong.
The problem is that the comp players end up forcing the developers to change the game further and further so that it can be balanced <i>for them</i>. Balanced for comp doesn't always mean balanced for casuals.
Take NS1 nowadays. You need a good Fade player on the alien side to have a reasonable chance at victory, and that player has to get that Fade out quickly. You need a good Commander on the Marine side for a reasonable chance at victory too. This is all well and good when it's a comp team playing against a comp team, but when said pro Fade player joins a public game full of noobs, he dominates the whole team. Or when a good Marine side plays against an alien side without a good Fade, they steamroll them.
This, ultimately, is what killed NS1. It's not the graphics; aside from the fact NS1's graphics have held up surprisingly well over time, gamers have always shown that if the gameplay is good enough, graphics don't matter too much (Quake, Starcraft, Diablo). It's the fact that NS1 these days is balanced for comp players, and if you're not one of those players, tough luck. Back in the days of 1.04, even <i>I</i> managed to com and win games, and my experience with commanding was, and still is, 2 games. The Alien side wasn't crippled without a good Fade; Fades were more ranged attackers with Acid Rocket and you couldn't single-handedly take out an infinite number of LA marines. Games were usually long and most importantly, FUN.
You cant do that these days. The game is so balanced around comp play that new players stand no chance whatsoever. They can't learn to become good commanders because no-one lets them comm, and even if they did, they'd just lose over and over again. They can't learn how to become excellent Fades because they'll just die to Marines over and over again without ever getting the required resources. When NS2 was announced, I started playing NS1 again and brought a whole swag of my Steam friends list with me. As soon as I told them the concept they were beyond keen to try it. The best of them lasted a week. When I asked them about it, one summed it up perfectly: "When I'm a Marine, I feel like I can't kill anything. When I'm an Alien, I feel like I can't kill anything either". These are not unskilled players, nor are they young. Most of them are around the same age as me (28) and have many years experience playing both FPS and RTS games.
The ultimate result of the changes that comp players pushed for was to produce a game that was even more inaccessible for the new player, and even more biased in favour of comp players being able to destroy new players. The cycle feeds off itself until only the comp players are left, when they suddenly discover that there's virtually no-one left to play against. If there were enough newbie players around to form servers with just newbie players on them, and comp players agreed to stay off them, it might just work, except it doesn't. Comp players did and still will happily join servers full of new players and delight in slaughtering the lot of them, as well as pouring scorn on them for failing to understand tactics and gameplay mechanics that they've had 8 years to perfect.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> First of all, NS is horrendously imbalanced. This imbalance is more apparent in large, 32man-games. Aliens are overall the weaker team economically and firepower-wise during the early game, so to make up for this they get the overpowered fades and horrible focus/carapace. Marines, in turn, get their overpowered 3/3 MT HMG JP gear. Neither of these is actually any fun to play against at any level of play and all of these lead to a single player being able to erase a server with his horribly overpowered equipment at the appropriate timing.
You may be shocked, but these changes that the competitive community helped to bring about were a necessary evil, because the game was even more broken before some of these things were introduced. Over the long history of NS, players have gotten significantly better. You remember 1.04 as the same newbie love-fest I remember it as. So unless you have a problem with players getting better at games, I don't think that you can argue against the balance that has happened. If you were to play 1.04 right now with the current players, you'd be surprised at how much worse the good players would roll the bad players. Silent marine bhopping. Vent crouching. Instant fade blink. Sieges that are excellent griefing tools that I would love to have. 70 armor carapace skulks. etc...
So tell me, how would you balance this game to make it more playable for the casual players that's different from what the competitive community would suggest? Make NS the battle of the HP? - replace all combat with a simple T/F HP check, if your hp is higher than that of your opponent's, he dies and you take damage equivalent to the hitpoints he lost? I think that this change would allow your friends to play this game.
---
Just like in real life, a good commander isn't that important if the marines know what to do and where to be. I've personally found that I have a much greater influence on the outcome of a public game as a marine than as a commander. Bad commanders get ejected because playing without meds/ammo is torture for the marines. Did the competitive community want it to be like this? No.
---
Are people going out of their way to stop your friends from practicing fading? If they feel that they can't fade on an NS server without getting verbally berated by their team, they can practice fading on a combat server. If this fails, they can practice blinking around the map on a listen server until they can do this without getting stuck once. There are millions of ways to get to a working level of competency at NS. The real reason your friends are bad at NS is because they are horrible Kellers "with too much experience with videogames," too little experience with everything else. They want someone to hold their hands for them. Tell them that.
