I know I'm going to get a lot of backlash for this, but Splash shouldn't be balancing for pubs

(DMaster2) #41

Why i smell Phantom nerf complaints? Anyway no, since i’m pretty sure most of the income from the game is from casuals. So you do not want to rule them out.

(Amerika) #42

Now you are just making things up. Good MM with just 500(or less) players ?!?! And every1 were happy about it ?
If it was so great, why they scuttled it them ?

I was in the closed beta. They had unranked MM and ranked MM as the two options for quite some time. They were testing their system and it went extremely well. I have no clue why you would say I am making that up as I am not the only person who was here for that. And it was a beta test for the system. They wanted to force people to use MM so issues could be found. It wasn’t “scuttled” at all…in fact we are talking about it right now so I’m super confused why you would even say that.

First, easier doesnt mean better.
Second, not every1(in fact, most players arent) are obsessed or even interested in competitive. Majority of players play for fun. And they dont care about ranks.
In fact its better not to have those in general, since many wannabepros will do absolutely everything, short of blatant cheating, to get a better position in ranking, as like it is an indicator of something.
Do you really want some stoners or stargazers in competitive with all those wannabe pros ? Considering that pub-oriented population is far greater, it will just turn into offset of pub.
And then all those wananbes will be complainign again, why all those nabs are flooding their belowed pro-games.
As i have mentioned, ive seen exactly where it leads, forced MM and mandatory ranking. Its horrible.
Current system is far far far better. You want competitive, you play competitive. Dont wannt it, nor care about it - play pubs.
Cheaters and poor MM surely affect competitive, but if people would really wannt to play it, they WOULD play it.

You are doing a lot of assuming while also ignoring what I actually said. I did not say there should be 5v5 competitive mode only. Please, go back and re-read what was said then comment. It’s disconcerting that you’re trying to presume what I meant based on something you didn’t read correctly in the first place. Building an argument based on assumptions and misreading isn’t a great way to debate a topic.

Yes, its hard to make it work. But if feature doesnt work for some reasons, then you either fix it or replace it with feature that will work. Instead of just expecting that world will come around and be in the way you want it to be, doing nothing.
Its a problem with “what if” vs “what is”.

You didn’t offer up a potential solution. Again, you are hand waving. You seem to want a perfect system of balance along with a perfect MM system but aren’t willing to offer up any potential solutions.

(KangaJoo) #43

[quote=“prankishVictory;58553”]I just care about having fun and winning individual matches.
[/quote]
Congrats, your interests are the same as every competitive/pro Dirty Bomb player. Like I said before, the notion that pub players’ interests are radically different from competitive players’ is ridiculous. Both groups just want a game that rewards teamwork and skill and is fun to play. The only differences between the two groups are that comp players are significantly better at the game than average and that we’re generally more motivated to improve.

(LANshark) #44

[quote=“Watsyurdeal;57812”]
Here is the bottom line…if you care only about your k d ratio, you’re a casual player, by my definition, because you are playing for you and you alone, if you care about winning, you ARE a competitive player. Because to win, you will do whatever it takes to do so. You are the best despite that it meant jack in the end.[/quote]

Sorry about this but… r/spikes.
it reminded me too much of the subreddit to ignore it (read the “who is spike” section).

(watsyurdeal) #45

[quote=“laudatoryLunch;58515”]I like it and fully agree on it even if I don’t play competitive because of what @litheJacket wrote.
(Listening to non-competitive non-Elite destroyed Phantom not so long ago…)
Aside from that: Someone explain. Why competitive is ALWAYS the highest levelled players vs. the lowest levelled players? (Someone ever saw a game where like, 4 strongest people were split equally on both teams?)
Imo, before they balance mercs to competitive, they should do the balance of competitive itself.[/quote]

If you mean match making for competitive, it’s because the player pool is really really low.

