Development Blog Update - NS2 balance and feedback process
Flayra
Game Director, Unknown Worlds EntertainmentSan Francisco Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 3Super Administrators, NS2 Developer, Subnautica Developer
Game Director, Unknown Worlds EntertainmentSan Francisco Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 3Super Administrators, NS2 Developer, Subnautica Developer
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
br,
Tark
I'm guessing this is a way to figure out game balance for competitive play but I certainly like the sound of the veteran program better. But obviously the veteran program must not have been working out for you if you didn't keep with it.
And I imagine reading the forums as a developer takes some tough skin, need a forum secretary to send you the filtered version.
The diagram should show all the arrows going through the balance section not around it.
Many reasons:
Maps - you can't make an unbalanced map.
Features -
Add another weapon, ability, sounds loud or soft needs balance.
Optimizations - higher fps - easier aiming needs balance.
Better graphics - darker shadows - harder to see needs balance.
Even high level stuff needs to be balanced -
holiday snow balls doesn't change game balance which is good
Special extra protection armor for players who pay more money, bad
More menu features - show only pro or pub servers, relating to balance
Tournaments with a high entry fee, not balanced for poor people
Dub music in a map, not balanced for people who hate wub wub
Etc
I'm guessing this is a way to figure out game balance for competitive play but I certainly like the sound of the veteran program better. But obviously the veteran program must not have been working out for you if you didn't keep with it.
And I imagine reading the forums as a developer takes some tough skin, need a forum secretary to send you the filtered version.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Veteran program was there own fault, and failure. Rather than keeping the more knowledgeable teams to help, they decided to invite EVERY competitive team. So random idiots would create a team, tell UWE, and they would then invite them into the Veteran program, smart move. Could have been a success and would have been, but hey, a learning process I guess.
Either way, I enjoyed the post and though I already knew much of this process it's nice that the rest of the community can have a sneak peak.
Honestly I'd like to see balanced looked at in both respects and for a pub balance and comp balance to be separated. It's honestly not that hard to implement, find what works for pubs and what works for comps and set a flag on the server that is false (0) for pub games or true (1) for comp games. If it's a pub game use the pub balance options, if it's a comp game use the comp balance. This was the case in NS1 I believe and I don't remember many complaints. It's not difficult to do and the place to start is a slight buff to marines in terms of resource rate, building cost, or research time. Most of the marine games I play aren't much fun to comm cause the marines can't shoot. And if I don't comm, most of the time the person who does has no clue or tries to do something ridiculous. Very rarely do I find a game with the perfect balance.
It may actually be worth it to make an auto-balancing feature based on the resource difference for pubs. If aliens get a lead of around 100 resources, perhaps give the marines less research time or faster build times or faster spawns, and the same for aliens. That would make the games at least a little more entertaining than the lopsided games most of them end up being. This again could be a server-side flag that could be set at the discretion of the server op.
Obraxis, Lance, and myself did this in a condensed version of a weekly digest already for the devs.
Honestly I'd like to see balanced looked at in both respects and for a pub balance and comp balance to be separated. It's honestly not that hard to implement, find what works for pubs and what works for comps and set a flag on the server that is false (0) for pub games or true (1) for comp games. If it's a pub game use the pub balance options, if it's a comp game use the comp balance. This was the case in NS1 I believe and I don't remember many complaints. It's not difficult to do and the place to start is a slight buff to marines in terms of resource rate, building cost, or research time. Most of the marine games I play aren't much fun to comm cause the marines can't shoot. And if I don't comm, most of the time the person who does has no clue or tries to do something ridiculous. Very rarely do I find a game with the perfect balance.
It may actually be worth it to make an auto-balancing feature based on the resource difference for pubs. If aliens get a lead of around 100 resources, perhaps give the marines less research time or faster build times or faster spawns, and the same for aliens. That would make the games at least a little more entertaining than the lopsided games most of them end up being. This again could be a server-side flag that could be set at the discretion of the server op.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
not necessarily true. pub play strategies also have the possibility to simply mimic competitive play. this is the case in nearly every other game with a competitive scene.
separating the two is a horrible idea that will split the community, and it was not the case in NS1.
the reason balancing for pubs does not make sense is not only because they are played for fun, but also because there are too many factors involved to bother giving any attention to someone saying they soloed two EXOs as a Skulk.
for example, a good place to balance competitively would be with camouflage. if you have two evenly skilled teams that typically trade off games, but one team goes camouflage and completely stomps repeatedly - then you can see an obvious skill discrepancy in the requirement for camouflage. you have consistency and predictability, where as balancing based on a situation in a pub is almost entirely a waste of time.
unfortunately, most players don't understand how to analyze their own games objectively and comprehend the reasons why they won or lost.
