<!--quoteo(post=2049581:date=Dec 21 2012, 09:54 PM:name=Gliss)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gliss @ Dec 21 2012, 09:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049581"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->you can disregard (balancing for pub games) 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>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->No, that only creates the <b><i>illusion </i></b>of balance. You want to balance for a hypothetical perfectly matched set of players, which will never actually occur. Why? Why not balance the game for the people who actually *play* it, and not for one's idea of what the 'perfect matched set of players' is? Balance for reality, not for fantasy.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->To balance for "both spectrums" all they need to do is create two sets of balance variables. I'm not opposed to balancing the game for "both spectrums". Heck no. I'd love nothing more than to see a competitive mode created that would be balanced based on competitive player input alone. Those balance rules would be tuned to that kind of player, without the need to make the other 99% of players sacrifice for balance changes needed to appease the competitive community. With that kind of balance in place tweaks could be made to make competitive games the best possible. Meanwhile the pub players would still be able to have a fun game without feeling like they need to be an esport veteran.
I'm totally in support of 'balancing for both' - my contention is that you cannot do it simultaneously. Casual players will never play the game in the same way as competitive players, so why would you try and balance the two groups against one another? It makes no sense.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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. ... 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<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->It's no myth. This is about the elitist mentality of people who believe that their 'high skill' somehow makes their view of how the game should play superior to everyone else. It's about the view that pub players don't matter when it comes to balance. I am not saying that it applies to all competitive players, certainly not. However, if you don't see the undercurrent of animosity from those in the competitive community who feel insulted that pub games are given *any* consideration with respect to balance, then I don't know what to tell you.
I have no 'bias' except towards the GAME. My interest is in the game, that's what being a beta tester is about. When you see a flaw, you point it out. Well Virginia, ignoring pub games with respect to balance in NS2 is one big honking flaw in logic, and in game development. I've given out 8 copies of this game. I frequently go out and find servers full of 'rookies' so I can help them learn the game. My 'bias' is to see that this game survive and thrive. That's not going to happen if you give public players the virtual finger by telling them their gameplay experience doesn't matter.
I publicly liked that public part where you publicly cited a public server owner doing public stuff on his public server as evidence of the competitive conspiracy to crush all pub feedback. I'm convinced.
<!--quoteo(post=2049590:date=Dec 21 2012, 10:12 PM:name=PogoP)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PogoP @ Dec 21 2012, 10:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049590"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I really don't understand why people keep suggesting a different version of the game for competitive players... It just seems such an odd concept. Do any other games have this feature? It just seems silly to split your community between 'professional' players and public players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->You're not splitting anything though. The reality is that in esport what they usually have to do is work around the lack of a second set of competitive balance rules *in* the game, by enforcing these rules on the players as a matter of gameplay for the tournament. So what usually happens is that the competitive players will 'ban' certain things and/or restrict tactics. A simple example from a 10 second google search result is <a href="http://forums.majorleaguegaming.com/topic/256243-european-competitive-mw3-rules-v2-released/" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://callofdutyesports.com/league-play-season-one-rule-changes-and-new-series/" target="_blank">here</a>. They create their own balance by enforcing rules outside the game on what weapons can and can't be used etc. Does that 'split their communities'? No. They manage just fine.
<!--quoteo(post=2049607:date=Dec 21 2012, 10:41 PM:name=Locklear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Locklear @ Dec 21 2012, 10:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049607"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's a myth. We want the game to be balanced. (period) We don't want it to just be "balanced only competitively".
You should stop posting if you're going to make these false accusations as the basis for your arguments.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->(I edited out your insult, keep it mature please.)
False? Just look <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=126294&st=0&p=2049530&#entry2049530" target="_blank">upthread</a>.<!--quoteo(post=2049530:date=Dec 21 2012, 08:30 PM:name=Gliss)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gliss @ Dec 21 2012, 08:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049530"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></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-->If you cannot balance for pub play then you can only balance for competitive play. QED.
Yes, there are those in the competitive community that advocate to not have the game balanced for pub play. Perhaps take a closer look at the thread before slinging insults next time. :/
<!--quoteo(post=2049536:date=Dec 21 2012, 06:35 PM:name=Locklear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Locklear @ Dec 21 2012, 06:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049536"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No one wants to be punished for being effective at something.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"...allowing players of different proficiency to play against each other on somewhat equal terms" - Wikipedia
Handicaps are not punishment - they equalize the chances of both sides winning, and on rookie friendly <i>public</i> servers why not? Competitive players (myself included) still have the option of finding public/private/pug/scrim servers closer to their skill level without handicaps in place.
<!--quoteo(post=2049557:date=Dec 21 2012, 05:05 PM:name=phoenixbbs)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (phoenixbbs @ Dec 21 2012, 05:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049557"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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...)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I've been playing for 3-4 hours now, and this game is everything I could have hoped for. I was lucky enough to join a server with a very skilled commander and people that all communicated. We won our first game and the rush of winning reminded me of the time when I raided with my friends in World of Warcraft. Too bad that a skilled clan joined, and the teams got mixed, I saw how things look when all the newbies end up on the same side. Overall I exspect to be playing this game for a long time to come and I can't wait to show my brother this today when he comes to visit me for the first time in 6 months. Thank you :)
...Savant... I don't how you come to conclusions that are so ridiculously wrong and misleading. It's almost as if you try to misinterpret everything that glissy says because you can't form an effective argument against his points.
I think that glissy is saying: If UWE is trying to balance their game, they won't get anywhere by balancing based off how a pub game plays. He explains why this is true by using your own example of "soloing 2 exosuits as a skulk." This is a prime example of why you do not balance based on pub play. Pub play yields such huge discrepancies in skill, player count, and teamwork that it is very difficult to draw any conclusion of balance from pub play.
How do you over come that? Well, statistics. Stats can be used to draw general ideas about balance, but they are not good at proving something to be OP or UP. That requires investigation which can only come from smart, focused testing. Something you'll almost never find in a public game.
Please note that every competitive player I've ever spoken to wants pub and comp play to be balanced.
<!--quoteo(post=2049617:date=Dec 21 2012, 11:13 PM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Dec 21 2012, 11:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049617"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Savant... I don't how you come to conclusions that are so ridiculously wrong and misleading. ... I think that glissy is saying: If UWE is trying to balance their game, they won't get anywhere by balancing based off how a pub game plays. ... Please note that every competitive player I've ever spoken to wants pub and comp play to be balanced.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->So you expect to balance the game - both pub and comp play - but without taking anything from pub games into consideration? And I'm the one being ridiculous?
You can't balance pub play without actually using pub play to balance it. Otherwise you are only balancing with theoretical and idealistic perceptions. May as well put suggestions on a dart board.
Thankfully the devs disagree with you, and they have said they they do balance off how pub games play. Are they "ridiculously wrong" too now?
While I may disagree with Charlie, he knows he has my full respect and confidence. While he may not want to go the 'dual balance' route, he certainly has no intention to go the way you and others suggest via ignoring how pub games play. He said as such above.
My contention is that trying to balance the game for everyone will leave everyone unhappy. (IOW you can't please everyone all of the time.) Whether this rings true will remain to be seen, but as it stands the game is woefully unbalanced for everyone, pub players and competitive players alike. (for comp players alone the alien win ratio in the last 2 builds is 68%, albeit with a smallish ~135 game sample)
Once the balance changes start to be made, I'll be very interested to see how that changes.
