Gameplay balance and the pro vs noob argument

This argument always came up during Nexuiz planning discussions, and it continues here for Xonotic planning. I think everything (pretty much) agrees that the gameplay needs to change. The questions are "in what ways?" and "to what degree?"

So here is what happens in these discussions. There becomes a divide between "pro" and "noob" player perspectives. Advanced players are ALWAYS chomping at the bit to provide ideas and feedback on game balance, but the response is often "well, you're not considering new players at all" and those ideas get brushed under the carpet.

Here I'll explain why that is a flawed approach.
Here is (imo) how you improve gameplay...

1) You make the ultimate experience of the game the best you can make it.
2) Then you do whatever you can to get new players up to speed quickly so they can have that great experience too.

It has always annoyed me when people make this discussion about "pro" vs "noob". That misses the point. The only difference is that the "pro" players are having the full experience of the game while the new players are not (yet).

Reducing the overall quality of the game to make it "simple" to play for new players takes away that potential for a new player to achieve a great experience over time. If it's a shallow game, then they have nothing to aim for because there is nothing there. If a game loses its depth, it loses it's ability to retain players.

So don't make the gameplay shallow. Give it depth. You do that through lots of analysis of the weapons and how they interact at an advanced level, how one counters the other, etc. You put emphasis on the map development at an advanced level to encourage strategy. The keyword is always balance, but it's not about balance between "pro" and "noob". It's about balance between tactics, strategies and weapons at the deepest levels of gameplay.

You then place emphasis on training. Lots and lots and lots of training. Lots of teaching. You make bootcamps and training sessions and you create an environment that encourages people to share ideas and participate in training. This has a side benefit of adding to the social interaction within the game.

Those steps above create the game experience as a whole. This whole process is how you generate loyal players who fall in love with the game. You "hook" people with the depth of gameplay. The dumbing down of gameplay causes players to leave after they get get to a certain level of ability.

So... this leaves one more point I want to make.

TESTING
You can not expect to improve gameplay without loads and loads of testing. Nexuiz experienced problems due to changes being made to the gameplay without (or with very little) testing. There are many people in the community WANTING to test features. They WANT to help improve the gameplay. Dozens of knowledgeable players are waiting for this opportunity. I think it's time to use them and not brush their input under the rug because they are supposedly "not considering new players".

I think advanced players are considering new players. They are considering turning them into advanced players so they can enjoy the game.

.....testing. There, I said it again.

They can test, and are encouraged to.

And personally, by "balance" I simply mean that no weapon should entirely outperform any other weapon. Each weapon should have its place, and have advantages and disadvantages against every other weapon.

You "hook" people with the depth of gameplay.

Strictly speaking, I don't think that's right. Or at least, you have to mention which people are you talking about.

Factually, the really first impression of new players is based on the instant delight they feel (good look and feel, etc). A very technical game (where you might survive no more than 2 sec, being pulverized by a nex-based combo for example) is not attractive for newbies.

Now i'm of course agree with you that all these things (which are discouraging for newbies) are the Essence of the game when you try to get more depth into the gameplay. But i would say this occurs only for intermediate players. But then, players must at least reach this intermediate level to be hooked by the game.

It makes me think to console game problem, where everything is attractive at first glance, but, at the end, where the depth of gameplay is typically limited.

Good post Dokujisan, well worded

Reducing the overall quality of the game to make it "simple" to play for new players takes away that potential for a new player to achieve a great experience over time. If it's a shallow game, then they have nothing to aim for because there is nothing there. If a game loses its depth, it loses it's ability to retain players.

I agree.

So don't make the gameplay shallow. Give it depth. You do that through lots of analysis of the weapons and how they interact at an advanced level, how one counters the other, etc. You put emphasis on the map development at an advanced level to encourage strategy. The keyword is always balance, but it's not about balance between "pro" and "noob". It's about balance between tactics, strategies and weapons at the deepest levels of gameplay.

Also agree. On the topic of weapons, however, I think it is easier to analyze weapon reactions when there are fewer redundant weapons (because you do not need to analyze as many combinations/as many weapons).

You then place emphasis on training. Lots and lots and lots of training. Lots of teaching. You make bootcamps and training sessions and you create an environment that encourages people to share ideas and participate in training. This has a side benefit of adding to the social interaction within the game.