We really want to keep our community 'together' by having everyone play one game: this means we don't want a competitive version of the game vs. a public version of the game. We may add a tournament "mode", but that wouldn't affect balance, only how the game starts and other structural non-game elements.
This is the same reason we don't want to release for-pay DLC for anything non-cosmetic or optional.
Frankly, I stand behind my belief that what NS2 needs is a 'competitive mode' that can be toggled on, and when that happens the 'competitively balanced NS2' will deliver everything competitive players desire. Meanwhile on pubs you won't have people trying to play a game balanced for players many ranks above them in skill, who have a different playstyle and mindset.
We had this same problem in NS1. While some may have short memories, I recall marine domination was the order of the day, (unlike how aliens are winning 2/3rds of games now) and while the competitive players said the game was 'fine' the rest of the community did not.
If NS2 was 'just' an FPS (IE like combat mode) then it would be reasonable to suggest one could attempt to balance the game at all levels. Since it is so much more complex, balance will never be attained. (at least not a a level that could be attained with a separate competitive mode)
My biggest concern is that UWE is giving the same weight to a group of players that only represent a fraction of their CUSTOMERS. Let's not forget, this may be a game, but it is a business. If you don't give the customer what they want, they will take their money elsewhere. When pub play represents 99% of games played on servers, why is the game not balanced for those players? They're the ones paying the bills, you would think that would be important to one's business model.
Anyway, this isn't my business, so if the UWE team is cool with the direction they are going in then all the more power to them. The game will live or die based on their decisions, and so they are the ones who will have to live with those decisions.
Lastly, I'd love to know - given this big post on the balance process - why we're not seeing balance patches that address the fundamental imbalance <b>that the developers themselves admit is present</b>. Why wait? My real concern with balance being out of whack for so long is that once the nerf bat starts swinging, the QQ will start flowing from people who love the OP aliens. The longer it takes to address the balance issues the greater the impact on the player base.
What's funny is that in the NS1 beta we had the same issues. Pubbers versus Veterans was a constant battle. Neither side was happy then, just as neither side is happy now. We've come full circle. :)
This is the same reason we don't want to release for-pay DLC for anything non-cosmetic or optional.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What if competitive players could opt into (or be voted into) a handicap mode that would reduce their effectiveness on servers marked Rookie-Friendly? Such as a slight reduction of damage, lower pres tick, etc. This could help even out pubs without forcing any single player out of their comfort zone or screwing with overall balance. Admins could even tailor the handicap experience (variables etc) for their own servers. Handicapping is a common solution to this problem in other games/sports.
you cannot balance for pub play because there are too many factors involved in a public game to gather any consistent or reliable data.
I'll use your example: in another post, you claimed you were able to solo two EXOs with a single Skulk, and then claimed that EXOs were underpowered. that's excellent for you and rather unfortunate for those players, but we a) know nothing about the skill level of those players and b) know nothing about your skill level. on top of that, we have no idea about the situation the game was in, we have no idea about the other 16+ players. we have no idea if those players happened to be loading up the game for the first time or if they've been playing forever, and even that data is questionable. the anecdotal evidence is almost completely useless in an argument for balance.
the only consistent data possible is from competitive games, where we know the players involved and their respective skills. from there, we can match up (with discussion, of course) if the game mechanics are working as intended.
to fall back to the EXO example:
if I were able to consistently kill a higher skilled marine or an evenly skilled EXO as an individual Skulk, then depending on those circumstances, we can investigate if a balance problem exists.
it's not a decision of balancing "for pub play" or "for competitive play", it's simply collectively balance.
you repeatedly bring up the point about balancing for skill, and how it poses a problem for pub players who are on the lower end of the skill spectrum. again, it's not simply a decision of "balancing for low skill" or "balancing for high skill", it all falls under game mechanics. a great example of this is is the banelings vs. marines example of Starcraft. it's entirely possible to have something balanced at all skill levels while having both fun and challenging aspects for both ends.
additionally, most players on the lower end of the skill spectrum simply don't <i>care</i> enough about the finer game mechanics. if these are the same players who don't seek to improve their gameplay, these are not the players who are going to care about Celerity's in-combat effects or the dynamics and strategies of each hive. most players are incapable of comprehending the reasons why they lost, and are only capable of understanding the last few seconds (they die to a Fade repeatedly and then lose the game, and assume that Fades are overpowered without any insight into the past 15 minutes of the game). the result is a mass of misguided but well-meaning forum posts which serve no real purpose other than to cause noise for actual feedback.
