In most matches where marines lose it is because they don't play aggressively and instead turtle next to the armory. People are so scared of screwing up their K/D ratios that they don't want to push on the Aliens. Constant harassment and pressure wins Marines games.
I'd venture to say it isn't the kdr they care most about, it's the fact that dying as a marine is far more devastating for the team than losing a lousy skulk.
How so?
Dying as marine consumes no resource (eggs) and it is impossible for marines to become spawn locked. Due to progressive scaling, marines are also far less reliant on pRes, so the lost res affects them less.
Well, to be fair, the only alien you can run away from is the Gorge, at least until jetpacks are done. (I beg for JP every match lol).
I often lose 40-60 res on buying shotguns and promptly dying. I need to be more careful, but I often play aggressively, 'cause passive marine play makes the whole team lose.
Sure, someone can pick up my shotgun. And then fail harder than I did and have it get tossed down a pit. Or if no one picks up my shotgun, it disappears 0.5 seconds away from me about to pick it up. God I hate that.
Worst I manage to do as aliens is die as a Gorge about twice, or purposefully downgrade back to skulk. Once I get Lerk/Fade I usually survive long enough to buy another life form.
There will be subtle balance tweaks in Gorgeous. They will not be headline grabbing. You might not even notice some of them in the changelog. But that is a good thing. NS2 is going to be around and supported for a long, long time. Getting to 50/50 will be an ongoing, careful, considered process.
As others have pointed out, the subtle balance process and tweaking are something you build on top of solid and refined base mechanics.
The last I heard, skulk walljump is still being looked at, the res model might still need changes, the fade hasn't still found it's place between the skill levels and so on. Even the performance and hitreg are still pushing the balance around.
Any subtle process you start now is going to end up head butting against the bigger flaws and even if you somehow hit acceptable levels of balance on multiple game sizes and player skill levels, the chances are that the game isn't fun and/or interesting to play.
Your assuming the cause of the win:loss shift was related to balance metrics...given the change in ratio happened without there being any balance changes made this seems highly unlikely. The most likely causes are put down to the human variable
Sorry, but the "learn to play" myth has been debunked many times, since balance is worse in competitive games. Furthermore, we've *ALREADY* seen the impact that player skill had on the game since the ratio started at 50/50 and went to 60/40 after people 'learned' how to play.
If this was the 3rd day after it was released, you would have a point. It's been three months. The "human variable" is no longer the factor you make it out to be. If it was, we would have balanced competitive games.
Sorry but just because you feel its not valid does not mean its not a factor. People are creatures or habit, this was obvious in the first couple of days as people all milled around the marine door in the RR.
This continues to be true for most new players which is why we continue to see this shift. New players join the game all the time (often see 2-3 greens...god know how many with less than 50-100 hours) and as such they gravitate to the marine team. Couple this with people wanting to learn to comm and the marines reliance on a good comm you see there is not really a balance issue.
The balance went from 50:50 (which it had been in the last days before we went retail) to 40:60 aliens way with no changes.
I think you overestimate the speed with which it takes people to adapt. I also wonder if you realise how much more susceptable to a bad comm marines are in comparison to aliens.
So 1 bad player can cause marines to lose (if in comm chair) more easily than a similarly poor alien khamm (trolls aside).
The human variable is not something that goes away with time...the fact one side if more reliant on an expereinced/good comm is not something you want to balance in this game...as the asymmetry is seen as a bonus (kinda like how aliens cant pick up a dead lerk/fade carcus similar to marines picking up GL's).
Your assuming the cause of the win:loss shift was related to balance metrics...given the change in ratio happened without there being any balance changes made this seems highly unlikely. The most likely causes are put down to the human variable
Sorry, but the "learn to play" myth has been debunked many times, since balance is worse in competitive games. Furthermore, we've *ALREADY* seen the impact that player skill had on the game since the ratio started at 50/50 and went to 60/40 after people 'learned' how to play.
If this was the 3rd day after it was released, you would have a point. It's been three months. The "human variable" is no longer the factor you make it out to be. If it was, we would have balanced competitive games.
Sorry but just because you feel its not valid does not mean its not a factor. People are creatures or habit, this was obvious in the first couple of days as people all milled around the marine door in the RR.
This continues to be true for most new players which is why we continue to see this shift. New players join the game all the time (often see 2-3 greens...god know how many with less than 50-100 hours) and as such they gravitate to the marine team. Couple this with people wanting to learn to comm and the marines reliance on a good comm you see there is not really a balance issue.
The balance went from 50:50 (which it had been in the last days before we went retail) to 40:60 aliens way with no changes.
I think you overestimate the speed with which it takes people to adapt. I also wonder if you realise how much more susceptable to a bad comm marines are in comparison to aliens.
So 1 bad player can cause marines to lose (if in comm chair) more easily than a similarly poor alien khamm (trolls aside).
