Balance is all important, at least thats my opinion. Balance is right up there with 'good features', its that basic:P
But what balance is, and what is balanced, is often more abstract though. But in the case of your sniper example, that is tactical, and you can't hope to compensate players for their own terrible decision :P [like constantly running into the snipers field of view, and be shocked when he shoots them] But if your biggest battle ship can run circles around anything smaller than it, hit from drasticly farther away, and destroy anything smaller before that smaller vessle even has a chance to fire back [which is the case if it can outrun it in all situations]. Where is the tactic in that? Hell, where is the game in that? A game is more than a neat interface, and stacking all but one of your players against absolutely impossible odds will assure that you're going to end up with no players left.
"i have a bigger hammer, i win, and by winning can afford an even bigger hammer, assuring i will always win." <-unbalanced, unfun.
Is game balance really so important?
I *highly* suggest that you try EvE Online, even if it's just the 14 day trial. The type of 'balance' in EvE is much different than in most other games. You can pilot different types of ships, all of which are somewhat realistic in their abilities and vulnerabilities. Even the most 'powerful' ships get taken down - in fact, the MOST powerful ships don't last ten minutes because rival corporations quickly move in to eliminate the *Very* dangerous threat. So, each ship in the game - frigate, cruiser, battleship, etc - has a place.
But in a one on one? Yes, the battleship is damn well going to take out the frigate.
But in a one on one? Yes, the battleship is damn well going to take out the frigate.
A key point everyone seems to be missing:
However what chance does that battleship stand against 10 battle cruisers?
THAT IS WHERE YOUR BALANCE IS!
In Chess a Queen has more moves at her disposal and thus more power...but even the best Chess player can loose a Queen to a small army of Pawns...even though a single Pawn has little chance outmanuvering and takeing a Queen.
Game balance is not just limited to each unit being tacticaly equal to another.
Quote:
A battleship should always beat a battle cruiser on paper in a one on one situation.
However what chance does that battleship stand against 10 battle cruisers?
THAT IS WHERE YOUR BALANCE IS!
In Chess a Queen has more moves at her disposal and thus more power...but even the best Chess player can loose a Queen to a small army of Pawns...even though a single Pawn has little chance outmanuvering and takeing a Queen.
Game balance is not just limited to each unit being tacticaly equal to another.
I'll put in two seperate points.
The first is on balance: Players like to win because they actually did something right (except cheaters), and at the same time (likely even more) they like to lose because they did something wrong. Losing not because of your own mistake (even if the mistake was taking on a level 10 player without first leveling yourself up to level 10 too) but because of bad game mechanic. For example snipers win in all possible situations, making certain game options like choosing a different class *always* the wrong choice. Providing a choice to the player that is *always* the wrong to make is bad (providing choices that are usually bad and are never really great, or choices that don't have any real effect, are just bad polish).
On that note, you can make your game "unbalanced", so long as there is at least one "right" choice a player can make in their defense against an "unbalanced" element (rock-paper-scissors is the simpliest, and thus the easiest and most obvious way of ensuring this, but there are other more subtle ways)
The second note: Big ships should manuever slower then smaller ships. This isn't just about balance or meeting player expectations (players *expect* the big ship to be slow, and violating that breaks their immersion in your world just as if ships could suddenly bend like rubber), but also about realism.
Think of the small and big hand on a clock (or think of points on the surface of a CD if you have to). Assume that they both make one revolution per minute. The tip of the small hand will be traveling at a certain speed, while the tip of the big hand will be going faster (pi*r2). The bigger the ship is, the farther it's edges will be from the point of rotation. Thus the G force due to acceleration on these edges becomes exponentially bigger the bigger the ship is. While the stress placed on a 1m ship turning 180 degrees in 5 seconds may be tiny, the stress placed on a 100m ship trying to turn 180 degrees in 5 seconds would be astronomical. The exponential growth in g force due to acceleration means that you can't simply scale up the beams holding the ship together - while the ship increases in size by a factor of 10, the g force will increase by a factor of 100. And we haven't even considered the crew or other items onboard the ship that might not deal with 200G's a force that well.
