So you guys suggest we should be balancing around Veil - Nano now and in favor of Aliens eventhough the Gorges got a serious (but welcome) buff and Aliens were dominating Veil?
The data does not support that aliens were dominating veil.
Only believe the statistics that you've forget personally! /Churchill (- i think)/
Public games aren't really that representative... Without proper communication you'll most probably lose.
With a decent team if aliens get hold of Nano with a good gorge and can stick to it for 5 mins, the game is practically over, provided the skills are balanced.
Although it would be foolish to balance the game based on one room in one map
"Public games aren't really that representative"... of what?
Public games are definitely representative of public play, at the very least.
[...] of balance issues.
One player can easily wreck a whole game, for eg promising to go gorge and then spending his pres on pretty flowers first instead of dropping the tunnel.
Proper matches where the players work together will give a much better overview of how well balanced the game is.
Oh, public games are definitely representative of balance issues... of the balance issues public games have.
Of course one public match isn't representative, but we are talking about lots of data here. And thus yes, the statistics of public games definitely represent public games in every way imaginable.
I don't know what else it would be supposed to represent, really.
No shit sherlock, ofc they use every available match for their statistics, which must be a huge dataset. My point is; public games won't show you the true balance of the game, because those rounds have various not-so-random issues. If they were random, public stats would hold.
You could survey 1 000 000 person on any issue and call it representative, but we all know it's not the truth. Statistics is a crutch, not holy writing
Early game gorge tunnels are not mobility, they're room control. No one cares that you can get to nano 5 seconds earlier with a tunnel, it's the fact that you can get inside at all without getting mowed down at the doors. Gorge tunnels make for one of the only challenges early game marines have in an otherwise marine-dominated game phase.
Funny how aliens dominated so strongly for years without them at biomass 1, huh?
Almost like it wasn't a necessity..
No, that is way too late. 1 minute into the game is not the start of the game.
True, it is not the opening anymore, the first move has been done on both side, and a missed tunnel because a gorge was shot before dropping its exit is a big setback.
The smaller the game, the bigger the setback, the bigger the gambit.
So you guys suggest we should be balancing around Veil - Nano now and in favor of Aliens eventhough the Gorges got a serious (but welcome) buff and Aliens were dominating Veil?
The data does not support that aliens were dominating veil.
Only believe the statistics that you've forget personally! /Churchill (- i think)/
Public games aren't really that representative... Without proper communication you'll most probably lose.
With a decent team if aliens get hold of Nano with a good gorge and can stick to it for 5 mins, the game is practically over, provided the skills are balanced.
Although it would be foolish to balance the game based on one room in one map
"Public games aren't really that representative"... of what?
Public games are definitely representative of public play, at the very least.
[...] of balance issues.
One player can easily wreck a whole game, for eg promising to go gorge and then spending his pres on pretty flowers first instead of dropping the tunnel.
Proper matches where the players work together will give a much better overview of how well balanced the game is.
Oh, public games are definitely representative of balance issues... of the balance issues public games have.
Of course one public match isn't representative, but we are talking about lots of data here. And thus yes, the statistics of public games definitely represent public games in every way imaginable.
I don't know what else it would be supposed to represent, really.
No **** sherlock, ofc they use every available match for their statistics, which must be a huge dataset. My point is; public games won't show you the true balance of the game, because those rounds have various not-so-random issues. If they were random, public stats would hold.
You could survey 1 000 000 person on any issue and call it representative, but we all know it's not the truth. Statistics is a crutch, not holy writing
Yeah, but what is the "true" balance of the game? The comp balance? Does this mean we should disregard public balance completely?
There is no "true" balance. The balance of the game is defined by what people make of the game. It's relational, situational, even cultural, and most certainly not objective.
You have to balance the game around how it's played, not around some abstract model of how someone thinks it should be played.
As for your second statement, I'm pretty sure you're confusing things like "fact", "truth" and "opinion".
And statistics is not a crutch. It's a tool. A very powerful tool.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
I've always said.. using competitive data to balance with demonstrates what can happen, while using the supposedly unreliable pub data to balance with shows what will happen.
Statistics is a powerfull tool, as long as you do not confuse correlation and causality, which is a common error in statistics, and voluntary error in politicians's speeches (mothersnipers, how they like that ! they could actually tell you how lowering price of potato chips can save lives)
Yeah, but what is the "true" balance of the game? The comp balance? Does this mean we should disregard public balance completely?