<!--quoteo(post=2049620:date=Dec 21 2012, 09:34 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Dec 21 2012, 09:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049620"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So you expect to balance the game - both pub and comp play - but without taking anything from pub games into consideration? And I'm the one being ridiculous?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You dotted out the part where he said statistics are what overcome that...
The devs don't agree or disagree with what I say. They do what they want and I'm not arrogant enough to think I speak for them.
If you tried actually reading my post before you responded then you'll clearly see that I said average stats of pub games can be used to determine that there may be balance issues in pubs. Using stats like these (which could be done by NS2stats!), it is possible to see general trends in pub play. These trends should then be investigated and experimented with in controlled settings using competent and knowledgeable players repeating situations or experiments.
<!--quoteo(post=2049638:date=Dec 21 2012, 10:10 PM:name=sloe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sloe @ Dec 21 2012, 10:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049638"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You dotted out the part where he said statistics are what overcome that...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2049558:date=Dec 21 2012, 06:06 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Dec 21 2012, 06:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049558"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->All of it is irrelevant. This is a poor example since I don't care what the skill level is of those players, skulks shouldn't be solo killing 75 res EXOs when marines can't solo kill 75 res Onos - on either a public or competitive level.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have to admit Savant, you've actually changed my mind about a lot of things. With the lack of any kind of real 'tutorial', having an alternate rule set for 'n00b' or beginner players would ultimately help them transition into the 'advanced' rule set. It doesn't split the current community so much as keep things fun for both competitive and 'new' or 'poor' players. Ultimately, when new players play a game as complex as NS2 for the first few weeks perhaps they should be playing with other new players as even one very experienced player going 40-2 on a team is already a massive imbalance on it's own.
I think the constant 'nerf camo' threads are almost the perfect example. There are a lot of new players that feel like they're getting the finger versus invisible bad guys, and in a lot of ways they are. However, that very same 'strategy' is considered laughable at a different level of game play. Any changes made to camo are going to piss somebody off. Either it's your 1% players and they rage quit, or it's your 99% and they rage quit. Or you change the 'new player' rule set while not doing a flipping thing about it in competitive play because it's never going to be used there.
You've put forward the most intelligent argument yet for how things <u>should</u> be. At the end of the day, you're also correct that it's UWE's game and they can do what they want with it. There are no shortages of awesome games that come out in a year, and ultimately it will be UWE that suffers the most from bad decisions. (Not saying what they're doing is necessarily a bad idea, merely that the player base won't suffer they will leave if it comes down to it. UWE can't easily rage quit their only game.)
I think the bottom line is that I really don't see how two sets of balance actually diminishes the game for anyone. You play on a particular ruleset, and if you are not at the skill level required (at a competitive level) then expect to get schooled. How does a 'competitive mode' hurt anyone? Veterans get an impeccably balanced game, and pubbers get a game where they don't feel like have a 'sore behind' after playing.
Look at TF2. When they introduced Mann versus Machine they specifically put in a number of skill levels to match the player's skill level - including a 'competitive upper level'. Has it destroyed TF2? Heck no. It's alive and well.
Anyway, I've said my piece and so I don't see the point in belabouring the point further. Seeing as the developers have their minds made up there doesn't seem to be much point in getting into a big argument about it. So I'll just agree to disagree with those who don't share my point of view and call it a day.
<!--quoteo(post=2049601:date=Dec 21 2012, 05:30 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Dec 21 2012, 05:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049601"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, that only creates the <b><i>illusion </i></b>of balance. You want to balance for a hypothetical perfectly matched set of players, which will never actually occur. Why? Why not balance the game for the people who actually *play* it, and not for one's idea of what the 'perfect matched set of players' is? Balance for reality, not for fantasy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> how does it create the illusion of balance when it's the only possible way to gather consistent data?
for example: I consider w2/a1 shotgun vs. blink carapace/celerity Fade to be a balanced matchup, as in whoever has greater skill will win.
from there, you have a foundation of balance to work from.
1) do we want Fades to be evenly matched with w2/a1? if so, then we can tweak numbers accordingly and examine individual situations where an average marine was able to take out a Fade who played well.
versus the other possibility:
"a Fade killed me over and over again despite me having weapons 3 upgrades and armor 3! Fades are imba!" from a random player. how is there any way to gather anything from that? how can we weigh this input as equally as the other? we simply <i>can't</i>. or even the opposite: "Fades are too good, I was able to slaughter through w3/a3 marines with shotguns repeatedly!"
again, this has nothing to do with balancing for public play or balancing for competitive play. this is simply balancing for skill. this is not possible in public play. there are no circumstances to gather data from. there are no controllable factors there that you can expect results from. Random Fade A gets taken out by Random Marine B, and this is indicative of absolutely nothing.
note: this does <i>not</i> mean to disregard public play. if the game is balanced and somehow aliens are still winning 70% of the games, then there obviously exists a problem. but you said it yourself: the balance statistics reflect an alien bias in competitive <i>and</i> in public play.
<!--quoteo(post=2049601:date=Dec 21 2012, 05:30 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Dec 21 2012, 05:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049601"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To balance for "both spectrums" all they need to do is create two sets of balance variables. I'm not opposed to balancing the game for "both spectrums". Heck no. I'd love nothing more than to see a competitive mode created that would be balanced based on competitive player input alone. Those balance rules would be tuned to that kind of player, without the need to make the other 99% of players sacrifice for balance changes needed to appease the competitive community. With that kind of balance in place tweaks could be made to make competitive games the best possible. Meanwhile the pub players would still be able to have a fun game without feeling like they need to be an esport veteran.
I'm totally in support of 'balancing for both' - my contention is that you cannot do it simultaneously. Casual players will never play the game in the same way as competitive players, so why would you try and balance the two groups against one another? It makes no sense. - You're not splitting anything though. The reality is that in esport what they usually have to do is work around the lack of a second set of competitive balance rules *in* the game, by enforcing these rules on the players as a matter of gameplay for the tournament. So what usually happens is that the competitive players will 'ban' certain things and/or restrict tactics. A simple example from a 10 second google search result is <a href="http://forums.majorleaguegaming.com/topic/256243-european-competitive-mw3-rules-v2-released/" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://callofdutyesports.com/league-play-season-one-rule-changes-and-new-series/" target="_blank">here</a>. They create their own balance by enforcing rules outside the game on what weapons can and can't be used etc. Does that 'split their communities'? No. They manage just fine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> how can you speak to whether it splits the CoD community or not if you spent ten seconds searching on Google? Dota 2 manages to balance for both while making zero changes for competitive play other than a simple pick/ban system. Starcraft manages the same. NS1 managed. it's entirely possible.
what variables are you imagining need to be changed for public and competitive play? the only one I can think of would be something that scales with player count (which does not change the game fundamentally, nor is that something I am opposed to). the fact is, it hasn't come up yet. there are no issues in the game where we have to decide between balancing for a public player mentality or for a competitive player mentality, and I'm not sure there ever will be.
<!--quoteo(post=2049601:date=Dec 21 2012, 05:30 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Dec 21 2012, 05:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049601"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's no myth. This is about the elitist mentality of people who believe that their 'high skill' somehow makes their view of how the game should play superior to everyone else. It's about the view that pub players don't matter when it comes to balance. I am not saying that it applies to all competitive players, certainly not. However, if you don't see the undercurrent of animosity from those in the competitive community who feel insulted that pub games are given *any* consideration with respect to balance, then I don't know what to tell you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> you are still missing the point. the sentiment is not "pub players don't matter". it is "reliable data cannot be gathered from pubs, therefore <i>in the best interest of pubs</i>, balancing around skill is the best option".