Now of course this is not to say that big ships can't go faster. As there is no friction in space many of the surface area vs volume problems that allow for smaller=faster on earth go away, though you may want to still consider two facts: Smaller ships also tend to sacrifice range (less fuel and weapon capacity) to give them their speed, since they can rely on larger ships to supply them. Also there is the notion of scale - on a tiny fighter, the engines and fuel supply (of which the supply doesn't last very long) to make it go so fast are enormous in relation to the size of the craft. While you could make a battleship go just as fast, the engines would be enormous, and the equally giant fuel tanks would be exhausted in a single battle.
The first is on balance: Players like to win because they actually did something right (except cheaters), and at the same time (likely even more) they like to lose because they did something wrong. Losing not because of your own mistake (even if the mistake was taking on a level 10 player without first leveling yourself up to level 10 too) but because of bad game mechanic. For example snipers win in all possible situations, making certain game options like choosing a different class *always* the wrong choice. Providing a choice to the player that is *always* the wrong to make is bad (providing choices that are usually bad and are never really great, or choices that don't have any real effect, are just bad polish).
On that note, you can make your game "unbalanced", so long as there is at least one "right" choice a player can make in their defense against an "unbalanced" element (rock-paper-scissors is the simpliest, and thus the easiest and most obvious way of ensuring this, but there are other more subtle ways)
The second note: Big ships should manuever slower then smaller ships. This isn't just about balance or meeting player expectations (players *expect* the big ship to be slow, and violating that breaks their immersion in your world just as if ships could suddenly bend like rubber), but also about realism.
Think of the small and big hand on a clock (or think of points on the surface of a CD if you have to). Assume that they both make one revolution per minute. The tip of the small hand will be traveling at a certain speed, while the tip of the big hand will be going faster (pi*r2). The bigger the ship is, the farther it's edges will be from the point of rotation. Thus the G force due to acceleration on these edges becomes exponentially bigger the bigger the ship is. While the stress placed on a 1m ship turning 180 degrees in 5 seconds may be tiny, the stress placed on a 100m ship trying to turn 180 degrees in 5 seconds would be astronomical. The exponential growth in g force due to acceleration means that you can't simply scale up the beams holding the ship together - while the ship increases in size by a factor of 10, the g force will increase by a factor of 100. And we haven't even considered the crew or other items onboard the ship that might not deal with 200G's a force that well.
Now of course this is not to say that big ships can't go faster. As there is no friction in space many of the surface area vs volume problems that allow for smaller=faster on earth go away, though you may want to still consider two facts: Smaller ships also tend to sacrifice range (less fuel and weapon capacity) to give them their speed, since they can rely on larger ships to supply them. Also there is the notion of scale - on a tiny fighter, the engines and fuel supply (of which the supply doesn't last very long) to make it go so fast are enormous in relation to the size of the craft. While you could make a battleship go just as fast, the engines would be enormous, and the equally giant fuel tanks would be exhausted in a single battle.
Balance isn't just "rock paper scissors". As others have said, you already have some balance in your game in that you require the player to grind away winning lots of battles before he gets the good ship. This is standard practice in RPGs, RTSs, and most persistent online games. It's fine to have a better weapon that requires investing more time; most games have that. But most games combine the "time-based grind" with an element of "rock paper scissors" as well. In a grind-based game like this you need to think about two things:
1) How fun is the grind up to the endgame? In your case, I would rate it as "intensely annoying", as you are basically playing with the deck stacked against you; after a month, everyone else in the game will have battleships. You are pitting newbies, who are fragile, don't know the game, and still deciding whether they want to play, against people who have played the game and know it inside out. And you are giving the experts an invincible ship and expecting the newbie to somehow be incredibly more tactical than the older players. This is not going to happen. The noobs will constantly be destroyed, most will quit your game out of frustration.
2) Once you're done with the grind, what's left to do? At this point, you have your battleship, and you basically just shoot at other battleships. Occassionally you blow up noobs, which isn't a challenge, but I guess might be fun for your ego. So the only time player skill and tactics really becomes a part of the game is in battleship vs battleship fights. In this case, you need to question why you are putting all this development into all the other ship types.
1) How fun is the grind up to the endgame? In your case, I would rate it as "intensely annoying", as you are basically playing with the deck stacked against you; after a month, everyone else in the game will have battleships. You are pitting newbies, who are fragile, don't know the game, and still deciding whether they want to play, against people who have played the game and know it inside out. And you are giving the experts an invincible ship and expecting the newbie to somehow be incredibly more tactical than the older players. This is not going to happen. The noobs will constantly be destroyed, most will quit your game out of frustration.