The human variable is not something that goes away with time...the fact one side if more reliant on an expereinced/good comm is not something you want to balance in this game...as the asymmetry is seen as a bonus (kinda like how aliens cant pick up a dead lerk/fade carcus similar to marines picking up GL's).
Do you even get the point? Everything you just said was completely irrelevant to the single most important fact.
The alien win ratio in competitive games is hovering around 70%. And even if you disregard NS2Stats because the sample is too small, I and a huge amount of other people can vouch for it being spot on. From my own brief experience in the comp scene, we had "alien draws" against clearly better or clearly worse teams many times, where we, or the other team, respectively, didn't deserve to win any rounds at all.
The game is massively unbalanced, with or without people who know how to play. It's a FACT supported by stats and the experience of hundreds of good players, and there's no arguing around it.
Your assuming the cause of the win:loss shift was related to balance metrics...given the change in ratio happened without there being any balance changes made this seems highly unlikely. The most likely causes are put down to the human variable
Sorry, but the "learn to play" myth has been debunked many times, since balance is worse in competitive games. Furthermore, we've *ALREADY* seen the impact that player skill had on the game since the ratio started at 50/50 and went to 60/40 after people 'learned' how to play.
If this was the 3rd day after it was released, you would have a point. It's been three months. The "human variable" is no longer the factor you make it out to be. If it was, we would have balanced competitive games.
Sorry but just because you feel its not valid does not mean its not a factor. People are creatures or habit, this was obvious in the first couple of days as people all milled around the marine door in the RR.
This continues to be true for most new players which is why we continue to see this shift. New players join the game all the time (often see 2-3 greens...god know how many with less than 50-100 hours) and as such they gravitate to the marine team. Couple this with people wanting to learn to comm and the marines reliance on a good comm you see there is not really a balance issue.
The balance went from 50:50 (which it had been in the last days before we went retail) to 40:60 aliens way with no changes.
I think you overestimate the speed with which it takes people to adapt. I also wonder if you realise how much more susceptable to a bad comm marines are in comparison to aliens.
So 1 bad player can cause marines to lose (if in comm chair) more easily than a similarly poor alien khamm (trolls aside).
The human variable is not something that goes away with time...the fact one side if more reliant on an expereinced/good comm is not something you want to balance in this game...as the asymmetry is seen as a bonus (kinda like how aliens cant pick up a dead lerk/fade carcus similar to marines picking up GL's).
Do you even get the point? Everything you just said was completely irrelevant to the single most important fact.
The alien win ratio in competitive games is hovering around 70%. And even if you disregard NS2Stats because the sample is too small, I and a huge amount of other people can vouch for it being spot on. From my own brief experience in the comp scene, we had "alien draws" against clearly better or clearly worse teams many times, where we, or the other team, respectively, didn't deserve to win any rounds at all.
The game is massively unbalanced, with or without people who know how to play. It's a FACT supported by stats and the experience of hundreds of good players, and there's no arguing around it.
How to you get to be a competitive player? Do you have to have played the game for x number of hours?
Nope you just have to have a couple of mates, form a clan then join a league.
The later stages of the beta (before we went retail) offer a better insight as it was made up of people who had for the most part been playing NS2 for atleast 12 month so understanding strats, proficient comms etc where more common than they are now.
The win loss ratios are in aliens favour yes, but the cause does not have to be balance...as has already been tuched on in this and other threads multiple factors goes into win loss including, player skill, starting hives, upgrade paths, competence of comm/khamm, player numbers, map, length of game to name but a few.
That the game is unbalanced and the win loss is related to that is anything but fact as the data swung without any changes.
We went from a good couple of build with roughly 50:50 ratios to 40:60 with nothing but a new group of players (who had not spent upwards of 200 hours playing the game as was the case with the later part of the beta).
That the game is unbalanced and the win loss is related to that is anything but fact as the data swung without any changes.
We went from a good couple of build with roughly 50:50 ratios to 40:60 with nothing but a new group of players (who had not spent upwards of 200 hours playing the game as was the case with the later part of the beta).
This line of reasoning starts on the faulty premise that a 50:50 ratio in the statistics is necessarily a situation in which all elements within the game are properly balanced. It is wrong. I was in the beta and I can ASSURE you, there was no balance, even when UWE so proudly claimed the winrates were 50/50. Go look at the threads, you'll see most beta players just shrugged when UWE made a victorious post about how 'well balanced' the game was according to their stats.
That the game is unbalanced and the win loss is related to that is anything but fact as the data swung without any changes.
We went from a good couple of build with roughly 50:50 ratios to 40:60 with nothing but a new group of players (who had not spent upwards of 200 hours playing the game as was the case with the later part of the beta).
This line of reasoning starts on the faulty premise that a 50:50 ratio in the statistics is necessarily a situation in which all elements within the game are properly balanced. It is wrong. I was in the beta and I can ASSURE you, there was no balance, even when UWE so proudly claimed the winrates were 50/50. Go look at the threads, you'll see most beta players just shrugged when UWE made a victorious post about how 'well balanced' the game was according to their stats.