Ive seen a few people insinuate we need absolute balance, so I just want to chime in and say...
<b>No game will ever be completely balanced.</b>
Even if you were to have completely symmetrical teams (a'la team fortress), there is never complete fairness in a match, due to some people having more time to practice, or access to better hardware. This is very important to keep in mind, there will never be "complete balance". So for an asymmetrical game to be perfectly balanced is a ridiculous ideal that will only lead to disappointment.
What everyone actually wants is a fun or rewarding game-play experience - something that we attribute to this ethereal 'balance'. I think UWE are earnestly trying for (such as removing abilities that take away user control.)
Aliens are OP, it kinda sucks, but there are also other factors affecting the fun of the game, such as performance issues, clans stacking teams and dominating servers. Generally people going on pub stomps, etc. A few regulars i see only, only, only go aliens, and only fade so that they can rack up super high K/D - it sometimes empties the server.
The moral is, try and be happy living in a world without absolutes.
<!--quoteo(post=2049584:date=Dec 21 2012, 04:57 PM:name=YMICrazy502)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (YMICrazy502 @ Dec 21 2012, 04:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049584"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Our forums can be an emotional and difficult place to spend a lot of time, but they are invaluable too."
Was I the only one who giggled? I always wondered why devs did not rage at some posts here.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I lol'd at that .....aaaaaaaaand this thread just underscores that point marvelously.
<!--quoteo(post=2049571:date=Dec 21 2012, 04:36 PM:name=rantology)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rantology @ Dec 21 2012, 04:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049571"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->wall of text crits you for 10x. it's super effective.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> ROFL
The game always has only 1 type of balance, there is no real difference between balance in public game or in a competitive game. If there is something very abusable or overpower in the competitive gameplay it is also overpower in the public gameplay. Even though most players might not use something to its full effectiveness it does not mean its not possible if a very skilled player comes along. Simply put this is the same game so there is no real different between the balance.
However making sure both teams have equal skill ceilings and having mechanics in place that makes the game enjoyable on all levels of play is also important. So even if the game is balance it does not mean its fun for all levels of play. This is why we might see an issue in the game and its not a balance issue, but an issue with the game mechanics.
Let me give you an example. Camo has been causing a lot of problems lately on public servers but there is no issue with it in competitive play. This means that effective marine teams can actually deal with camo meaning its not a balance problem. This does not mean that there is not an issue, so what is the problem with camo?
Now lets think why camo is ok in competitive, here are few points: **Camo gives no real combat advantages to the skulk if they are scanned. This means that celerity/carapace skulks are much deadlier when marines know where they are but camo skulks can be easily picked out. **Commanders usually go for more grouped up game and keep up regular scans to completely neglect the bonuses camo gives. **Camo is really weak to hive rushes since its really hard for skulks without carapace/celerity to brake marine fortification, so if marines can get inside the hive area they can easily spawn camp the aliens with regular scans. **Even if skulk manages to close the distance the marines often have enough reaction speed to do major damage to the skulk or even kill it after the first bite. When they move in groups the covering marine is also very quick to react and can often pick out the skulk early enough before any major damage is done. **Commander is usually really quick at dropping medpacks to wounded marines even without them asking.
Now I could write a lot more about this here but I think these pointers are enough. Now lets think of these camo weaknesses and what you need to counter them. **The marines on the field need to be coordinating with their commander a lot which is rare to see in a public game. **The marine commander needs to be active with his scans and scan important areas but that can be really hard for an inexperienced commander. **Inexperience commanders are usually not quick at dropping medpacks or understand how important it is to keep the forward marines alive. **The marines have a higher skill ceiling than aliens when it comes to movement and aiming, giving the skulk a huge advantage for getting close.
I think these 4 points are enough, you might be thinking now what is my point. Camo basically gives any player the ability to close the distance with ease, this allows them to get easy jumps on marines. The requirements to counter this ability is really high making it a very effective way to win games vs uncoordinated teams. Basically the skill required to drop camo and use it is much less than for marines to counter this given strategy. So the problem is not balance, its in the basic mechanics in the game. Since the skill ceiling has such a huge gap between teams it causes these issues. So to fix the camo problem would be to equalize the skill required to use it and to counter it. I guess the word balance can be used to describe this but this often requires bigger gameplay changes than a simple tweak to numbers to fix.
This logic can be used about almost everything in the game. The game can be fun for both competitive and public players, there are already few games out there that do it really well. So even though natural selection has always been competitive in nature it has always been enjoyable on most level of play. There can definitely be improvements and I'm sure we will see them in time.
I come and take a look at these forums periodically to read up on the balance 'discussions', but I am usually discouraged from posting any thoughts of my own because there seems to be a highly vocal contingent of elitist pro / competitive / vet / <i>whatever you want to call them</i> players who will simply shout down anything that comes out of the mouth of a mere plebian <i>casual</i> gamer. That's the impression I'm left with after spending a few hours reading threads here; I do not want to have conversations with or even in the vicinity of those people, I do not want to be exposed to their vitriol.
That is not to say that every 'pro' falls into that contingent, not by a long shot, but it is folly to deny that the elitists are out there, and I think it's fair to say that their toxicity and volume makes a big enough impression that it can create blanket assumptions that cover other players in the same skill bracket. E.G., the mouthy arrogant ###### sometimes give other pros a bad name just by belonging to the same cadre. The 'caste' divide is real, even if the source is a vocal minority.
The impression I've been left with from skimming through balance discussions on the forums for the last few months, is that these players feel that 'balancing for everyone' actually means 'balance around the pros and everyone else should learn to play like a pro or GTFO'. I understand that it is difficult / impossible to perform empirical testing on pub play, but I also don't necessarily buy the argument that balancing around the top tier will automatically translate into proper balance filtering all the way down the playerbase. There are some strategies or abilities that are simply not viable unless you account for a certain skill threshold, and the majority of the playerbase is going to comprise people who may not ever cross certain skill thresholds into the realm that makes them viable. Those strategies and abilities can have a big impact on the overall game balance, and ultimately lead to both ends of the spectrum being disenfranchised if it is not possible to tune them to be acceptable at every point along the skill scale. The camo argument is a relevant here: An ability which may be considered gamebreaking at one end of the spectrum may be completely benign and laughable at the other. A reverse example could be something like JP Rushing - highly effective at the comp level, but with pub players you might as well be feeding your res into a woodchipper.
Every time I come to the forums and read a post by Savant, I find that his arguments make absolute sense to me, and I'm becoming increasingly convinced that he's right that there needs to be a Tournament ruleset which can be toggled on / off serverside. It need not be a massive departure from the base ruleset, it could be as simple as tweaking a few values and variables. People at comp level play have drastically better aim compared to pub players? Maybe LMG damage is a few percentage points lower in tourney mode. Teamwork and communication tends not to be as tight and responsive in pub games vs. comp? Maybe power nodes get more HP in the pub ruleset as a result. There are a ton of very minor tweaks along these lines that could be made without drastically affecting the face of the game.
