<!--quoteo(post=2028103:date=Nov 18 2012, 10:08 PM:name=PersianImm0rtal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PersianImm0rtal @ Nov 18 2012, 10:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2028103"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Agreed. We do need a lerge group of balance playtesters. How ever isnt that what the Flayra Balance Mod is for???<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> There's a small problem with that, where does the feedback come form? A public survey, that's exactly the same as taking feedback from the forums. All kinds of opinions mashed up into a single package of chaos.
That's why a focused small group of individuals that understand the game inside out would help, it doesn't even need to be a team, but you could "consult" on issues and proposed solutions ("does this sound ok as a fix?") etc.
<!--quoteo(post=2028098:date=Nov 18 2012, 10:04 PM:name=Squeal_Like_A_Pig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squeal_Like_A_Pig @ Nov 18 2012, 10:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2028098"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is just a flat out lie. UWE has never told PTs that they are just bug fixers and to ignore balance. We have taken an immeasurable amount of feedback from our PTs regarding gameplay and balance, and made many changes accordingly. The problem is that people like Lance don't remember the changes we made based on their feedback, and instead focus on the changes we didn't make, and suddenly it is all "UWE ignores their PTs and their community"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't really want to do this, because I know this is going to look horrible, but I remember exactly the moment when this happened, where we felt outright ignored. I can't recall exactly why it happened, but we had a semi-tense balance discussion in the internal chat and we were instructed to not talk balance anymore and then <a href="http://www.ns2hd.com/2012/06/what-do-playtesters-do-and-why-dont.html" target="_blank">this article was written</a>, much to the disgust of a portion of the PT group (at least the people I spoke with), and I remember how strange the next few PTs were after that in TS (with passive-agressive jokes like: "we aren't meant to discuss balance"). Suddenly, apparently, we were bug testers, and that article felt like an insult.
<!--quoteo(post=2028098:date=Nov 18 2012, 04:04 PM:name=Squeal_Like_A_Pig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squeal_Like_A_Pig @ Nov 18 2012, 04:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2028098"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think we've made a single change based off of a movie.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Power nodes, sentries, and the focus on dark lighting which help aesthetics but ruin gameplay. Ignoring the requests that veteran players made to "sell-out" to newer players whose perception of gameplay is different because they only see the shiny new aesthetic features. Problem is as soon as they become regular players of NS2 and care about gameplay more than aesthetics, the repercussions of such decisions are going to be brutally obvious.
<!--quoteo(post=2028098:date=Nov 18 2012, 04:04 PM:name=Squeal_Like_A_Pig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squeal_Like_A_Pig @ Nov 18 2012, 04:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2028098"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Bugs happen, and with the frequency of our patching schedule, of course things would slip in at the last minute without an appropriate amount of testing. I am sorry if we messed up some competitive games of people playing in A BETA version of the game. Kind of what Beta means, you are signing up to play an in development build of the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thing is it's not a beta anymore (the title of this thread!), and the changes after release have been just as problematic as the ones in beta. I know you guys have created a beta to test changes but it's not helping the game to create a mini-beta for each release because it hurts the progress of patching unlike actually having a balance team or letting your playtesters do what they should, playtest for things other than bugs. I'm sure these experienced gentlemen have the best opinions on balance and how each patch brings new problems while not fixing the current ones like the over-nerfed fade or the Tres Onos.
Here's some little examples of why getting balance feedback from all players is flawed:
Give the lerk 400hp: New player thinks it's awesome and upvotes it. Fana thinks it's retarded and easy.
Make the AWP one-shot players (it already does) New player hates it because people better than him kills him instantly, bans it on his server (most publics in CS). Competitive player finds it frustrating, but doesn't have a problem with it because it's incredibly skillful and has several counters, and realises it costs a lot to buy
Mobas: Which hero needs a buff? Most people basically want their favourite hero buffed.
Most players do not know why they win or why they lose. This is why CS, SC2, and mobas, and even NS1 were balanced around competitive play (at least as long as I was a playtester).
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited November 2012
<!--quoteo(post=2028125:date=Nov 18 2012, 08:46 PM:name=Toothy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Toothy @ Nov 18 2012, 08:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2028125"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Most players do not know why they win or why they lose. This is why CS, SC2, and mobas, and even NS1 were balanced around competitive play (at least as long as I was a playtester).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Brings up a good point as to why balancing pub and competitive play is not something that goes hand in hand. The things that make it require more skill is usually found underpowered in public play, while things that make it easier will be frowned upon once a skillful player uses it and it all will go to hell and in the end it will be called overpowered.
It is a double edged sword, but the thing is that if you balance around competitive play and the core game works there. The game itself will become more balanced as a result. I'm always worried when "new player" features are introduced that influence gameplay or movement, because those very same features end up being either too easy to use or requires some learning period. I see no issue with learning a game, it seems most games tend to steer clear from stuff that requires some learning curve...
[edit]And NS(2) is definitely on a steep learning curve, but there are some things in there that simply require interface redesigns or a more logical idea behind it. hidden modifiers are bad, but only bad if they aren't clear or easy to understand
Hence NS1 upgrade systems based on #Hives scaled the aliens into end game, opened up more depth made map control even more important and was easy to understand... Even if it was a dreaded hidden modifier at a first glance, it is still easy to understand (weapon/armor upgrades on the marine team for instance could be translated to evolutions...).
The aliens currently are a one trick pony, or rather Space cow...
<!--quoteo(post=2028140:date=Nov 18 2012, 05:02 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ Nov 18 2012, 05:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2028140"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The things that make it require more skill is usually found underpowered in public play, while things that make it easier will be frowned upon once a skillful player uses it and it all will go to hell and in the end it will be called overpowered.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Examples: Sentries are a waste of resources. Exosuits are not good in competitive games because jetpacks are always going to be better for their mobility, most pub players are not skilled enough to use jetpacks so getting exosuits instead is safer. Skulk movement might be okay in the eyes of most pub players but in competitive games other than attacking structures the only thing you can safely rely on is attacking as a pack. New lerk buff is going to be OP in the eyes of good players but pub players don't mind because they find themselves easily getting shot up as a lerk. Cmon UWE I know you can understand this.
I completely understand wanting to retort on posts like that, but... not even a few words for the original post/ issue the entire thread is about?
to clarify: you said a few words about how UWE has taken feedback in general, but nothing about a competitive balance group or the current state of game balance (the apparent lack of testing on balance changes now that the game is live, i.e. the HP regen changes in 229), and the major concerns that the competitive community has for it.