Completely agree, thankfully they did listen and buffed the aliens as they recognized they where not fun to play.
Which is why the supposed 40:60 is also irrelevant and does not mean the games not balanced.
When only the marines found the game fun and aliens didn't...50:50 was meaningless.
UWE had always said they wanted both sides to be fun and went about effectively buffing aliens.
Fun to play for both sides is as much an issue as win rates...and whilst losing on marines is not fun....its leaps and bounds ahead of losing as an alien team. At least you can still get kills and do some damage in between waits in the spawn queue.
There is a large component that we cant control that will influence this...its the humans playing the game component and our ability to screw up. That will hurt the marines more especially if its the comm.
Aliens khamm cant screw up as easily, so 1 person screwing up has less of an impact.
Now this aspect of the game cant be changed, after all the games designed around asymmetry and the lower influence the khamm has is part of the intended design (he is more the gardener than the general).
I think it is bad design if an important role like the alien commander has no potential to screw up a game. That meas his job is too easy. The khamm has just about the same influence as the marine commander, he just has less to do to achieve the same.
He can stuff up...just not as easily and seemingly in fewer ways so he loses the game as a result less often.
Unless you make him almost exactly like the marine comm he will always have less opportunity to stuff up.
I think its like aliens not being able to recycle things to avoid res locking or like weapon sharing on marine side.
Its part of the key to asymmetry that the comms/khamm are different and part of the design brief for the khamm I believe.
I see a lot of people criticizing this game from a pub match player's perspective.
This is, I think, how UWE wants most people to view the game, but I don't think UWE wants us to use this as the sole basis for balancing and judging the game.
After watching some tournament matches, it became pretty apparent to me that tournament strategy is based on practiced information while all the pub matches I've ever played were based on easing the pain of learning to play as much as possible - maybe this will change over time as the game ages and people know what to do.
Anyway, maybe UWE needs to divide the game up into a tournament mode and into a public play mode?
I don't know.
Maybe it IS just a problem of marines needing better guidance in strategy than aliens. Such guidance could be acquired by building a singleplayer campaign mode for the game - or even cooperative campaign missions for players to have a chance to play as marines in a story.
Again, I don't know, but something to think about.
We basically may not ever get campaigns - that would probably be considered a very kind gift if we got one.
The good news is that as people learn how to play these kinds of problems will go away. The bad news is new problems will start to show up.
Today we are faced with the challenge of shifting the pendulum back. But we have to be extremely, exceedingly careful. Light-tough is an understatement. An incredibly subtle change, like increasing total shotgun damage, could over time move that win ratio a whole 10 points. Or it could not. But if we move too fast, and the pendulum instantly shifts 5 points, it could end in utter disaster one month down the road.
Hugh, while I certainly agree that knee-jerk balance decisions can be detrimental to the game, it should also be noted that the imbalance itself takes a toll as well. You guys have done really well to date, given your limited resources. My employer doesn't release patches nearly as often, but we have consoles to deal with as well as PC, so it gets 'complicated'.
What I've found can help when the natives are restless is communication. Post a weekly 'state of the game' note, letting people know what you're working on. Doesn't have to be details, just has to be enough to let people know changes are on the way.
Right now there are many who wonder if a probable cause for the imbalance is known, let alone being worked on. Sure we can all post our opinions on what we think is wrong and how to fix it, but what do the developers think?
Also, you acknowledge that balance needs a light touch, but does that not apply to ANY patch? For example, when gorge spit hit registration was corrected, gorges became a lot more powerful. (which was subsequently changed) So if more preferential changes are made to aliens, won't that make your task to balance the game that much more difficult?
I can't say I agree with that. I honestly hate "State of the Game" type stuff outside of what they already do in mentioning things such as what they have planned for later this month. Most of that stuff you see in other games is exactly as you stated "just to appease the masses." Most of it is just fluff.
On top of that, I also work for a small company, and I know how thin you can feel stretched dealing with certain aspects. Saying they probably don't have time to litter the forums or websites with stuff like this is not an understatement. Plus, I have no doubt they know most of us are intelligent enough to know that, even if they aren't speaking or spamming the forums or double checking each set of release notes to make sure every last detail is in them, they're still working their asses off with what people they do have.
Also, would you honestly say that you're happy with the fact that whatever company it is that you work for spends more time talking then actually doing, as you mentioned?
...Today we are faced with the challenge of shifting the pendulum back. But we have to be extremely, exceedingly careful. Light-tough is an understatement. An incredibly subtle change, like increasing total shotgun damage, could over time move that win ratio a whole 10 points. Or it could not. But if we move too fast, and the pendulum instantly shifts 5 points, it could end in utter disaster one month down the road.
There will be subtle balance tweaks in Gorgeous. They will not be headline grabbing. You might not even notice some of them in the changelog. But that is a good thing. NS2 is going to be around and supported for a long, long time. Getting to 50/50 will be an ongoing, careful, considered process.