There is no "true" balance. The balance of the game is defined by what people make of the game. It's relational, situational, even cultural, and most certainly not objective.
You have to balance the game around how it's played, not around some abstract model of how someone thinks it should be played.
You just shot yourself in the foot, if there is no objective balance why all the fuss? If you bring a knife to a gunfight, are you relational, situational, cultural, or just plainly stupid?
True balance is when the game is played at it's full potential, and comp is exactly that. You can't balance a game for each niche of players.
Yeah, but what is the "true" balance of the game? The comp balance? Does this mean we should disregard public balance completely?
There is no "true" balance. The balance of the game is defined by what people make of the game. It's relational, situational, even cultural, and most certainly not objective.
You have to balance the game around how it's played, not around some abstract model of how someone thinks it should be played.
You just shot yourself in the foot, if there is no objective balance why all the fuss?
...because it means we should balance the game around the data we have (i.e. what I'm saying), instead of vague idea of a "true" balance (i.e. what you are trying to say, as far as I understand)?
Also... you are saying there is some objective balance. I say there isn't. Hence fuss.
I am seriously confused by that sentence of yours because it doesn't seem to follow logic at all to me.
True balance is when the game is played at it's full potential, and comp is exactly that. You can't balance a game for each niche of players.
Okay, first off, balancing *exclusively* around competitive play will probably devastate the balance of public play, simply because of the different skill levels involved. And since there's more pub than comp players, this means ruining the game for the majority of the userbase - and also the pool of people that produces new comp players over time.
Second, what if I told you that comp players *don't* play the game at it's full potential? Perfectness is almost per definition unachievable.
Furthermore, why would it be desirable to have a game that is exclusively balanced around (night) perfect play? Almost nobody would be able to enjoy this balance, and the game would probably wither and die. And what do you mean you can't balance around every "niche of players"? What do you mean by "niche of players"? Pub games are certainly no "niche". I don't have numbers, but my gut says there's more pub players than comp players. So does this make comp players a "niche"? Well not really, they are an integral part of the ns2 community.
About the only "niche" I can think of is wooza's, and guess what? They don't balance for wooza's.
As for your second statement, I'm pretty sure you're confusing things like "fact", "truth" and "opinion".
And statistics is not a crutch. It's a tool. A very powerful tool.
A crutch is a tool... and statistics has it's limitations. Look up statistical biases.
I never said a crutch isn't a tool. I'm pretty sure this is some logical fallacy but I can't be bothered to look that up right now.
And of course is a crutch a tool; however, a) is the concept of a crutch not a tool in the narrower sense of the word but a metaphor carrying negative connotations that "tool" does not, and b) even a crutch can - like a tool -, if used correctly, produce satisfying results. Otherwise we wouldn't use them.
And yes, statistical biases are a thing, but this is purely about the person using the statistics. This is, frankly, just insulting towards Nordic and responsible guys from the dev team by implying they aren't able to work with their numbers correctly.
Also please keep posting, I enjoy dismantling your writing too much. @Wake that website looks awesome I'll have to check it out tomorrow
Sorry, I used a wrong term (english is not my native as you might've guessed). I can't find the right word, but it's not about the interpreter of data, but the methodical errors in gathering data. No offense intended there.
My point about the knife vs gun is that if a player on pub is a walking fade, he's the knife carrier. He doesn't know how to play it. Will you balance the game so that walker fades are buffed?
Sure, comp players are no perfection (i consider myself a mediocre player, you'd probably beat my ass), but I aspire to higher skills, even if I never reach it. Balancing the game only to pub just brings in mediocrity.
See SC, CS, COD, as far as I know, those games are balanced with comp play in mind.
I've always said.. using competitive data to balance with demonstrates what can happen, while using the supposedly unreliable pub data to balance with shows what will happen.
Random behaviors = random data, fair enough.
But you know that by definition, comps are going to find and focus on the most efficients ways and ignore the rest.
So, do you get stats rich enough from people who use exclusively shotguns? Can you drag a comp into an Exosuit (and can the comp sue you for that)?
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
@Wake
Right, comp will find the most efficient means and ignore the rest... while pubs may never be able to utilize half the features and techniques possible.
In other words, you shouldn't balance with just comp in mind or assume that pubs can or ever will do what comp can.
There are many examples, but a more recent one was Derelict. Comp players didn't need vents in months of testing.. so it was assumed that the map wouldn't need vents. Pubs showed us very quickly that alien players weren't good enough to survive the hallways without alternate routes. There are sooo many examples like this
So while its a more reliable data set, balancing exclusively for can happen is ignoring what may realistically occur 90% of the time.
