Let me balance this game

[Roflcopter]

This is unlikely to get anywhere, but frankly the balance is rubbish.
I know how to balance this game properly.
Currently time to kill is massive and this allows players with bad reaction time and awareness to do better.
Some weapon are completely useless.

[DrauL]

Make the code, submit it, if its good it will be considered.

Basic advice for anyone saying the same stuff for the last few years.

[Roflcopter]

That's what I would like to do if the devs are willing for fairly radical changes.

The problem I can see is that everyone has an opinion and frankly most come from a biased position. I need to be able to do the whole thing instead of balancing by arguing and then making some compromise.

[*H1TM4N*]

yes everyone has an opinion, so the importance of discussing the topic.

[1Cap]

No, you should not try to change the game more.
It is only possible to balance the game if there is a point of reference. AndtThe reference point is the fun.
Dont try create spreadsheets, calculations and random considerations .
There are many variables. Many!

Balancing the game is the same as touching the fun.
This requires human and social skils not mathematical or programming knowledge.

Want to do is not the same as being able to do.

[DrauL]

That's what I would like to do if the devs are willing for fairly radical changes.

The problem I can see is that everyone has an opinion and frankly most come from a biased position. I need to be able to do the whole thing instead of balancing by arguing and then making some compromise.

Fork then.

[Roflcopter]

Sure fun is particularly important, but also so is the learning curve, fairness and competition.
And indeed I'm not that interested in purely theoretical considerations.

Fork then.

I think it'd be better for AC to benefit from these changes.

[Orynge]

That's what I would like to do if the devs are willing for fairly radical changes.

Ultimately, the devs are going to decide whether they want to use it or not anyway. If you submit it to them, then the devs can decide whether it's worth commiting it to SVN for a trial.

[DrauL]

Make the code, submit it, if its good it will be considered.

Essentially.

[Ronald_Reagan]

Here is the thing, this is the first I've heard of bad balance. I've asked some respected players what they thought about balance in the past, they thought it improved since last time. Many of them said the same as you, but they never thought it was that bad.

Why is it bad that the time to kill takes longer? Doesn't that force you to change your playing style some?

Trust me, my reaction time and awareness are pretty bad, and I still suck at the game. No worries, for us low-folk the game feels the same.

[Luc@s]

No, you should not try to change the game more.
It is only possible to balance the game if there is a point of reference. AndtThe reference point is the fun.
Dont try create spreadsheets, calculations and random considerations .
There are many variables. Many!

Balancing the game is the same as touching the fun.
This requires human and social skils not mathematical or programming knowledge.

Want to do is not the same as being able to do.

yes.

anyway, weapons have never been that strong, time to kill is very short, if you dont think so maybe youre not aimingproperly.

[MykeGregory]

What are your proposals on "Game balancing"?

[Vanquish]

I agree that the weapon balance is kinda bad atm. Even though the five weapons are more balanced with each other now, they're still not ideal. A game like AssaultCube can't sell itself on its looks, so it should sell itself on its gameplay, and atm the gameplay is being severely hurt by the way some weapons are being handled.

Spoiler

Personally I think "hitscan" guns like the AR + smg should be just like quake's lightning gun, because that actually rewards good aim. Some people who are good with the smg now would get a massive shock when their patented style of running into the enemy, half aiming and spraying fails to get them kills anymore. Of course it would need a lot of testing, but once perfected it would be much better.

So I would vote yes for Larry balancing the weapons. He has had more competitive experience (in AC and other games) than anyone in this thread and probably 95% of the forum, that shouldn't be ignored just because you have a couple of personal problems with him.

[DrauL]

So I would vote yes for Larry balancing the weapons.

Everyone is happy for him to do edits, submit them and see if they are accepted, that how it has always been done, and it has been suggested more than once in this thread.

He has had more competitive experience (in AC and other games) than anyone in this thread and probably 95% of the forum...

This is irrelevant.

...that shouldn't be ignored just because you have a couple of personal problems with him.

This is opinion.