You pussyfoot around when W/L ratios are close to even, not when the game has been stable at a 20% disparity for months. You should be less worried for the status quo when it is in such a state and more worried about the players you keep losing because of it.
And you managed to quote his post without even comprehending what he was saying. "Pussyfooting" is mandatory with a game like this. Plus "20% disparity" is pretty inaccurate, it's more like a 10 point swing from dead even. It's not nearly as terrible as what people make it seem, except in competitive, where the lower player counts skews it worse.
Percentage points regarding balance can only go so far...
While it was my error that opened up your concern about Sponitor, it is important to carefully consider the idea that 'percentage points regarding balance can only get you so far.'
What you are saying is that 'quantitative balance factors can only get you so far.' This is not true. If you have a qualitative balance input, sourced from anecdote or theory, that input is quantifiable. If you don't quantify it you are taking a shortcut. It is a wise adage that 'if you aren't thinking quantitatively about something you are not serious about it.' Even our lord GabeN pulled that one out in his recent Austin talk.
A frequent refrain treated with almost pseudo-intellectual reverence on this forum is 'a 50/50 win loss ratio is not necessarily balanced.' This phrase is used to justify the injection of an often valid qualitative input, such as 'Phase Gates are over-utilised' into the balance question. While that qualitative input is valid, the former statement is not.
When a population of games achieves a win loss ratio of 50/50, then the probability of a marine or alien win for a randomly sampled game is always 50%. That's not a statistic. It is a parameter. That is an extremely important distinction. It is balanced. Within that balanced game, there may be over-utilised, boring, underutilised, or lame game-play elements.
These are two separate factors. One is the achievement of equal probability of victory between factions. The other is desired variation in gameplay outcomes. Stating the factual occurence of the former does not exclude the latter. Opening a discussion of achieving desired gameplay outcomes must stop being started with the phrase 'The probability of a marine or alien win is 50%, but the game is not balanced.'
I really, really, wish Flayra would consider forming a Balance play-test group, people who can dedicate 5-10 hours a week to balance tests.
Such groups do exist. Those who have been around for a while (especially those around much longer than me) can name perhaps ten different incarnations. They still exist, and their admission, administration and execution are non-standardised and not published, for obvious reasons: Their value is in the qualitative observations they can produce and the effectiveness with which they can provide them. No such group could ever produce statistically useful data and as such will never be open to wider scale enrolment.
Thank you Hugh! I'm not sure if it was a bit depressing for you, having to point out that maybe, just MAYBE, unbiased and empirical data is—oh I don't know—more reliable than your own insular anecdote and experience?
Do not argue with statistics people, and demanding for them is essentially accusing UWE of some ineffectual and nonsensical conspiracy (this has happened more than once).
I really, really, wish Flayra would consider forming a Balance play-test group, people who can dedicate 5-10 hours a week to balance tests.
Such groups do exist. Those who have been around for a while (especially those around much longer than me) can name perhaps ten different incarnations. They still exist, and their admission, administration and execution are non-standardised and not published, for obvious reasons: Their value is in the qualitative observations they can produce and the effectiveness with which they can provide them. No such group could ever produce statistically useful data and as such will never be open to wider scale enrolment.
I think this is the problem and exactly why people say "quantitative balance factors can only get you so far". The game can be statistically balanced but still feel unbalanced at every stage of the game. You could have a balanced game where lmgs one-shot skulks but skulks one-shot powernodes but would still be gross instances of unfairness during a round. This is why an intelligent balance team (does it actually exist- if so, where and who?) is so important. Statistics are incredibly useful and incredibly meaningless depending on the ability of the reader to discern its context. I don't think NS2 has that ability just yet and, though its still young, it could be more mature by now if a qualified team had existed with weighted input.
You know, it's funny when I think about NS2 - it's almost too open to the community. All the good stuff gets mixed in with the crap and i'm not sure the developers always know what to filter out because all the developers are really bad at the game and don't understand it in the same way. Most games I've followed get a bunch of bugtesters to iron out cracks and then source the best and most intelligent players to break-and-make the game. I've never seen the equivalent in NS2 and have yet to see genuine employment of the eerie willingness in the elite community to provide feedback (granted, it's been bitter at times). The overwhelming impression I get - even from bugtesters - is that its really hard to knock down the door of those who matter without reams of statistical data to support a view; this is both a strength and weakness.
It's a tricky business but I wish more trust could be handed out to the right people. Most of the people I see with responsibility are super nice and super bad .
I still don't see why anyone cares about a 40/60 win rate disparity. That seems incredibly reasonable for this game.
Really the game just needs to work on better, more enjoyable gameplay mechanics and just maintain balance roughly at this level. If it suddenly became 50/50 tomorrow no one would have any more fun than they are at this moment.
I really, really, wish Flayra would consider forming a Balance play-test group, people who can dedicate 5-10 hours a week to balance tests.