Personally, I dont really care anymore about what has happened while NS2 was in development, I think what most of this post is about is what is going to happen going forward. I will be the first to admit that things havent been exactly clean on both sides of this discussion, even since the beginning. While I understand that play testers are there to find bugs, they should also have some input on balance, as they will often be the first to see impacts from changes. Beyond that however, I still think and believe that most of the play testers should not be commenting on balance overall, as they lack the experience to comment on things from a higher level. Its not meant as in insult, nor do I blame any play testers for balance changes, but I cannot think of any other way to put it.
Balancing a game like NS2 involves more than just looking at 6v6 matches, I dont think anyone is attempting to say otherwise. While there are many ways to balance a game like NS2, there are few that can balance things across all skill levels, which is where the difficulty comes from. Even simple movement mechanics can have huge impacts on balance, as too easy and marines can suffer, to difficult and aliens suffer. However, its not impossible to design mechanics that scale well, yet still remain approachable and skillful, and doing so is what NS2 truly needs. From there the game needs clear defined roles for each of the units/classes, and abilities with a clear and useful purpose.
In the end most people here just want to help the game grow/become balanced... but as more and more time passes the willingness and size of that group of people shrinks, and I dont see many people sticking around much longer if things do continue as they have.
I just want this game to be the best and go super popular.
But I'm worried the competitive scene will die without a better approach to balance by UWE. These sudden changes that are too drastic might destroy the scene.
Please, try to fine tune the upgrades and changes. Not huge sudden ones unless you feel it really needs a complete overhaul.
Sr LanceRhythm is a LancerJoin Date: 2004-11-18Member: 32862Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited November 2012
I am sorry for any malice you feel towards you despite how it seems not my intention, again apologise to you Cory and other devs that may feel hurt. However you may regard this as BS and rightly so you can feel this way however I feel different and so do others within the PT Group. What you have done as a small team is still very good but could have been better still.
<!--quoteo(post=2028098:date=Nov 18 2012, 04:04 PM:name=Squeal_Like_A_Pig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squeal_Like_A_Pig @ Nov 18 2012, 04:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2028098"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What a bunch of bitter nonsense. I honestly had much more respect for you then this, Lance.
This is just a flat out lie. UWE has never told PTs that they are just bug fixers and to ignore balance. We have taken an immeasurable amount of feedback from our PTs regarding gameplay and balance, and made many changes accordingly. The problem is that people like Lance don't remember the changes we made based on their feedback, and instead focus on the changes we didn't make, and suddenly it is all "UWE ignores their PTs and their community"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(Hugh actually said on Teamspeak you are here to test bugs not balance, Leave that to Charlie)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In fact, I've been in meetings where Charlie actively sought out Lance's feedback, and after some lengthy discussions made changes directly as a result.
Wow. Just wow. #1, I don't think we've made a single change based off of a movie. #2, name a game that doesn't design around ideas that "sound cool". Of course we are going to continue to explore new abilities and features, and a pretty good starting base is "does this seem cool and fun?". But we ALWAYS approach the idea from a gameplay standpoint. Does this feature break the game? Does this feature add something new, or fill a role that we don't already have? Would this feature be too OP? Too time technically time consuming to implement? I guess it's a sin to try and get creative with abilities, such as vortex, to come up with something that is not yet another ability that simply does damage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(Charlie did listen at the beginning and they actually weren't my commander changes, I made a few suggestions and gave examples of how alien commander at that time was dull. Towards the last 3 months during the critical phases bugs fixes were done. But balance changes weren't looked at and ignored, other changes were made to things deemed as working and fine and the issues highlighted weren't resolved. Fade shadow step was based on resident evil if you remember.)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Bugs happen, and with the frequency of our patching schedule, of course things would slip in at the last minute without an appropriate amount of testing. I am sorry if we messed up some competitive games of people playing in A BETA version of the game. Kind of what Beta means, you are signing up to play an in development build of the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(Yes things are defo going to slip in when you release patches every week and implement last minute changes, we expressed at how we felt weekly patches wouldn't be a good idea as we cant test and find everything in such a short space of time, and in some cases we were never informed of changes and builds went out still with known flaws because of lock down deadlines, it was almost an alpha than a beta at times)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I can't even bear to go through all the rest of these points individually. Such as accusations about changing the game because we got killed by PTs too often. Or ignoring the bi weekly PT digests (again, I've been in the meetings with Charlie and the PT leads where we went POINT BY POINT through these documents, and thoroughly discussed them).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(The first set of digest yeah this was done, after a point didn't you realise why we stopped sending them? we kind of got no response from you guys or saw nothing implemented. And again it was the bugs that were done not balance. And yes several Lerk changes and stomp changes were changed because a certain dev got killed over and over, the Lerk armour was reduced and spike damage decreased, and only 2 patches later to be reverted)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Have their been communication issues? Of course. It is challenging to keep up with all the feedback coming from so many different places, and vastly time consuming to keep everyone informed as to the reasons for our decisions. We have many lengthy discussions in the office regarding all the pros and cons of PT suggestions, of competitive player suggestions, of community suggestions. And we make changes accordingly, but I can understand how from the outside looking in, it may seem like we are ignoring the feedback if a change does not happen right away.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(Again we knew you were a small team and the reason we asked for a balance team was to have people that have overwhelming XP on the game to help out and not leave it too one person. You may have discussed this in a team but you still left core issues with the game and the design was being changed every other month, we know things took time but saw the same issues happening over and over.)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We respected Lance, and treated him with respect. We welcomed his contributions, and it is unfortunate that he feels a completely different way about his time as a PT for us. But it is pretty galling to sit here and read such an accusatory and malicious post that has so little basis in fact.
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(Again sorry for any malice caused, was fun at times just hope it gets better and we learn from things and improve and get better)
ArgathorJoin Date: 2011-07-18Member: 110942Members, Squad Five Blue
edited November 2012
I think the take home message here is that there is a lot of room for improvement on the communication front UWE. It is not easy being such a tiny team because communication takes a lot of time, but something clearly needs to be done.
I have been quite shocked by the animosity many players have shown towards UWE in discussions over the past few months, it is much easier to destroy a reputation than to build one so please be careful. Things do not seem to be going in the right direction at the moment.
Back on topic: There are many people in the NS2 community with a very unique perspective and skillset. People like Yuuki, Fana, etc. I realised that many people will not always understand their points, especially Yuuki's more scientific methods/language, but you should not underestimate the tools you have available in the NS2 community. The most important thing though, is that nearly all of us want the same thing as UWE, for NS2 to be a massive success due to thrilling, fun, balanced and deep gameplay. I really hope UWE consider mending some of the burnt bridges and trying to move forward in the most efficient way.