Balance has always been a touchy subject and always will continue to be, but thats why every version is different. There is a way to go about helping the game, making a poll and whining "let me do it, you're doing it wrong" is not that way.

[Vanquish]

He has had more competitive experience (in AC and other games) than anyone in this thread and probably 95% of the forum...

This is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant, don't you think someone with seven years experience of playing games at a high level could help us get the weapon balance right? He clearly knows what does and doesn't make games work. Plus he's a very capable coder. I don't see the irrelevance at all.

There is a way to go about helping the game, making a poll and whining "let me do it, you're doing it wrong" is not that way.

Admittedly, I agree. But I'm trying to look past Larry's directness and understand that what he's trying to do for the game is more important than my pride and some forum etiquette, neither of which relates to the original topic of weapon balance.
I'd like to see Larry code a fork of the game for people to test out, and then hopefully some more people will start to agree with me that the weapon balance could be much better than it is.

[titiPT]

The problem I can see is that everyone has an opinion and frankly most come from a biased position.

And how do we know that this opinion of yours isn't biased as well?

It'd be much easier for you to say what the changes you're thinking about implementing are right away.

[Roflcopter]

anyway, weapons have never been that strong, time to kill is very short, if you dont think so maybe youre not aimingproperly.

I'm under the impression that many of the best fraggers currently, such as Waffles, think time to kill is too long.

And how do we know that this opinion of yours isn't biased as well?

Because I'm very experienced but I only play casually. Also, look at tournaments I've run in the past for their objectivity!

It'd be much easier for you to say what the changes you're thinking about implementing are right away.

Which will lead to endless debate and compromise. That's what stops major redesigns based on a complete concept and reduces balancing to a popularity contest of tweaks.

I also plan to test out changes with various skill sets - it's not a decided thing.

[DrauL]

....seven years experience of playing games at a high level... ...weapon balance right?...

Please, now, on a scale from 1-10, where ten is highest, rate the competitive AC scene. With any answer above 4 being a lie, we are able to deduce the fact the what a competitive player knows is not directly applicable in AssaultCube and for the sake of this argument, any other game =/= AssaultCube.

Plus he's a very capable coder.

I agree with this.

Which will lead to endless debate and compromise.

Since when did this become a closed source game where no one has any input?

That's what stops major redesigns based on a complete concept and reduces balancing to a popularity contest of tweaks.

That is biased, opinionated and needs to be backed up with facts Larry. Legitimately all you need to do is work on these, or fork, release a version with a complete changelog and see if people like the changes. Why post here if you don't want a discussion?

[Roflcopter]

Since when did this become a closed source game where no one has any input?

Who said no input from others?

That is biased, opinionated and needs to be backed up with facts Larry. Legitimately all you need to do is work on these, or fork, release a version with a complete changelog and see if people like the changes. Why post here if you don't want a discussion?

I need some indication first that my changes will really be considered and that a major redesign is wanted or I'm probably wasting my time. It's like when I offered to code half-time side switching.

I would suggest AC has less and less to lose and more and more to gain.

[macm]

This game is competitively dead anyway, maybe a change in gameplay/balance will bring new/old players. I'm voting yes for Larry, i don't think the game can get any worse, and i'd be willing to test another client before you ask for dev's approval (even if i'm not the most skilled to provide opinion on balance).

[Waffles]

The game has gotten a lot slower with the new release. AR was OP in the old version sure, but damn if it wasnt fun to go shooting around the map and getting wrecked if you weren't careful. Maintaining this status quo of "do something and it might be considered" isnt an effective way to ellicit positive change in this scenario. You need a constant to be able to test effectively and currently that constant would be smg which is a poor excuse for an effective gun.

If you're trying to raise skill cap overall (and we most certainly should be) then think about how randomness affects development. Imagine if you were trying to learn biology and the definition of cell would skip randomly (a bad analogy I know). It'd be fairly impossible to learn subject matter in a precise and effective way. You all are talking about the heart or the fun of the game. Who truly would be invested in a game that was impossible to get better at after a very short period of time? I get very happy when i can squeeze out another 1% accuracy. Why? because spread and recoil are too damn high. At a certain point I get better results sprinting around the map then actually engaging my opponents head on.