Such groups do exist. Those who have been around for a while (especially those around much longer than me) can name perhaps ten different incarnations. They still exist, and their admission, administration and execution are non-standardised and not published, for obvious reasons: Their value is in the qualitative observations they can produce and the effectiveness with which they can provide them. No such group could ever produce statistically useful data and as such will never be open to wider scale enrolment.
This is why an intelligent balance team (does it actually exist- if so, where and who?) is so important. Statistics are incredibly useful and incredibly meaningless depending on the ability of the reader to discern its context. I don't think NS2 has that ability just yet and, though its still young, it could be more mature by now if a qualified team had existed with weighted input.
All the developers are really bad at the game and don't understand it in the same way. Most games I've followed get a bunch of bugtesters to iron out cracks and then source the best and most intelligent players to break-and-make the game. I've never seen the equivalent in NS2 and have yet to see genuine employment of the eerie willingness in the elite community to provide feedback (granted, it's been bitter at times). The overwhelming impression I get - even from bugtesters - is that its really hard to knock down the door of those who matter without reams of statistical data to support a view; this is both a strength and weakness.
Wow, hm, your post is chock-full of weird stuff. Did you just infer that the developers, have no idea about their own game? That it's somehow unreasonable to point out to someone how hard, unbiased evidence, may be considered above their own solitary, singular, qualitative observation? Are you saying the stats, a "casuals" way of giving input to the game, should be given the same weight of a select few who consider themselves—as you put it—"qualified team" (I assume you bracket yourself under this title)?
By no means do I disagree about having teams who know their stuff, obviously, but you're just responding to something Hugh has acknowledged openly: "A frequent refrain treated with almost pseudo-intellectual reverence on this forum is 'a 50/50 win loss ratio is not necessarily balanced.' This phrase is used to justify the injection of an often valid qualitative input, such as 'Phase Gates are over-utilised' into the balance question. While that qualitative input is valid, the former statement is not."
I still don't see why anyone cares about a 40/60 win rate disparity. That seems incredibly reasonable for this game.
Really the game just needs to work on better, more enjoyable gameplay mechanics and just maintain balance roughly at this level. If it suddenly became 50/50 tomorrow no one would have any more fun than they are at this moment.
Yes, basically this right here. As the public, we don't know what will come first, a game-play feature that will toss thing up, or a myriad of fixes and tweaks that will make a big impact. It's hard to discuss about these things, because we simply don't know.
We can SEE the problem, but we've no useful input on how to fix something that simply takes time (and is not a mystery to begin with).
Yeah, I kinda died Fap. I don't really think the developers see the game in the same way that the top players do. The way they approach and perceive the game is completely different. A developer might see statistics and infer conclusions from them whilst a player might know that something feels wrong but not be able to prove it on paper. I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that developers have a deficit in certain departments. After all, can you truly understand why, for example, bunnyhopping or wallhopping is good or bad if you can't do either? The answer is no.
I think they are taking cautious steps to achieve better balance through better mechanics and systems now, its a shame that it has to happen post 1.0, but time and funding constraints do have real effects. NS1 did suffer a similar start, for better or worse it looks like history has repeated itself.... My main concern and hope is not about the past or even 1.0 for NS2, its where does it go from here... and while nothing is certain I think things are looking up.
Eh, can't say babblers, gorge tunnels or railguns sound like fun gameplay mechanics tbh, but yeah I guess the one thing that you're hinting at is good... hopefully.
Percentage points regarding balance can only go so far...
While it was my error that opened up your concern about Sponitor, it is important to carefully consider the idea that 'percentage points regarding balance can only get you so far.'
What you are saying is that 'quantitative balance factors can only get you so far.' This is not true. If you have a qualitative balance input, sourced from anecdote or theory, that input is quantifiable. If you don't quantify it you are taking a shortcut. It is a wise adage that 'if you aren't thinking quantitatively about something you are not serious about it.' Even our lord GabeN pulled that one out in his recent Austin talk.
A frequent refrain treated with almost pseudo-intellectual reverence on this forum is 'a 50/50 win loss ratio is not necessarily balanced.' This phrase is used to justify the injection of an often valid qualitative input, such as 'Phase Gates are over-utilised' into the balance question. While that qualitative input is valid, the former statement is not.
When a population of games achieves a win loss ratio of 50/50, then the probability of a marine or alien win for a randomly sampled game is always 50%. That's not a statistic. It is a parameter. That is an extremely important distinction. It is balanced. Within that balanced game, there may be over-utilised, boring, underutilised, or lame game-play elements.
These are two separate factors. One is the achievement of equal probability of victory between factions. The other is desired variation in gameplay outcomes. Stating the factual occurence of the former does not exclude the latter. Opening a discussion of achieving desired gameplay outcomes must stop being started with the phrase 'The probability of a marine or alien win is 50%, but the game is not balanced.'
I think a lot of people though do take the win:loss rate on face value and ignore the many variable that float into the result.
If we suddenly have an influx of people trolling and recycling this will only impact the marine teams chances.
This would heavily impact the resultant win loss ratios however not be visible simply from the figure itself.