Personally, I think it has to do with the fear of playing with hackers, and also with people’s confidence. Playing competitive really isn’t that hard guys, just learn call outs, how to push, how to hold, team composition, this is stuff you know somehow, you just haven’t tapped into it yet. I’m telling you it’s really not that complicated at all.

(Samniss_Arandeen) #46

[quote=“elegantRoyalty;57936”][quote=“Harlot;57914”]

Even two level 20’s would crush a team of all level 6’s. And you can’t exactly tell them to split up just because they’re higher level while lowbies can stack. [/quote]

true but one level 20 on their own team of 6’s might lead to a balanced fun game, you can do whatever you want if your the server admin/dev this is exactly how i used to do it 20 odd years ago when we had this problem in q2.[/quote]

Not just a balanced and fun game, but a learning opportunity for lower-level players to develop game skills. When a team of 20s spawntraps a team of 5-10s, everyone’s wasting their time. The 20s aren’t being challenged, the 5-10s don’t have a chance to fight back.

Whereas a low-level player on the same team as a high-level can shadow and observe the high-level, learning strategy and neat tricks while being thrust into the fight.

But I suppose comp players would rather not deal with that, eh?

(PurpleNurple) #47

I feel like the only way to solve the competitive vs casual dilemma is have competitive games balanced around what the competitive community wants(weapon stats, merc abilities etc.) then casual games be designed for players who wants to just screw around. It’s double the work for SD, but both crowds will never be happy if we keep playing “tug a war” trying to balance the game around both crowds of players.

(LifeupOmega) #48

Why would you effectively split a game depending on who plays what? It makes zero sense. You don’t see games like DotA have different ability tuning and the like, and casual players seem to work fine with a game that is tuned towards the higher end of players.

Different tuning for two different modes will just confuse new players who swap between the two, and ultimately deter them from one mode or the other.

(Resine) #49

For me competitive is based on the amount of fraggers you have in the team.

(Sithas) #50

Before we belance the mercs and maps on compitive match, competive match should become more balanced itself, (high lvl vs high lvl, low lvl vs low lvl) Only then you can get a better picture of what merc/map needs to be balanced.

(AlBundy) #51

[quote=“Watsyurdeal;57812”][quote=“Conqelson;57808”]
Keep telling yourself that :wink:
[/quote]

You completely missed my previous point

Here is the bottom line…if you care only about your k d ratio, you’re a casual player, by my definition, because you are playing for you and you alone, if you care about winning, you ARE a competitive player. Because to win, you will do whatever it takes to do so, working as team, coordinating strats, playing roles you know you aren’t great with or aren’t your idea of fun. You care about your team, where as if you care more about how many points you got, you really could care less, as if you getting the most points somehow vindicates the feeling that you are the best despite that it meant jack in the end.[/quote]

i have only seen/heard one person say here’s the bottom line…STONE COLD STEVE AUSTIN

give me autograph please?

(KangaJoo) #52

I’m 99% sure the OP means the game should be balanced based on what the best players suggest and how the best players play the game, not how average or below average players play the game. That’s how games like CS and DOTA are balanced and it works really well as long as bad players aren’t constantly getting matched against good players.

(Derpfestor) #53

Rolled with a full fragger team one time.

(Jurmabones) #54

It only makes sense to balance around the best players. People will inevitably improve. Mercs can only do so much, they have a finite max potential which is nearly reachable by the best. Anyone who plays long enough can aspire to that.

Balancing the game around bad players makes the game worse no matter how you look at it. If it’s balanced for bad players, the better players will still tend to beat the bad ones, the best will still be the best. But the game will get perpetually worse the better you get at the game and it doesn’t improve the game for bad players.

Balancing around high skill makes the game better and better as you improve. And just as in the scenario where it’s balanced around low level play, bad players will tend to lose to better players still. But the game improves over time because of the natural improvement of players over time. And the game isn’t any worse for bad players, who themselves have something to look forward to as they improve if they stick around.