I only wish I would have had that kind of help when I was starting out. Definitely a good idea.

You can not expect to improve gameplay without loads and loads of testing. Nexuiz experienced problems due to changes being made to the gameplay without (or with very little) testing. There are many people in the community WANTING to test features. They WANT to help improve the gameplay. Dozens of knowledgeable players are waiting for this opportunity. I think it's time to use them and not brush their input under the rug because they are supposedly "not considering new players".

Yes, this is much like this thread. Changes that happen without community input will generate ire 100% guaranteed.

They can test, and are encouraged to.

It can't be passive testing like it was in Nexuiz.

There needs to be organization with the testing, some sort of outline to the testing process and some clarity of the feedback loop. People who truly understand gameplay dynamics should be recruited into this process.

Without that, testing won't happen (or won't be effective) and gameplay improvements will fail just like in Nexuiz.

Good way to test would be what kojn suggested: get lots of people on a xonotic server and get feedback. If they want to change something, change it and see if that is more liked. Then have another session, with another group of people, see what changes they make. Then poll the forums.

1) You make the ultimate experience of the game the best you can make it.

. . .

Reducing the overall quality of the game to make it "simple" to play for new players takes away that potential for a new player to achieve a great experience over time. If it's a shallow game, then they have nothing to aim for because there is nothing there. If a game loses its depth, it loses it's ability to retain players.

No one disagrees with these things though, there's no argument between shallow versus deep, everyone wants deep.

But what kind of deep gameplay exactly? That's the question that summons the debate and divide of opinions.

"well, you're not considering new players at all" and those ideas get brushed under the carpet.

But that's just one of three popular arguments that often shoots down new and potentially good ideas, without any testing or further consideration. The other two are:

2) That doesn't fit a faced-paced game.
3) That detracts from the core uniqueness of Nexuiz.

So maybe the problem is more with using generalized filters like all of these.

Well, if it REALLY does not fit fast-paced games, then it IS out. Unless we do not want the game to stay fast-paced.

As for a testing process - we first need to have core maps on which we can test. Once that is done, we can do more organized testing. However, there is a problem - many people, even if they DO test, do not actually take the result of the game into account, but just repeat the same prejudices they had all the time. Each time they get killed, they see them verified. Especially, many people reject ANY kind of change.

As for weapon balance tests - multiple things have to be taken into account. We have pretty good means to calculate objective balance (frags, damage per weapon). However, another component is subjective balance, "coolness" of the weapons, strong combos. And that has to come from the players. Also, if players just demand "THIS GUN SUCKS, REMOVE IT FROM YOUR SHITTY GAME", it's obvious their feedback WILL get ignored. We want CONSTRUCTIVE feedback, like "this gun seems too weak, please improve it", "secondary fire of this thing never hits anything, maybe you have an idea to redesign this fire mode", "these guns seem too equal, they should be developed away from each other".

Well, if it REALLY does not fit fast-paced games, then it IS out.

Thing is most of the time the "pace" of a feature (or whether it affects it in the first place) is murky and debatable. Like with vehicles, people said they didn't fit in such a fast paced game, but now they're on the way. People still say the same thing about a melee type attack/weapon, even though it's never really been tested and others feel it could work.

Unless we do not want the game to stay fast-paced.

Even though many people stomp on game features/changes they feel would slow down the pace of the game, they seem to be oblivious to the long and deep trend of larger and more open maps. So while the game code is still just as fast-paced, newer content is slowing it down.

The sad part of this is it also affects the fundamentally different hitscan and nonhitscan weapons asymmetrically.

As for a testing process - we first need to have core maps on which we can test. Once that is done, we can do more organized testing. However, there is a problem - many people, even if they DO test, do not actually take the result of the game into account, but just repeat the same prejudices they had all the time. Each time they get killed, they see them verified. Especially, many people reject ANY kind of change.

No shit. I'm not sure to what extent folks are even aware and/or care about their own confirmation bias.

And then you have the issue tZork brought up, that is when opinions on specific changes are hugely numerous and varied, it isn't clear what direction to take. Leading to many of the developer 'command decisions'.

But what kind of deep gameplay exactly? That's the question that summons the debate and divide of opinions.