If you want to improve and balance NS2, then using unique members of the community as a source of knowledge, experience, insight, logic and foresight is the most efficient way you can achieve it.
Ignoring the drama, I agree with the premise of this thread. NS2's tight-knit beta community had an understanding of the relative volatility of the game with each patch. But the game is live now and UWE is accountable to a much larger audience that will not be so understanding about experimental changes that might fall flat and make the game less fun for them. That goes double now that the game is in a fully playable state and many people are playing it heavily, whereas the beta was more of an occasional curiosity for many people(and thus easy to overlook if balance went to hell). The beta patch program should be saved for game-breaking bugs as intended, but major balance changes should always be tested further in advance using the balance mod IMO. Set it up on some of the official servers, and give it a special game mode so people can find it.
Also, the changelogs need to be taken more seriously. Nobody minds if a bug fix goes undocumented, but all balance changes should be documented religiously. This is your opportunity to say exactly what changes were made and justify them to the players, don't squander that. I also think it's a mistake to put out the patch before the changelog is ready. It just frustrates people and spreads speculation and misinformation.
<!--quoteo(post=2028187:date=Nov 19 2012, 08:15 AM:name=Argathor)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Argathor @ Nov 19 2012, 08:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2028187"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have been quite shocked by the animosity many players have shown towards UWE in discussions over the past few months, <b>it is much easier to destroy a reputation than to build one</b> so please be careful. Things do not seem to be going in the right direction at the moment.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--coloro:#FFC0CB--><span style="color:#FFC0CB"><!--/coloro-->This is true. I think we all need to take a few deep breaths and continue this discussion in a civilized manner.
I wish we could get Charlie in here to seriously consider the help being offered. As has been said, many of us here play in pub games as well as competitive, so it's not like listening to the veterans will skew the balance explicitly toward comp play.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
I think this post has been reasonably calm and constructive, while people may disagree somewhat here the overall tone has not been negative or in any way offensive.
I think the game needs some serious fixes in the balance department and the sooner they arrive the better, the problem is usually not so much these changes taking time, but UWE simply over-doing them instead of taking small steps towards a certain objective. Usually these kind of changes, if bad, are then reverted several patches later, but in the meantime so much time has been lost and so much frustration has been caused with the playerbase for no real reason whatsoever.
Balance beta builds/mods are definitely a good way to handle this in the future, it allows for greater community exposure and testing of planned balance changes, before they are forced upon the entire community. Though it's important that balance changelogs are posted, so that the players testing these builds actually know what they are looking for... AND the community input derived from these builds needs to be taken seriously. (Particularly if that input comes from competitive and generally more experienced or knowledgeable players)
I think in all NS2 is moving in the right direction, but there's a lot of community frustration over HOW we are moving in that direction. Throughout the beta and now even post release, balance changes were often knee-jerk reactions, overly focussed on addressing the symptoms rather than the underlying cause. As a result, very frequently balance went full circle: first UWE completely wrecks something to then have it reinstated in a slightly different way several patches later. Or they would religiously hold onto something that was clearly poorly designed/balanced until the very end, at a point when a lot of players had already given up hope. (Lerk bilebomb, free gorge hydras, massive sentry changes, etc, I'm sure I could come up with hundreds of examples large and small)
Of course UWE isn't perfect, nor do we expect them to be, but as passionate players who want to see this game evolve in the right direction, we simply can't bear to see the balance process run this awry. At this rate, UWE will eventually manage to balance NS 2 on a level that truly does this game justice, but it will be at a time when they will have already lost the majority of their competitive scene and playerbase in general.
<!--quoteo(post=2028098:date=Nov 18 2012, 03:04 PM:name=Squeal_Like_A_Pig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squeal_Like_A_Pig @ Nov 18 2012, 03:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2028098"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wow. Just wow. #1, I don't think we've made a single change based off of a movie.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href="https://twitter.com/NS2/status/22030896837" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/NS2/status/22030896837</a> This was already deemed a bad mechanic in NS1 too (like long distance lerk spikes), so it is now much closer to the revised one currently in NS1.
Or the turrets from aliens, which have now been deemed a problem and charlie has been looking for some reason to not scrap the work put into them.
<!--quoteo(post=2028274:date=Nov 18 2012, 05:53 PM:name=Pyromaniac)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pyromaniac @ Nov 18 2012, 05:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2028274"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><a href="https://twitter.com/NS2/status/22030896837" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/NS2/status/22030896837</a> This was already deemed a bad mechanic in NS1 too (like long distance lerk spikes), so it is now much closer to the revised one currently in NS1.
Or the turrets from aliens, which have now been deemed a problem and charlie has been looking for some reason to not scrap the work put into them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Okay: you. You are not helping. This is not the thread to complain about the amount of originality in UWE's ideas or implementation. Some of the people in this thread need to spend less time trying to prove UWE wrong and more time trying to contribute to this discussion.
Most of the people here are staying very civil in the face of this potentially volatile issue, which I think we can all appreciate.
i just feel that there has been a misinterpretation of statistics and the problem solving algorithm has been problematic.
i remember since release there is so much whine on the forums and i once see official figures saying that the win rates are close to 50-50. and this is the only figure i had seen in the whole presentation. so do u mean that you simply want the game balanced at 50-50? without considering the depth of the game? tic-tac-toe does have equal chance for both sides to force a draw but it isnt a game that you would like to repeat it for 10 years. and it is the only optimal strategy you can play in the game. what i really want to see is some in-dept statistics we can play around. how much 6-minutes onos in that 50%? how much fades and lerks are brought up in each game? even league of legends or starcraft 2 does that offen although sometimes its just silly numbers of how many times teemos is killed, it is definitely a good start. it would be eye-catching if you build a very open statistics query system. having a mod collecting data like ns2stats is just not working. the samples are biased towards servers with admin modding knowledge, not to mention the official servers and the whitelist issues.
it would be great if we get to know what the dev want to archive with and how they see the concerns raised for the game. i am surprised to hear that the onos drop has been there for a long period of time and it wasnt addressed despite the community almost have a consent that it has to be gone. there is the place where you can do the bold moves - shut down onos drop or put it into 3rd hive, instead of suddenly buffing regen where almost no one complained. if the dev and the community are not agreeing on the problem, i am afraid we are not going anywhere or making most of us happy, we could just solve problems by chance.
everyone in the forums aggressively whining or suggesting friendly wants the game good. if one just hate the game they could have just walked away. there are so many games to play out there. i do not see the reason hiding all the reasons and statistics, even if it attracts bad ideas or trolls, smart people distinguish.