2) Once you're done with the grind, what's left to do? At this point, you have your battleship, and you basically just shoot at other battleships. Occassionally you blow up noobs, which isn't a challenge, but I guess might be fun for your ego. So the only time player skill and tactics really becomes a part of the game is in battleship vs battleship fights. In this case, you need to question why you are putting all this development into all the other ship types.
Quote:
You are pitting newbies, who are fragile, don't know the game, and still deciding whether they want to play, against people who have played the game and know it inside out. And you are giving the experts an invincible ship and expecting the newbie to somehow be incredibly more tactical than the older players. This is not going to happen. The noobs will constantly be destroyed, most will quit your game out of frustration.
Ah, but you're forgetting, leaving the game is a valid option, and a vital part of the game design... [lol]
I'm telling you, EvE takes all these suggestions and works them into a game. I didn't care for the game, but that was certainly not because of the balanced system it used!
There's still the trick of adapting an effective system to different types of games; I won't deny that. But I really don't think it should be that difficult.
There's still the trick of adapting an effective system to different types of games; I won't deny that. But I really don't think it should be that difficult.
Author
...this turned out to be entirely to long...lol.
My god. I knew posting here would be a great idea. Firstly, thank you guys for all the great and very well thought out posts.
You’re right and I should have stated this in my opening post that this is how it will be.
The mass of a vessel is very important in that the more of it there is, the less maneuverable your space vessel will be and the longer it will take to accelerate to an acceptable velocity. But if you accelerate long enough even a battleship will can have the velocity of a fighter craft but we’ll cap it somewhere.
The engines of a battleship are bigger and more powerful but that is because they have to be in order for the vessel to be combat effective. The big engines are trying to compensate for the very high mass but are not 100% effective. I never intended for the battleship to gain G as fast as the escort or frigate and I should have stated that.
Also, the more you add to your vessel, especially heavy weapon systems and armor plate, the more mass you will have and the less maneuverable you become.
Almost everyone brought this up and yes; I guess there is the balance in that regard. I didn’t think of it as balancing. Just common sense. BUT, you’re all right. That is balance.
Spoonbender asked “if you were a frigate fighting against a battleship, what would you do?” or something to the effect.
I’d probably run and try to find other allies no matter what their mass. Barring that I’d try and stay at extreme range and if I were loaded out with a torpedo room I’d try and trade shots with the battleship for as long as I can with torpedoes and hope that my point defense systems and maneuverability helped stave off my destruction.
If I started loosing that battle, and there is no doubt I would, I would try and close with it and really use my maneuverability to my advantage. But running straight at a battleship is probably not a good idea. I’d absorb too much fire and loose my ship.
One aspect of the game we’re talking about is the ability to run silent. Shut most of your systems down, cover up your heat sinks, and hope that his sensor package does not have an active ping that it’ll pick you up. In that case I’d close with him, slowly, then power up and try to at least damage his engines. Then I’d get the hell out of there. Call for back up and hope that the rest of us can pick him apart, praying he doesn’t have buddies coming to rescue him.
Alternately, move through an asteroid field so that it will cover your movement. Or hang at the polar region of a planet and hope he passes by, jump out and tag him.
I guess that is balance. I just never thought of it as balance before because its not rock/paper/scissors. Or is it?
Great question Spoonbender. Good thought exercise,
It’s using your environment to your advantage. Using your higher maneuverability against his higher mass and weapons load. Rock vs paper? I guess it would be.
What I truly want to stress in this game is what we stressed and actually succeeded in with Hostile Intent. Teamwork.
Not a chance in hell more than likely and thank you for bringing that up. TEAMWORK. It’ll trade shots for quite a while and it may take a few with it but I think the battleship will ultimately fail.
What I like to do is force players into situations where alone they can not succeed, generally, but with a group of players they can.
I want the combined arms approach to be paramount in this game. Someone already mentioned combined arms earlier and that has always been my goal. We bill the game as a “Capital ship battle management simulation.” (I know, sounds about as much fun as a spread sheet..lol) and combined arms is just a small part of the battlefield management theory.
