| 1 |
[quote] In Zero-K, due to the nature of being balanced by (what are essentially) community members, we lack some of the professional QA and testing procedures and ability that other larger games may get to utilize before making large scale changes. [/quote]
|
1 |
[quote] In Zero-K, due to the nature of being balanced by (what are essentially) community members, we lack some of the professional QA and testing procedures and ability that other larger games may get to utilize before making large scale changes. [/quote]
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
This statement alone stretches credibility as major games with professional designers have severe balance and game design issues (Starcraft 2 after 10 years of active development or several years of community patches is not an outstanding model of quality design compared to every other RTS game). The meta development in Starcraft 2 does not seem to justify the faith you put into hard data. Balancing by numbers is not a panacea when an extremely small number of players are capable of playing your game to its highest skill level and exhibit actual flaws in the game versus failures in the playerbase. Getting a matchup to 50/50 balance is achievable by following data but is no guarantee that the matchup actually has any depth (one side having a strong killing timing at a specific point versus the other side being favored at all other times is balanced but not a happy equilibrium, see ZvP).
|
3 |
This statement alone stretches credibility as major games with professional designers have severe balance and game design issues (Starcraft 2 after 10 years of active development or several years of community patches is not an outstanding model of quality design compared to every other RTS game). The meta development in Starcraft 2 does not seem to justify the faith you put into hard data. Balancing by numbers is not a panacea when an extremely small number of players are capable of playing your game to its highest skill level and exhibit actual flaws in the game versus failures in the playerbase. Getting a matchup to 50/50 balance is achievable by following data but is no guarantee that the matchup actually has any depth (one side having a strong killing timing at a specific point versus the other side being favored at all other times is balanced but not a happy equilibrium, see ZvP).
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
I have my own opinions where I dislike aspects of Zero-K design (I'm allergic to Imp/Snitch gameplay in particular) but that's clearly a minority opinion and my changes would objectively make Zero-K a more boring game. Claiming that changes existing due to "poor or non-existent balancing standards" is claiming objectivity in a very subjective field. There are many good Zero-K possible games and we are not stuck on Leto's golden path where the game ecosystem will collapse with one small change. Games that are still played without updates thrive on mechanical impossibility that is not supported by newer games (Broodwar will never be played optimally, and Melee to a lesser extent) or nostalgia, neither of which applies to Zero-K.
|
5 |
I have my own opinions where I dislike aspects of Zero-K design (I'm allergic to Imp/Snitch gameplay in particular) but that's clearly a minority opinion and my changes would objectively make Zero-K a more boring game. Claiming that changes existing due to "poor or non-existent balancing standards" is claiming objectivity in a very subjective field. There are many good Zero-K possible games and we are not stuck on Leto's golden path where the game ecosystem will collapse with one small change. Games that are still played without updates thrive on mechanical impossibility that is not supported by newer games (Broodwar will never be played optimally, and Melee to a lesser extent) or nostalgia, neither of which applies to Zero-K.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
Tl;dr:
More
changes,
even
if
they
break
the
game,
we
shall
rebuild.
|
7 |
Tl;dr:
More
changes,
even
if
they
break
the
game,
we
will
rebuild.
|
[balance] Where Are We Going With This?