Yes.

2) That doesn't fit a faced-paced game.

As div said, do we not want a fast-paced game anymore?

3) That detracts from the core uniqueness of Nexuiz.

Anything that does indeed serve to generalize xonotic isn't in our best interest, I believe. We're already not in a very good situation, as we are using an engine far behind the commercial standard (not that we can do anything about it). If xonotic becomes in terms of gameplay much like a commercial FPS, we are doomed, because then we lose the competitive edge that comes from being a fast-paced arena style game, from being something different from the mass of shooters where you hide behind crates with regular guns and shoot terrorists. How many commercial games are there in xonotic's style? Very few. This intrinsic uniqueness is part of what drives people to come back and play more xonotic instead of dropping it for Crysis or TF2. It's this unusual style of gameplay that lets them overlook the sub-commercial graphics and the limitations of the engine, and focus on what they rarely see in an FPS.
The question is, of course, what does generalize xonotic?

As for a testing process - we first need to have core maps on which we can test. Once that is done, we can do more organized testing.

We've got a few maps, how are you planning to determine "core" maps?

However, there is a problem - many people, even if they DO test, do not actually take the result of the game into account, but just repeat the same prejudices they had all the time. Each time they get killed, they see them verified. Especially, many people reject ANY kind of change.

As long as the majority is not like this, it should be fine.

However, another component is subjective balance, "coolness" of the weapons, strong combos. And that has to come from the players. Also, if players just demand "THIS GUN SUCKS, REMOVE IT FROM YOUR SHITTY GAME", it's obvious their feedback WILL get ignored. We want CONSTRUCTIVE feedback, like "this gun seems too weak, please improve it", "secondary fire of this thing never hits anything, maybe you have an idea to redesign this fire mode", "these guns seem too equal, they should be developed away from each other".

Is unconstructive criticism really common right now? Most people who criticize things are generally objective, or, at the very least, constructive. I don't think identifying what people think is wrong will be the problem, rather, getting everyone to agree to a solution/compromise will be the problem.

Thing is most of the time the "pace" of a feature (or whether it affects it in the first place) is murky and debatable. Like with vehicles, people said they didn't fit in such a fast paced game, but now they're on the way. People still say the same thing about a melee type attack/weapon, even though it's never really been tested and others feel it could work.

Vehicles only make sense in ONS maps, which are usually large and open. Vehicles speed up the game on these maps, if anything. Players can give and take more damage, more bullets in the air, etc.

Even though many people stomp on game features/changes they feel would slow down the pace of the game, they seem to be oblivious to the long and deep trend of larger and more open maps. So while the game code is still just as fast-paced, newer content is slowing it down.

Yes, but if maps are getting bigger (this slows down the game), and if a change also slows down the game, there is much more slowing down going on.

The sad part of this is it also affects the fundamentally different hitscan and nonhitscan weapons asymmetrically.

Well, it wouldn't make much sense to treat them symmetrically if they are fundamentally different, no?

No shit. I'm not sure to what extent folks are even aware and/or care about their own confirmation bias.

And then you have the issue tZork brought up, that is when opinions on specific changes are hugely numerous and varied, it isn't clear what direction to take. Leading to many of the developer 'command decisions'.

Command decisions should definitely be avoided. Compromise is the way to go with varied opinions, or a poll. You can't please everyone, so you should please the largest amount of people possible.

As div said, do we not want a fast-paced game anymore?

Depends largely on who "we" are and what other game(s) you are comparing that pace with. But generally speaking probably more yes than no still.

Anything that does indeed serve to generalize xonotic isn't in our best interest, I believe. We're already not in a very good situation, as we are using an engine far behind the commercial standard (not that we can do anything about it).

What you should also consider is that Xonotic doesn't have to compete with commercial games because it isn't commercial. Almost totally different animals here.

For one, people don't have to spend 60 USD on Xonotic, its totally free. They can play it on hardware that's so old it's practically free also.

For two, Xonotic doesn't depend on money for its development, but motivated and talented contributors instead. That's a different resource than money which is tapped and utilized differently than financial resources.