<!--quoteo(post=2049512:date=Dec 21 2012, 02:50 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Dec 21 2012, 02:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049512"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What's funny is that in the NS1 beta we had the same issues. Pubbers versus Veterans was a constant battle. Neither side was happy then, just as neither side is happy now. We've come full circle. :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know of any competitive players who have a "battle" against pub players, it's simply just a view perpetrated by people who like to assume things about other people. the fewer people we have suggesting this divide exists, the less true it becomes. we are all playing the same game, any animosity should simply be disregarded as the acts of those individuals.
I'll agree to a limited extent that a second set of balance rules will 'complicate' development somewhat, but that should be temporary. Once you have both modes balanced then all that is needed is to tweak it. We're not talking major things here.
Dead God something as simple as asking that we have a commander in the chair *before* we start the game led to waves of QQ from the competitive community because one of their 'strats' occasionally involves relocation, and the 1.5 seconds it takes to click 'log out' of the command chair is seemingly so 'game breaking' to the competitive community that the developer have nixed such an option - despite how much it would benefit the public servers. This is a prime example of what I am talking about.
So one difference in 'competitive mode' would be to allow the game to start without a commander. One simple change has made BOTH sides happy. I could go on and on. Little things to alter balance can improve the game by leaps and bounds for both sides.
If you keep one set of 'rules', the problem is that you can never make everyone happy. The kinds of tactics used in competitive games may require nerfs to balance it, but those nerfs then unbalance pub play. What do you do? Sooner or later you have to 'pic a side' when a balance issue comes up that has no shades of grey. Once you pick that side, the game becomes permanently biased for a particular side in that environment. Why do we have to screw over a section of the player base because of this? I don't see what the benefit is. How does not balancing the game for both groups not improve the game experience for both groups?
Like I said, their game, their rules. The developers will have to live with their decisions, and if those decisions don't rightfully give preference to the 99% of their customers that buy and play the game, then I fear the future won't be very bright.
Yes typically pubs start to mimic comp games in a way, but just because a strategy works for comp teams doesn't mean it works for pub teams. I've had decent success with dropping an early hive to get leap quickly for example, but some games the aliens just refuse to pressure or leave the hives and it dies. Not say that doesn't happen in comp games, but typically aliens know how to defend a hive in comp teams. And I was pretty sure NS1 had balance settings that were adjustable, which is what I meant, sorry for the confusion.
<!--quoteo(post=2049503:date=Dec 21 2012, 03:33 PM:name=)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ( @ Dec 21 2012, 03:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049503"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We really want to keep our community 'together' by having everyone play one game: this means we don't want a competitive version of the game vs. a public version of the game. We may add a tournament "mode", but that wouldn't affect balance, only how the game starts and other structural non-game elements.
This is the same reason we don't want to release for-pay DLC for anything non-cosmetic or optional.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well that's why I say leave it as an option. There are servers that choose to do auto-balance or win based on team numbers, and some that don't. That doesn't separate the community in the slightest. There will always be a divide between pub and comp players since pub players hate running into comp players. Personally I think the auto-balancing is a fair bit more elegant compared to the other more brute force approach.
I'll agree to a limited extent that a second set of balance rules will 'complicate' development somewhat, but that should be temporary. Once you have both modes balanced then all that is needed is to tweak it. We're not talking major things here.
Dead God something as simple as asking that we have a commander in the chair *before* we start the game led to waves of QQ from the competitive community because one of their 'strats' occasionally involves relocation, and the 1.5 seconds it takes to click 'log out' of the command chair is seemingly so 'game breaking' to the competitive community that the developer have nixed such an option - despite how much it would benefit the public servers. This is a prime example of what I am talking about.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and this is a prime example of you labeling a competitive player as speaking for the entire playerbase. I have suggested this myself on the Google moderator panel, and every competitive player I've spoken with has agreed with this idea.
furthermore, you should be able to educate yourself on his argument and understand why it's flawed, instead of using his idiocy as a weapon against us.
