|
|
My view of balance and testing comes from my experience as a Microsoft Games beta tester.
In my opinion, the key to balance can be summed up in one sentence.
First you make it fun, then you balance that fun.
If you try and balance a game with the sole intent of gaining clan (or 'numerical') balance, then you are giving up on 'fun'.
The additional problem with NS is that there are so many variables that it becomes hard to balance the game and keep the game the same for both the public and clans. That's why I think we shouldn't restrict ourselves to one form of play if we can make some subtle changes that enhance both public and clan play independently.
Simple example? While public servers should give aliens the 'ping of death' when all hives are gone, I don't think that should be the case for clan games. In those games clan players should have the chance to play on without the 'slow death' penalty. So while this makes both games a bit different, it also enhances the gameplay of both games. Pub games don't drag on while some gorge in a vent sits on a stack of DCs, and clan games can see last ditch turnarounds where a hive it taken back after all seems lost.
If anything, I think making changes to allow tournament mode games to be a bit different would take some pressure off the developers when trying to achieve balance. As it stands now, even the smallest change to improve a public game can cause dramatic swings on clan games.
As such, I think we are defeating ourselves by ignoring such an obvious opportunity to enhance gameplay without making pub or clan games suffer.
Well, looking on to suggestions... there are games such as Warcraft III, and Halo 2 where you are given your own level and face off against those similar to your level. I don't think that HL1 can support this.
I always thought that as a player does better in the game, the game should follow up and keep the pressure on the player. So what I suggest is that each player has their own res rating. The res rating would start at 1 for each player at the start of the game. As the game progresses, there could be code where a players efficiency (k/d) percentage is calculated. From there, we can add values such as 200% efficiency = 2 res. So if a player has 200% efficiency, or a (k/d) ratio of 2/1, then every time he is killed, he gives the other team or player 2 res. This way the game scales to the skills of players. Less skilled players net less rewards while skilled players are pressured to keep playing skillful or they will give the other team a big advantage.
I think the number 1 aspect of the game should be fun. Even if the game is not balanced, as long as it draws people because of a special element, it'll be popular. An aspect that helps is user friendliness. I find people more inclined to play Super Smash Brothers on my Nintendo than say Goldeneye. Simplicity can help newbies into the game. However, games should be expansive as well for the hardcore type.
As many people have said before... TFC and CS type of games are easy to balance... because they are MIRRORS! Though we can not change player skill, we can adapt the game for it.
Let's take a game of multiplayer starcraft.
It's a 4v4 battle, and two people on team one have never played starcraft before. Team one will almost certainly lose right? Is the game inbalanced becuase of that? No. They, like the NSPlayers who go through the team portals for the first time, just don't know what they're doing. Granted, there is a steep learning curve in NS, and I think a tutorial of some sort, and a really BIG sign saying, "We strongly urge you to read the manual before you play. This game is not simple." will really help.
You can't balance a game around the people who have no idea of how the game work, because they don't know how to play by the rules of the game (because they don't know the rules of the game). If they don't even know the rules, how can you use them to try to come up with a more balanced set of rules?
I started out as a pubber as well, and I have lots of fun both pubbing and scrimming (although sometimes it's frustrating on public servers if the commander is *really* bad). I think all we need to do is help the newbies along a bit. Like I said, tutorials would help. Offering them help while they play is also nice. For example, if a new players wants to command, you can help him along by giving him tips, telling him what's a good idea, and what's not. Of course this is assumign tha new player has an open mind, but we don't want players that don't have an open mind anyways (i.e those that aren't willing to learn).
Combat should not be the first experience that new players enter. While I agree that tutorials would help, I'm going to have to say that the number 1 reason for the reduction of players is the lack of a singleplayer game. Hold on, think of it this way. In Starcraft, you were not given access to all the units and abilities at once on the first level. That would be way too intimidating and overwhelming for the average joe to handle. The first levels were simple enough for the average joe to grasp. As the player progressed, new content was continually supplied to the player to learn and memorize. Finally, when the player was done with the campaign, he knew a lot about the game, which he could test online. The problem with NS is the lack of gradual difficulty. You are immediately thrown into a game where difficulty is at best random.
Tutorials are useful, but sometimes, people don't bother reading it. Personally, I think it would be hard to say everything NS has to offer in one go, and for the person to remember it all.
|
|
发表于 2005-4-6 15:39:00