<!--quoteo(post=1760551:date=Mar 21 2010, 08:14 PM:name=Ryo-Ohki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ryo-Ohki @ Mar 21 2010, 08:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760551"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This, ultimately, is what killed NS1. It's not the graphics; aside from the fact NS1's graphics have held up surprisingly well over time, gamers have always shown that if the gameplay is good enough, graphics don't matter too much (Quake, Starcraft, Diablo). It's the fact that NS1 these days is balanced for comp players, and if you're not one of those players, tough luck. Back in the days of 1.04, even <i>I</i> managed to com and win games, and my experience with commanding was, and still is, 2 games. The Alien side wasn't crippled without a good Fade; Fades were more ranged attackers with Acid Rocket and you couldn't single-handedly take out an infinite number of LA marines. Games were usually long and most importantly, FUN.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo(post=1760564:date=Mar 21 2010, 10:19 PM:name=Ryo-Ohki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ryo-Ohki @ Mar 21 2010, 10:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760564"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yet NS died long before it's time. When I stopped playing back in 2004, it was already hard to find servers. And why wouldn't NS still be going strong when it offers such unique gameplay? What other games offer a blend of FPS and RTS action like NS does? NS still has great appeal even today. Whenever I mention it to people who've never heard of it, they always say it sounds awesome, and want to try it. Old games usually die because they get sequels, or because they were flawed. NS most certainly falls into the second category, at least by the end.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> NS is <b>IMMENSELY</b> popular for a HL1 mod, even at the present date. NS hasn't achieved the level of success you'd expect it to achieve, because the NS site went down for a few years after it was hacked. (by a competitive player, so maybe you can use that as an argument against us)
<!--quoteo(post=1760571:date=Mar 22 2010, 12:15 AM:name=Ryo-Ohki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ryo-Ohki @ Mar 22 2010, 12:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760571"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Lost Temple is NOT played in the professional leagues any more. The cliffs next to bases make it blatantly unbalanced.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This isn't actually true. There were plenty of maps with ground-inaccessible drop spots in circulation on ICCUP when I last played SC1. Outsider is one example. Temple is an extremely well-balanced map; it's only horrendously overplayed. Sort of like Python is now.
Just to respond to the point made earlier about Chess in a little more depth - Chess has been played for how many years now? And its a game where nothing is hidden from you (Cant remember the term I'm not a game designer, full-knowledge or something). Basically the metagame in Chess is at the point where theres nothing left to learn about the game or how to play it. Its common sensical that when the metagame evolves to that state, ANY advantage no matter how minor is going to have a noticeable impact on the game. Professional Starcraft is actually beginning to get to this stage now. Regardless, the point I'm trying to make is that the highest tip of the metagame which youre talking about with Chess, is not what my argument was about - I was talking about the much lower level metagame, a lot more basic than that.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited March 2010
<!--quoteo(post=1760551:date=Mar 22 2010, 01:14 AM:name=Ryo-Ohki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ryo-Ohki @ Mar 22 2010, 01:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760551"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem is that the comp players end up forcing the developers to change the game further and further so that it can be balanced <i>for them</i>. Balanced for comp doesn't always mean balanced for casuals. (...) You cant do that these days. The game is so balanced around comp play that new players stand no chance whatsoever.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your observations are correct, but the conclusions you draw from the are entirely incorrect. The problem isn't only way the game is balanced, the problem is actually mostly the dwindling playerbase combined with the general accumulation of skill. Not only has the general level of play (from all but the lowest player levels) increased radically since the game was released, but the influx of new players has decreased drastically.
When a game has a constant influx of new players, it doesn't really matter that some players are very skilled, because the new players will still be able to kill all the other new players. The problem arises when the new players are in a very small minority. They don't have anyone on their own level of play that they are able to kill, which leads to a very frustrating experience, which in turn leads them to quit playing. This actually causes a downward spiral that reinforces itself.
This is even more exaggerated in NS because, unlike in other larger games like CS, competitive players are forced to play public regularly to keep their skill up. Ideally top level competitive players wouldn't pub at all, (playing against low level opponents is actually detrimental to skill development) but the NS community simply isn't large enough that comp players can get enough practice only playing practice matches.
Of course the way NS works also helps to further exacerbate the problems. Fades and Lerks are extremely powerful in the hands of a good player, but comparatively weak in the hands of a bad player. The impression I've gotten is that the NS2 Fades will be less powerful and the skulks will be more powerful. The Lerk is also undergoing changes to reduce the challenge for new players. A development towards more balanced classes is something I support completely. However there is no need to remove elements of skill and depth to accomplish this goal, at least not to the degree it seems like they are right now.
Comments
And I agree, there're only few competitive players posting on these forums, although very vocal.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To date I have yet to see a thread on a gaming forum where a self-proclaimed "pro" will not eventually step in and nag about their superiority, or some other bee in their bonnet, whatever... Including this very thread. It doesn't matter how mannered or well-behaved the rest of competitive community is - which I have great doubts it is, partly for aforementioned reasons - this will happen regardless.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Were there some insults here? Sure I think some competitive players more or less straight and radical in what they say. But think about if hockey rules, goal or whatever would be substantially changed and Wayne Gretzky said "this is BS", and NHL would interview some random guy playing hockey as a hobby, and decided to do follow this guy's advice. If you were Wayne Gretzky or some other high-class hockey player, wouldn't you be a bit annoyed? This is obviously an exaggerated analogy but you get the idea.
Ultimately the difference is that some guys want to have fun and others want the game have huge amounts of depth. Think about tennis or golf. They're hard to learn (much harder than NS fyi.), but fun to play after you get around it. But if you would design the whole sports again (ofc the problem you cannot change real world physics to make it easier), some sunday golfers would want to make it easier at the expense of depth and vice versa.
While I think the difference between the two philosophical gaming types, like casual and competitive is very deep indeed (almost justifying different game modes), I think most problems stem from <b>unbalanced</b> teams. There're lots of ways to address this. Just look at Starcraft II. It has lots of competitive depth and still fun for casual.
And I think competitive players are more worried about features' depth than balance, altho nobody wants another 1.04.
The problem with competitive mod is (not the development, I and some others are ready to do one) but how much of a negative impact it'd have on size of the competitive scene. Starcraft, TF2, SSBM etc. never needed such (what I know anyway). The main reason NS1 competitive players are waiting for NS2 is that'd bring back lots of players.
