TA Derivative Balancing Theory Discussion - Page 2

TA Derivative Balancing Theory Discussion

Various things about Spring that do not fit in any of the other forums listed below, including forum rules.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
REVENGE
Posts: 2382
Joined: 24 Aug 2006, 06:13

Post by REVENGE »

It's at my local public library, along with Warcraft III, C & C III, etc.

Maybe you should check yours as well. :lol:



I swear they're fucking retarded. CD keys get jacked by first person to check out, and CC3 has been missing since May.
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

lurker wrote:what the fuck Smoth? Some people are saying that someone like noize is better at balancing a TA mod than you, and you take it as saying you have no skill whatsoever. What are you really so pissed about?
Speaking of which, why does it seem like every topic we make these days degenerates into some discussion about TA balance, BA suckage, modders are gay, etc?

Maybe this is the new "caydr's corollary".
tombom
Posts: 1933
Joined: 18 Dec 2005, 20:21

Post by tombom »

It's because people are butthurt about their mods not being played so they have to complain about BA, even though they've never played it.
duderham
Posts: 13
Joined: 28 Oct 2007, 02:30

Post by duderham »

smoth wrote:There is no point in explaining it any further. I suggest you ask noize or day as they are apparently the only ones with the wisdom to explain anything to you. I am a mere average player and lack sufficient knowledge to explain or comprehend balance.
Felony 1 - don't insult other users, mod
User avatar
Sleksa
Posts: 1604
Joined: 04 Feb 2006, 20:58

Post by Sleksa »

Players with superior skill almost always have superior knowledge of the mechanics of the engine.

if you take a average wc3 player and hand him over a zeppelin, he'll use it as a transport, but if you look at some of the wc3 pro plays, the good players also use it as a offensive unit, mainly loading your hero when he's getting nuked, so it becomes a invulnerable unit and then unloading and surrounding enemy heroes.

a simple unit with a simple purpose becomes all powerful suddenly. And the game developers propably couldnt see that coming.
The point being is that skilled players know units and what units to use over and over again. This breeds crap like the fondness for gator and flash spam often times resulting in all other units being forsaken when it comes to balance and frankly rendered useless as gator or flask or ak is all you need. Not balance, just dumbed down and who ever has the fastest base and spam abilities wins.
this is my exact main point.

All you see is "LOL I SPAEM GATER :__d" , like the average wc3 player sees the zeppelin.

and you dont even want to see anything else because you dont actually play the game but instead choose to give out your superior opinion on how the things should work
It should be noted that those who look down on TA based mods here are quite horrid at playing them, and that the alternative works suggested lack elements of depth and strategy found in such basic RTSes as Starcraft and Command & Conquer, so their opinions should be taken with a grain of salt. ~~
-true
It also should be noted that dismissing negative feedback based on the "skill" of a player is also foolish.
-wrong

how can you even think you have any authority to give any feedback if you dont play or understand the mechanics of the gameplay?
Lordmatt, so then would you say that... oh.. all of the uber ninjas of spring know more of gameplay then I do? Would you say that nothing is learned from specing or watching replays?
you can watch replays and you can see the actions and moves the players make, but what you fail to understand is why they make them since you dont have any experience of the game at all. you cant replicate the things they do and even if you could you would propably do things in wrong places at wrong times.

Ah so you will not say directly that you feel someone like me knows less about balance then you do? Ok, so you feel demos teach very little? Come on man, which is it? Stand up and say it. you are dancing around the question.
Tell me why would a guy who doesnt play total annihilation know more about ta than the guy who has played ta for 5 years?
DOES "SKILL" mean you know MORE and gameplay then people who actually make stuff in the engine? I am talking only gameplay, not art creation, or scripting ability.
superior skills means superior knowledge of the mechanics of the gameplay and how the engine works, and also superior sense of micro and macro and timing and speed, and a dozen other factors

a man who doesnt even acknowledge half of these things can never understand gameplay better than the one who does
User avatar
Day
Posts: 797
Joined: 28 Mar 2006, 17:16

Post by Day »

i agree
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Post by smoth »

More like what the fuck rattle(meant to say lurker) read the thread they said outright that you can only balance something you are the best player otherwise you are unqualified.

I already said ok sure so you guys can stop being all pissed about it yourself.






Tombom, stop trolling, I have said countless times I do not give a fuck that gundam is unpopular and I LIKE IT THAT WAY!

*edit* I would say f you in more colorful terms but frankly I could give a crap about the elitist rubbish and all of the arrogance it breeds.
Last edited by smoth on 01 Nov 2007, 21:25, edited 1 time in total.
tombom
Posts: 1933
Joined: 18 Dec 2005, 20:21

Post by tombom »

It's actually the people who don't play BA who give elitist crap.

I'm seriously sick of this shit about how BA is all flash spam being said by people who never play BA. Yeah sorry if I somehow offended you or whatever.