Solution: Account for both the reliable data as well as the average realistic occurrence, regardless of reliability.
I feel in many cases it's a bad idea to focus on competitive play for one hundred percent of balance changes. In many cases, pub vs. competitive play are just two different animals that almost need to be tackled separately. For one competitive players in general are a small part of the community in comparison to the community as a whole. As well as that, 6v6 is far, far different from 10v10 and 12v12. They play almost entirely differently in my opinion.
An example that I feel that matches this mentality is that of the recent exosuit nerfs. In competitive play the exosuit was extremely powerful before this nerf since there simply wasn't enough people to kill an exo with its damage per second. However, after the nerf, I can't stand to play exosuit in most pub matches due to them being so underpowered in my opinion. My reasoning being, before the nerf a dual exo could take on and defeat an onos. After the nerf, a dual exo will always lose to the onos unless the onos is just absolute garbage. So now, run this senario on a 10v10 or 12v12 server where you tend to deal with one or two exos vs. four or five onos. Not even to mention how onos have the extremely powerful bone shield now (really onos regen plus that ability is just purely overpowered)! In my opinion, you're simply better off with a jetpack and a machine gun.
Though, it does make me wonder why people complained about exos yet little to no people complain about things like focus. Huh.... What a weird community we have. ;P
Oh and one more thing. @IronHorse in terms of this statement "pubs showed us very quickly that alien players weren't good enough to survive the hallways without alternate routes" the problem wasn't that pub players were bad. The problem was when you add twice as many players to the map to lane block one or two lanes... Yeah good luck for even a competitive player surviving those hallways. I mean four or five marines guarding a single, long hallway with mines. #GG ;3 Not even to mention it ruined a good bit of strategy to the map since lane blocking was so easy. No one could really sneak around, get to back res, and set up sneaky gates or tunnels. It's just annoying when people assume pub players are just bad and comp players are just good. Sure, in many cases there is a difference in shooting skill. However, that doesn't necessarily mean there any less strategic skill involved. In my person experience, I've made many, many competitive players rage simply because I've play the strategic game better than them. (You know me and my tunnels, etc. :P)
True balance is when the game is played at it's full potential, and comp is exactly that. You can't balance a game for each niche of players.
oh contraire, you can... and the community did... for a very long time.
Compmod = balance for 6 vs 6 play (refined over a very long period of time)
Large = Tweaked a few bits and bobs to make public play possible with more than 24 players
Vanilla = intended for 8 vs 8 casual play but can span from 6 vs 6 up to 12 vs 12.
And heres the kicker... if you tried using compmod for 10 vs 10 - 12 vs 12 it was hilariously unbalanced... if you tried using Large for 6 vs 6, it was also hilariously unbalanced.
So, i'm afraid you are wrong, balance is achieved when each team has equal potential to win when fitting into predefined parameters, Is vanilla perfectly balanced for 6 vs 6? probably not, but its also not trying to balance that, so its not an issue... is it balanced in 8 vs 8 when played with a mixture of good and bad players, like it is intended to be? yeah, pretty much.
Basically, if people played the way the game is intended to be played, there would be fewer complaints... but of course this community doesn't want that, there are "serious" players that want a "competitive experience" and play 6 vs 6 while also complaining that the game isn't balanced, then at the opposite end of the scale you have people complaining that 36+ players isn't supported even though its not an intended way to play. Then there are the small minority of people that actually play the game the way it was intended, and those people really enjoy the game as it is, and they don't argue of tiny little things constantly, nor do they insist that other people are playing the game the "wrong" way.
@Kasharic but you're mixing vanilla game and mods, I don't think mods have a place in this discussion due to their sheer number of possibilities.
Regarding the vanilla game, what I'm trying to express is that games are about challenge and improving yourself (and kicking ass), if you concentrate on the mediocre (like myself), you'll end up with a boring game. Sure, it's impossible to balance it for both 6v6 and 24v24 with the same rules, but you have to pick something and let the modders handle the rest, just like you mentioned.
But as IronHorse and others argued, comp players won't use the same features and tactics as the majority on pub... which makes more sense to me now.
Bottom line is, you can't make everyone happy But I still have my doubts about the representative value of general statistics...
And heres the kicker... if you tried using compmod for 10 vs 10 - 12 vs 12 it was hilariously unbalanced... if you tried using Large for 6 vs 6, it was also hilariously unbalanced.