It’s not just combat vessels either. We have various strike craft carriers which can launch and recall squadrons of fighters and bombers and there are Utility Vessels. You can think of them as the engineer class in Team Fortress Classic.
I’d hope the players would learn to work together by being forced to choose between one of two options. Either work alone and more than likely loose your ship or work together and more than likely succeed. Or at least survive.
A couple guys picked on this one point :D
I’ll stand by this. Yeah, its part of the design.
Your vessel, it’s stats and its weapons, equipment, sub-systems, crew and components, are persistent. As you play you grow. The experience points you earn are called requisition points which you use to requisition repairs or refits.
If you worked for 3 or 4 solid weeks and gained promotions through a career total of requisition points and captained a battleship you spend another 3 weeks refitting to just the way you wanted it and then you find yourself in an unwinnable situation faced with 10 battle cruisers vs just you, I’d run. You don’t have to die to know that a battle is lost. Retreat is a viable tactical option. Warp out of the server and call it a day because you don’t want to loose all those requisition points on repairs. I would be greatly pissed off at the game designer that forced me to stick it out in a server where I was going to loose.
And visa versa. An escort vs a battle cruiser or a battleship should run if he’s alone. But he should not be alone to begin with. The universe is not persistent. Only the player’s ship is so every time he joins a server there will be objectives to complete.
Makeshiftwings, you bring up wonderful points.
I don’t think this will be a problem and here is why. Let me know if I am way off base.
A newbie player in an Escort would get waxed if he rushed out alone to the enemy controlled territory.
But the Escort has a very specific role. It is a small attack vessel. Quick but lightly armed and armored.
The battle scenarios in the game are mostly about mining minerals in deep space for your corporation. The players don’t do any of the mining themselves. Each team is assigned to protect AI mining fleets that simply go through the motions unlike Homeworld where the player was in charge of the actual mining.
The mining fleets are great targets of opportunity for the quick Escorts (newbies) and they can also act as scouts. Talroth brought up PT Boats earlier. That is essentially what an Escort is (although they were hardly effective in direct surface combat during WW2. Alone, they were often waxed themselves.)
This got me thinking about the R/P/S example in my first post (the one with the vegetarian attack dogs ;)) and Fleets basically has the same thing now that I think about it.
If the mining fleets are ill protected by themselves and are great targets for the smaller Escorts, then I would expect to find higher mass vessels patrolling around the mining AO. A small task force of Escorts would be sitting ducks against a defense force of several Destroyers and Cruisers.
In that case, I’d up the anti. I’d request that some of the strike carrier captains assigned some of their lot of strike craft and bombers to us Escorts [Protect my Target] and maybe I’d be able to get a few destroyers of my own.
Each vessel chassis should have a role to fill.
Escorts are light and fast attack attack.
Destroyers are light support and attack.
Frigates are fleet support/first tier fleet defense.
Cruisers are heavy attack/fleet defense vessels.
Battle Cruisers are Battleships are core fleet vessels. They need the smaller vessels surrounding them. Good at leading attacks but not alone.
Strike, Assault and Command carriers are Battlespace support.
Utility vessels build structures and mooring stations (starbases/outposts for refits and repairs).
Each class has a role and has its ups and downs. The way things are shaping up I think I’d get to the Frigate or the Cruiser and stay there. You don’t have to take a promotion to a higher class vessel.
Do we have any former Navy men here that can comment on the classes and their roles? I’m sure there is some redundancy here. Battle cruiser and battleship for one.
Right now I’m taking traditional surface naval tactics and applying that to space vessels. It translates very well actually.
Avatar God, I will try eve online at the risk of being too influenced by it ;) Our modeler, Baheno, gave me a 14 day trial. Now I just have to get someone to watch my daughter for 14 days :D
Hey guys, thanks a bunch. This turned out to be a great brain workout for me. I really appreciate the replies so far. Your all getting excellent ratings from me :D..hey wow. i just noticed my user rating went down and i just got here...LOL
My god. I knew posting here would be a great idea. Firstly, thank you guys for all the great and very well thought out posts.
Quote:Original post by Fournicolas What you COULD do is, the bigger, the least maneuverable. You definitely have more power to move more mass, but it also means more acceleration, and momentum. You need more space to accelerate, decelerate or turn about. You also need more time.