I think there are some interesting and potentially useful anecdotes from observing the history of World of Warcraft, despite the genre difference. There exists a pronounced skill spectrum in that playerbase too, as well as the asymmetrical nature of PVE / PVP balance. Blizzard struggled for a long time with trying to balance crowd control mechanics for PVP without making them completely ineffective in PVE, and their was often a huge outcry from proponents of either group when an ability was nerfed / buffed due to considerations for the other side. Certain classes were simply untenable in high level PVP, their PVE strengths did not translate across the divide. High level raiding also struggled for years to find a 'one size fits all' balance to accommodate the entire playerbase, but any difficulty level that the pros felt was sufficient for them was completely prohibitive to everyone else, and 90% of blizzard's customers never got to see that half of the game. Burnout was a common factor on both sides at different stages, pro players got burned out with content they felt was too easy and cleared too quickly, casual players got burned out beating their heads against a brick wall for months on end without progressing. After many years of oscillation, Blizzard implemented a tiered difficulty system for raiding, and also changed many class abilities to have adjusted duration or effects in PVP vs. PVE. In many cases, the difference is just a boss with more HP / DPS for a 'hard mode' raid, or a few seconds longer on an incapacitate in PVE vs. PVP in order to make it viable for both.
I know Charlie just reiterated that they do not want to pursue a split ruleset, and I can't help but feel a little despair after looking back at the way NS1 ended up. The game went through many iterations and balance changes for the years I played it, and I don't feel like it ever found that magical middle ground where the pros and pubs were both simultaneously happy with the end product, and the community eventually dwindled down to a shadow of its former glory. I'm sure there are people out there who feel like it was 'fine', but I can speak to the fact that almost my entire clan wandered off to play other games instead, and not because we didn't want to continue to love and play NS. I still love dearly the idea behind the game, and I want desperately for it to succeed. No other game has come as close to being my ideal 'dream' game.
TLDR: The skill gap between pros and pubs will always be there, a 'one size fits all' balance approach seems doomed to fail by leaving both sides unhappy. I want both sides to be happy, pros and pubs alike. Give both sides what they need, and understand it may not be the same thing.
I know I just dropped my big wall of text, but I would also like to give credit to Grissi, FiveSeven, and Gliss in their most recent posts for making some very sensible arguments from the opposite camp of unified balance.
Clearly it is a complex problem, and I love UWE for trying to solve it. If they can do it without two rulesets, I will be happy as a clam. I just hope that, if it doesn't seem to be working, they are willing to consider another approach before the community dwindles down to just the diehards again.
<!--quoteo(post=2049667:date=Dec 21 2012, 09:00 PM:name=|DFA| Havoc)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (|DFA| Havoc @ Dec 21 2012, 09:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049667"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I also don't necessarily buy the argument that balancing around the top tier will automatically translate into proper balance filtering all the way down the playerbase. There are some strategies or abilities that are simply not viable unless you account for a certain skill threshold, and the majority of the playerbase is going to comprise people who may not ever cross certain skill thresholds into the realm that makes them viable. Those strategies and abilities can have a big impact on the overall game balance, and ultimately lead to both ends of the spectrum being disenfranchised if it is not possible to tune them to be acceptable at every point along the skill scale. The camo argument is a relevant here: An ability which may be considered gamebreaking at one end of the spectrum may be completely benign and laughable at the other. A reverse example could be something like JP Rushing - highly effective at the comp level, but with pub players you might as well be feeding your res into a woodchipper.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I listed above plenty of games that do not have a separate tier of balance for competitive play, it is entirely possible.
of course there are strategies that exist that will only be used in competitive play and vice versa. shotgun rushes are a better example than jetpack, but both are seldom used really.
following this example, where is the decision making process of balancing for public or competitive play regarding this? I still see no issue.
the camouflage example is good, but misplaced. it's not currently balanced in pub play, yet it's rarely used in competitive play. this is more due to it being a gamble rather than being strictly OP. it's incredibly strong, but it's a gamble on whether or not you're going to be able to cause enough damage early game to carry you into the midgame. again, there is no decision between balancing for pub play or balancing for competitive play. there is simply balancing the ability. also, I feel like it may be more of a 'respect' thing as well, since it is generally accepted as being far too strong even competitively IMO.
the game is still in the infant stages of balance and polish. to call a divide <i>this</i> early in the process is simply wasteful.
Please for the love of all that is holy bring back the rifle butt stun. Skulks move way too damn fast with celerity, I think it would be more balanced to add this back in as a way of dealing with skulks in close range, especially early game when most of a clip is needed to kill one.
Also please bring back the ready room Christmas song, it was amazing and the snowballs feel so hollow without it.
Otherwise great work UW! I'm really enjoying the game.
I'm mostly curious about how they take information from forums to balance, what exactly influences their decisions. I'm thinking about getting into the psychology side of feedback for games, figuring out how to get the filter out the best information from playtesters and forums. Forums seem like a good idea pool if nothing else.
I've noticed when I go to post I've had trouble suggesting ways to balance the game, or what parts to at least point to, without knowing more about the big picture. For example the fast expanding aliens, I figure it's part of the point of the game, the aliens are infesting into the marine's world and they have to stop them and peel them out. Do the developers even care if the aliens spread fairly fast, or maybe it's a way to give the alien commander something to do and they don't want them to have too much boring down time. I don't even know why the aliens got a commander in ns2, is there a specific reason for it, or just wanted something different? (The first thing that got my attention when hearing about NS was that one side had a commander and the other didn't, I was really impressed it could be balanced like that and it made me interested to try it out)
Also the fact that hives are always visible from doorways, so marines can stay right outside the base and shoot it down. Is that to combat the fast expanding aliens? Was it even on purpose?
Is there a reason why aliens can't choose where they spawn, or even where they prefer to spawn?
Why don't marines have more upgrades tied to their second command chair, I've wondered if it would help marines be more aggressive and expand if they had to get a second CC in order to get something they felt they needed or really wanted. It seems like it's wanted that aliens need 2 or more hives while marines could stick with 1. If the marine team loses the phase gate at a second base they will just shrug and say 'recycle it' while aliens keep diving in after the hive is dead trying to get it back.
Not sure how often developers explain reasons like this but perhaps it could help in forum feedback. Not sure if it is avoided on purpose so you don't get a forum full of critics about reasoning.
Balancing takes some bazaar fine tuning, it's like the whole butterfly effect. Hope you're still enjoying it!
--edit-- and i was curious what sort of feedback you want anyways. Is it mostly more like obvious stuff? Like most lerks I've seen that are new to the game have no idea they can cling to the ceiling using shift.
I think one thing to consider when talking about NS2 balance, is that Marines might not be weak/hard to play, and that maybe the gameplay just isn't as intuitive as the aliens is?
Aliens you go at it and know from the start that it's going to be different, and for the most part aliens play exactly as advertised. I could do everything I saw in the trailers from day 1 pretty much... Wanna walk on walls? Just run up the wall, that's all there is to it! Wanna fly? Press and hold space bar. Teleport? Right click. It's all pretty easy stuff.
Marines you go into it expecting something familiar. You've played a million shooters before, you think it'll be no problem. But how many other shooters have you played where you had to shoot small, fast moving, player controlled targets that are actively evading your fire and attacking you at the same time? Probably none. So it's less learning new skills and more re-learning old ones. And that's something that isn't necessarily obvious from day 1.