Exactly. Hence, "Vocal minority". <!--coloro:#696969--><span style="color:#696969"><!--/coloro-->I can name eight.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--quoteo(post=1760534:date=Mar 22 2010, 02:01 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Mar 22 2010, 02:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760534"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What? This discussion has been nothing but civil and not a single person has tried to nag someone or claim they're better than someone. Provide quotes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm afraid I'll have to pass up this chance to start a flamewar.
<!--quoteo(post=1760538:date=Mar 22 2010, 02:24 AM:name=Crispy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Crispy @ Mar 22 2010, 02:24 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760538"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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-->
+1 to everything you said, but the "balanced for competition" is a bit of a misnomer, and not exactly fair: a game should be balanced in general, it's something both competitive and casual players are concerned with. As you said, exploits or tactics don't segregate between pubs or scrims.
<!--quoteo(post=1760543:date=Mar 22 2010, 02:45 AM:name=Jiriki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jiriki @ Mar 22 2010, 02:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760543"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you were Wayne Gretzky or some other high-class hockey player, wouldn't you be a bit annoyed?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I wouldn't be. But I'm a special case because I know that knowing how to play a game and knowing how to make a game are different things. <!--coloro:#696969--><span style="color:#696969"><!--/coloro-->Also nice Freudian slip.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
I think we've all been through the comp/pub debate before. What I'm trying to get at are ridiculous misconceptions arising from that distinction: everyone wants a fun and balanced game that won't go stale, regardless of how they play it.
<!--quoteo(post=1760543:date=Mar 22 2010, 02:45 AM:name=Jiriki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jiriki @ Mar 22 2010, 02:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760543"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem with competitive mod is (not the development, I and some others are ready to do one) but how much of a negative impact it'd have on size of the competitive scene.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Competitive mod for NS2 will happen less because it's a necessity and more because it's a possibility. Imho.
I know I bring it up a lot but I hope there's a way for admins to self label their servers with a set of predetermined tags which would allow players to filter servers out by those tags. I think it would go a long way for matchmaking.
<!--quoteo(post=1760544:date=Mar 21 2010, 07:47 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 21 2010, 07:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760544"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm afraid I'll have to pass up this chance to start a flamewar.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cop-out.
The words you used were so specific and clearly none of the behavior you described has taken place in this thread. If you didn't speak english so well I would have assumed you were using the incorrect words.
Grow up.
I would dispute that. NS1 had a healthy competitive scene, and look at it now. You might say "But it's 8 years old, you can't expect it to still be going strong now!". Starcraft is still going strong. Counter-strike, a mod from the same era, is still going very strong, with it's only change being some updated graphics. Diablo II is still going strong.
The problem is that the comp players end up forcing the developers to change the game further and further so that it can be balanced <i>for them</i>. Balanced for comp doesn't always mean balanced for casuals.
Take NS1 nowadays. You need a good Fade player on the alien side to have a reasonable chance at victory, and that player has to get that Fade out quickly. You need a good Commander on the Marine side for a reasonable chance at victory too. This is all well and good when it's a comp team playing against a comp team, but when said pro Fade player joins a public game full of noobs, he dominates the whole team. Or when a good Marine side plays against an alien side without a good Fade, they steamroll them.
This, ultimately, is what killed NS1. It's not the graphics; aside from the fact NS1's graphics have held up surprisingly well over time, gamers have always shown that if the gameplay is good enough, graphics don't matter too much (Quake, Starcraft, Diablo). It's the fact that NS1 these days is balanced for comp players, and if you're not one of those players, tough luck. Back in the days of 1.04, even <i>I</i> managed to com and win games, and my experience with commanding was, and still is, 2 games. The Alien side wasn't crippled without a good Fade; Fades were more ranged attackers with Acid Rocket and you couldn't single-handedly take out an infinite number of LA marines. Games were usually long and most importantly, FUN.
You cant do that these days. The game is so balanced around comp play that new players stand no chance whatsoever. They can't learn to become good commanders because no-one lets them comm, and even if they did, they'd just lose over and over again. They can't learn how to become excellent Fades because they'll just die to Marines over and over again without ever getting the required resources. When NS2 was announced, I started playing NS1 again and brought a whole swag of my Steam friends list with me. As soon as I told them the concept they were beyond keen to try it. The best of them lasted a week. When I asked them about it, one summed it up perfectly: "When I'm a Marine, I feel like I can't kill anything. When I'm an Alien, I feel like I can't kill anything either". These are not unskilled players, nor are they young. Most of them are around the same age as me (28) and have many years experience playing both FPS and RTS games.
The ultimate result of the changes that comp players pushed for was to produce a game that was even more inaccessible for the new player, and even more biased in favour of comp players being able to destroy new players. The cycle feeds off itself until only the comp players are left, when they suddenly discover that there's virtually no-one left to play against. If there were enough newbie players around to form servers with just newbie players on them, and comp players agreed to stay off them, it might just work, except it doesn't. Comp players did and still will happily join servers full of new players and delight in slaughtering the lot of them, as well as pouring scorn on them for failing to understand tactics and gameplay mechanics that they've had 8 years to perfect.
I was trying to understand your logic.
"To date I have yet to see a thread on a gaming forum where a self-proclaimed "pro" will not eventually step in and nag about their superiority, or some other bee in their bonnet, whatever... Including this very thread."
You say that you have yet to see a thread, on any gaming forum, where a self proclaimed pro does not step in and say how awesome they are. Normally, I would take this for the clear exaggeration it is however you go on to say you see it in the current thread. When I ask you to back up why you're throwing around accusations of someone trying to be a jerk you tell me to grow up.