You’re right and I should have stated this in my opening post that this is how it will be.
The mass of a vessel is very important in that the more of it there is, the less maneuverable your space vessel will be and the longer it will take to accelerate to an acceptable velocity. But if you accelerate long enough even a battleship will can have the velocity of a fighter craft but we’ll cap it somewhere.
The engines of a battleship are bigger and more powerful but that is because they have to be in order for the vessel to be combat effective. The big engines are trying to compensate for the very high mass but are not 100% effective. I never intended for the battleship to gain G as fast as the escort or frigate and I should have stated that.
Also, the more you add to your vessel, especially heavy weapon systems and armor plate, the more mass you will have and the less maneuverable you become.
Almost everyone brought this up and yes; I guess there is the balance in that regard. I didn’t think of it as balancing. Just common sense. BUT, you’re all right. That is balance.
Spoonbender asked “if you were a frigate fighting against a battleship, what would you do?” or something to the effect.
I’d probably run and try to find other allies no matter what their mass. Barring that I’d try and stay at extreme range and if I were loaded out with a torpedo room I’d try and trade shots with the battleship for as long as I can with torpedoes and hope that my point defense systems and maneuverability helped stave off my destruction.
If I started loosing that battle, and there is no doubt I would, I would try and close with it and really use my maneuverability to my advantage. But running straight at a battleship is probably not a good idea. I’d absorb too much fire and loose my ship.
One aspect of the game we’re talking about is the ability to run silent. Shut most of your systems down, cover up your heat sinks, and hope that his sensor package does not have an active ping that it’ll pick you up. In that case I’d close with him, slowly, then power up and try to at least damage his engines. Then I’d get the hell out of there. Call for back up and hope that the rest of us can pick him apart, praying he doesn’t have buddies coming to rescue him.
Alternately, move through an asteroid field so that it will cover your movement. Or hang at the polar region of a planet and hope he passes by, jump out and tag him.
I guess that is balance. I just never thought of it as balance before because its not rock/paper/scissors. Or is it?
Great question Spoonbender. Good thought exercise,
It’s using your environment to your advantage. Using your higher maneuverability against his higher mass and weapons load. Rock vs paper? I guess it would be.
What I truly want to stress in this game is what we stressed and actually succeeded in with Hostile Intent. Teamwork.
Quote:original post by MSW what chance does that battleship stand against 10 battle cruisers?
Not a chance in hell more than likely and thank you for bringing that up. TEAMWORK. It’ll trade shots for quite a while and it may take a few with it but I think the battleship will ultimately fail.
Quote:Persuter from our development forumsWhat most of those people on gamedev failed to notice is that since it's a persistent game, losing bigger, more leveled up ships is worse. If it takes you, let's say, typically two weeks of frequent play without dying to get a battleship with an all-elite staff, then you're damn sure not going to be risking that ship by flying it around solo, especially since there is a numerical balancing factor -- several small ships can defeat a larger one.
What I like to do is force players into situations where alone they can not succeed, generally, but with a group of players they can.
I want the combined arms approach to be paramount in this game. Someone already mentioned combined arms earlier and that has always been my goal. We bill the game as a “Capital ship battle management simulation.” (I know, sounds about as much fun as a spread sheet..lol) and combined arms is just a small part of the battlefield management theory.
It’s not just combat vessels either. We have various strike craft carriers which can launch and recall squadrons of fighters and bombers and there are Utility Vessels. You can think of them as the engineer class in Team Fortress Classic.
I’d hope the players would learn to work together by being forced to choose between one of two options. Either work alone and more than likely loose your ship or work together and more than likely succeed. Or at least survive.
A couple guys picked on this one point :D
Quote: A game where quitting is an option, a part of the *design*?
Is the player meant to come back again? And if so, what would make him do that?
Quote: Ah, but you're forgetting, leaving the game is a valid option, and a vital part of the game design...
I’ll stand by this. Yeah, its part of the design.
Your vessel, it’s stats and its weapons, equipment, sub-systems, crew and components, are persistent. As you play you grow. The experience points you earn are called requisition points which you use to requisition repairs or refits.