What Xonotic does compete with is other free FPS games like Warsow, Sauerbraten, Open Arena, Alien Arena, Tremulous, Urban Terror and Smoking Guns, etc. The majority of these lean in the faced-paced direction themselves, so Xonotic can only distinguish itself in other areas besides pace (since it isn't slow).

Vehicles only make sense in ONS maps, which are usually large and open. Vehicles speed up the game on these maps, if anything. Players can give and take more damage, more bullets in the air, etc.

Well many CTF maps too, but yes that's my point that vehicles are not a feature for "slow" games, yet this argument was used on them without much thought.

Yes, but if maps are getting bigger (this slows down the game), and if a change also slows down the game, there is much more slowing down going on.

But looking at it reactively like that can lead to a lesser end. It is much better if devs can figure out the desire behind a popular trend like that, and then design a game that integrates it into a balanced game.

Otherwise you have things like a weapons balance designed for a game other than what people are really playing. Like balanced for basementctf when everyone's playing greatwall maps.

Well, it wouldn't make much sense to treat them symmetrically if they are fundamentally different, no?

What I mean is say every time you double map size/openness, hitscan weapons become half as effective while nonhitscan weapons become a quarter as effective. That's just an example of course, the actual rough ratio could be higher or lower, but it is significant.

So when you use maps to control the pace of the game, this is one of the bigger issues that comes up.

Command decisions should definitely be avoided. Compromise is the way to go with varied opinions, or a poll. You can't please everyone, so you should please the largest amount of people possible.

Heh, well then you might end up with Open Halo.

The dev's own, more specialized and consistent bias is actually one of the things that preserves the 'uniqueness' and 'fast-pace' of the game. Without it gameplay drift/evolution might happen much faster.

Especially more so now with the much improved and improving graphics/name/advertising of Xonotic over Nexuiz, which attracts more new players with new ideas and new tastes.

So if by and large you don't want things to change, be careful what you change.

Depends largely on who "we" are and what other game(s) you are comparing that pace with. But generally speaking probably more yes than no still.

"We" is the community, and it appears at least two people still want the fast pace.

What Xonotic does compete with is other free FPS games like Warsow, Sauerbraten, Open Arena, Alien Arena, Tremulous, Urban Terror and Smoking Guns, etc. The majority of these lean in the faced-paced direction themselves, so Xonotic can only distinguish itself in other areas besides pace (since it isn't slow).

Well, taking games from your list that I have experience with...
Warsow - fast paced
Sauerbraten - Not so fast paced
Tremulous - Larghissimo

There is a fairly wide gamut of pace in OS games, so I agree that xonotic's pace isn't a make or break thing (however, pace can support something that is a make or break thing).

Well many CTF maps too, but yes that's my point that vehicles are not a feature for "slow" games, yet this argument was used on them without much thought.

Well, that seems a good reason to use arguments more carefully

But looking at it reactively like that can lead to a lesser end. It is much better if devs can figure out the desire behind a popular trend like that, and then design a game that integrates it into a balanced game.

Otherwise you have things like a weapons balance designed for a game other than what people are really playing. Like balanced for basementctf when everyone's playing greatwall maps.

They are developers, not psychologists - it's not necessarily a conscious effort to slow the game down. I think if you ask people the vast majority will say that the fast pace is a really good feature of nexuiz/xonotic. Also, I don't believe balance was made for basement like maps.

The dev's own, more specialized and consistent bias is actually one of the things that preserves the 'uniqueness' and 'fast-pace' of the game. Without it gameplay drift/evolution might happen much faster.

Especially more so now with the much improved and improving graphics/name/advertising of Xonotic over Nexuiz, which attracts more new players with new ideas and new tastes.

So if by and large you don't want things to change, be careful what you change.

I think I get your point, changes should consider the spirit and the vision of the game first and foremost, of course - that is, a free, open, and quick arena game.

"We" is the community, and it appears at least two people still want the fast pace.

If you mean I'm one of the two, I actually prefer a considerable range of pace all in one game, personally. Variety, among other things, keeps things from getting stale for me. I'm complicated, heh.

Well, that seems a good reason to use arguments more carefully :P

Precisely.

They are developers, not psychologists - it's not necessarily a conscious effort to slow the game down. I think if you ask people the vast majority will say that the fast pace is a really good feature of nexuiz/xonotic. Also, I don't believe balance was made for basement like maps.