When you make a ridiculous statement you should back it up.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would dispute that. NS1 had a healthy competitive scene, and look at it now. You might say "But it's 8 years old, you can't expect it to still be going strong now!". Starcraft is still going strong. Counter-strike, a mod from the same era, is still going very strong, with it's only change being some updated graphics. Diablo II is still going strong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're nitpicking a handful of literally industry changing games and saying since NS1 didn't live up to them the competitive scene didn't expand NS1's life or contribute to NS1 being a better game. I mean, look counter argument you gave. Games that are 8 years old do not 'go strong.' They die. The handful of games that defined the genre live on. Not every game can be like that.
A painful lot of good games die this way. Competitive players, in the end, are just as clueless about what makes a good as are the rest of us. It's why we have developers.
So ultimately youre saying that a pub team with a highly skilled player, will steamroll another pub team ... and that this is the fault of the game design? Surely its just common sense that better players WILL BEAT worse players?
I do agree with your points about the skill-gap being inordinately large, but this is for the most part because the game just ended up that way, changes were made with the short-term in mind and without an adequate roadmap for where the core gameplay should end up. This is precisely the kind of fundamental flaw in the game which I want to not happen in NS2.
In fact, I'm pretty sure it was brought up before on the ENSL forums that too much of the game relies on having strong fades in NS1 (in response to a "what do we want from NS2/what do we think was wrong with NS1" thread).
<!--quoteo(post=1760554:date=Mar 22 2010, 12:36 AM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 22 2010, 12:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760554"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A painful lot of games die this way. Competitive players, in the end, are just as clueless about what makes a good as are the rest of us. It's why we have developers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats quite a painfully inaccurate picture to paint. I would contend that competetive players have a better grasp of what makes the gameplay mechanics of NS1 good, than probably most of the current and past developers do.
Beat, yes. Steamroll, no.
<!--quoteo(post=1760555:date=Mar 22 2010, 03:37 AM:name=marks)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (marks @ Mar 22 2010, 03:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760555"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thats quite a painfully inaccurate picture to paint. I would contend that competetive players have a better grasp of what makes the gameplay mechanics of NS1 good, than probably most of the current and past developers do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the very basic elitism that leads to think of competitive players as snobs. Grats.
No, knowing how to play a game does not make you an expert on making it. This applies to both pub and comp scenes.
This is the very basic elitism that leads to think of competitive players as snobs. Grats.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Making fun of mentally challenged people and name calling?
Grow up.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, knowing how to play a game does not make you an expert on making it. This applies to both pub and comp scenes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are unbelievable. It's like you didn't even read what he said.
But I guess you won't pass up that one.
Dumb down refers to mechanics like the hive system, like upgrade paths, like potential strategies, like having economy, etc... I don't think they will make that significantly less complicated, with the exception of the known no-longer-random starting hive.
Now I have a question for you: do you see what I'm trying to say now? WHAT exactly is it that "competitive" players are asking for or hoping to keep? Are they hoping to keep mechanics, or are they hoping to keep the unintended "Features"/exploits?
I agree that the conversation here is devolving but its only because there is little definition of what people are arguing over. Define exactly what the problem is and people can have a real discussion over what people say rather than how they say it.
Not at all. A skilled team will generally beat an unskilled team of course, but what I'm saying is that with NS being the way it is currently, it is designed around the skilled players, and only the skilled players. Release NS had skilled and unskilled players, but they didn't define the entire game. Current NS is based around having at least 1 highly skilled player on both sides; the Fade and the Commander. Without these elements, 95% of the time you're going to lose. That simply wasn't the case with NS originally; a team with a couple of skilled players had an advantage, but nothing like what NS today provides. Res For Kills is the perfect example of the philosophy I'm talking about here; a skilled player, who is already inherently at an advantage, is given more and more advantages the better they do.
NS1, as it is now, is specifically designed to allow balanced matches between two highly skilled teams. Effectively, this means it is set up to allow one side to steamroll the other as soon as the skill balance changes.
Ultimately a game shouldn't be designed specifically around this format. If players want to play competitively, it's up to them to modify the game accordingly. Look at Starcraft, the most competitive game in the industry and widely considered to be one of the most balanced. But only when played 1v1, on specially designed maps, over a LAN connection. Take any one of those parameters out and the balance vanishes. TF2, a popular game, has a thriving competitive community, but Valve do not balance the game around that. The players defined what was the right format for competitive TF2 (6v6, class limits, certain weapons being banned, specific maps only) and happily went about their business. Meanwhile the rest of the game's community happily played the game they liked.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're nitpicking a handful of literally industry changing games and saying since NS1 didn't live up to them the competitive scene didn't expand NS1's life or contribute to NS1 being a better game. I mean, look counter argument you gave. Games that are 8 years old do not 'go strong.' They die. The handful of games that defined the genre live on. Not every game can be like that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yet NS died long before it's time. When I stopped playing back in 2004, it was already hard to find servers. And why wouldn't NS still be going strong when it offers such unique gameplay? What other games offer a blend of FPS and RTS action like NS does? NS still has great appeal even today. Whenever I mention it to people who've never heard of it, they always say it sounds awesome, and want to try it. Old games usually die because they get sequels, or because they were flawed. NS most certainly falls into the second category, at least by the end.