<!--quoteo(post=2028170:date=Nov 18 2012, 11:47 PM:name=Sr Lance)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sr Lance @ Nov 18 2012, 11:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2028170"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->(herp a derp)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What's going on with those parentheses? Passive-aggressive much?
<!--quoteo(post=2028501:date=Nov 19 2012, 08:03 AM:name=Lofung)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lofung @ Nov 19 2012, 08:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2028501"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->it would be great if we get to know what the dev want to archive with and how they see the concerns raised for the game. i am surprised to hear that the onos drop has been there for a long period of time and it wasnt addressed despite the community almost have a consent that it has to be gone.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The community will complain about every single change, so in that sense they will occasionally be "right". Not that that's very useful.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->there is the place where you can do the bold moves - shut down onos drop or put it into 3rd hive, instead of suddenly buffing regen where almost no one complained.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nice confirmation bias there. There was plenty of complaining going on about regen since it was useless. Now maybe they should've done something about the Onos first since that regen buff just exacerbates the problem, but it was so obvious regen needed a buff. So good job showing us an example of how people will absolutely see or hear nothing if it doesn't concern the things THEY want changed.
A balance team is definitely needed. With a few people dedicated to balance amazing strides could be taken. The team should be made up of only very experienced players, probably mainly competitive.
The thing about using competitive players is that competitive players while they may have a bias towards how balance affects competitive play, can typically also see/predict how changes will effect public play due to their extensive knowledge of the game and the fact that most play public games at least sometimes. The opposite is not true because without playing competitively, public players just don't have the experiences necessary to foresee how things will be affected in comp play.
I truely believe if you are a good player, and you know who the other good players are, then just reading through the forums with a critical eye you could see the consensus among experienced players and almost balance the game.
Changes that I see asked for nearly constantly on the forums from experienced and good players include:
Add focus buff fade hp or armor slightly Remove or nerf life form drops in particular the onos
I don't think that anyone can really say why these would not be good changes to the game and these can be found just by a critical reading of the forums experienced players. There are many more such as regen being bad that are mentioned, but I think the reason they are rarely focused on is that they are not such a big deal as some other changes.
Perhaps the biggest issue is that it may be hard without a balance team to see what is really integral for the devs to work on right now to the state of the game and a balance team could help with that.
With a private and talented balance team the need for extended period patch betas is diminished.
Soul_RiderMod BeanJoin Date: 2004-06-19Member: 29388Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
The big problem is balance depends on so many different factors.
I've been playing pubs today, (for shame..), and all the servers with 22/24 players slots, are making sure it's an alien win all the time. Where as servers with 14 players, are only alien wins most of the time, despite the regen and crag OP issues.
Simply put, the number of players in game tilt the balance. More players means aliens are stronger. So which number do you balance the game around?
blaance it around 6v6 and 12v12 is going to be so far out of whack it will be crazy. Balance it for 12v12, and the 6v6 comp scene is dead in an instant. Using the 50/50 win ration target that is currently aimed for is ridiculous, because it ignores the player number factors. If you ever see 50/50 overall win/loss, then generally the aliens are underpowered in 6v6...
Balacing for varying playercounts is not nearly as hard as it seems, balancing for varying skill levels is arguably the harder objective. The reason aliens are winning so easily is not because the game size currently, its more just player knowledge and how marines need to play more aggressively early game, which generally doesnt happen nearly as much in pubs.
<!--quoteo(post=2028198:date=Nov 18 2012, 05:27 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zek @ Nov 18 2012, 05:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2028198"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, the changelogs need to be taken more seriously. Nobody minds if a bug fix goes undocumented, but all balance changes should be documented religiously. This is your opportunity to say exactly what changes were made and justify them to the players, don't squander that. I also think it's a mistake to put out the patch before the changelog is ready. It just frustrates people and spreads speculation and misinformation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This.
Would it be weird to suggest a "Patch Spotlight" akin to League of Legends. For those that don't play the Dev(s) make a video detailing some of the balance changes and the thought process behind them.
And more on topic; Games tend to suffer when balancing for more than two aspects so the competitive scene should take precedent when making changes to the game balance.
<!--quoteo(post=2028098:date=Nov 18 2012, 12:04 PM:name=Squeal_Like_A_Pig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squeal_Like_A_Pig @ Nov 18 2012, 12:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2028098"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What a bunch of bitter nonsense. I honestly had much more respect for you then this, Lance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you the damage exacerbation crew?
This isn't exactly errant drama anymore. It's a pattern that's been around so long it's starting to grow hair down there. Everyone has told you how UWE handles things, that it took lots of wrangling and the god of technical limitations being generous to make NS1 a playable game. And yet here you are, trying to tell a thread full of people that know better, that you're just a little misunderstood.
More denial will not convince anyone. It will merely tell everyone they were right about you, that you could never change and never get what makes a game tick.
Speaking of which... <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wow. Just wow. #1, I don't think we've made a single change based off of a movie. #2, name a game that doesn't design around ideas that "sound cool". Of course we are going to continue to explore new abilities and features, and a pretty good starting base is "does this seem cool and fun?". But we ALWAYS approach the idea from a gameplay standpoint. Does this feature break the game? Does this feature add something new, or fill a role that we don't already have? Would this feature be too OP? Too time technically time consuming to implement? I guess it's a sin to try and get creative with abilities, such as vortex, to come up with something that is not yet another ability that simply does damage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know what? I'm pretty sure you had to remind yourself to put 'and fun' there. The game in it's current state features hallway-wide hitboxes with structure-sized HP duking it out against eachother. Which, it turns out, is about as fun as EvE-online and completely defeats the point of having an fps engine. You even have a feature in that ruins playability by bogging down client and server CPUs while providing hardly any gameplay implications. At the cost of a fluid, playable game and working hit detection (lets cut the jokes, 30 tick is not even close to sane). Your ideas so far have been the opposite of fun - shallow gimmicks that are cool for about the length of the trailer introducing them.
And I'm certainly not the first person to tell you any of this. Sure everyone would like to set their hopes low and assume you can just get a few number-tweaks right before you work on infestation not being idiotic, but fact of the matter is right now you have the capacity for neither of those - you're not in touch enough to get simple tweaks and improvements done and you have way too much pride and time sunk to cut something like infestation out of the game.