1) relocation is not a commonly used strategy of any competitive game I've been a part of
2) even if this were implemented, this doesn't affect the relocation strategy at all because you still need to <i>drop</i> things as a commander to relocate to them.
this is not even an issue, I don't know how to further elaborate. also, you assumed that developers blatantly ignored this idea based on that one competitive player's feedback? do you have any quotes to support this?
I believe that inability to analyze games and accredit issues to "competitive players" or "pub players" alike is more detrimental to balance discussion than anything else.
<!--quoteo(post=2049532:date=Dec 21 2012, 03:33 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Dec 21 2012, 03:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049532"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you keep one set of 'rules', the problem is that you can never make everyone happy. The kinds of tactics used in competitive games may require nerfs to balance it, but those nerfs then unbalance pub play. What do you do? Sooner or later you have to 'pic a side' when a balance issue comes up that has no shades of grey. Once you pick that side, the game becomes permanently biased for a particular side in that environment. Why do we have to screw over a section of the player base because of this? I don't see what the benefit is. How does not balancing the game for both groups not improve the game experience for both groups?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't disagree with your statement or its conclusion. if there were such an issue, then it would definitely cause problems to have to choose between the two.
however, the reality is that situation has yet to occur. there is not a situation in NS2 yet where we have had to make a balance decision between competitive play and public play...
<!--quoteo(post=2049533:date=Dec 21 2012, 03:33 PM:name=Davil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Davil @ Dec 21 2012, 03:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049533"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes typically pubs start to mimic comp games in a way, but just because a strategy works for comp teams doesn't mean it works for pub teams. I've had decent success with dropping an early hive to get leap quickly for example, but some games the aliens just refuse to pressure or leave the hives and it dies. Not say that doesn't happen in comp games, but typically aliens know how to defend a hive in comp teams. And I was pretty sure NS1 had balance settings that were adjustable, which is what I meant, sorry for the confusion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"trend" does not mean "force a green team to defend a fast hive and then expect them to be able to defend it". it simply means that as players raise in skill from low to average, they will mimic the strategies used by competitive players.
<!--quoteo(post=2049533:date=Dec 21 2012, 03:33 PM:name=Davil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Davil @ Dec 21 2012, 03:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049533"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well that's why I say leave it as an option. There are servers that choose to do auto-balance or win based on team numbers, and some that don't. That doesn't separate the community in the slightest. There will always be a divide between pub and comp players since pub players hate running into comp players. Personally I think the auto-balancing is a fair bit more elegant compared to the other more brute force approach.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
there are always just as many people who enjoy running into better players for the challenge. just because there is a divide does not mean we shouldn't do everything in our power to mitigate it.
No one wants to be punished for being effective at something.
Can't wait for the download to finish, so I can see for myself if I should have waited for Aliens: Colonial Marines to come out, or if its as awesome as it looks. Keep doing what you do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is pretty damn good, but a lot of your experience will depend on the servers you connect to, and the ability of your, or your opponent's team.
It's can be exhilarating when you manage to pull off a rush on their base, all working together to secure a win, and a mix of adrenaline or absolute despair when the other team are either slaughtering you, or seem unable to finish the game when you've got nothing left to fight with :-}
The "maturity" of the players can also be refreshing - because it's so orientated towards working as a team rather than going "rambo", your team will almost always try to be as helpful as they can if you're unsure how something works.
Many of us have been involved with the game from the day UWE made it available in May 2009, and we've seen a great many changes - if you're stuck with anything, and there's someone with black armour if you're on the marine team (aliens don't have anything to indicate this) feel free to ask them if you need any help :-)
Hope to see you in-game :-)
PS: As my signature says, I played the original NS right through until NS2 was playable enough to make the change - each round of the game is unique in it's own way, and I didn't really bother playing any other game for 7-8 years because I was having too much fun ! (...and then came NS2...)
Time for 0 res skulk to kill 75 res armor 3 EXO? A total of just a hair under 7 seconds.
Time for 0 res weapons 3 marine to kill 75 res Onos? A total of 32 seconds, provided he has an accuracy of 95% or greater, and is able to get all 5 LMG clips into the target.
This is balance? Seriously? The ultimate unit on one side can be taken down by the weakest unit on the other side in under 7 seconds? While the opposite requires insane accuracy and almost 5 times as much time? Sorry, I'm never going to be convinced otherwise on this, so it may be best to skip this particular issue. Meanwhile I'll keep solo killing EXOs as skulk until the developers finally realize that it's not balanced for one team to be able to pull that off and not the other.