This is flagrantly untrue. It required a single tweak of exo res from 35-->60 or so to make it balanced for 9v9 on No Rookies PUB. Dragon wound up adding a couple of features to it to make it an even better experience and you'll now find those same changes in Vanilla (hello multidirection exo-thrusters, where you think that got tested first in gameplay.)
So it's literally not "public balance" you're trying to obtain. It's actually just "low-skill balance." I can't speak for current patches as most decent players left recently, but if you put 16 decent players in a pub before recent balance changes, vanilla balance was terrible. Compmod made public play at higher-skill balanced.
There are many examples, but a more recent one was Derelict. Comp players didn't need vents in months of testing.. so it was assumed that the map wouldn't need vents.
were these actual competitive teams playing eachother, or just the random competitive map-tester playing against average opponents? the lack of vents against a good team of marines that hold lanes and have good room positioning means alien lose, which was a big portion of what made people want to stop playing gathers on it the day after release. the poor performance in a few areas of the map didn't help opinion either.
Sure, it's impossible to balance it for both 6v6 and 24v24 with the same rules...
You can make a lot of people happy. This game have enough features to satisfy a lot of people.
It is possible to balance depending on context, and so far, NS is not doing a bad job at it.
Same rules can apply, but narrowing tolerance as you turn to comp.
Starting Pres could be different on pub and comp, thus leaving more room for game start errors on pub.
In facts, size matter a lot (well, that's what your mom told me last night ) , so in the end it's pratically the server's size in itself that defines the context.
Adjusting Pres or Tres costs based on server's size could be a way. You could also adjust time (i.e.: how long does it takes to research an upgrade, to build this or that).
If you don't want to touch costs, you could adjust res flow.
I don't know, there are so many variables than can do the trick.
Adjusting Pres or Tres costs based on server's size could be a way. You could also adjust time (i.e.: how long does it takes to research an upgrade, to build this or that).
If you don't want to touch costs, you could adjust res flow.
I don't know, there are so many variables than can do the trick.
That's what I've mean by rules, but yeah, parameters is a better word.
I am seeing this thread beginning to turn into public balance vs competitive balance. Balancing only for public or competitive balance is a little narrow of a view.
When it comes to ns2, and most games, you really have 3 groups you need to pay attention to. High skill players, rookie players, and public players. All of them are important but for different reasons.
The highest skill level of players in ns2 were in the competitive scene. Competitive games made up 5% of all ns2 games between b279-b297. The average skill of competitive games was about 2300. As stated by several in this thread, competitive player balance is important. Competitive players will push the game to its limit and highlight balance issues. You can not balance on competitive players alone because they are not representative of the entire playerbase. They only play 5% of the games in ns2, and are at a skill level far beyond 90% of players.
Rookie players are the largest segment of players in ns2. Rookie games made up 59% of all ns2 games between b279-b297. Rookies are basically an unknown low skill. They have not played enough to really know the game or have anything close to an accurate hive skill. Rookies are important to pay attention to, because you want them to have a good experience so that they stick around. NS2 really struggles with this. Rookies are horrible to balance for because they don't know the game.
Public players make up 36% of games. The average public non rookie game skill was about 1250. They are the veterans who may or may not be skilled. This is the group should primarily balance for because they are the core of the community.
That does not mean you ignore the other groups of players. In my opinion if any of these 3 groups has worse than a 60/40 win rate, there is a serious problem.
Public players may not be capable as playing as efficiently as competitive players, so you can't balance around competitive players. Public players won't push the game to its limits so you can't rely on them entirely for balance.
Separate but related topic:
I am the main person who creates the statistics for ns2 that people are using. I am also the main person using the statistics in posts. Statistics are not perfect. They by definition do not show everything that is going on. They are useful though. We can't balance ns2 just for 50/50 win rates. That is not holistic. Knowing that public balance is near 50/50 is good to know and desirable.
Any statistics I post are open to interpretation. You do not have to rely on my interpretation. Feel free to argue that the stats posted are not relevant. For example, I don't have good data on the highest skill level of games. There just are not enough games at that level. If the data or stats are limited I try to make sure that I state that clearly. For the most part, the data I have has very large sample sizes and is pretty good data to work with.
I don't post methodology very often, and I can't share my data so you can check my work. If anyone has any concerns or questions regarding certain statistics message me on discord and I would be happy to answer your questions on how I got those statistics.
I think delaying gorge tunnels is bad, unless something is done to marines.