So all I've got left to ask is, did you really want this, UWE? You've shown you can have whatever you like and you don't even need to justify it (although you seem to try anyway). You might not have a whole lot of players in the future, but your cinematic-atmospheric-casual vision has certainly been achieved.
<!--quoteo(post=2029280:date=Nov 19 2012, 06:19 PM:name=Techercizer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Techercizer @ Nov 19 2012, 06:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2029280"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why is it always the newbies who can't keep their stuff together?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Alright fine. I'll call UWE dongbutts with the account 15 year old me used.
<!--quoteo(post=2029287:date=Nov 19 2012, 04:29 PM:name=SaltzBad)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SaltzBad @ Nov 19 2012, 04:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2029287"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Alright fine. I'll call UWE dongbutts with the account 15 year old me used.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, but now it's satire! Isn't it wonderful how that works?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Okay: you. You are not helping. This is not the thread to complain about the amount of originality in UWE's ideas or implementation. Some of the people in this thread need to spend less time trying to prove UWE wrong and more time trying to contribute to this discussion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"<i><!--coloro:#2E8B57--><span style="color:#2E8B57"><!--/coloro-->Hey look! Guys! UWE are hypocrites! Check this twitter link!<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></i>" "<i><!--coloro:#F4A460--><span style="color:#F4A460"><!--/coloro-->DUDE! SHUT UP! THIS IS THE WRONG THREAD! EVERYTHING IS FINE! GO BACK TO PLAYING THE GAME!<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></i>"
Trying to sweep it under the rug it seems.
---
This game is in dangerous need of a balance team. It might not be possible to balance the game both ways when it comes to public players and competetive players. Starcraft 2 has a great system where they have arcade maps that people who are uninterested in the main aspect (the rts aspect) of the game can go and play what is essentially mini-games. On top of that, something else that separates how balanced the game is between players is the fact that there is a matchmaking system; which would be both good and bad to implement here. The matchmaking system matches people of similar skill-levels, ping and other criteria. This means that if you're in bronze league, you will only ever play against people of bronze league skill until you advance to the next league.
I am not suggesting we should have matchmaking in this game, I think it would take too much time and money to implement. But if it was implemented, then the matchmaking would be what we should draw statistics from to balance the game.
That brings me to a second point:
A balance team.
We need a team of players, who are NOT playtesters, whose role is not just to search for bugs, but people who play the game and assess the game balance. I think that this is crucial to the game if it is to survive and have any form of success as an e-sport. If the game does not get balanced well enough competetive players will not take it seriously and might leave the game. The problem here is that balancing is a double-edged sword. Balance needs to be done carefully and in a very considered manner. That means we need to have a team of people who play the game and who are smart enough to understand the repercussions of changes across the board.
Balancing is one of the hardest parts when it comes to multiplayer games. Starcraft 2 is helped by its matchmaking system in this respect. It's quite safe to say that you won't be steamrolled by someone who've put a thousand hours into playing terran after doing your placement matches. People will play on equal footing and so Blizzard can make the balance changes that are necessary without having to worry about public and competetive players.
What I would be afraid of is that UWE have painted themselves into a corner on this one and that it will be impossible to please both competetive and pub players. Some competetive players seem to have a gripe with gimmicky features, like infestation. I do not know NS1 well enough to say anything personally on the matter but if (emphasis on if) UWE has added these to appeal to a wider audience; it will not go well for this game.
I seriously hope they will add a balance team, it seems to be needed.
Comments
There's a small problem with that, where does the feedback come form? A public survey, that's exactly the same as taking feedback from the forums. All kinds of opinions mashed up into a single package of chaos.
That's why a focused small group of individuals that understand the game inside out would help, it doesn't even need to be a team, but you could "consult" on issues and proposed solutions ("does this sound ok as a fix?") etc.
I don't really want to do this, because I know this is going to look horrible, but I remember exactly the moment when this happened, where we felt outright ignored. I can't recall exactly why it happened, but we had a semi-tense balance discussion in the internal chat and we were instructed to not talk balance anymore and then <a href="http://www.ns2hd.com/2012/06/what-do-playtesters-do-and-why-dont.html" target="_blank">this article was written</a>, much to the disgust of a portion of the PT group (at least the people I spoke with), and I remember how strange the next few PTs were after that in TS (with passive-agressive jokes like: "we aren't meant to discuss balance"). Suddenly, apparently, we were bug testers, and that article felt like an insult.
Power nodes, sentries, and the focus on dark lighting which help aesthetics but ruin gameplay. Ignoring the requests that veteran players made to "sell-out" to newer players whose perception of gameplay is different because they only see the shiny new aesthetic features. Problem is as soon as they become regular players of NS2 and care about gameplay more than aesthetics, the repercussions of such decisions are going to be brutally obvious.
<!--quoteo(post=2028098:date=Nov 18 2012, 04:04 PM:name=Squeal_Like_A_Pig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squeal_Like_A_Pig @ Nov 18 2012, 04:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2028098"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Bugs happen, and with the frequency of our patching schedule, of course things would slip in at the last minute without an appropriate amount of testing. I am sorry if we messed up some competitive games of people playing in A BETA version of the game. Kind of what Beta means, you are signing up to play an in development build of the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thing is it's not a beta anymore (the title of this thread!), and the changes after release have been just as problematic as the ones in beta. I know you guys have created a beta to test changes but it's not helping the game to create a mini-beta for each release because it hurts the progress of patching unlike actually having a balance team or letting your playtesters do what they should, playtest for things other than bugs. I'm sure these experienced gentlemen have the best opinions on balance and how each patch brings new problems while not fixing the current ones like the over-nerfed fade or the Tres Onos.
Give the lerk 400hp:
New player thinks it's awesome and upvotes it.
Fana thinks it's retarded and easy.
Make the AWP one-shot players (it already does)
New player hates it because people better than him kills him instantly, bans it on his server (most publics in CS).
Competitive player finds it frustrating, but doesn't have a problem with it because it's incredibly skillful and has several counters, and realises it costs a lot to buy
Mobas:
Which hero needs a buff?
Most people basically want their favourite hero buffed.
Most players do not know why they win or why they lose. This is why CS, SC2, and mobas, and even NS1 were balanced around competitive play (at least as long as I was a playtester).
Brings up a good point as to why balancing pub and competitive play is not something that goes hand in hand. The things that make it require more skill is usually found underpowered in public play, while things that make it easier will be frowned upon once a skillful player uses it and it all will go to hell and in the end it will be called overpowered.