The EXO is one big huge liability right now, and I would go on and on about how broken the mechanics of it really are, but that would take us too far off topic. Feel free to start another thread and I'll be happy to debate this in detail.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->you cannot balance for pub play because there are too many factors involved in a public game to gather any consistent or reliable data.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. That 'inconsistency' is actually consistent. Yes you can get people of any skill level on any team, but because of that it balances out from the standpoint that unless there are people actively stacking a team, that 'random' skill level will be present on both sides. As such, you can balance for that.
I've been beta testing games for over a decade. I've worked with developers like Chris Taylor and others, and the one consistent element is that they balanced their titles for the 'casual' player. Right now the 'casual' player in NS2 is the 99% of public players playing the game. Any developer that ignores that fact does so at their own peril.
Can NS2 be balanced for 100% of the games? Of course not. Random factors can cause a game to be unintentionally stacked. However you can even balance for *that* to a great extent as well. Handicaps have worked well in many games - and the team balance mechanism in NS2 is a perfect example. NS2 will handicap the current game by making the team with more players have some 'sit out'. So if you have skill imbalance, introduce a handicap mechanism to even it out. Give the people a fair game.
No one said balance was easy. Just tossing up one's hands and saying <i>'you can't balance for pub games because they are too random'</i> doesn't help anyone.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->it's not a decision of balancing "for pub play" or "for competitive play", it's simply collectively balance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Sorry, but I disagree. When you have two groups of players - one group representing 99% of the player base, and the other represent 1% of the player base, then if you are not balancing solely for pub play you are most certainly trying to split it down the middle and come up with something that makes no one happy.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know of any competitive players who have a "battle" against pub players<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Seriously? It's been going on since the game began, and <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=126251" target="_blank">while it's great to deny it and pretend we're one big happy family</a>, the reality is that the competitive community most certainly has their agenda, which is to suggest that public games can never be used balance public play, and that public players should leave all the balance decisions to the competitive players since 'they know better'. What arrogance.
I'm sorry, but pub players are the bread and butter of NS2. Competitive gaming will never bring in the kinds of numbers that public word of mouth can. But that word of mouth can quickly turn sour if the game is saying to casual players "you don't count when it comes to balance". <b>You're basically giving every single public player the finger. </b>
So yeah, I'm going to disagree. I want to see this game succeed, and that won't happen unless the focus remains on public play.
This is the same reason we don't want to release for-pay DLC for anything non-cosmetic or optional.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I get that, I really do, but most pubs want to play larger games and I think its near impossible to balance both. 6v6 is just different than 9v9 or even 12v12 and people just want to play larger games ...
wall of text crits you for 10x. it's super effective.
Cost of skulk: 0
5/0 = ∞
HOW COULD YOU THINK THIS IS BALANCED, UWE??????????????????????????????????
<a href="http://i.imgur.com/sw3qO.jpg" target="_blank">http://i.imgur.com/sw3qO.jpg</a>
I don't disagree with you, but that example is why it's a waste of time to try to factor in all of the possible situations that can arise in public servers. I can go EXO every single time in a public server and be quite certain that I will either win the match or delay losing significantly.
however, I also agree with you that (dual) EXOs are incredibly underpowered especially in comparison to the Onos counterpart. I'm just citing that example as why it's ridiculous to gather anecdotal evidence from pubs.
<!--quoteo(post=2049558:date=Dec 21 2012, 04:06 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Dec 21 2012, 04:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049558"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. That 'inconsistency' is actually consistent. Yes you can get people of any skill level on any team, but because of that it balances out from the standpoint that unless there are people actively stacking a team, that 'random' skill level will be present on both sides. As such, you can balance for that.
-
I've been beta testing games for over a decade. I've worked with developers like Chris Taylor and others, and the one consistent element is that they balanced their titles for the 'casual' player. Right now the 'casual' player in NS2 is the 99% of public players playing the game. Any developer that ignores that fact does so at their own peril.
-
Can NS2 be balanced for 100% of the games? Of course not. Random factors can cause a game to be unintentionally stacked. However you can even balance for *that* to a great extent as well. Handicaps have worked well in many games - and the team balance mechanism in NS2 is a perfect example. NS2 will handicap the current game by making the team with more players have some 'sit out'. So if you have skill imbalance, introduce a handicap mechanism to even it out. Give the people a fair game.