<!--quoteo(post=2049592:date=Dec 22 2012, 01:13 AM:name=phoenixbbs)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (phoenixbbs @ Dec 22 2012, 01:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049592"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"How do you know that aliens won a game which marines should have won (more map control, more RTs) but the aliens won anyway from 2 gorges bile bombing?"
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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They can take down power so quick you don't have time to get back. My question though is how can the stats prove me wrong or right?
<!--quoteo(post=2049667:date=Dec 22 2012, 05:00 AM:name=|DFA| Havoc)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (|DFA| Havoc @ Dec 22 2012, 05:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049667"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I know Charlie just reiterated that they do not want to pursue a split ruleset, and I can't help but feel a little despair after looking back at the way NS1 ended up<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I found it was a case of there was only a handful of ways to win, the game got boring when you could tell within minutes of the game who was going to win, knowing exactly what was about to happen. Every time there was an NS update it brought some life back into the game until you found the new way to win. When the updates stopped eventually I got bored as before.
Perhaps in some dream world every weapon and ability would be as strong as each other making multiple ways to win, but it seems so vastly complex I can't see it happening no matter what they do. But I still dream.
<!--quoteo(post=2049707:date=Dec 22 2012, 12:30 AM:name=CheesyPeteza)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CheesyPeteza @ Dec 22 2012, 12:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049707"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They can take down power so quick you don't have time to get back. My question though is how can the stats prove me wrong or right?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Positioning should prevent that from happening in the first place. Or at least scout it..
<!--quoteo(post=2049715:date=Dec 22 2012, 07:49 AM:name=Locklear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Locklear @ Dec 22 2012, 07:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049715"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Positioning should prevent that from happening in the first place. Or at least scout it..<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lots of things you can try, but IMO it is still overpowered. But I am asking can the stats show this. This isn't a rhetorical question, I really would like to know can the stats show this.
I'm frankly too lazy to read through the whole balance discussion, but a lot of the things suggested here are not really end all solutions, but a quick fix to something that doesn't really address the root cause. In a professional environment good problem solving is really valuable, and digging to the root causes can end up saving you tons of money. Ie. if you cut yourself on a nail at your house, maybe instead of investing in more bandaid you should invest in getting rid of the nail.
NS2 example:
Camo is the better the more 'green' players there are in a game, but underpowered on competitive play. (Let's not get caught in if the argument is valid or not) -> Why? The more organized the marine team, the easier it is to counter camo -> Why? Because you can literally group up, throw down a few scans and walk into a hive because aliens don't have other upgrades, resulting in egglock & win -> Why? Because camo doesn't provide any combat advantage, and a disproportionate advantage when undetected -> Why? Dunno, maybe it should provide less than 100% camo, or only camo when immobile, but some combat advantage too, therefore balancing both worlds?
Optionally another path would go: Camo is the better the more 'green' players there are in a game, but underpowered on competitive play. -> Why? The more organized the marine team, the easier it is to counter camo -> Why is this a problem? ----> Because we don't do it -> Why? Because new players instinctively play defensively as marines in an oppressive, corridor ridden, alien infested space station -> Why is this a problem? Because the game is balanced in such a way that marines have to be aggressive and cause economic damage to aliens in order to win, and the aliens are "meant" to be the defensive side -> Why? Dunno. Perhaps we should address this so it would be more intuitive to be a marine player in an alien infested space station, as intuition currently works against game mechanics, OR we could somehow make players realize they need to be aggressive as marines and a lot of problems would go away in the current state of the game
So what I'm trying to say is that the reason Devs don't jump into these "obvious" quick fixes is that they rarely address the root cause, and investing weeks or months of dev time doing "obvious" fixes actually doesn't fix anything but a symptom of a more deep lying issue is bad business. Two rulesets wouldn't address root causes either and it would, in worst case scenario, double balancing effort for all future patches and changes resulting in even more bad business.
Disclaimer: These examples are just a scractch on the surface of the issue, and one could run several days of workshopping and analysis on these issues and go way deeper, or specify resolutions deeper. I also predict the devs have gone a wee bit deeper as well.
Comments
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->To balance for "both spectrums" all they need to do is create two sets of balance variables. I'm not opposed to balancing the game for "both spectrums". Heck no. I'd love nothing more than to see a competitive mode created that would be balanced based on competitive player input alone. Those balance rules would be tuned to that kind of player, without the need to make the other 99% of players sacrifice for balance changes needed to appease the competitive community. With that kind of balance in place tweaks could be made to make competitive games the best possible. Meanwhile the pub players would still be able to have a fun game without feeling like they need to be an esport veteran.
I'm totally in support of 'balancing for both' - my contention is that you cannot do it simultaneously. Casual players will never play the game in the same way as competitive players, so why would you try and balance the two groups against one another? It makes no sense.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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. ... 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<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->It's no myth. This is about the elitist mentality of people who believe that their 'high skill' somehow makes their view of how the game should play superior to everyone else. It's about the view that pub players don't matter when it comes to balance. I am not saying that it applies to all competitive players, certainly not. However, if you don't see the undercurrent of animosity from those in the competitive community who feel insulted that pub games are given *any* consideration with respect to balance, then I don't know what to tell you.
I have no 'bias' except towards the GAME. My interest is in the game, that's what being a beta tester is about. When you see a flaw, you point it out. Well Virginia, ignoring pub games with respect to balance in NS2 is one big honking flaw in logic, and in game development. I've given out 8 copies of this game. I frequently go out and find servers full of 'rookies' so I can help them learn the game. My 'bias' is to see that this game survive and thrive. That's not going to happen if you give public players the virtual finger by telling them their gameplay experience doesn't matter.
That's my 'bias'.
You should stop posting if you're going to make these false accusations as the basis for your arguments. It just makes you look silly.
You should stop posting if you're going to make these false accusations as the basis for your arguments.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->(I edited out your insult, keep it mature please.)
False? Just look <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=126294&st=0&p=2049530&#entry2049530" target="_blank">upthread</a>.<!--quoteo(post=2049530:date=Dec 21 2012, 08:30 PM:name=Gliss)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gliss @ Dec 21 2012, 08:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049530"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></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-->If you cannot balance for pub play then you can only balance for competitive play. QED.
Yes, there are those in the competitive community that advocate to not have the game balanced for pub play. Perhaps take a closer look at the thread before slinging insults next time. :/
"...allowing players of different proficiency to play against each other on somewhat equal terms" - Wikipedia
Handicaps are not punishment - they equalize the chances of both sides winning, and on rookie friendly <i>public</i> servers why not? Competitive players (myself included) still have the option of finding public/private/pug/scrim servers closer to their skill level without handicaps in place.
We don't need two versions of the game!
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...)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I've been playing for 3-4 hours now, and this game is everything I could have hoped for. I was lucky enough to join a server with a very skilled commander and people that all communicated. We won our first game and the rush of winning reminded me of the time when I raided with my friends in World of Warcraft. Too bad that a skilled clan joined, and the teams got mixed, I saw how things look when all the newbies end up on the same side.
Overall I exspect to be playing this game for a long time to come and I can't wait to show my brother this today when he comes to visit me for the first time in 6 months. Thank you :)
I think that glissy is saying: If UWE is trying to balance their game, they won't get anywhere by balancing based off how a pub game plays. He explains why this is true by using your own example of "soloing 2 exosuits as a skulk." This is a prime example of why you do not balance based on pub play. Pub play yields such huge discrepancies in skill, player count, and teamwork that it is very difficult to draw any conclusion of balance from pub play.