Though this would show up on the data if you look deep enough, which is what I imagine you guys would be doing.
I dont always understand why you guys make the changes you do at times, but I concede you have access to better data and must be seeing something that I dont from my small sample size of game playing.
Yeah, I kinda died Fap. I don't really think the developers see the game in the same way that the top players do. The way they approach and perceive the game is completely different. A developer might see statistics and infer conclusions from them whilst a player might know that something feels wrong but not be able to prove it on paper. I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that developers have a deficit in certain departments. After all, can you truly understand why, for example, bunnyhopping or wallhopping is good or bad if you can't do either? The answer is no.
you should not assume that game developers dont play games, or their own games. actually for a lot of them (can speak only for myself here though) was one of the main reason to develop games because we like playing them so much. take for example dux, he played in one of the top teams for ns1 and he made docking for ns2. but i guess you are thinking about the programmers here, who have a weird way of mathematical and algorithmic thinking and are not able to see their games as a whole.
this can definitely be true for some, but i dont like this kind of generalization.
I still don't see why anyone cares about a 40/60 win rate disparity. That seems incredibly reasonable for this game.
Really the game just needs to work on better, more enjoyable gameplay mechanics and just maintain balance roughly at this level. If it suddenly became 50/50 tomorrow no one would have any more fun than they are at this moment.
Really EH? I WOULD.
Because my current 76% alien win ratio may come down to a 60% ratio which you say is A-OK. Maybe I am real unlucky but I can't get this ratio to come anywhere near 60%. Do you think people would get a bit angry about 3 out of every 4 games going to aliens? With my own eyes, I see that.
After all, can you truly understand why, for example, bunnyhopping or wallhopping is good or bad if you can't do either? The answer is no.
I don't find this to be true. You don't need to be a pitcher in baseball to understand what makes pitching good or bad (or how to distinguish between the two). However, having experience in some aspect of a sport or game is generally a useful, but not necessary, skill to have when trying to analyze them.
Well I think it says a lot about the game that it is significantly more fun losing on marines than it is winning on aliens.
It may not be necessary to be able to perform certain game mechanics to understand them, but it is the easiest way to confirm that person actually does understand them and their consequences. Like I can't say with any confidence that any of the ns2 dev's understand / understood why bunnyhopping is superior to walljump (except dux i guess, but he makes maps so pfft). I can say with confidence they don't seem to like it, but that's it.
Comments
Well, to be fair, the only alien you can run away from is the Gorge, at least until jetpacks are done. (I beg for JP every match lol).
I often lose 40-60 res on buying shotguns and promptly dying. I need to be more careful, but I often play aggressively, 'cause passive marine play makes the whole team lose.
Sure, someone can pick up my shotgun. And then fail harder than I did and have it get tossed down a pit. Or if no one picks up my shotgun, it disappears 0.5 seconds away from me about to pick it up. God I hate that.
Worst I manage to do as aliens is die as a Gorge about twice, or purposefully downgrade back to skulk. Once I get Lerk/Fade I usually survive long enough to buy another life form.
The last I heard, skulk walljump is still being looked at, the res model might still need changes, the fade hasn't still found it's place between the skill levels and so on. Even the performance and hitreg are still pushing the balance around.
Any subtle process you start now is going to end up head butting against the bigger flaws and even if you somehow hit acceptable levels of balance on multiple game sizes and player skill levels, the chances are that the game isn't fun and/or interesting to play.
This continues to be true for most new players which is why we continue to see this shift. New players join the game all the time (often see 2-3 greens...god know how many with less than 50-100 hours) and as such they gravitate to the marine team. Couple this with people wanting to learn to comm and the marines reliance on a good comm you see there is not really a balance issue.
The balance went from 50:50 (which it had been in the last days before we went retail) to 40:60 aliens way with no changes.
I think you overestimate the speed with which it takes people to adapt. I also wonder if you realise how much more susceptable to a bad comm marines are in comparison to aliens.
So 1 bad player can cause marines to lose (if in comm chair) more easily than a similarly poor alien khamm (trolls aside).
The human variable is not something that goes away with time...the fact one side if more reliant on an expereinced/good comm is not something you want to balance in this game...as the asymmetry is seen as a bonus (kinda like how aliens cant pick up a dead lerk/fade carcus similar to marines picking up GL's).
The alien win ratio in competitive games is hovering around 70%. And even if you disregard NS2Stats because the sample is too small, I and a huge amount of other people can vouch for it being spot on. From my own brief experience in the comp scene, we had "alien draws" against clearly better or clearly worse teams many times, where we, or the other team, respectively, didn't deserve to win any rounds at all.
The game is massively unbalanced, with or without people who know how to play. It's a FACT supported by stats and the experience of hundreds of good players, and there's no arguing around it.
How to you get to be a competitive player? Do you have to have played the game for x number of hours?
Nope you just have to have a couple of mates, form a clan then join a league.