If you worked for 3 or 4 solid weeks and gained promotions through a career total of requisition points and captained a battleship you spend another 3 weeks refitting to just the way you wanted it and then you find yourself in an unwinnable situation faced with 10 battle cruisers vs just you, I’d run. You don’t have to die to know that a battle is lost. Retreat is a viable tactical option. Warp out of the server and call it a day because you don’t want to loose all those requisition points on repairs. I would be greatly pissed off at the game designer that forced me to stick it out in a server where I was going to loose.
And visa versa. An escort vs a battle cruiser or a battleship should run if he’s alone. But he should not be alone to begin with. The universe is not persistent. Only the player’s ship is so every time he joins a server there will be objectives to complete.
Makeshiftwings, you bring up wonderful points.
Quote: 1) How fun is the grind up to the endgame? In your case, I would rate it as "intensely annoying", as you are basically playing with the deck stacked against you; after a month, everyone else in the game will have battleships. You are pitting newbies, who are fragile, don't know the game, and still deciding whether they want to play, against people who have played the game and know it inside out. And you are giving the experts an invincible ship and expecting the newbie to somehow be incredibly more tactical than the older players. This is not going to happen. The noobs will constantly be destroyed, most will quit your game out of frustration.
I don’t think this will be a problem and here is why. Let me know if I am way off base.
A newbie player in an Escort would get waxed if he rushed out alone to the enemy controlled territory.
But the Escort has a very specific role. It is a small attack vessel. Quick but lightly armed and armored.
The battle scenarios in the game are mostly about mining minerals in deep space for your corporation. The players don’t do any of the mining themselves. Each team is assigned to protect AI mining fleets that simply go through the motions unlike Homeworld where the player was in charge of the actual mining.
The mining fleets are great targets of opportunity for the quick Escorts (newbies) and they can also act as scouts. Talroth brought up PT Boats earlier. That is essentially what an Escort is (although they were hardly effective in direct surface combat during WW2. Alone, they were often waxed themselves.)
This got me thinking about the R/P/S example in my first post (the one with the vegetarian attack dogs ;)) and Fleets basically has the same thing now that I think about it.
If the mining fleets are ill protected by themselves and are great targets for the smaller Escorts, then I would expect to find higher mass vessels patrolling around the mining AO. A small task force of Escorts would be sitting ducks against a defense force of several Destroyers and Cruisers.
In that case, I’d up the anti. I’d request that some of the strike carrier captains assigned some of their lot of strike craft and bombers to us Escorts [Protect my Target] and maybe I’d be able to get a few destroyers of my own.
Each vessel chassis should have a role to fill.
Escorts are light and fast attack attack.
Destroyers are light support and attack.
Frigates are fleet support/first tier fleet defense.
Cruisers are heavy attack/fleet defense vessels.
Battle Cruisers are Battleships are core fleet vessels. They need the smaller vessels surrounding them. Good at leading attacks but not alone.
Strike, Assault and Command carriers are Battlespace support.
Utility vessels build structures and mooring stations (starbases/outposts for refits and repairs).
Each class has a role and has its ups and downs. The way things are shaping up I think I’d get to the Frigate or the Cruiser and stay there. You don’t have to take a promotion to a higher class vessel.
Do we have any former Navy men here that can comment on the classes and their roles? I’m sure there is some redundancy here. Battle cruiser and battleship for one.
Right now I’m taking traditional surface naval tactics and applying that to space vessels. It translates very well actually.
Avatar God, I will try eve online at the risk of being too influenced by it ;) Our modeler, Baheno, gave me a 14 day trial. Now I just have to get someone to watch my daughter for 14 days :D
Hey guys, thanks a bunch. This turned out to be a great brain workout for me. I really appreciate the replies so far. Your all getting excellent ratings from me :D..hey wow. i just noticed my user rating went down and i just got here...LOL
Quote:Original post by TelastynQuote:
Leaving is a viable option.
Not if you want people to play your game rather than hunt for viable servers or just quit out of annoyance.
Personally, I think you're completely off base. Sure, games could (and should) allow a few weaker forces to win via craftiness. The problem comes that you're assuming that only the weaker force will be crafty. In the practical world, that's not true. Often the better, craftier player is the one winning the battles, which grants mightier forces, which win more battles, which grants....
Great fun for the winners who can bully around all comers who've no real chance. I think that such design is an abomination, though the millions of Counterstrike players probably disagree.