It is a double edged sword, but the thing is that if you balance around competitive play and the core game works there. The game itself will become more balanced as a result. I'm always worried when "new player" features are introduced that influence gameplay or movement, because those very same features end up being either too easy to use or requires some learning period. I see no issue with learning a game, it seems most games tend to steer clear from stuff that requires some learning curve...
[edit]And NS(2) is definitely on a steep learning curve, but there are some things in there that simply require interface redesigns or a more logical idea behind it. hidden modifiers are bad, but only bad if they aren't clear or easy to understand
Hence NS1 upgrade systems based on #Hives scaled the aliens into end game, opened up more depth made map control even more important and was easy to understand... Even if it was a dreaded hidden modifier at a first glance, it is still easy to understand (weapon/armor upgrades on the marine team for instance could be translated to evolutions...).
The aliens currently are a one trick pony, or rather Space cow...
Examples: Sentries are a waste of resources. Exosuits are not good in competitive games because jetpacks are always going to be better for their mobility, most pub players are not skilled enough to use jetpacks so getting exosuits instead is safer. Skulk movement might be okay in the eyes of most pub players but in competitive games other than attacking structures the only thing you can safely rely on is attacking as a pack. New lerk buff is going to be OP in the eyes of good players but pub players don't mind because they find themselves easily getting shot up as a lerk. Cmon UWE I know you can understand this.
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I completely understand wanting to retort on posts like that, but... not even a few words for the original post/ issue the entire thread is about?
to clarify: you said a few words about how UWE has taken feedback in general, but nothing about a competitive balance group or the current state of game balance (the apparent lack of testing on balance changes now that the game is live, i.e. the HP regen changes in 229), and the major concerns that the competitive community has for it.
Balancing a game like NS2 involves more than just looking at 6v6 matches, I dont think anyone is attempting to say otherwise. While there are many ways to balance a game like NS2, there are few that can balance things across all skill levels, which is where the difficulty comes from. Even simple movement mechanics can have huge impacts on balance, as too easy and marines can suffer, to difficult and aliens suffer. However, its not impossible to design mechanics that scale well, yet still remain approachable and skillful, and doing so is what NS2 truly needs. From there the game needs clear defined roles for each of the units/classes, and abilities with a clear and useful purpose.
In the end most people here just want to help the game grow/become balanced... but as more and more time passes the willingness and size of that group of people shrinks, and I dont see many people sticking around much longer if things do continue as they have.
But I'm worried the competitive scene will die without a better approach to balance by UWE. These sudden changes that are too drastic might destroy the scene.
Please, try to fine tune the upgrades and changes. Not huge sudden ones unless you feel it really needs a complete overhaul.
<!--quoteo(post=2028098:date=Nov 18 2012, 04:04 PM:name=Squeal_Like_A_Pig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squeal_Like_A_Pig @ Nov 18 2012, 04:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2028098"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What a bunch of bitter nonsense. I honestly had much more respect for you then this, Lance.
This is just a flat out lie. UWE has never told PTs that they are just bug fixers and to ignore balance. We have taken an immeasurable amount of feedback from our PTs regarding gameplay and balance, and made many changes accordingly. The problem is that people like Lance don't remember the changes we made based on their feedback, and instead focus on the changes we didn't make, and suddenly it is all "UWE ignores their PTs and their community"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(Hugh actually said on Teamspeak you are here to test bugs not balance, Leave that to Charlie)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In fact, I've been in meetings where Charlie actively sought out Lance's feedback, and after some lengthy discussions made changes directly as a result.
Wow. Just wow. #1, I don't think we've made a single change based off of a movie. #2, name a game that doesn't design around ideas that "sound cool". Of course we are going to continue to explore new abilities and features, and a pretty good starting base is "does this seem cool and fun?". But we ALWAYS approach the idea from a gameplay standpoint. Does this feature break the game? Does this feature add something new, or fill a role that we don't already have? Would this feature be too OP? Too time technically time consuming to implement? I guess it's a sin to try and get creative with abilities, such as vortex, to come up with something that is not yet another ability that simply does damage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(Charlie did listen at the beginning and they actually weren't my commander changes, I made a few suggestions and gave examples of how alien commander at that time was dull. Towards the last 3 months during the critical phases bugs fixes were done. But balance changes weren't looked at and ignored, other changes were made to things deemed as working and fine and the issues highlighted weren't resolved. Fade shadow step was based on resident evil if you remember.)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Bugs happen, and with the frequency of our patching schedule, of course things would slip in at the last minute without an appropriate amount of testing. I am sorry if we messed up some competitive games of people playing in A BETA version of the game. Kind of what Beta means, you are signing up to play an in development build of the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(Yes things are defo going to slip in when you release patches every week and implement last minute changes, we expressed at how we felt weekly patches wouldn't be a good idea as we cant test and find everything in such a short space of time, and in some cases we were never informed of changes and builds went out still with known flaws because of lock down deadlines, it was almost an alpha than a beta at times)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I can't even bear to go through all the rest of these points individually. Such as accusations about changing the game because we got killed by PTs too often. Or ignoring the bi weekly PT digests (again, I've been in the meetings with Charlie and the PT leads where we went POINT BY POINT through these documents, and thoroughly discussed them).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(The first set of digest yeah this was done, after a point didn't you realise why we stopped sending them? we kind of got no response from you guys or saw nothing implemented. And again it was the bugs that were done not balance. And yes several Lerk changes and stomp changes were changed because a certain dev got killed over and over, the Lerk armour was reduced and spike damage decreased, and only 2 patches later to be reverted)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Have their been communication issues? Of course. It is challenging to keep up with all the feedback coming from so many different places, and vastly time consuming to keep everyone informed as to the reasons for our decisions. We have many lengthy discussions in the office regarding all the pros and cons of PT suggestions, of competitive player suggestions, of community suggestions. And we make changes accordingly, but I can understand how from the outside looking in, it may seem like we are ignoring the feedback if a change does not happen right away.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(Again we knew you were a small team and the reason we asked for a balance team was to have people that have overwhelming XP on the game to help out and not leave it too one person. You may have discussed this in a team but you still left core issues with the game and the design was being changed every other month, we know things took time but saw the same issues happening over and over.)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We respected Lance, and treated him with respect. We welcomed his contributions, and it is unfortunate that he feels a completely different way about his time as a PT for us. But it is pretty galling to sit here and read such an accusatory and malicious post that has so little basis in fact.