I agree that the conversation here is devolving but its only because there is little definition of what people are arguing over. Define exactly what the problem is and people can have a real discussion over what people say rather than how they say it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay yeah, I think I see what you're getting at now. The things which competetive players (I dont want to speak for every comp player, but I feel like I speak for a lot of them) are scared of losing are not the 'exploits' and micro-skills (wiggle walking, bhop etc) which were unique to the GldSrc engine. Bhop might be arguable, but at the end of the day its another debate entirely and even if it does get completely removed with no replacement - people will deal with it.
What I'm talking about when I said that it will be a problem if the competetive community needs to create a 'promod' for NS2 if the gameplay needs to be substantially changed in order for the game to be competetively viable - is things like the core gameplay mechanics, the basic (shallow part of the) metagame and individual gameplay features.
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.
I think the main concern is that we dont want a game which is competetively broken on release in the same way that 1.04 and to a lesser degree 2.1 were. The amount of backtracked decisions we've heard about (the taser, as an example) really does not instill confidence. If NS2 needs to change as much as NS1 did from 1.04 to 3.5 or whatever version we're on now, we're in real trouble. Retail games do not change substantially post-release. Its just something that doesnt happen.
If the competetive community needs to change NS2 substantially in order for it to be suitable for competetive play, its going to foster an "us and them" divide between comp and pub players which hurts everybody.
I'm sorry if that isnt very coherent, its 2.30am here.
<!--quoteo(post=1760564:date=Mar 22 2010, 02:19 AM:name=Ryo-Ohki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ryo-Ohki @ Mar 22 2010, 02:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760564"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Not at all. A skilled team will generally beat an unskilled team of course, but what I'm saying is that with NS being the way it is currently, it is designed around the skilled players, and only the skilled players. Release NS had skilled and unskilled players, but they didn't define the entire game. Current NS is based around having at least 1 highly skilled player on both sides; the Fade and the Commander. Without these elements, 95% of the time you're going to lose. That simply wasn't the case with NS originally; a team with a couple of skilled players had an advantage, but nothing like what NS today provides. Res For Kills is the perfect example of the philosophy I'm talking about here; a skilled player, who is already inherently at an advantage, is given more and more advantages the better they do.
NS1, as it is now, is specifically designed to allow balanced matches between two highly skilled teams. Effectively, this means it is set up to allow one side to steamroll the other as soon as the skill balance changes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did my previous post not register in your brain? I agree with you in part.
<!--quoteo(post=1760555:date=Mar 22 2010, 12:37 AM:name=marks)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (marks @ Mar 22 2010, 12:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760555"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I do agree with your points about the skill-gap being inordinately large, but this is for the most part because the game just ended up that way, changes were made with the short-term in mind and without an adequate roadmap for where the core gameplay should end up. <b>This is precisely the kind of fundamental flaw in the game which I want to not happen in NS2. </b>
In fact, I'm pretty sure it was brought up before on the ENSL forums that too much of the game relies on having strong fades in NS1 (in response to a "what do we want from NS2/what do we think was wrong with NS1" thread).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1760564:date=Mar 22 2010, 02:19 AM:name=Ryo-Ohki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ryo-Ohki @ Mar 22 2010, 02:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760564"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ultimately a game shouldn't be designed specifically around this format. If players want to play competitively, it's up to them to modify the game accordingly. Look at Starcraft, the most competitive game in the industry and widely considered to be one of the most balanced.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Starcraft was balanced by Blizzard, the original developers, through around 8+ years of balance patches and one expansion. This was in part, directly due to issues exposed by competetive players. Nice contradiction. Oh and during the development of Starcraft2, Blizzard actually hired S.Korean professional SC players to help them balance it.
And anyway, Starcraft is not anywhere near the "most competetive" game in any industry. It has a hugely skilled and dedicated following in South Korea and is pretty much not played anywhere else anymore. In Starcraft, the term "Foreigner" refers to any Starcraft player not from South Korea...
<!--quoteo(post=1760564:date=Mar 22 2010, 02:19 AM:name=Ryo-Ohki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ryo-Ohki @ Mar 22 2010, 02:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760564"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But only when played 1v1, on specially designed maps, over a LAN connection. Take any one of those parameters out and the balance vanishes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Entirely wrong. SC is just as balanced on ICCup (online) and I'm fairly sure that Lost Temple (probably the most popular SC map ever) was included in Broodwar retail. SC is also played in 2v2 format in various Korean tournaments. The only reason its played most as a 1v1 game is that <u>all rts games are most popularly played as 1v1</u>. I am aware there are holes in my argument here (muta stacking online, things like that) but frankly its pretty just pedantic to take the debate in that direction because it doesnt undermine my point in the slightest.
<!--quoteo(post=1760564:date=Mar 22 2010, 02:19 AM:name=Ryo-Ohki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ryo-Ohki @ Mar 22 2010, 02:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760564"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->TF2, a popular game, has a thriving competitive community, but Valve do not balance the game around that. The players defined what was the right format for competitive TF2 (6v6, class limits, certain weapons being banned, specific maps only) and happily went about their business. Meanwhile the rest of the game's community happily played the game they liked.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I heard chess was pretty balanced also. Its kinda hard to unbalance a symmetrical game.
No, knowing how to play a game does not make you an expert on making it. This applies to both pub and comp scenes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm a competetive player. I'm also a game developer by trade. In my personal and professional experience, it helps a lot.
I think, at this point, the concerns are valid but unfounded. NS2 is pre-alpha, pre-test, and all of the evidence points to UW being both willing to and able to make modifications to their releases. I think they "get it" and I think at the same time if they didn't make an effort to make this a balanced and deep game they would "get it" from their purchasers. They aren't EA, they can't just make a ###### sequel to a successful franchise and guarantee success through advertisement. They had to work to get to where they are now and I don't see them turning their back on that process or that goal.