The inevitable, logical conclusion is that balancing around high level play increases the longevity of the game and over time creates a higher-skill community. Only good can come of balancing this game around high level play.

(Fleshpound) #55

Rolled with a full fragger team one time.[/quote]

Still better than full red eye.

Straight outta Smoke.

(Dirmagnos) #56

In what world does it make sense !?!?! Its like making driving license qualifications based on F1 pilot performance. Absurd.
Majority of players play for fun. They dont care about badges, ranks(while it dosnt hurt to have highes position, its not a goal on its own) or length of a virtual d!ck.
So they will not run same course for 999 times to learn every nook and cranny, nor they will exploit the shit out of the game, to gain that “skill” edge. They will just play to best of their abilities, relaxed. For them, there is no chase for some hypothetical +10 accuracy.
Balance must be even, accommodating every1 from every skill bracket.
There is a long long list of reasons why balancing game around “best” players is a horrible idea, starting with low end pcs of many players and ending with irregular playing, again, for many players.

Balancing the game around bad players makes the game worse no matter how you look at it. If it’s balanced for bad players, the better players will still tend to beat the bad ones, the best will still be the best. But the game will get perpetually worse the better you get at the game and it doesn’t improve the game for bad players.

First of all, simply dividing player base into 2 simple brackets, good and bad, is extremely stupid. And i doubt that its a goal for devs, or ever was.
Not to mention that whole “argument” is just a bunch of demagogy without any real meaning.

Balancing around high skill makes the game better and better as you improve. And just as in the scenario where it’s balanced around low level play, bad players will tend to lose to better players still. But the game improves over time because of the natural improvement of players over time. And the game isn’t any worse for bad players, who themselves have something to look forward to as they improve if they stick around.

One of the most primitive viewpoints on the matter ive seen in a while. Completely unrealistic, obviously, since it is based entirely on some fictional linear skill progression of an average player. Like were talking robots with software/hardware upgrades.
And “game isnt any worse for bad players” part is simply absurd, since they wouldnt know 99% of various tricks and will get rekt all the time, leading to really really small player base, since 90% of players are not interested in getting owned again and again and again, over period of months, just so that they could, in theory, reach some some of “enlightened” status.
There are plenty of games on the market that are extremely challenging and require high level of familiarization to be played with any degree of comfort. Problem with those games is that they have, altho extremely loyal, a really small player base.

The inevitable, logical conclusion is that balancing around high level play increases the longevity of the game and over time creates a higher-skill community. Only good can come of balancing this game around high level play.

There is nothing logical about it. Its just summary based on a bunch of randomly assembled text, with pretty much no argumentation to any of it.

(watsyurdeal) #57

All I’m gonna say…is explain how games like Counter Strike, Starcraft, and Quake are still being played today as competitive games.

To say “well that’s just a few”, is true, but here’s the reality, games that last that long do so BECAUSE the devs build them for the best players. The thing is everyone can become a competitive player, there will always be someone who’s better than you sure, but to say you can’t take a game seriously and have fun at the same time is ludicrous.

The Devs should not balance the game around lesser skilled or new players, because they WILL get better, and if they leave, trying to appeal to them is only going to hurt the game, not get more people to come play.

(Ghosthree3) #58

And they will leave because once they get better they’ll realise the balance is shit.

(Dirmagnos) #59

Those not ones i was referring 2, since all of them are being played on casual level just fine. And thats because devs put a lot of thought into making balanced game, that is fun for every1. Devs listen and take into account opinion of every1(and try to find good balance that would fit equally every1), not just some guys who think that they know best.

To say “well that’s just a few”, is true, but here’s the reality, games that last that long do so BECAUSE the devs build them for the best players.

And here we go again with that crap. None of those games were build for “best” players. Aside from CS, that havent really evolved much(and thats good, its consistency), they were as casual as it gets.
I remember how much fun i had with first quakes or starcraft, without any lamers telling me how to play.
Some games last long because they are made well and are properly balanced.