No one said balance was easy. Just tossing up one's hands and saying <i>'you can't balance for pub games because they are too random'</i> doesn't help anyone.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
you can disregard it and balance for when both players are evenly skilled or have expectable skill performances, which creates expectable and predictable results, which creates <i>balance</i>.
<!--quoteo(post=2049558:date=Dec 21 2012, 04:06 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Dec 21 2012, 04:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049558"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm sorry, but pub players are the bread and butter of NS2. Competitive gaming will never bring in the kinds of numbers that public word of mouth can. But that word of mouth can quickly turn sour if the game is saying to casual players "you don't count when it comes to balance". <b>You're basically giving every single public player the finger. </b>
So yeah, I'm going to disagree. I want to see this game succeed, and that won't happen unless the focus remains on public play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
you are missing the point entirely. it's not giving up, it's simply balancing correctly for both spectrums instead of making a conscious decision for one or the other. this isn't a decision of balancing for pub play or balancing for competitive play. both are wrong. balancing based on skill is not biased toward one spectrum or the other, it's simply the only and correct way to balance.
<!--quoteo(post=2049558:date=Dec 21 2012, 04:06 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Dec 21 2012, 04:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049558"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Seriously? It's been going on since the game began, and <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=126251" target="_blank">while it's great to deny it and pretend we're one big happy family</a>, the reality is that the competitive community most certainly has their agenda, which is to suggest that public games can never be used balance public play, and that public players should leave all the balance decisions to the competitive players since 'they know better'. What arrogance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
why can't you simply disregard this as the actions of the individuals instead of labelling it on the competitive community as a whole? maybe it's because this "competitive vs public" is a myth that you are perpetuating due to your bias.
edit: do you even comprehend the ridiculousness of that example? I just took a second to think about it.
1) he's setting up a <i>pub</i> server. <i>a pub server</i>. how is this related to the competitive community in any way, where the play is represented in scrims, matches, or pickup games?
2) he is no one who is involved in the competitive community
3) I DON'T EVEN JSDFKLAFKL;JAFMSA;AKLJ ASFJASIO AWEHWO HOW ARE YOU ATTRIBUTING THIS TO A DIVIDE AND WHERE ARE YOUR ASSUMPTIONS OF ARROGANCE COMING FROM? WHAT IS THE COMPETITIVE COMMUNITY'S AGENDA AND HOW ARE YOU ENTITLED TO SPEAK FOR IT?
Was I the only one who giggled? I always wondered why devs did not rage at some posts here. But maybe the beta should include playtesting new features in addition to balance changes after the initial play testers iron out the major problems just as a double check for bugs.
Hm after reading this entire topic I wasn't aware of the arguments for balance. Way too complicated to cater to each group so that everyone is happy. Savant is right in a lot of ways but maybe there should be minor balance changes for both sides separately. Competitive is probably the way NS2 is intended to be played as efficient as possible but pub games are the opposite since there are a lot of random factors that come into play like Savant is saying you will not get perfect teams that know what they are doing as team work is not as cohesive and some but not all people tend to do what they want instead of being a hive mind with plans for every player. Sometimes you do not even get commanders and the game ends so quickly because no one wants to do it.
The asymmetrical gameplay really makes balance so tough compared to most other games and is why there are a lot of differences when pubs with more players come into play. Still if there are separate game balances it should not be by much just minor differences to accommodate what each side wants. Like a requirement for a commander on each team before the game starts in pub like Savant is saying. I can still see how competitive play is very beneficial to balance since it involves players who can detect balance issues more precisely when it comes to aliens vs marines and the core game. Listening to pub complaints outside of google moderator should be considered cautiously because it can come from disgruntled new players who have been dominated and feel the need to vent. But even they will gain experience after time. I use to think aliens were underpowered for a while when I started playing and wanted a buff for skulk as well as many others but I was wrong. So some changes from competitive should make it to public and both should not be majorly different. Oh well I do not know enough to really contribute much but google moderator seems to narrow down pub suggestions to the most desired changes.
Ka b00m
Well, if the alien team manages to win by organising themselves properly, and the marines fail to have a commander who understands the situation, and have no phase gate to get back in time, c'est la vie...
Marines need to protect their comm chair and base, it's all part of the game.
"Cost of skulk: 0"
Cost of a marine spawning (quicker than aliens can): 0