[sarcasm]
You mean...you shouldn't have artificially loaded material advantages for winning games?
Are you trying to suggest that everyone should have an exqual competetive footing and that competition should be decided on the real merits and abilities of the players, instead of extraneous handicaps?
Wow...that's not fair. I spent all this time playing this game, I should get to beat everyone all the time because I picked the better unit!
[/sarcasm]
Yes, millions of Counterstrike players would disagree. They all want the AWP, as long as no one else has it and they have to stay far away at range. Although, in this particular case, it would help if the other weapons were viable though...too many stacked encounters. Shoutgun WILL win in close quarters, sniper WILL win at range. That's not balance. The guy with the shotgun should just have to use different tactics at long range, the guy with the sniper should have to use different tactics in close range - the fight should never be decided by the surroundings alone - that might be how it works in the real world, but that's unneccesary in video games. People created "rules of engagement" and ethical codes for warfare (albeit often times these "codes" were self-serving...), people create morals for everyday life - for the purpose of balance. Balance is neccesary, otherwise there is no conflict, no competition, and no game.
The whole point of games like counterstrike though is to be team based, and as a team you use certain parts of your force on long range, and certain parts on close range. 1 on 1 it would be pretty bad, but in a team, you're supposed to use your team in a way as to defeat the other team. Its [usually] not a game of one player vs' some force [the exception of course being those insanely good players with the 10400 kills per death ratio :P] A balanced map for a game like counterstrike, would allow certain regions to be dominated by certain forces [like a sniper in that long hallway], but key points to either be slightly tilted toward the defender or the attacker [depending on objective, like a bomb site or a hostage room].
@ original poster
Admittedly your game is sound a lot different than you initially described it as, and a lot better now than it did before. Honestly it sounded more like conflicts that would be a more-or-less direct shootout between one force that is insanely more powerful than the other, in each and every conflict. Though you might want to give a bit of thought [or, moreso, might want to let us in on the thought you likely have already given to] the issues of what happens when a player logs out. Does this huge bigger-than-anything space station just *boop* disappear into thin space? Is there a timer [inwhich case just leaving isn't always a viable option, since a battle ship could surely decimate anything in the time it takes to disappear]. Are there log out places? [and log in places, might want to consider log in spaces with regards to <deleted>'s who like to camp spawn locations], can you just warp out of the conflict? [thus removing the risk of ever being in a conflict]. How quickly can you leave? [disappear before that huge cluster of missles has time to reach you? and reappear just after it passes?]
sounding a lot neater though, now that its not sounding so 'to hell with the player!'ish
The legendary 'awp' though, oh jeeze that was a lame weapon [though 'unbalanced' is another question, awp was the weapon of lame players though :P]. One hit kill regardless of where you hit your enemy, and absolutely no deviation between where you shoot and where the bullet lands? Have seen people use weapon steady tricks [like zooming in really quick right before firing] to treat that sniper rifle more like a pistol with a one hit kill :P
@ original poster
Admittedly your game is sound a lot different than you initially described it as, and a lot better now than it did before. Honestly it sounded more like conflicts that would be a more-or-less direct shootout between one force that is insanely more powerful than the other, in each and every conflict. Though you might want to give a bit of thought [or, moreso, might want to let us in on the thought you likely have already given to] the issues of what happens when a player logs out. Does this huge bigger-than-anything space station just *boop* disappear into thin space? Is there a timer [inwhich case just leaving isn't always a viable option, since a battle ship could surely decimate anything in the time it takes to disappear]. Are there log out places? [and log in places, might want to consider log in spaces with regards to <deleted>'s who like to camp spawn locations], can you just warp out of the conflict? [thus removing the risk of ever being in a conflict]. How quickly can you leave? [disappear before that huge cluster of missles has time to reach you? and reappear just after it passes?]
sounding a lot neater though, now that its not sounding so 'to hell with the player!'ish
The legendary 'awp' though, oh jeeze that was a lame weapon [though 'unbalanced' is another question, awp was the weapon of lame players though :P]. One hit kill regardless of where you hit your enemy, and absolutely no deviation between where you shoot and where the bullet lands? Have seen people use weapon steady tricks [like zooming in really quick right before firing] to treat that sniper rifle more like a pistol with a one hit kill :P
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