How do you over come that? Well, statistics. Stats can be used to draw general ideas about balance, but they are not good at proving something to be OP or UP. That requires investigation which can only come from smart, focused testing. Something you'll almost never find in a public game.
Please note that every competitive player I've ever spoken to wants pub and comp play to be balanced.
...
I think that glissy is saying: If UWE is trying to balance their game, they won't get anywhere by balancing based off how a pub game plays.
...
Please note that every competitive player I've ever spoken to wants pub and comp play to be balanced.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->So you expect to balance the game - both pub and comp play - but without taking anything from pub games into consideration? And I'm the one being ridiculous?
You can't balance pub play without actually using pub play to balance it. Otherwise you are only balancing with theoretical and idealistic perceptions. May as well put suggestions on a dart board.
Thankfully the devs disagree with you, and they have said they they do balance off how pub games play. Are they "ridiculously wrong" too now?
While I may disagree with Charlie, he knows he has my full respect and confidence. While he may not want to go the 'dual balance' route, he certainly has no intention to go the way you and others suggest via ignoring how pub games play. He said as such above.
My contention is that trying to balance the game for everyone will leave everyone unhappy. (IOW you can't please everyone all of the time.) Whether this rings true will remain to be seen, but as it stands the game is woefully unbalanced for everyone, pub players and competitive players alike. (for comp players alone the alien win ratio in the last 2 builds is 68%, albeit with a smallish ~135 game sample)
Once the balance changes start to be made, I'll be very interested to see how that changes.
You dotted out the part where he said statistics are what overcome that...
If you tried actually reading my post before you responded then you'll clearly see that I said average stats of pub games can be used to determine that there may be balance issues in pubs. Using stats like these (which could be done by NS2stats!), it is possible to see general trends in pub play. These trends should then be investigated and experimented with in controlled settings using competent and knowledgeable players repeating situations or experiments.
Gotta build dem strawmen somewhere
I have to admit Savant, you've actually changed my mind about a lot of things. With the lack of any kind of real 'tutorial', having an alternate rule set for 'n00b' or beginner players would ultimately help them transition into the 'advanced' rule set. It doesn't split the current community so much as keep things fun for both competitive and 'new' or 'poor' players. Ultimately, when new players play a game as complex as NS2 for the first few weeks perhaps they should be playing with other new players as even one very experienced player going 40-2 on a team is already a massive imbalance on it's own.
I think the constant 'nerf camo' threads are almost the perfect example. There are a lot of new players that feel like they're getting the finger versus invisible bad guys, and in a lot of ways they are. However, that very same 'strategy' is considered laughable at a different level of game play. Any changes made to camo are going to piss somebody off. Either it's your 1% players and they rage quit, or it's your 99% and they rage quit. Or you change the 'new player' rule set while not doing a flipping thing about it in competitive play because it's never going to be used there.
You've put forward the most intelligent argument yet for how things <u>should</u> be. At the end of the day, you're also correct that it's UWE's game and they can do what they want with it. There are no shortages of awesome games that come out in a year, and ultimately it will be UWE that suffers the most from bad decisions. (Not saying what they're doing is necessarily a bad idea, merely that the player base won't suffer they will leave if it comes down to it. UWE can't easily rage quit their only game.)
Look at TF2. When they introduced Mann versus Machine they specifically put in a number of skill levels to match the player's skill level - including a 'competitive upper level'. Has it destroyed TF2? Heck no. It's alive and well.
Anyway, I've said my piece and so I don't see the point in belabouring the point further. Seeing as the developers have their minds made up there doesn't seem to be much point in getting into a big argument about it. So I'll just agree to disagree with those who don't share my point of view and call it a day.
how does it create the illusion of balance when it's the only possible way to gather consistent data?
for example: I consider w2/a1 shotgun vs. blink carapace/celerity Fade to be a balanced matchup, as in whoever has greater skill will win.
from there, you have a foundation of balance to work from.
1) do we want Fades to be evenly matched with w2/a1? if so, then we can tweak numbers accordingly and examine individual situations where an average marine was able to take out a Fade who played well.
versus the other possibility:
"a Fade killed me over and over again despite me having weapons 3 upgrades and armor 3! Fades are imba!" from a random player. how is there any way to gather anything from that? how can we weigh this input as equally as the other? we simply <i>can't</i>. or even the opposite: "Fades are too good, I was able to slaughter through w3/a3 marines with shotguns repeatedly!"
again, this has nothing to do with balancing for public play or balancing for competitive play. this is simply balancing for skill. this is not possible in public play. there are no circumstances to gather data from. there are no controllable factors there that you can expect results from. Random Fade A gets taken out by Random Marine B, and this is indicative of absolutely nothing.
note: this does <i>not</i> mean to disregard public play. if the game is balanced and somehow aliens are still winning 70% of the games, then there obviously exists a problem. but you said it yourself: the balance statistics reflect an alien bias in competitive <i>and</i> in public play.
<!--quoteo(post=2049601:date=Dec 21 2012, 05:30 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Dec 21 2012, 05:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049601"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To balance for "both spectrums" all they need to do is create two sets of balance variables. I'm not opposed to balancing the game for "both spectrums". Heck no. I'd love nothing more than to see a competitive mode created that would be balanced based on competitive player input alone. Those balance rules would be tuned to that kind of player, without the need to make the other 99% of players sacrifice for balance changes needed to appease the competitive community. With that kind of balance in place tweaks could be made to make competitive games the best possible. Meanwhile the pub players would still be able to have a fun game without feeling like they need to be an esport veteran.
I'm totally in support of 'balancing for both' - my contention is that you cannot do it simultaneously. Casual players will never play the game in the same way as competitive players, so why would you try and balance the two groups against one another? It makes no sense.
-
You're not splitting anything though. The reality is that in esport what they usually have to do is work around the lack of a second set of competitive balance rules *in* the game, by enforcing these rules on the players as a matter of gameplay for the tournament. So what usually happens is that the competitive players will 'ban' certain things and/or restrict tactics. A simple example from a 10 second google search result is <a href="http://forums.majorleaguegaming.com/topic/256243-european-competitive-mw3-rules-v2-released/" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://callofdutyesports.com/league-play-season-one-rule-changes-and-new-series/" target="_blank">here</a>. They create their own balance by enforcing rules outside the game on what weapons can and can't be used etc. Does that 'split their communities'? No. They manage just fine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
how can you speak to whether it splits the CoD community or not if you spent ten seconds searching on Google?
Dota 2 manages to balance for both while making zero changes for competitive play other than a simple pick/ban system. Starcraft manages the same. NS1 managed. it's entirely possible.
what variables are you imagining need to be changed for public and competitive play? the only one I can think of would be something that scales with player count (which does not change the game fundamentally, nor is that something I am opposed to). the fact is, it hasn't come up yet. there are no issues in the game where we have to decide between balancing for a public player mentality or for a competitive player mentality, and I'm not sure there ever will be.
<!--quoteo(post=2049601:date=Dec 21 2012, 05:30 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Dec 21 2012, 05:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049601"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's no myth. This is about the elitist mentality of people who believe that their 'high skill' somehow makes their view of how the game should play superior to everyone else. It's about the view that pub players don't matter when it comes to balance. I am not saying that it applies to all competitive players, certainly not. However, if you don't see the undercurrent of animosity from those in the competitive community who feel insulted that pub games are given *any* consideration with respect to balance, then I don't know what to tell you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
you are still missing the point. the sentiment is not "pub players don't matter". it is "reliable data cannot be gathered from pubs, therefore <i>in the best interest of pubs</i>, balancing around skill is the best option".