The later stages of the beta (before we went retail) offer a better insight as it was made up of people who had for the most part been playing NS2 for atleast 12 month so understanding strats, proficient comms etc where more common than they are now.
The win loss ratios are in aliens favour yes, but the cause does not have to be balance...as has already been tuched on in this and other threads multiple factors goes into win loss including, player skill, starting hives, upgrade paths, competence of comm/khamm, player numbers, map, length of game to name but a few.
That the game is unbalanced and the win loss is related to that is anything but fact as the data swung without any changes.
We went from a good couple of build with roughly 50:50 ratios to 40:60 with nothing but a new group of players (who had not spent upwards of 200 hours playing the game as was the case with the later part of the beta).
This line of reasoning starts on the faulty premise that a 50:50 ratio in the statistics is necessarily a situation in which all elements within the game are properly balanced. It is wrong. I was in the beta and I can ASSURE you, there was no balance, even when UWE so proudly claimed the winrates were 50/50. Go look at the threads, you'll see most beta players just shrugged when UWE made a victorious post about how 'well balanced' the game was according to their stats.
Completely agree, thankfully they did listen and buffed the aliens as they recognized they where not fun to play.
Which is why the supposed 40:60 is also irrelevant and does not mean the games not balanced.
When only the marines found the game fun and aliens didn't...50:50 was meaningless.
UWE had always said they wanted both sides to be fun and went about effectively buffing aliens.
Fun to play for both sides is as much an issue as win rates...and whilst losing on marines is not fun....its leaps and bounds ahead of losing as an alien team. At least you can still get kills and do some damage in between waits in the spawn queue.
There is a large component that we cant control that will influence this...its the humans playing the game component and our ability to screw up. That will hurt the marines more especially if its the comm.
Aliens khamm cant screw up as easily, so 1 person screwing up has less of an impact.
Now this aspect of the game cant be changed, after all the games designed around asymmetry and the lower influence the khamm has is part of the intended design (he is more the gardener than the general).
Unless you make him almost exactly like the marine comm he will always have less opportunity to stuff up.
I think its like aliens not being able to recycle things to avoid res locking or like weapon sharing on marine side.
Its part of the key to asymmetry that the comms/khamm are different and part of the design brief for the khamm I believe.
This is, I think, how UWE wants most people to view the game, but I don't think UWE wants us to use this as the sole basis for balancing and judging the game.
After watching some tournament matches, it became pretty apparent to me that tournament strategy is based on practiced information while all the pub matches I've ever played were based on easing the pain of learning to play as much as possible - maybe this will change over time as the game ages and people know what to do.
Anyway, maybe UWE needs to divide the game up into a tournament mode and into a public play mode?
I don't know.
Maybe it IS just a problem of marines needing better guidance in strategy than aliens. Such guidance could be acquired by building a singleplayer campaign mode for the game - or even cooperative campaign missions for players to have a chance to play as marines in a story.
Again, I don't know, but something to think about.
We basically may not ever get campaigns - that would probably be considered a very kind gift if we got one.
The good news is that as people learn how to play these kinds of problems will go away. The bad news is new problems will start to show up.
huh? How do poeple 'not know how to play a game' yet manage to win and lose, creating the stats in the first place?
I can't say I agree with that. I honestly hate "State of the Game" type stuff outside of what they already do in mentioning things such as what they have planned for later this month. Most of that stuff you see in other games is exactly as you stated "just to appease the masses." Most of it is just fluff.
On top of that, I also work for a small company, and I know how thin you can feel stretched dealing with certain aspects. Saying they probably don't have time to litter the forums or websites with stuff like this is not an understatement. Plus, I have no doubt they know most of us are intelligent enough to know that, even if they aren't speaking or spamming the forums or double checking each set of release notes to make sure every last detail is in them, they're still working their asses off with what people they do have.
Also, would you honestly say that you're happy with the fact that whatever company it is that you work for spends more time talking then actually doing, as you mentioned?
You pussyfoot around when W/L ratios are close to even, not when the game has been stable at a 20% disparity for months. You should be less worried for the status quo when it is in such a state and more worried about the players you keep losing because of it.
Yes. I am fail. In an attempt to add constructively to this thread I probably made many people think Sponitor is completely broken.
While it was my error that opened up your concern about Sponitor, it is important to carefully consider the idea that 'percentage points regarding balance can only get you so far.'
What you are saying is that 'quantitative balance factors can only get you so far.' This is not true. If you have a qualitative balance input, sourced from anecdote or theory, that input is quantifiable. If you don't quantify it you are taking a shortcut. It is a wise adage that 'if you aren't thinking quantitatively about something you are not serious about it.' Even our lord GabeN pulled that one out in his recent Austin talk.
A frequent refrain treated with almost pseudo-intellectual reverence on this forum is 'a 50/50 win loss ratio is not necessarily balanced.' This phrase is used to justify the injection of an often valid qualitative input, such as 'Phase Gates are over-utilised' into the balance question. While that qualitative input is valid, the former statement is not.