If it wasn't in fact an effort to slow down the pace, it has still had that affect. Old public server Nexuiz and official Xonotic are not so fast due to more spacious maps.

I think I get your point, changes should consider the spirit and the vision of the game first and foremost, of course - that is, a free, open, and quick arena game.

Not really, I just want more of the things I like and less of those I don't like, just like anyone else. Plus the visions and opinions of what the game's spirit really is are very unclear and at least somewhat variable.

My point was simply that for a living organism like a FOSS project, the people currently making the decisions make the game what it is. If you change who those people are so will the project. So be careful what you wish for. ;)

But I personally don't really care about this particular issue either way, because the whole structure of this project is too big a thing for me to have much influence on. I'm only interested in details, balance and features. :)

If you mean I'm one of the two, I actually prefer a considerable range of pace all in one game, personally. Variety, among other things, keeps things from getting stale for me. I'm complicated, heh.

Div is one of the two, I think.

If it wasn't in fact an effort to slow down the pace, it has still had that affect. Old public server Nexuiz and official Xonotic are not so fast due to more spacious maps.

Perhaps, but more open maps allow you to gain speed easier (don't need to make as many turns, etc.)

My point was simply that for a living organism like a FOSS project, the people currently making the decisions make the game what it is. If you change who those people are so will the project. So be careful what you wish for.

But I personally don't really care about this particular issue either way, because the whole structure of this project is too big a thing for me to have much influence on. I'm only interested in details, balance and features.

I think I understand you now.

Perhaps, but more open maps allow you to gain speed easier (don't need to make as many turns, etc.)

That's true up to a point, but after that you make maps bigger and it doesn't make speed maintenance really any easier. But it continues to make nonhitscan weapons more difficult to use.

And with hitscan weapons plus the forewarning and clear shots more space gives you, the speed isn't a huge advantage either.

That's true up to a point, but after that you make maps bigger and it doesn't make speed maintenance really any easier. But it continues to make nonhitscan weapons more difficult to use.

And with hitscan weapons plus the forewarning and clear shots more space gives you, the speed isn't a huge advantage either.

Maps are not *that* big. Sure, there's one or two ENORMOUS maps (evergreen, ons_reborn) but nobody actually plays them.

I'm not being funny but this thread is turning into the same as the other one, you two just quoting each other constantly.

Sorry, got carried away.

If you mean I'm one of the two, I actually prefer a considerable range of pace all in one game, personally. Variety, among other things, keeps things from getting stale for me. I'm complicated, heh.

Div is one of the two, I think.

I am one of the two, too.

* Halogene waves

I am one of the two, too.

* Halogene waves

Because there can be only two of a two, your entry into this exclusive club means that div cannot be one of the two.

This is how you use the power of mathematics and deductive reasoning to answer real life questions, so stay in school, kids.

Huh? Given there are (at least) two of a certain kind, then there can be (at least) twice one of those certain (at least) two of a kind.

The trick is that you define those (at least) two of a kind as a set with certain elements within it. Of course each of the elements of that set are one of the set (the set being "two of a kind").

Apart from that, those "two" I was referring to were defined as "at least two". What I was saying was... what was it again... ah yes, I am also strongly for keeping the fast-pacedness (including fast movement) of Xonotic/Nexuiz.

Perhaps you could discuss reasoning in whackity whicktown?

haha I'll quote you on that.

You're right though.

the problem i think is that what makes the game fun for one person may differ from what makes it fun for someone else.

then i would add changes in biorhythm and brain chemistry, variation in personal circumstances, life experience, etc.

a game is over once the outcome of a game is known. I don't know anyone who doesn't want to utterly cream the opponent.

but its the shadow of possible failure that makes a game worth playing, not certainty of either. once players get too good, i would assume they naturally migrate to greener pastures. that is of course a superstar player needs a quick brain chemistry pickup after a bad day at work so comes in and stomps a bunch of noobs.

i'm still noobish and i love getting stomped by good players, its how i learn. i dont really see a problem.

by the way, hoctf is fun to play at because its the biggest server and its usually populated. also, you dont get kicked for speccing and that alone makes it way more comfortable than DCC or Simba (i'm in europe) so thanks Doku.