If people have concerns they need to clearly articulate them and not become hysterical with hypothetical slippery slope arguments.
Basically yeah. The concern isnt that UWE wont make the necessary fixes though, its that the fixes will take long enough that huge amounts of players will be turned away from the game. How long did it take to get 1.04 into the first truly balanced state in 3.0b4? A long time. If they dont, we're left with the situation you described.
<!--quoteo(post=1760567:date=Mar 22 2010, 03:13 AM:name=CyberMantis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CyberMantis @ Mar 22 2010, 03:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760567"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think, at this point, the concerns are valid but unfounded. NS2 is pre-alpha, pre-test, and all of the evidence points to UW being both willing to and able to make modifications to their releases. I think they "get it" and I think at the same time if they didn't make an effort to make this a balanced and deep game they would "get it" from their purchasers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Given the track record, and other sources of info which I'm not willing to disclose (which totally makes this a shaky point and I understand that), I'm fairly sure theres a decent foundation to the concern. Not enough to be crying "the sky is falling", but enough to raise concern.
I specifically remember having a marathon for eight hours straight! I believe it was on NS_Hera, still not too sure. Wound up on the Marines, we practically were surrounded, having nothing but one RT left. The team and my self practically ran a train on every RT on the map, at least 30 seconds to a minute away from a hive in every direction. We wound up getting a Heavy Train going with HMG and a few other perks.
2 hours into the game, we were cornered yet again with the uprising of the 3rd hive. We took it down, and grabbed the area before the Kharaa could take it again. They started to attack the main base, where we set out to make another base near the closest RT, and electrify it. ( When that function first came to be. ) We wound up having to train back to the new base, build it, and escort the Commander from harms way... Took us a good 1/2 hour to do it too!
We geared up again, this time with grenade launchers, HMG's, and mines. We set mines ALL OVER the place, ran a train on both of the hives at the same time from 2 minutes apart, and won the game around 3am...
^----
That's Natural Selection for you. Not a 15-20 minute game. It should be based on how WELL we play the game, and not how long it should be preset to. I for one disagree with the preset times of 15-20 minutes for a game. Quite ridiculous if you ask me. Oh well... We'll see how it goes :]
Lost Temple is NOT played in the professional leagues any more. The cliffs next to bases make it blatantly unbalanced. The Korean leagues spend a lot of time producing specifically balanced maps, because most of the ones Blizzard shipped with even Brood War aren't balanced for all races and matchups. 2v2's and even 3v3s with major players draw big crowds in Korea, but they're only played as fun or showmanship matches, because they understand that it's not balanced for those kind of numbers. My point with this was simply that even games which are considered extremely balanced still require the players to change the game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I heard chess was pretty balanced also. Its kinda hard to unbalance a symmetrical game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually Chess isn't balanced; white wins a majority of matches. With regards to TF2, both sides might be the same but without the class limits and map selections, you'd just end up with 3 Demos 3 Medics on each team in a constant stalemate. The class limits and map selection allows for more exciting and balanced gameplay at the competitive level.
You still haven't managed to convince me as to why a game should exclusively balance itself according to the whims of the competitive community, especially when they themselves inevitably alter the game to suit themselves. Why not balance it according to the way the majority of the community plays it and leave the competitive players to sort out what changes they need to make on their own servers to make the game suit their desires?
I didnt expect to, and I'm not going to try to. Its pretty evident from your attitude that you wont take an open-minded stance on the debate and frankly if you havent been swayed by the arguments presented thus far, theres little point chasing it further. The fact that you either havent read, or havent comprehended my previous posts just compounds the issue.
It's not my fault you haven't raised any points that I've found persuasive. I suppose it's my fault that I haven't managed to do persuade you. Regardless, let's leave it here.
Oh well, one more response...
The beauty of Internet there. Everybody gets their share of the bad stuff in it.
There isn't a single thread where I wouldn't have to correct completely false assumptions, trolling and ignorant opinions directed at competetive play. Things like bunnyhop get totally ignored because people only see the negative sides and keep repeating them without discussing or trying to understand the positive effects. It's not particularly easy to discuss about changes that benefit everyone, while half of the community denies the existence of the features that you enjoy in NS.
At least I want to make this game functional both on public games and on competetive play. It's just not that easy to discuss that until people decide to step outside their own viewpoint for a moment.
Balancing a game around anything but that is just no possible, here's why :
One thing I read on the TLiquid forums about Terran of Starcraft II, is that beginners/pub tend to play the game suboptimally. Therefore some synergies might not appear useful when they actually are, some mechanics may be underused when they're good.
Imagine whichever game, where you have a role that is 99% boring but also 99% powerful. Actually this role makes the game alone.
So in your logical system, well, this class is not fun. Therefore nobody's gonna play it. The rest of the game being well balanced, therefore your game is balanced.
Of course, no need to tell that on the comp. side, 95% of players play that role. Is the game balanced ? Well, ... kind of. It is balanced... if you use that "role". Otherwise well you're screwed.
Now that's a situation which could happen in such a "pub balance world".
In most of the gaming communities, you could range people, depending on their level and implication in the game, on a scale that goes from "professional player" to "fun/beginner player". But all the way from one to another, there are people there. Let's range these people in three categories ( to simplify, but it is like a "continous" function you see my point ). Pro - Amateur - Beginner.