Also lol @ the fact you thought lurker is rattle.

The fact is the people best at a game know the best about balance and are the most qualified to balance it.
User avatar
KDR_11k
Game Developer
Posts: 8293
Joined: 25 Jun 2006, 08:44

Post by KDR_11k »

I think we're arguing different skillsets here, pro players and balancers are like car racers and tuners while we're using the same term for them as we use for car makers.
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Post by smoth »

tombom:
I am fucking tired, I spent last night playing some halo 3 and looking at what makes up a gamer. In time I have begun to realize that most gamers are a too busy worrying about their kill/death ratio or their kps then they are about having a good time. Somewhere along the way you people have begun to equate the win as the only fun thing in gaming. I have long since grown weary of the asinine penis wagging that is gaming and playing to just play well.

My only reason to learn a game is to give a sporting game and have a good time. Simply that. That is no longer what gaming is about and frankly, I don't care anymore. There was a time where I wanted to be a game developer but then I realised people like you and sleksa might be my target audience and frankly I don't see the reason to put so much effort into something that people like you would enjoy.

So whatever, you guys can rage and shit get all pissed because I called you elitist. I still stand on my point that if all of the above is true then noize should be forced to play against the best players and if he is unable to beat said player he has to step down and let the other person take over.


I whole heartedly believe in playtesting and having good playtesters but one's ability to play is not equal to one's ability to get anything done.
tombom
Posts: 1933
Joined: 18 Dec 2005, 20:21

Post by tombom »

so you _still_ disagree with the best players having the best understanding of balance

i really don't understand this at all

i'm not somebody who plays paticularly to win. i'm utter crap at pretty much every game. i defer to somebody like day for ba or kdr for gundam or decimator for ee on balance because they're far better than me and know more about how the game works.

w/e it's not a big deal. i'm not trying to sound angry about this or get in a big argument or personally offend you.
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Post by smoth »

Image

This is only going to go around and around tombom. I really have lost all joy in gaming because of the "best" players. There come a point where you just have to play religiously and basically use the 3-4 good builds. I find it uncreative that past the number crunching it is all just a matter of how well you can execute it. IF I COULD I would hide all the stats in gundam and only give player abstract evaluations of damage and hp just to delay the number cruching that will come.

Fact of the matter is that I do not ever want to become good and even if I wanted to there are times where I can do next to nothing because of my fucking hands and whatever is wrong with them but I digress. My point stands, if only the best players can be qualified to balance something then you must consider that there is no point in my continued existence or work here as I obviously am both redundant and without use.
User avatar
Nemo
Spring 1944 Developer
Posts: 1376
Joined: 30 Jan 2005, 19:44

Post by Nemo »

you're talking past each other. relax. lots of people play games because it fulfills a desire for competitive interaction (with the reward of social recognition for dominance). smoth doesn't. for some people having a good kill/death ratio is what makes the game fun - losing to them isn't fun because it means they're not getting the social recognition they started playing in order to gain.

I wouldn't worry about trying to change that, because you'd have to change those competitive gamers on a very fundamental psychological level, and even then the question of whether such an attitude is 'bad' and deserves change remains untouched.

smoth, I'd wager that for you playing is more about creativity and trying to accomplish interesting things with your units rather than winning, or even just enjoying the visual rewards offered by this era of games, which is plenty valid as well - it's just not a mindset that competitive players can understand, since for them if you're not winning you're not having fun, generally.

both of these approaches to play are rather normal, they just don't mesh well together. to make another generalization, it's usually the most competitive players who hang around a game the most, since for them to simply bow out at some point would be to sacrifice the adrenaline rush of competition as well as the potential reward of social recognition when they win. in other words, they generally have the strongest intrinsic motivation to keep playing long after the game loses its appeal to others, since the rewards of winning usually arrive on a variable schedule with a clear route to improving the chances of receiving that reward - the basic formula of how to create an addictive design.

disclaimer: blah blah don't take any of it personally just my guessing based on some game addiction research I did. both types of players described here are entirely valid and normal, just don't get along together well usually.

Edit: I wrote a whole fun paper about the role of addiction in game design, so if anyone is interested throw me a PM and there'll be more like the above post to read. I can't say it'll be the most engaging reading, but you may find it interesting. that is, it was written as a semi-formal project paper, so its dead boring. And much of it applies mostly to single player game design, however, since its so much more difficult to control reward schedule in a competitive multiplayer environment - this is why we're having a hard time finding and keeping new players. Their first experiences are not the rewards (ie, wins) that they should be getting in order to hook them, but rather huge thrashings by skilled or at least competent players who've been here for a while.
Last edited by Nemo on 02 Nov 2007, 04:38, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Post by smoth »

not offended at all, that is actually a very interesting and intelligent post on what I am talking about. I wish I were so good with explanations.
User avatar
Snipawolf
Posts: 4357
Joined: 12 Dec 2005, 01:49

Post by Snipawolf »

I play to win, generally, but just so I can kick someone else's ass, not for bragging rights and shit like that, lol...
User avatar
LordMatt
Posts: 3393
Joined: 15 May 2005, 04:26

Post by LordMatt »

And smoth wonders why he gets trolled... :roll:
User avatar
Neddie
Community Lead
Posts: 9406
Joined: 10 Apr 2006, 05:05

Post by Neddie »

LordMatt wrote:And smoth wonders why he gets trolled... :roll:
Yes, because your post was any more useful.