<b>No game will ever be completely balanced.</b>
Even if you were to have completely symmetrical teams (a'la team fortress), there is never complete fairness in a match, due to some people having more time to practice, or access to better hardware. This is very important to keep in mind, there will never be "complete balance". So for an asymmetrical game to be perfectly balanced is a ridiculous ideal that will only lead to disappointment.
What everyone actually wants is a fun or rewarding game-play experience - something that we attribute to this ethereal 'balance'. I think UWE are earnestly trying for (such as removing abilities that take away user control.)
Aliens are OP, it kinda sucks, but there are also other factors affecting the fun of the game, such as performance issues, clans stacking teams and dominating servers. Generally people going on pub stomps, etc. A few regulars i see only, only, only go aliens, and only fade so that they can rack up super high K/D - it sometimes empties the server.
The moral is, try and be happy living in a world without absolutes.
//typos...
Was I the only one who giggled? I always wondered why devs did not rage at some posts here.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I lol'd at that .....aaaaaaaaand this thread just underscores that point marvelously.
<!--quoteo(post=2049571:date=Dec 21 2012, 04:36 PM:name=rantology)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rantology @ Dec 21 2012, 04:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049571"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->wall of text crits you for 10x. it's super effective.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ROFL
However making sure both teams have equal skill ceilings and having mechanics in place that makes the game enjoyable on all levels of play is also important. So even if the game is balance it does not mean its fun for all levels of play. This is why we might see an issue in the game and its not a balance issue, but an issue with the game mechanics.
Let me give you an example.
Camo has been causing a lot of problems lately on public servers but there is no issue with it in competitive play. This means that effective marine teams can actually deal with camo meaning its not a balance problem. This does not mean that there is not an issue, so what is the problem with camo?
Now lets think why camo is ok in competitive, here are few points:
**Camo gives no real combat advantages to the skulk if they are scanned. This means that celerity/carapace skulks are much deadlier when marines know where they are but camo skulks can be easily picked out.
**Commanders usually go for more grouped up game and keep up regular scans to completely neglect the bonuses camo gives.
**Camo is really weak to hive rushes since its really hard for skulks without carapace/celerity to brake marine fortification, so if marines can get inside the hive area they can easily spawn camp the aliens with regular scans.
**Even if skulk manages to close the distance the marines often have enough reaction speed to do major damage to the skulk or even kill it after the first bite. When they move in groups the covering marine is also very quick to react and can often pick out the skulk early enough before any major damage is done.
**Commander is usually really quick at dropping medpacks to wounded marines even without them asking.
Now I could write a lot more about this here but I think these pointers are enough. Now lets think of these camo weaknesses and what you need to counter them.
**The marines on the field need to be coordinating with their commander a lot which is rare to see in a public game.
**The marine commander needs to be active with his scans and scan important areas but that can be really hard for an inexperienced commander.
**Inexperience commanders are usually not quick at dropping medpacks or understand how important it is to keep the forward marines alive.
**The marines have a higher skill ceiling than aliens when it comes to movement and aiming, giving the skulk a huge advantage for getting close.
I think these 4 points are enough, you might be thinking now what is my point. Camo basically gives any player the ability to close the distance with ease, this allows them to get easy jumps on marines. The requirements to counter this ability is really high making it a very effective way to win games vs uncoordinated teams. Basically the skill required to drop camo and use it is much less than for marines to counter this given strategy. So the problem is not balance, its in the basic mechanics in the game. Since the skill ceiling has such a huge gap between teams it causes these issues. So to fix the camo problem would be to equalize the skill required to use it and to counter it. I guess the word balance can be used to describe this but this often requires bigger gameplay changes than a simple tweak to numbers to fix.
This logic can be used about almost everything in the game.
The game can be fun for both competitive and public players, there are already few games out there that do it really well. So even though natural selection has always been competitive in nature it has always been enjoyable on most level of play. There can definitely be improvements and I'm sure we will see them in time.
That is not to say that every 'pro' falls into that contingent, not by a long shot, but it is folly to deny that the elitists are out there, and I think it's fair to say that their toxicity and volume makes a big enough impression that it can create blanket assumptions that cover other players in the same skill bracket. E.G., the mouthy arrogant ###### sometimes give other pros a bad name just by belonging to the same cadre. The 'caste' divide is real, even if the source is a vocal minority.
The impression I've been left with from skimming through balance discussions on the forums for the last few months, is that these players feel that 'balancing for everyone' actually means 'balance around the pros and everyone else should learn to play like a pro or GTFO'. I understand that it is difficult / impossible to perform empirical testing on pub play, but I also don't necessarily buy the argument that balancing around the top tier will automatically translate into proper balance filtering all the way down the playerbase. There are some strategies or abilities that are simply not viable unless you account for a certain skill threshold, and the majority of the playerbase is going to comprise people who may not ever cross certain skill thresholds into the realm that makes them viable. Those strategies and abilities can have a big impact on the overall game balance, and ultimately lead to both ends of the spectrum being disenfranchised if it is not possible to tune them to be acceptable at every point along the skill scale. The camo argument is a relevant here: An ability which may be considered gamebreaking at one end of the spectrum may be completely benign and laughable at the other. A reverse example could be something like JP Rushing - highly effective at the comp level, but with pub players you might as well be feeding your res into a woodchipper.
Every time I come to the forums and read a post by Savant, I find that his arguments make absolute sense to me, and I'm becoming increasingly convinced that he's right that there needs to be a Tournament ruleset which can be toggled on / off serverside. It need not be a massive departure from the base ruleset, it could be as simple as tweaking a few values and variables. People at comp level play have drastically better aim compared to pub players? Maybe LMG damage is a few percentage points lower in tourney mode. Teamwork and communication tends not to be as tight and responsive in pub games vs. comp? Maybe power nodes get more HP in the pub ruleset as a result. There are a ton of very minor tweaks along these lines that could be made without drastically affecting the face of the game.
I think there are some interesting and potentially useful anecdotes from observing the history of World of Warcraft, despite the genre difference. There exists a pronounced skill spectrum in that playerbase too, as well as the asymmetrical nature of PVE / PVP balance. Blizzard struggled for a long time with trying to balance crowd control mechanics for PVP without making them completely ineffective in PVE, and their was often a huge outcry from proponents of either group when an ability was nerfed / buffed due to considerations for the other side. Certain classes were simply untenable in high level PVP, their PVE strengths did not translate across the divide. High level raiding also struggled for years to find a 'one size fits all' balance to accommodate the entire playerbase, but any difficulty level that the pros felt was sufficient for them was completely prohibitive to everyone else, and 90% of blizzard's customers never got to see that half of the game. Burnout was a common factor on both sides at different stages, pro players got burned out with content they felt was too easy and cleared too quickly, casual players got burned out beating their heads against a brick wall for months on end without progressing. After many years of oscillation, Blizzard implemented a tiered difficulty system for raiding, and also changed many class abilities to have adjusted duration or effects in PVP vs. PVE. In many cases, the difference is just a boss with more HP / DPS for a 'hard mode' raid, or a few seconds longer on an incapacitate in PVE vs. PVP in order to make it viable for both.