I want to talk a little bit about aliens being the more mobile team. I think just because the lifeforms can move quicker and have more access to vents, that their mobility is not tremendously superior. At the end of the day, alien movement and attacks are entirely predictable for a few reasons.
[Without tunnels] They come out of a spawn point and for the most part follow predictable routes to contested rooms thus marines can interpret and anticipate alien movement too easily
Aliens movement is very loud, particularly skulks. It is far too easy for marines to gather info and anticipate alien movement.
Aliens need to group for the most part. Absence of aliens in one map increases likeliness of alien presence in another.
These three facts eliminate the benefit of being able to move quickly and go into vents; particularly so because marines can be much more independent, cover more ground, and be incredibly effective on the front line cutting cyst chains (more so early game).
I think early gorge tunnels are good at being able to help with some of these issues and should be one of the reasons aliens are considered the mobile team.
They allow an alternative route and potential pincer attacks (Pipe-Nano tunnel pinching dome early game if a marine got through to kill cysts)
They allow PvE to be dropped to provide forward support so even if alien movement is revealed, marines can't waltz in a pew pew them
It allows reallocation of lifeforms to immediate threats (Marines getting nano, or denying nano at the start is super OP)
I also think that early gorge tunnels help prevent marines being hyper aggressive (even more so than now!). Cysts will be even more important and letting a marine slip through un-parasited will be even more damaging than it already is.
Without gorge tunnels, gorges are super vulnerable and don't give much benefit early game. No tunnel means no infestation and poor mobility means they are useless in fights.
Either gorges need a mobility buff in exchange for the gorge tunnel dilemma, or marines need a change to slow down their rapid early game pace. I don't know how you'd go about changing the latter option, but changing sprint speed would have to be very well thought out because the ripple effect will be quite dramatic.
Also Kash you need to chill out. Literally your very same argument can be used against you. People like to talk about things and discuss changes so the game might be more fun for them; Who are you to tell them they can't complain? You're way too hooked on bashing comp mod and trying too hard to distance yourself from it, just chill out
Early game gorge tunnels are not mobility, they're room control. No one cares that you can get to nano 5 seconds earlier with a tunnel, it's the fact that you can get inside at all without getting mowed down at the doors. Gorge tunnels make for one of the only challenges early game marines have in an otherwise marine-dominated game phase.
Funny how aliens dominated so strongly for years without them at biomass 1, huh?
Almost like it wasn't a necessity..
You're forgetting that back then we could hide the tunnels.. Claiming territory in the beginning wasn't as crucial because once aliens got tunnels researched we could sneak out and put them in out if the way places..
Ever since the tunnel change there are really only 2 decent places to put tunnels..
1) right next to rt's for infestation
2) right outside the marine base for a rush
A good 98% of the places you could hide them were removed... Including the edge/corner of nearly every room on every map...
Places like the lower area of water pumps on mineshaft, or tucked behind the pipes in the corner of conduit on refinery. It boggles the mind how limited they became after that ultra lazy "fix"
If they want to fix tunnels the right way (ie put them back the way they were and just block the 5-6 glitched spots) then they wouldn't be so crucial early game.
Comments
No shit sherlock, ofc they use every available match for their statistics, which must be a huge dataset. My point is; public games won't show you the true balance of the game, because those rounds have various not-so-random issues. If they were random, public stats would hold.
You could survey 1 000 000 person on any issue and call it representative, but we all know it's not the truth. Statistics is a crutch, not holy writing
Funny how aliens dominated so strongly for years without them at biomass 1, huh?
Almost like it wasn't a necessity..
With time, they became an important part of that first minute.
With 30 seconds more to build, it means that you will need cover to drop he exit as will be more likely disputed.
True, it is not the opening anymore, the first move has been done on both side, and a missed tunnel because a gorge was shot before dropping its exit is a big setback.
The smaller the game, the bigger the setback, the bigger the gambit.
Except it's not vital
It's just a tradeoff of bolster engagements or build earlt RTs forgoing drifters
Yeah, but what is the "true" balance of the game? The comp balance? Does this mean we should disregard public balance completely?
There is no "true" balance. The balance of the game is defined by what people make of the game. It's relational, situational, even cultural, and most certainly not objective.
You have to balance the game around how it's played, not around some abstract model of how someone thinks it should be played.
As for your second statement, I'm pretty sure you're confusing things like "fact", "truth" and "opinion".
And statistics is not a crutch. It's a tool. A very powerful tool.