When a population of games achieves a win loss ratio of 50/50, then the probability of a marine or alien win for a randomly sampled game is always 50%. That's not a statistic. It is a parameter. That is an extremely important distinction. It is balanced. Within that balanced game, there may be over-utilised, boring, underutilised, or lame game-play elements.
These are two separate factors. One is the achievement of equal probability of victory between factions. The other is desired variation in gameplay outcomes. Stating the factual occurence of the former does not exclude the latter. Opening a discussion of achieving desired gameplay outcomes must stop being started with the phrase 'The probability of a marine or alien win is 50%, but the game is not balanced.'
Such groups do exist. Those who have been around for a while (especially those around much longer than me) can name perhaps ten different incarnations. They still exist, and their admission, administration and execution are non-standardised and not published, for obvious reasons: Their value is in the qualitative observations they can produce and the effectiveness with which they can provide them. No such group could ever produce statistically useful data and as such will never be open to wider scale enrolment.
Do not argue with statistics people, and demanding for them is essentially accusing UWE of some ineffectual and nonsensical conspiracy (this has happened more than once).
You know, it's funny when I think about NS2 - it's almost too open to the community. All the good stuff gets mixed in with the crap and i'm not sure the developers always know what to filter out because all the developers are really bad at the game and don't understand it in the same way. Most games I've followed get a bunch of bugtesters to iron out cracks and then source the best and most intelligent players to break-and-make the game. I've never seen the equivalent in NS2 and have yet to see genuine employment of the eerie willingness in the elite community to provide feedback (granted, it's been bitter at times). The overwhelming impression I get - even from bugtesters - is that its really hard to knock down the door of those who matter without reams of statistical data to support a view; this is both a strength and weakness.
It's a tricky business but I wish more trust could be handed out to the right people. Most of the people I see with responsibility are super nice and super bad
Really the game just needs to work on better, more enjoyable gameplay mechanics and just maintain balance roughly at this level. If it suddenly became 50/50 tomorrow no one would have any more fun than they are at this moment.
Wow, hm, your post is chock-full of weird stuff. Did you just infer that the developers, have no idea about their own game? That it's somehow unreasonable to point out to someone how hard, unbiased evidence, may be considered above their own solitary, singular, qualitative observation? Are you saying the stats, a "casuals" way of giving input to the game, should be given the same weight of a select few who consider themselves—as you put it—"qualified team" (I assume you bracket yourself under this title)?
By no means do I disagree about having teams who know their stuff, obviously, but you're just responding to something Hugh has acknowledged openly: "A frequent refrain treated with almost pseudo-intellectual reverence on this forum is 'a 50/50 win loss ratio is not necessarily balanced.' This phrase is used to justify the injection of an often valid qualitative input, such as 'Phase Gates are over-utilised' into the balance question. While that qualitative input is valid, the former statement is not."
We can SEE the problem, but we've no useful input on how to fix something that simply takes time (and is not a mystery to begin with).
I think a lot of people though do take the win:loss rate on face value and ignore the many variable that float into the result.
If we suddenly have an influx of people trolling and recycling this will only impact the marine teams chances.
This would heavily impact the resultant win loss ratios however not be visible simply from the figure itself.
Though this would show up on the data if you look deep enough, which is what I imagine you guys would be doing.
I dont always understand why you guys make the changes you do at times, but I concede you have access to better data and must be seeing something that I dont from my small sample size of game playing.
you should not assume that game developers dont play games, or their own games. actually for a lot of them (can speak only for myself here though) was one of the main reason to develop games because we like playing them so much. take for example dux, he played in one of the top teams for ns1 and he made docking for ns2. but i guess you are thinking about the programmers here, who have a weird way of mathematical and algorithmic thinking and are not able to see their games as a whole.
this can definitely be true for some, but i dont like this kind of generalization.
Really EH? I WOULD.
Because my current 76% alien win ratio may come down to a 60% ratio which you say is A-OK. Maybe I am real unlucky but I can't get this ratio to come anywhere near 60%. Do you think people would get a bit angry about 3 out of every 4 games going to aliens? With my own eyes, I see that.
Pretty much agree, but with the caveat that our methods of measuring balance (e.g. ns2stats or Sponitor) are imperfect. Since there has been quite a bit of discussion on these forums regarding the value and problems with this approach, I'll list them below for the benefit of others:
- How to talk about NS2 stats: http://forums.unknownworlds.com/discussion/125815/
- The value in win/loss stats: http://forums.unknownworlds.com/discussion/comment/1980702
- How to analyze win/loss stats in NS2: http://forums.unknownworlds.com/discussion/114175/
It may not be necessary to be able to perform certain game mechanics to understand them, but it is the easiest way to confirm that person actually does understand them and their consequences. Like I can't say with any confidence that any of the ns2 dev's understand / understood why bunnyhopping is superior to walljump (except dux i guess, but he makes maps so pfft). I can say with confidence they don't seem to like it, but that's it.
And what good does that do anyone.