I know Charlie just reiterated that they do not want to pursue a split ruleset, and I can't help but feel a little despair after looking back at the way NS1 ended up. The game went through many iterations and balance changes for the years I played it, and I don't feel like it ever found that magical middle ground where the pros and pubs were both simultaneously happy with the end product, and the community eventually dwindled down to a shadow of its former glory. I'm sure there are people out there who feel like it was 'fine', but I can speak to the fact that almost my entire clan wandered off to play other games instead, and not because we didn't want to continue to love and play NS. I still love dearly the idea behind the game, and I want desperately for it to succeed. No other game has come as close to being my ideal 'dream' game.
TLDR: The skill gap between pros and pubs will always be there, a 'one size fits all' balance approach seems doomed to fail by leaving both sides unhappy. I want both sides to be happy, pros and pubs alike. Give both sides what they need, and understand it may not be the same thing.
Clearly it is a complex problem, and I love UWE for trying to solve it. If they can do it without two rulesets, I will be happy as a clam. I just hope that, if it doesn't seem to be working, they are willing to consider another approach before the community dwindles down to just the diehards again.
I listed above plenty of games that do not have a separate tier of balance for competitive play, it is entirely possible.
of course there are strategies that exist that will only be used in competitive play and vice versa. shotgun rushes are a better example than jetpack, but both are seldom used really.
following this example, where is the decision making process of balancing for public or competitive play regarding this? I still see no issue.
the camouflage example is good, but misplaced. it's not currently balanced in pub play, yet it's rarely used in competitive play. this is more due to it being a gamble rather than being strictly OP. it's incredibly strong, but it's a gamble on whether or not you're going to be able to cause enough damage early game to carry you into the midgame. again, there is no decision between balancing for pub play or balancing for competitive play. there is simply balancing the ability. also, I feel like it may be more of a 'respect' thing as well, since it is generally accepted as being far too strong even competitively IMO.
the game is still in the infant stages of balance and polish. to call a divide <i>this</i> early in the process is simply wasteful.
Please for the love of all that is holy bring back the rifle butt stun. Skulks move way too damn fast with celerity, I think it would be more balanced to add this back in as a way of dealing with skulks in close range, especially early game when most of a clip is needed to kill one.
Also please bring back the ready room Christmas song, it was amazing and the snowballs feel so hollow without it.
Otherwise great work UW! I'm really enjoying the game.
I've noticed when I go to post I've had trouble suggesting ways to balance the game, or what parts to at least point to, without knowing more about the big picture. For example the fast expanding aliens, I figure it's part of the point of the game, the aliens are infesting into the marine's world and they have to stop them and peel them out. Do the developers even care if the aliens spread fairly fast, or maybe it's a way to give the alien commander something to do and they don't want them to have too much boring down time. I don't even know why the aliens got a commander in ns2, is there a specific reason for it, or just wanted something different? (The first thing that got my attention when hearing about NS was that one side had a commander and the other didn't, I was really impressed it could be balanced like that and it made me interested to try it out)
Also the fact that hives are always visible from doorways, so marines can stay right outside the base and shoot it down. Is that to combat the fast expanding aliens? Was it even on purpose?
Is there a reason why aliens can't choose where they spawn, or even where they prefer to spawn?
Why don't marines have more upgrades tied to their second command chair, I've wondered if it would help marines be more aggressive and expand if they had to get a second CC in order to get something they felt they needed or really wanted. It seems like it's wanted that aliens need 2 or more hives while marines could stick with 1. If the marine team loses the phase gate at a second base they will just shrug and say 'recycle it' while aliens keep diving in after the hive is dead trying to get it back.
Not sure how often developers explain reasons like this but perhaps it could help in forum feedback. Not sure if it is avoided on purpose so you don't get a forum full of critics about reasoning.
Balancing takes some bazaar fine tuning, it's like the whole butterfly effect. Hope you're still enjoying it!
--edit--
and i was curious what sort of feedback you want anyways. Is it mostly more like obvious stuff? Like most lerks I've seen that are new to the game have no idea they can cling to the ceiling using shift.
Aliens you go at it and know from the start that it's going to be different, and for the most part aliens play exactly as advertised. I could do everything I saw in the trailers from day 1 pretty much... Wanna walk on walls? Just run up the wall, that's all there is to it! Wanna fly? Press and hold space bar. Teleport? Right click. It's all pretty easy stuff.
Marines you go into it expecting something familiar. You've played a million shooters before, you think it'll be no problem. But how many other shooters have you played where you had to shoot small, fast moving, player controlled targets that are actively evading your fire and attacking you at the same time? Probably none. So it's less learning new skills and more re-learning old ones. And that's something that isn't necessarily obvious from day 1.
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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They can take down power so quick you don't have time to get back. My question though is how can the stats prove me wrong or right?
I found it was a case of there was only a handful of ways to win, the game got boring when you could tell within minutes of the game who was going to win, knowing exactly what was about to happen. Every time there was an NS update it brought some life back into the game until you found the new way to win. When the updates stopped eventually I got bored as before.
Perhaps in some dream world every weapon and ability would be as strong as each other making multiple ways to win, but it seems so vastly complex I can't see it happening no matter what they do. But I still dream.
Positioning should prevent that from happening in the first place. Or at least scout it..
Lots of things you can try, but IMO it is still overpowered. But I am asking can the stats show this. This isn't a rhetorical question, I really would like to know can the stats show this.
NS2 example:
Camo is the better the more 'green' players there are in a game, but underpowered on competitive play. (Let's not get caught in if the argument is valid or not)
-> Why?
The more organized the marine team, the easier it is to counter camo
-> Why?
Because you can literally group up, throw down a few scans and walk into a hive because aliens don't have other upgrades, resulting in egglock & win
-> Why?
Because camo doesn't provide any combat advantage, and a disproportionate advantage when undetected
-> Why?
Dunno, maybe it should provide less than 100% camo, or only camo when immobile, but some combat advantage too, therefore balancing both worlds?
Optionally another path would go:
Camo is the better the more 'green' players there are in a game, but underpowered on competitive play.
-> Why?
The more organized the marine team, the easier it is to counter camo
-> Why is this a problem?
----> Because we don't do it
-> Why?
Because new players instinctively play defensively as marines in an oppressive, corridor ridden, alien infested space station
-> Why is this a problem?
Because the game is balanced in such a way that marines have to be aggressive and cause economic damage to aliens in order to win, and the aliens are "meant" to be the defensive side
-> Why?
Dunno. Perhaps we should address this so it would be more intuitive to be a marine player in an alien infested space station, as intuition currently works against game mechanics, OR we could somehow make players realize they need to be aggressive as marines and a lot of problems would go away in the current state of the game
So what I'm trying to say is that the reason Devs don't jump into these "obvious" quick fixes is that they rarely address the root cause, and investing weeks or months of dev time doing "obvious" fixes actually doesn't fix anything but a symptom of a more deep lying issue is bad business. Two rulesets wouldn't address root causes either and it would, in worst case scenario, double balancing effort for all future patches and changes resulting in even more bad business.
Disclaimer: These examples are just a scractch on the surface of the issue, and one could run several days of workshopping and analysis on these issues and go way deeper, or specify resolutions deeper. I also predict the devs have gone a wee bit deeper as well.
br,
Tark