You just shot yourself in the foot, if there is no objective balance why all the fuss? If you bring a knife to a gunfight, are you relational, situational, cultural, or just plainly stupid?
True balance is when the game is played at it's full potential, and comp is exactly that. You can't balance a game for each niche of players.
A crutch is a tool... and statistics has it's limitations. Look up statistical biases.
...because it means we should balance the game around the data we have (i.e. what I'm saying), instead of vague idea of a "true" balance (i.e. what you are trying to say, as far as I understand)?
Also... you are saying there is some objective balance. I say there isn't. Hence fuss.
I am seriously confused by that sentence of yours because it doesn't seem to follow logic at all to me.
How does this relate to anything?
Okay, first off, balancing *exclusively* around competitive play will probably devastate the balance of public play, simply because of the different skill levels involved. And since there's more pub than comp players, this means ruining the game for the majority of the userbase - and also the pool of people that produces new comp players over time.
Second, what if I told you that comp players *don't* play the game at it's full potential? Perfectness is almost per definition unachievable.
Furthermore, why would it be desirable to have a game that is exclusively balanced around (night) perfect play? Almost nobody would be able to enjoy this balance, and the game would probably wither and die. And what do you mean you can't balance around every "niche of players"? What do you mean by "niche of players"? Pub games are certainly no "niche". I don't have numbers, but my gut says there's more pub players than comp players. So does this make comp players a "niche"? Well not really, they are an integral part of the ns2 community.
About the only "niche" I can think of is wooza's, and guess what? They don't balance for wooza's.
I never said a crutch isn't a tool. I'm pretty sure this is some logical fallacy but I can't be bothered to look that up right now.
And of course is a crutch a tool; however, a) is the concept of a crutch not a tool in the narrower sense of the word but a metaphor carrying negative connotations that "tool" does not, and b) even a crutch can - like a tool -, if used correctly, produce satisfying results. Otherwise we wouldn't use them.
And yes, statistical biases are a thing, but this is purely about the person using the statistics. This is, frankly, just insulting towards Nordic and responsible guys from the dev team by implying they aren't able to work with their numbers correctly.
Also please keep posting, I enjoy dismantling your writing too much.
@Wake that website looks awesome I'll have to check it out tomorrow
My point about the knife vs gun is that if a player on pub is a walking fade, he's the knife carrier. He doesn't know how to play it. Will you balance the game so that walker fades are buffed?
Sure, comp players are no perfection (i consider myself a mediocre player, you'd probably beat my ass), but I aspire to higher skills, even if I never reach it. Balancing the game only to pub just brings in mediocrity.
See SC, CS, COD, as far as I know, those games are balanced with comp play in mind.
Random behaviors = random data, fair enough.
But you know that by definition, comps are going to find and focus on the most efficients ways and ignore the rest.
So, do you get stats rich enough from people who use exclusively shotguns? Can you drag a comp into an Exosuit (and can the comp sue you for that)?
Right, comp will find the most efficient means and ignore the rest... while pubs may never be able to utilize half the features and techniques possible.
In other words, you shouldn't balance with just comp in mind or assume that pubs can or ever will do what comp can.
There are many examples, but a more recent one was Derelict. Comp players didn't need vents in months of testing.. so it was assumed that the map wouldn't need vents. Pubs showed us very quickly that alien players weren't good enough to survive the hallways without alternate routes. There are sooo many examples like this
So while its a more reliable data set, balancing exclusively for can happen is ignoring what may realistically occur 90% of the time.
Solution: Account for both the reliable data as well as the average realistic occurrence, regardless of reliability.
An example that I feel that matches this mentality is that of the recent exosuit nerfs. In competitive play the exosuit was extremely powerful before this nerf since there simply wasn't enough people to kill an exo with its damage per second. However, after the nerf, I can't stand to play exosuit in most pub matches due to them being so underpowered in my opinion. My reasoning being, before the nerf a dual exo could take on and defeat an onos. After the nerf, a dual exo will always lose to the onos unless the onos is just absolute garbage. So now, run this senario on a 10v10 or 12v12 server where you tend to deal with one or two exos vs. four or five onos. Not even to mention how onos have the extremely powerful bone shield now (really onos regen plus that ability is just purely overpowered)! In my opinion, you're simply better off with a jetpack and a machine gun.