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(Again sorry for any malice caused, was fun at times just hope it gets better and we learn from things and improve and get better)
I have been quite shocked by the animosity many players have shown towards UWE in discussions over the past few months, it is much easier to destroy a reputation than to build one so please be careful. Things do not seem to be going in the right direction at the moment.
Back on topic: There are many people in the NS2 community with a very unique perspective and skillset. People like Yuuki, Fana, etc. I realised that many people will not always understand their points, especially Yuuki's more scientific methods/language, but you should not underestimate the tools you have available in the NS2 community. The most important thing though, is that nearly all of us want the same thing as UWE, for NS2 to be a massive success due to thrilling, fun, balanced and deep gameplay. I really hope UWE consider mending some of the burnt bridges and trying to move forward in the most efficient way.
If you want to improve and balance NS2, then using unique members of the community as a source of knowledge, experience, insight, logic and foresight is the most efficient way you can achieve it.
Also, the changelogs need to be taken more seriously. Nobody minds if a bug fix goes undocumented, but all balance changes should be documented religiously. This is your opportunity to say exactly what changes were made and justify them to the players, don't squander that. I also think it's a mistake to put out the patch before the changelog is ready. It just frustrates people and spreads speculation and misinformation.
<!--coloro:#FFC0CB--><span style="color:#FFC0CB"><!--/coloro-->This is true. I think we all need to take a few deep breaths and continue this discussion in a civilized manner.
I wish we could get Charlie in here to seriously consider the help being offered. As has been said, many of us here play in pub games as well as competitive, so it's not like listening to the veterans will skew the balance explicitly toward comp play.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Balance beta builds/mods are definitely a good way to handle this in the future, it allows for greater community exposure and testing of planned balance changes, before they are forced upon the entire community. Though it's important that balance changelogs are posted, so that the players testing these builds actually know what they are looking for... AND the community input derived from these builds needs to be taken seriously. (Particularly if that input comes from competitive and generally more experienced or knowledgeable players)
I think in all NS2 is moving in the right direction, but there's a lot of community frustration over HOW we are moving in that direction. Throughout the beta and now even post release, balance changes were often knee-jerk reactions, overly focussed on addressing the symptoms rather than the underlying cause. As a result, very frequently balance went full circle: first UWE completely wrecks something to then have it reinstated in a slightly different way several patches later. Or they would religiously hold onto something that was clearly poorly designed/balanced until the very end, at a point when a lot of players had already given up hope. (Lerk bilebomb, free gorge hydras, massive sentry changes, etc, I'm sure I could come up with hundreds of examples large and small)
Of course UWE isn't perfect, nor do we expect them to be, but as passionate players who want to see this game evolve in the right direction, we simply can't bear to see the balance process run this awry. At this rate, UWE will eventually manage to balance NS 2 on a level that truly does this game justice, but it will be at a time when they will have already lost the majority of their competitive scene and playerbase in general.
<a href="https://twitter.com/NS2/status/22030896837" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/NS2/status/22030896837</a>
This was already deemed a bad mechanic in NS1 too (like long distance lerk spikes), so it is now much closer to the revised one currently in NS1.
Or the turrets from aliens, which have now been deemed a problem and charlie has been looking for some reason to not scrap the work put into them.
This was already deemed a bad mechanic in NS1 too (like long distance lerk spikes), so it is now much closer to the revised one currently in NS1.
Or the turrets from aliens, which have now been deemed a problem and charlie has been looking for some reason to not scrap the work put into them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay: you. You are not helping. This is not the thread to complain about the amount of originality in UWE's ideas or implementation. Some of the people in this thread need to spend less time trying to prove UWE wrong and more time trying to contribute to this discussion.
Most of the people here are staying very civil in the face of this potentially volatile issue, which I think we can all appreciate.
also i have a question. wtf is up with the range on gore? onos can hit you from super far away. also stomp blows. there is my 2 cents
i remember since release there is so much whine on the forums and i once see official figures saying that the win rates are close to 50-50. and this is the only figure i had seen in the whole presentation. so do u mean that you simply want the game balanced at 50-50? without considering the depth of the game? tic-tac-toe does have equal chance for both sides to force a draw but it isnt a game that you would like to repeat it for 10 years. and it is the only optimal strategy you can play in the game. what i really want to see is some in-dept statistics we can play around. how much 6-minutes onos in that 50%? how much fades and lerks are brought up in each game? even league of legends or starcraft 2 does that offen although sometimes its just silly numbers of how many times teemos is killed, it is definitely a good start. it would be eye-catching if you build a very open statistics query system. having a mod collecting data like ns2stats is just not working. the samples are biased towards servers with admin modding knowledge, not to mention the official servers and the whitelist issues.
it would be great if we get to know what the dev want to archive with and how they see the concerns raised for the game. i am surprised to hear that the onos drop has been there for a long period of time and it wasnt addressed despite the community almost have a consent that it has to be gone. there is the place where you can do the bold moves - shut down onos drop or put it into 3rd hive, instead of suddenly buffing regen where almost no one complained. if the dev and the community are not agreeing on the problem, i am afraid we are not going anywhere or making most of us happy, we could just solve problems by chance.
everyone in the forums aggressively whining or suggesting friendly wants the game good. if one just hate the game they could have just walked away. there are so many games to play out there. i do not see the reason hiding all the reasons and statistics, even if it attracts bad ideas or trolls, smart people distinguish.
What's going on with those parentheses? Passive-aggressive much?
<!--quoteo(post=2028501:date=Nov 19 2012, 08:03 AM:name=Lofung)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lofung @ Nov 19 2012, 08:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2028501"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->it would be great if we get to know what the dev want to archive with and how they see the concerns raised for the game. i am surprised to hear that the onos drop has been there for a long period of time and it wasnt addressed despite the community almost have a consent that it has to be gone.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The community will complain about every single change, so in that sense they will occasionally be "right". Not that that's very useful.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->there is the place where you can do the bold moves - shut down onos drop or put it into 3rd hive, instead of suddenly buffing regen where almost no one complained.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nice confirmation bias there. There was plenty of complaining going on about regen since it was useless. Now maybe they should've done something about the Onos first since that regen buff just exacerbates the problem, but it was so obvious regen needed a buff. So good job showing us an example of how people will absolutely see or hear nothing if it doesn't concern the things THEY want changed.
Emphasis on Balance required in new patches
Slow down on the releases
Properly test out balance changes
Set up dedicated balance team?
The thing about using competitive players is that competitive players while they may have a bias towards how balance affects competitive play, can typically also see/predict how changes will effect public play due to their extensive knowledge of the game and the fact that most play public games at least sometimes. The opposite is not true because without playing competitively, public players just don't have the experiences necessary to foresee how things will be affected in comp play.