Pros are likely to create the tactics, build orders or whatever, that use all of the mechanics of the game at its best. This is logical, they want to beat their opponent very hard. Now, the amateurs, they're the ones that are gonna watch their replays/demos. They're gonna reproduce these techniques in their own game area. And beginners, well, they're gonna learn that on the field I guess. Just like everyone knows why putting a TF in base is bad.
There are many examples of this throughout many games. You could think of fakeflash on .6, FE or bisu builds on SC, as well as BH or classic PG spot for NS. They all kind of apply to this scheme.
Now, you understand there's FAR MORE chances that you will balance the whole game by balancing out the "pro" level rather than the beginner level. I say FAR MORE and not 100%, because some tactics cannot be transfered from one tier to another. One good example being the mass DotT on war3 vs orcs, which requires a lot of micro. Some SC tactics also apply in here. And NS ones also.
Also marks' posts are good :)
I can't argue with your personal experience. I am in similar position, and my experience runs contrary to that. I'm sure this is just as useless trivia to you.
What I'm trying to get at is that the skillsets discussed here are simply different: that knowing how to balance a game from balance standpoint for a comp player, or from fun standpoint for a casual, are misconceptions stemming from what the players generally deal with by their trade.
Or, to be more concise: playing a game is one thing, building it is another.
<!--quoteo(post=1760571:date=Mar 22 2010, 07:15 AM:name=Ryo-Ohki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ryo-Ohki @ Mar 22 2010, 07:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760571"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actually Chess isn't balanced; white wins a majority of matches.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hah. They should get a patch out for that.
<!--quoteo(post=1760578:date=Mar 22 2010, 08:54 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Mar 22 2010, 08:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760578"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There isn't a single thread where I wouldn't have to correct completely false assumptions, trolling and ignorant opinions directed at competetive play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would only advise you to think less in terms of group mentality: just because you share a playstyle with them doesn't mean you represent them any more than the aforementioned vocal minority does. After that you can be justified in telling people not to stereotype either, to tell them what you're really arguing about (bhopping, projectile speed, whatever).
Sorry if this sounds patronizing, I'm not in habit of letting etiquette get in the way of honesty. Group mentality and stereotyping are incredibly common in general, you'd be amazed just how often we do that...
<!--quoteo(post=1760588:date=Mar 22 2010, 11:51 AM:name=huhuh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huhuh @ Mar 22 2010, 11:51 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760588"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Imagine whichever game, where you have a role that is 99% boring but also 99% powerful. Actually this role makes the game alone.
So in your logical system, well, this class is not fun. Therefore nobody's gonna play it. The rest of the game being well balanced, therefore your game is balanced.
Of course, no need to tell that on the comp. side, 95% of players play that role. Is the game balanced ? Well, ... kind of. It is balanced... if you use that "role". Otherwise well you're screwed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's simply bad design. Hidden or boring features are a big no-no.
The problem is that the comp players end up forcing the developers to change the game further and further so that it can be balanced <i>for them</i>. Balanced for comp doesn't always mean balanced for casuals.
Take NS1 nowadays. You need a good Fade player on the alien side to have a reasonable chance at victory, and that player has to get that Fade out quickly. You need a good Commander on the Marine side for a reasonable chance at victory too. This is all well and good when it's a comp team playing against a comp team, but when said pro Fade player joins a public game full of noobs, he dominates the whole team. Or when a good Marine side plays against an alien side without a good Fade, they steamroll them.
This, ultimately, is what killed NS1. It's not the graphics; aside from the fact NS1's graphics have held up surprisingly well over time, gamers have always shown that if the gameplay is good enough, graphics don't matter too much (Quake, Starcraft, Diablo). It's the fact that NS1 these days is balanced for comp players, and if you're not one of those players, tough luck. Back in the days of 1.04, even <i>I</i> managed to com and win games, and my experience with commanding was, and still is, 2 games. The Alien side wasn't crippled without a good Fade; Fades were more ranged attackers with Acid Rocket and you couldn't single-handedly take out an infinite number of LA marines. Games were usually long and most importantly, FUN.
You cant do that these days. The game is so balanced around comp play that new players stand no chance whatsoever. They can't learn to become good commanders because no-one lets them comm, and even if they did, they'd just lose over and over again. They can't learn how to become excellent Fades because they'll just die to Marines over and over again without ever getting the required resources. When NS2 was announced, I started playing NS1 again and brought a whole swag of my Steam friends list with me. As soon as I told them the concept they were beyond keen to try it. The best of them lasted a week. When I asked them about it, one summed it up perfectly: "When I'm a Marine, I feel like I can't kill anything. When I'm an Alien, I feel like I can't kill anything either". These are not unskilled players, nor are they young. Most of them are around the same age as me (28) and have many years experience playing both FPS and RTS games.
The ultimate result of the changes that comp players pushed for was to produce a game that was even more inaccessible for the new player, and even more biased in favour of comp players being able to destroy new players. The cycle feeds off itself until only the comp players are left, when they suddenly discover that there's virtually no-one left to play against. If there were enough newbie players around to form servers with just newbie players on them, and comp players agreed to stay off them, it might just work, except it doesn't. Comp players did and still will happily join servers full of new players and delight in slaughtering the lot of them, as well as pouring scorn on them for failing to understand tactics and gameplay mechanics that they've had 8 years to perfect.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, NS is horrendously imbalanced. This imbalance is more apparent in large, 32man-games. Aliens are overall the weaker team economically and firepower-wise during the early game, so to make up for this they get the overpowered fades and horrible focus/carapace. Marines, in turn, get their overpowered 3/3 MT HMG JP gear. Neither of these is actually any fun to play against at any level of play and all of these lead to a single player being able to erase a server with his horribly overpowered equipment at the appropriate timing.