This baity style of play has gotten much more prevalent in this version (not necessarily bad) but has effectively slowed down the game due to what aspects are being rewarded. Fast-arcade FPS turned poor CS imitation.

I'm not placing blame. I just think what we consider "good" need be re-evaluated. Balance for pubs does not mean balance for competition. Traditionally, competition has kept games alive long past their prime.

We all want the game to be better, here's somebody who has offered to do something about it. I believe larry has the organizational skills, the relative respect of many of the top players (for testing) and is willing to hear a good argument. Who among you would honestly do hours of work (especially coding) without a high probability that the work you do would actually matter?

[ExodusS]

It would be good to have some small fixes about the weapons, as example, with the AR and SMG, the spread should not reset instantly after you stop shooting, it's way too much exploited. A new pistol, almost useless for non-sniper users would be cool to be implemented, something that has one powerfull shot (or 2 almost useless shots) but with a small clip, slow reload etc, that would make the sniper in a bad situation if he misses his pistol shot. Deleting helmets with the mastermode 2 is also part of the weapon ballance.

Also, a few ideas of your projects would be appreciated before my vote...

[Roflcopter]

Also, a few ideas of your projects would be appreciated before my vote...

• I want lower time to kill
  
• I want lower spread and somewhat lower recoil
  
• I want every weapon to have a real place in the game
  
• I want a more gentle learning curve to encourage new competitive players
  

[MykeGregory]

I would only agree with the last point..

The kill speed to player movement ratio is fine.. IMO.

[Cemer]

why this is a bad idea
-could cause further disputes
-may actually only cater to rofl
-alienate other members of the community
-arrogantly said
-some people dont like him

why this is a great idea
-fresh insight
-plenty of people have full support for rofl
-he has contributed plenty to the community
-has ran plenty tournaments and understands how to cater to the competitive needs
-he has plenty of hours of experience in this game, casual and competitive
-he has work ethic
-active participant in this game(ish)
-listens to people

i think this is a great idea, but some people might like it more if you make a side version of ac to test, to see if people want it in or not.

imho, whoever votes no might as well explain why they do not like rofl or his ideas; it seems to be more of a personal thing to deny him even a chance at attempting to fix the balance

then again i dont even play this game so dont listen to meeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[Vanquish]

it seems to be more of a personal thing to deny him even a chance at attempting to fix the balance

+1000000000000000000000000

[1Cap]

"Should Roflcopter balance the game?"
you meant try balancing the weapons?

the weapons are ok.
maybe slightly adjust the carbine gun.
each weapon has its function.
I play with all weapons and I can say that each works in its purpose.
on public servers we see players with all weapons.
Ok, in competition we do not see shotgun or carbine. but it is a player and clan choice. I'm sure great shotgun and carbine players would be decisive in matchs.
It is not interesting die faster. is getting more exciting escape alive in a confrontation and seek [Healt] and shelter. Spawn all the time is boring.
|| Jump and crouch totally changed the game! The maps were outdated after that. There are many variables. We must not think only competitively. Public servers are keeping the game alive! ||

[Jason]

+1 for 1cap to do weapon balance

[Marti]

Just make shotgun OP again pls

[Vanquish]

Public servers are keeping the game alive!

Public servers keep a dead game alive. If you want sustainable community growth then you should place greater emphasis on the competitive side of the game. The reason why similar types of games (I'm talking about ones based off of the cube engine, although ofc larger games apply too) are still very much alive is because they are centered around the competitive community. I bet anyone would be hard pressed to find a game which places public gameplay over competitive gameplay that isn't dying a slow, horrible death.

Of course there will be experienced public players that will immediately notice a difference if there were to be a change in the weapon balance, but the vast majority of public players probably wouldn't notice or even care. If you balance the weapons to suit competitive play, public games can adapt with little to no trouble. If you balance the weapons to suit public gameplay, you're killing competitive games.