I truely believe if you are a good player, and you know who the other good players are, then just reading through the forums with a critical eye you could see the consensus among experienced players and almost balance the game.
Changes that I see asked for nearly constantly on the forums from experienced and good players include:
Add focus
buff fade hp or armor slightly
Remove or nerf life form drops in particular the onos
I don't think that anyone can really say why these would not be good changes to the game and these can be found just by a critical reading of the forums experienced players. There are many more such as regen being bad that are mentioned, but I think the reason they are rarely focused on is that they are not such a big deal as some other changes.
Perhaps the biggest issue is that it may be hard without a balance team to see what is really integral for the devs to work on right now to the state of the game and a balance team could help with that.
With a private and talented balance team the need for extended period patch betas is diminished.
I've been playing pubs today, (for shame..), and all the servers with 22/24 players slots, are making sure it's an alien win all the time. Where as servers with 14 players, are only alien wins most of the time, despite the regen and crag OP issues.
Simply put, the number of players in game tilt the balance. More players means aliens are stronger. So which number do you balance the game around?
blaance it around 6v6 and 12v12 is going to be so far out of whack it will be crazy. Balance it for 12v12, and the 6v6 comp scene is dead in an instant. Using the 50/50 win ration target that is currently aimed for is ridiculous, because it ignores the player number factors. If you ever see 50/50 overall win/loss, then generally the aliens are underpowered in 6v6...
Good luck ever balancing this game properly..
This.
Would it be weird to suggest a "Patch Spotlight" akin to League of Legends. For those that don't play the Dev(s) make a video detailing some of the balance changes and the thought process behind them.
And more on topic; Games tend to suffer when balancing for more than two aspects so the competitive scene should take precedent when making changes to the game balance.
Are you the damage exacerbation crew?
This isn't exactly errant drama anymore. It's a pattern that's been around so long it's starting to grow hair down there. Everyone has told you how UWE handles things, that it took lots of wrangling and the god of technical limitations being generous to make NS1 a playable game. And yet here you are, trying to tell a thread full of people that know better, that you're just a little misunderstood.
More denial will not convince anyone. It will merely tell everyone they were right about you, that you could never change and never get what makes a game tick.
Speaking of which...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wow. Just wow. #1, I don't think we've made a single change based off of a movie. #2, name a game that doesn't design around ideas that "sound cool". Of course we are going to continue to explore new abilities and features, and a pretty good starting base is "does this seem cool and fun?". But we ALWAYS approach the idea from a gameplay standpoint. Does this feature break the game? Does this feature add something new, or fill a role that we don't already have? Would this feature be too OP? Too time technically time consuming to implement? I guess it's a sin to try and get creative with abilities, such as vortex, to come up with something that is not yet another ability that simply does damage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know what? I'm pretty sure you had to remind yourself to put 'and fun' there. The game in it's current state features hallway-wide hitboxes with structure-sized HP duking it out against eachother. Which, it turns out, is about as fun as EvE-online and completely defeats the point of having an fps engine. You even have a feature in that ruins playability by bogging down client and server CPUs while providing hardly any gameplay implications. At the cost of a fluid, playable game and working hit detection (lets cut the jokes, 30 tick is not even close to sane). Your ideas so far have been the opposite of fun - shallow gimmicks that are cool for about the length of the trailer introducing them.
And I'm certainly not the first person to tell you any of this. Sure everyone would like to set their hopes low and assume you can just get a few number-tweaks right before you work on infestation not being idiotic, but fact of the matter is right now you have the capacity for neither of those - you're not in touch enough to get simple tweaks and improvements done and you have way too much pride and time sunk to cut something like infestation out of the game.
So all I've got left to ask is, did you really want this, UWE? You've shown you can have whatever you like and you don't even need to justify it (although you seem to try anyway). You might not have a whole lot of players in the future, but your cinematic-atmospheric-casual vision has certainly been achieved.
Alright fine. I'll call UWE dongbutts with the account 15 year old me used.
Yeah, but now it's satire! Isn't it wonderful how that works?
"<i><!--coloro:#2E8B57--><span style="color:#2E8B57"><!--/coloro-->Hey look! Guys! UWE are hypocrites! Check this twitter link!<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></i>"
"<i><!--coloro:#F4A460--><span style="color:#F4A460"><!--/coloro-->DUDE! SHUT UP! THIS IS THE WRONG THREAD! EVERYTHING IS FINE! GO BACK TO PLAYING THE GAME!<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></i>"
Trying to sweep it under the rug it seems.
---
This game is in dangerous need of a balance team. It might not be possible to balance the game both ways when it comes to public players and competetive players. Starcraft 2 has a great system where they have arcade maps that people who are uninterested in the main aspect (the rts aspect) of the game can go and play what is essentially mini-games. On top of that, something else that separates how balanced the game is between players is the fact that there is a matchmaking system; which would be both good and bad to implement here. The matchmaking system matches people of similar skill-levels, ping and other criteria. This means that if you're in bronze league, you will only ever play against people of bronze league skill until you advance to the next league.
I am not suggesting we should have matchmaking in this game, I think it would take too much time and money to implement. But if it was implemented, then the matchmaking would be what we should draw statistics from to balance the game.
That brings me to a second point:
A balance team.
We need a team of players, who are NOT playtesters, whose role is not just to search for bugs, but people who play the game and assess the game balance. I think that this is crucial to the game if it is to survive and have any form of success as an e-sport. If the game does not get balanced well enough competetive players will not take it seriously and might leave the game. The problem here is that balancing is a double-edged sword. Balance needs to be done carefully and in a very considered manner. That means we need to have a team of people who play the game and who are smart enough to understand the repercussions of changes across the board.
Balancing is one of the hardest parts when it comes to multiplayer games. Starcraft 2 is helped by its matchmaking system in this respect. It's quite safe to say that you won't be steamrolled by someone who've put a thousand hours into playing terran after doing your placement matches. People will play on equal footing and so Blizzard can make the balance changes that are necessary without having to worry about public and competetive players.
What I would be afraid of is that UWE have painted themselves into a corner on this one and that it will be impossible to please both competetive and pub players. Some competetive players seem to have a gripe with gimmicky features, like infestation. I do not know NS1 well enough to say anything personally on the matter but if (emphasis on if) UWE has added these to appeal to a wider audience; it will not go well for this game.
I seriously hope they will add a balance team, it seems to be needed.