Though, it does make me wonder why people complained about exos yet little to no people complain about things like focus. Huh.... What a weird community we have. ;P
Oh and one more thing. @IronHorse in terms of this statement "pubs showed us very quickly that alien players weren't good enough to survive the hallways without alternate routes" the problem wasn't that pub players were bad. The problem was when you add twice as many players to the map to lane block one or two lanes... Yeah good luck for even a competitive player surviving those hallways. I mean four or five marines guarding a single, long hallway with mines. #GG ;3 Not even to mention it ruined a good bit of strategy to the map since lane blocking was so easy. No one could really sneak around, get to back res, and set up sneaky gates or tunnels. It's just annoying when people assume pub players are just bad and comp players are just good. Sure, in many cases there is a difference in shooting skill. However, that doesn't necessarily mean there any less strategic skill involved. In my person experience, I've made many, many competitive players rage simply because I've play the strategic game better than them. (You know me and my tunnels, etc. :P)
oh contraire, you can... and the community did... for a very long time.
Compmod = balance for 6 vs 6 play (refined over a very long period of time)
Large = Tweaked a few bits and bobs to make public play possible with more than 24 players
Vanilla = intended for 8 vs 8 casual play but can span from 6 vs 6 up to 12 vs 12.
And heres the kicker... if you tried using compmod for 10 vs 10 - 12 vs 12 it was hilariously unbalanced... if you tried using Large for 6 vs 6, it was also hilariously unbalanced.
So, i'm afraid you are wrong, balance is achieved when each team has equal potential to win when fitting into predefined parameters, Is vanilla perfectly balanced for 6 vs 6? probably not, but its also not trying to balance that, so its not an issue... is it balanced in 8 vs 8 when played with a mixture of good and bad players, like it is intended to be? yeah, pretty much.
Basically, if people played the way the game is intended to be played, there would be fewer complaints... but of course this community doesn't want that, there are "serious" players that want a "competitive experience" and play 6 vs 6 while also complaining that the game isn't balanced, then at the opposite end of the scale you have people complaining that 36+ players isn't supported even though its not an intended way to play. Then there are the small minority of people that actually play the game the way it was intended, and those people really enjoy the game as it is, and they don't argue of tiny little things constantly, nor do they insist that other people are playing the game the "wrong" way.
"YOUR FUN IS BEING DONE WRONG!!!"
Regarding the vanilla game, what I'm trying to express is that games are about challenge and improving yourself (and kicking ass), if you concentrate on the mediocre (like myself), you'll end up with a boring game. Sure, it's impossible to balance it for both 6v6 and 24v24 with the same rules, but you have to pick something and let the modders handle the rest, just like you mentioned.
But as IronHorse and others argued, comp players won't use the same features and tactics as the majority on pub... which makes more sense to me now.
Bottom line is, you can't make everyone happy
This is flagrantly untrue. It required a single tweak of exo res from 35-->60 or so to make it balanced for 9v9 on No Rookies PUB. Dragon wound up adding a couple of features to it to make it an even better experience and you'll now find those same changes in Vanilla (hello multidirection exo-thrusters, where you think that got tested first in gameplay.)
So it's literally not "public balance" you're trying to obtain. It's actually just "low-skill balance." I can't speak for current patches as most decent players left recently, but if you put 16 decent players in a pub before recent balance changes, vanilla balance was terrible. Compmod made public play at higher-skill balanced.
were these actual competitive teams playing eachother, or just the random competitive map-tester playing against average opponents? the lack of vents against a good team of marines that hold lanes and have good room positioning means alien lose, which was a big portion of what made people want to stop playing gathers on it the day after release. the poor performance in a few areas of the map didn't help opinion either.
You can make a lot of people happy. This game have enough features to satisfy a lot of people.
It is possible to balance depending on context, and so far, NS is not doing a bad job at it.
Same rules can apply, but narrowing tolerance as you turn to comp.
Starting Pres could be different on pub and comp, thus leaving more room for game start errors on pub.
In facts, size matter a lot (well, that's what your mom told me last night
Adjusting Pres or Tres costs based on server's size could be a way. You could also adjust time (i.e.: how long does it takes to research an upgrade, to build this or that).
If you don't want to touch costs, you could adjust res flow.
I don't know, there are so many variables than can do the trick.
Btw, seems you jammed the @ stuff with your nick
Lies, my Ma would never have intercourse with a freak NS player
That's what I've mean by rules, but yeah, parameters is a better word.
Hack 4Life
Holy cow, then who's mom was she ? Anyone's mom had some trouble walking this morning ?