You may be shocked, but these changes that the competitive community helped to bring about were a necessary evil, because the game was even more broken before some of these things were introduced. Over the long history of NS, players have gotten significantly better. You remember 1.04 as the same newbie love-fest I remember it as. So unless you have a problem with players getting better at games, I don't think that you can argue against the balance that has happened. If you were to play 1.04 right now with the current players, you'd be surprised at how much worse the good players would roll the bad players. Silent marine bhopping. Vent crouching. Instant fade blink. Sieges that are excellent griefing tools that I would love to have. 70 armor carapace skulks. etc...
So tell me, how would you balance this game to make it more playable for the casual players that's different from what the competitive community would suggest? Make NS the battle of the HP? - replace all combat with a simple T/F HP check, if your hp is higher than that of your opponent's, he dies and you take damage equivalent to the hitpoints he lost? I think that this change would allow your friends to play this game.
---
Just like in real life, a good commander isn't that important if the marines know what to do and where to be. I've personally found that I have a much greater influence on the outcome of a public game as a marine than as a commander. Bad commanders get ejected because playing without meds/ammo is torture for the marines. Did the competitive community want it to be like this? No.
---
Are people going out of their way to stop your friends from practicing fading? If they feel that they can't fade on an NS server without getting verbally berated by their team, they can practice fading on a combat server. If this fails, they can practice blinking around the map on a listen server until they can do this without getting stuck once. There are millions of ways to get to a working level of competency at NS. The real reason your friends are bad at NS is because they are horrible Kellers "with too much experience with videogames," too little experience with everything else. They want someone to hold their hands for them. Tell them that.
<!--quoteo(post=1760551:date=Mar 21 2010, 08:14 PM:name=Ryo-Ohki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ryo-Ohki @ Mar 21 2010, 08:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760551"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This, ultimately, is what killed NS1. It's not the graphics; aside from the fact NS1's graphics have held up surprisingly well over time, gamers have always shown that if the gameplay is good enough, graphics don't matter too much (Quake, Starcraft, Diablo). It's the fact that NS1 these days is balanced for comp players, and if you're not one of those players, tough luck. Back in the days of 1.04, even <i>I</i> managed to com and win games, and my experience with commanding was, and still is, 2 games. The Alien side wasn't crippled without a good Fade; Fades were more ranged attackers with Acid Rocket and you couldn't single-handedly take out an infinite number of LA marines. Games were usually long and most importantly, FUN.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1760564:date=Mar 21 2010, 10:19 PM:name=Ryo-Ohki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ryo-Ohki @ Mar 21 2010, 10:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760564"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yet NS died long before it's time. When I stopped playing back in 2004, it was already hard to find servers. And why wouldn't NS still be going strong when it offers such unique gameplay? What other games offer a blend of FPS and RTS action like NS does? NS still has great appeal even today. Whenever I mention it to people who've never heard of it, they always say it sounds awesome, and want to try it. Old games usually die because they get sequels, or because they were flawed. NS most certainly falls into the second category, at least by the end.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NS is <b>IMMENSELY</b> popular for a HL1 mod, even at the present date. NS hasn't achieved the level of success you'd expect it to achieve, because the NS site went down for a few years after it was hacked. (by a competitive player, so maybe you can use that as an argument against us)
<!--quoteo(post=1760571:date=Mar 22 2010, 12:15 AM:name=Ryo-Ohki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ryo-Ohki @ Mar 22 2010, 12:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760571"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Lost Temple is NOT played in the professional leagues any more. The cliffs next to bases make it blatantly unbalanced.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This isn't actually true. There were plenty of maps with ground-inaccessible drop spots in circulation on ICCUP when I last played SC1. Outsider is one example. Temple is an extremely well-balanced map; it's only horrendously overplayed. Sort of like Python is now.
(...)
You cant do that these days. The game is so balanced around comp play that new players stand no chance whatsoever.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your observations are correct, but the conclusions you draw from the are entirely incorrect. The problem isn't only way the game is balanced, the problem is actually mostly the dwindling playerbase combined with the general accumulation of skill. Not only has the general level of play (from all but the lowest player levels) increased radically since the game was released, but the influx of new players has decreased drastically.
When a game has a constant influx of new players, it doesn't really matter that some players are very skilled, because the new players will still be able to kill all the other new players. The problem arises when the new players are in a very small minority. They don't have anyone on their own level of play that they are able to kill, which leads to a very frustrating experience, which in turn leads them to quit playing. This actually causes a downward spiral that reinforces itself.
This is even more exaggerated in NS because, unlike in other larger games like CS, competitive players are forced to play public regularly to keep their skill up. Ideally top level competitive players wouldn't pub at all, (playing against low level opponents is actually detrimental to skill development) but the NS community simply isn't large enough that comp players can get enough practice only playing practice matches.
Of course the way NS works also helps to further exacerbate the problems. Fades and Lerks are extremely powerful in the hands of a good player, but comparatively weak in the hands of a bad player. The impression I've gotten is that the NS2 Fades will be less powerful and the skulks will be more powerful. The Lerk is also undergoing changes to reduce the challenge for new players. A development towards more balanced classes is something I support completely. However there is no need to remove elements of skill and depth to accomplish this goal, at least not to the degree it seems like they are right now.