The thing is everyone can become a competitive player, there will always be someone who’s better than you sure, but to say you can’t take a game seriously and have fun at the same time is ludicrous.

Sure, every1 can become a competitive player. Yet, it doesnt mean that every1 will. Absolute majority of players are not interested in that kind of thing. They just wannt to play an hour every few days and have fun without any pressure or obligations.
Balancing whole game solely around opinions of a small fraction of player base will alienate every other player, who also may have an opinion.

The Devs should not balance the game around lesser skilled or new players, because they WILL get better, and if they leave, trying to appeal to them is only going to hurt the game, not get more people to come play.

No, they shouldnt. Yet, they shouldnt balance it around opinions of small group of elitists, who think that they know everything. Balance is somewhere in between.
Trying to appeal to every1 is a failed cause, some1 will always be unhappy. Best course of action is to attempt to find some middle ground, based on amount of feedback(and personal devs vision for the game), all of it.
If game is 2 easy, then ppl will be extremely happy initially, but they will also get bored fairly soon. If game is 2 hard, then ppl will simply give up at some point. In either case they will leave. And since there is plenty of fish in the sea(on the f2p market alone, then theres paid titles), tolerance level of an average player is rather low.
Ive seen, many times, what happens when its easy, and when its hard, but worse of all is a course that most of major publishers take right now, turning game into milking cow without even properly finishing it and ignoring pretty much all feedback from players. McDonalds style.

(Jurmabones) #60

Balancing the game around high level play isn’t the same thing as making the game exceptionally hard. I don’t understand why you people keep making these stupid assumptions and mischaracterizing everyone who says the game should be balanced around high level play.

Nader is a good example. You have to be really good to make her an exceptional combat class, but she’s got a pretty good baseline strength even for mediocre players because of the amount of grenades she has, and her movespeed and smaller hitbox. She has the same max potential as, say, fragger, but not unless the player is good. And same goes for fragger, or whoever else. Good players get more out of any class. All classes have this sort of design where anyone can be strong and effective with them, but only a good player will make the class truly powerful.

With such merc designs and an eye out for balancing at a merc’s max/near-max potential, the game can appeal to both good players and new players. It’s accessible but still rewards skill and therefore promotes rewarding the player for playing, sticking with the game and improving. That itself promotes longevity for the game. It provides for good balance at any skill level, and it makes it so the game can only get better the more you play.

Making the game for people who are bad at it does two negative things. First, it makes progression pointless because the overall game and class balance will only get worse the more someone plays (because of the fact that people inevitably improve as they play). Second, it directly makes the game’s longevity go down. Focusing around low level play (i.e. spam, zerging, meaningless spraying, ignoring objectives or lemming-style pointless objective rushing, etc.) just makes the game garbage.

It doesn’t make sense to balance the game for people who have barely touched it. They’ll be even less likely to keep playing, and anyone who begins to get good will realize more and more over time how poor the balance is.

Balancing for low level play means putting low skill ceilings and lower skill floors on characters. This means that difference in skill level between players is nearly meaningless.

Nobody likes crappy games like that, except mindless drones who play junk like Hearthstone or WoW. But this isn’t a card game or a watered-down MMO. This is a first person shooter, made similar to classic skill-based games like RTCW or Quake. (Heck, this game’s voice (V) system even has nearly the same numbering as RTCW did.)

Skill is supposed to matter. Classes should become stronger as the player using them becomes stronger. You have to react, aim, strategize, think quickly, move fluidly, etc., to excel at a shooter. Changing mechanics and classes to minimize the impact of skill is a bad thing, inarguably.

No one wants to play a game that doesn’t reward them and get more fun and complex as they learn the game and get better at it. It makes no sense to me that people spam dislikes and make rude replies to posts like mine that make it obvious you don’t actually want the game to be based around low level play. Balancing around high level play is what makes sense, and is proven to be what makes a first-person shooter stand the test of time.