When it comes to ns2, and most games, you really have 3 groups you need to pay attention to. High skill players, rookie players, and public players. All of them are important but for different reasons.
The highest skill level of players in ns2 were in the competitive scene. Competitive games made up 5% of all ns2 games between b279-b297. The average skill of competitive games was about 2300. As stated by several in this thread, competitive player balance is important. Competitive players will push the game to its limit and highlight balance issues. You can not balance on competitive players alone because they are not representative of the entire playerbase. They only play 5% of the games in ns2, and are at a skill level far beyond 90% of players.
Rookie players are the largest segment of players in ns2. Rookie games made up 59% of all ns2 games between b279-b297. Rookies are basically an unknown low skill. They have not played enough to really know the game or have anything close to an accurate hive skill. Rookies are important to pay attention to, because you want them to have a good experience so that they stick around. NS2 really struggles with this. Rookies are horrible to balance for because they don't know the game.
Public players make up 36% of games. The average public non rookie game skill was about 1250. They are the veterans who may or may not be skilled. This is the group should primarily balance for because they are the core of the community.
That does not mean you ignore the other groups of players. In my opinion if any of these 3 groups has worse than a 60/40 win rate, there is a serious problem.
Public players may not be capable as playing as efficiently as competitive players, so you can't balance around competitive players. Public players won't push the game to its limits so you can't rely on them entirely for balance.
You have to take a holistic approach.
Separate but related topic:
I am the main person who creates the statistics for ns2 that people are using. I am also the main person using the statistics in posts. Statistics are not perfect. They by definition do not show everything that is going on. They are useful though. We can't balance ns2 just for 50/50 win rates. That is not holistic. Knowing that public balance is near 50/50 is good to know and desirable.
Any statistics I post are open to interpretation. You do not have to rely on my interpretation. Feel free to argue that the stats posted are not relevant. For example, I don't have good data on the highest skill level of games. There just are not enough games at that level. If the data or stats are limited I try to make sure that I state that clearly. For the most part, the data I have has very large sample sizes and is pretty good data to work with.
I don't post methodology very often, and I can't share my data so you can check my work. If anyone has any concerns or questions regarding certain statistics message me on discord and I would be happy to answer your questions on how I got those statistics.
No.
I want to talk a little bit about aliens being the more mobile team. I think just because the lifeforms can move quicker and have more access to vents, that their mobility is not tremendously superior. At the end of the day, alien movement and attacks are entirely predictable for a few reasons.
These three facts eliminate the benefit of being able to move quickly and go into vents; particularly so because marines can be much more independent, cover more ground, and be incredibly effective on the front line cutting cyst chains (more so early game).
I think early gorge tunnels are good at being able to help with some of these issues and should be one of the reasons aliens are considered the mobile team.
I also think that early gorge tunnels help prevent marines being hyper aggressive (even more so than now!). Cysts will be even more important and letting a marine slip through un-parasited will be even more damaging than it already is.
Without gorge tunnels, gorges are super vulnerable and don't give much benefit early game. No tunnel means no infestation and poor mobility means they are useless in fights.
Either gorges need a mobility buff in exchange for the gorge tunnel dilemma, or marines need a change to slow down their rapid early game pace. I don't know how you'd go about changing the latter option, but changing sprint speed would have to be very well thought out because the ripple effect will be quite dramatic.
Also Kash you need to chill out. Literally your very same argument can be used against you. People like to talk about things and discuss changes so the game might be more fun for them; Who are you to tell them they can't complain? You're way too hooked on bashing comp mod and trying too hard to distance yourself from it, just chill out
You're forgetting that back then we could hide the tunnels.. Claiming territory in the beginning wasn't as crucial because once aliens got tunnels researched we could sneak out and put them in out if the way places..
Ever since the tunnel change there are really only 2 decent places to put tunnels..
1) right next to rt's for infestation
2) right outside the marine base for a rush
A good 98% of the places you could hide them were removed... Including the edge/corner of nearly every room on every map...
Places like the lower area of water pumps on mineshaft, or tucked behind the pipes in the corner of conduit on refinery. It boggles the mind how limited they became after that ultra lazy "fix"
If they want to fix tunnels the right way (ie put them back the way they were and just block the 5-6 glitched spots) then they wouldn't be so crucial early game.
Back to the tunnels !
Was the tunnel delaying a main purpose or a collateral consequence ?
Let's not make a 50 page thread with 20 pages of derailment.
*grabs mop*
Jobs done.
<span style='color:orange'><span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>Keep on topic Please. </span></span>