I'm pretty tired of being pulled between the competitive and creative camps as an individual. I find there are two distinct halves to me when I play - one wishes to have fun and values the social element involved in teamplay above all else, the other simply wishes to be the arbiter of battles; to punish the prideful, arrogant and ignorant. I believe this latter developed out of the turmoil which almost eliminated my desire to win for the sake of winning when I was considerably younger. Whatever caused the formation of this dual personage ingame, I feel a consistent tension between the two which I've never heard of from another gamer. In fact, I've observed three categories of gamers which together should account for a super-majority. Those who play for social or personal advancement through victory and superiority measured in some arbitrary manner against others, those who play to experiment, and those who play to escape.
User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22309
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Post by smoth »

LordMatt wrote:And smoth wonders why he gets trolled... :roll:
because people are assholes.
User avatar
Snipawolf
Posts: 4357
Joined: 12 Dec 2005, 01:49

Post by Snipawolf »

Snipawolf wrote:I play to win, generally, but just so I can kick someone else's ass, not for bragging rights and shit like that, lol...
Wait, I am wrong up here, I said what I didn't mean, and, thinking on it...

I play to play a game. That is what I want to play, a game. It isn't some kind of Jihad. You don't have to worry about kills/deaths. You play to play. I like the interactive parts of gaming, and the small hidden things, which there will be quite a lot of in my mod. Anybody who has seen it, if they have looked closely to a moving buggy or lav, will notice it.

So, just play a game, have fun, winning is a bonus, but not the war. I do love to see things get blown up, and nice effects, but generally, I prefer if I am the one whose weapons spawn said effects...
DemO
Posts: 541
Joined: 18 Jul 2006, 02:05

Post by DemO »

Nemo wrote:you're talking past each other. relax. lots of people play games because it fulfills a desire for competitive interaction (with the reward of social recognition for dominance). smoth doesn't. for some people having a good kill/death ratio is what makes the game fun - losing to them isn't fun because it means they're not getting the social recognition they started playing in order to gain.

I wouldn't worry about trying to change that, because you'd have to change those competitive gamers on a very fundamental psychological level, and even then the question of whether such an attitude is 'bad' and deserves change remains untouched.

smoth, I'd wager that for you playing is more about creativity and trying to accomplish interesting things with your units rather than winning, or even just enjoying the visual rewards offered by this era of games, which is plenty valid as well - it's just not a mindset that competitive players can understand, since for them if you're not winning you're not having fun, generally.

both of these approaches to play are rather normal, they just don't mesh well together. to make another generalization, it's usually the most competitive players who hang around a game the most, since for them to simply bow out at some point would be to sacrifice the adrenaline rush of competition as well as the potential reward of social recognition when they win. in other words, they generally have the strongest intrinsic motivation to keep playing long after the game loses its appeal to others, since the rewards of winning usually arrive on a variable schedule with a clear route to improving the chances of receiving that reward - the basic formula of how to create an addictive design.

disclaimer: blah blah don't take any of it personally just my guessing based on some game addiction research I did. both types of players described here are entirely valid and normal, just don't get along together well usually.
One of the best posts I've read on these forums in recent weeks. GJ sir! Very well worded points and ones which I agree with almost entirely. I intended on making a post which would basically address these same points, until I read yours.
User avatar
LordMatt
Posts: 3393
Joined: 15 May 2005, 04:26

Post by LordMatt »

neddiedrow wrote: Yes, because your post was any more useful.

I'm pretty tired of being pulled between the competitive and creative camps as an individual. I find there are two distinct halves to me when I play - one wishes to have fun and values the social element involved in teamplay above all else, the other simply wishes to be the arbiter of battles; to punish the prideful, arrogant and ignorant. I believe this latter developed out of the turmoil which almost eliminated my desire to win for the sake of winning when I was considerably younger. Whatever caused the formation of this dual personage ingame, I feel a consistent tension between the two which I've never heard of from another gamer. In fact, I've observed three categories of gamers which together should account for a super-majority. Those who play for social or personal advancement through victory and superiority measured in some arbitrary manner against others, those who play to experiment, and those who play to escape.
You'll survive neddie, there's more to this world than spring...
smoth wrote: because people are assholes.
That's right everyone who disagrees with smoth is an asshole and a troll. :|
Locked

Return to “General Discussion”