My responses to Frogboy's comments on balance and intentions.

Concerning the indicators of good/bad balance and which audience the game should primarily cater to.

from Sins Forums
4) Overall, we believe that Sins of a Solar Empire is a pretty well balanced game out of the box. The fact that people are quibbling over whether "LRMs" should have 15% less range or whether a given unit should use 5 supply versus 6 supply I think speaks to this.
5) Lastly, Stardock nor Ironclad are going to make changes to the game that are to the detriment of the single player game experience.  Why were siege frigates nerfed? Because it was a "quick fix" to help improve single player which is where most people play the game most of the time. Similarly, you will see updates that you may not agree with if you're a multiplayer user but helps single player. Similarly, some single player users may disagree with a change that improves multiplayer (this is particularly true about the market for instance).  A little empathy can go a long way.  But remember, we are making a game that is designed to be enjoyed in two very different environments.
End of quote


4) Well you're half right, but when a majority of balance complaints revolve around one unit type or one faction, it certainly is an indicator that the balance is significantly off and that the game hasn't reached the stage where finesse tweaks are the first order of business.

5) A game that is balanced for competitive play will be balanced for casual play. A game that is balanced vs. Human opponents will be balanced vs. AI opponents, because it will be decades before AI can play at the same level as a living breathing player. This isn't chess, and I know that IC has wisely not spent as much time on the AI as others have programming AI for such games as chess, which it should be noted is far far less complex and zounds more linear than a game such as SoSE.

129,421 views 118 replies
Reply #1 from Sins Forums Top
Obviously those concerns aren't echoed by Ironclad, or Blair and Craig wouldn't have discussed the LRM spam as being so detrimental to the game on that internet radio thing.

Reply #2 from Sins Forums Top
5) Lastly, Stardock nor Ironclad are going to make changes to the game that are to the detriment of the single player game experience. Why were siege frigates nerfed? Because it was a "quick fix" to help improve single player which is where most people play the game most of the time. Similarly, you will see updates that you may not agree with if you're a multiplayer user but helps single player. Similarly, some single player users may disagree with a change that improves multiplayer (this is particularly true about the market for instance). A little empathy can go a long way. But remember, we are making a game that is designed to be enjoyed in two very different environments.
End of quote


Huh?

The change to siege frigates was made because of singleplayer concerns? That's imho a very bad reason to do it.

The AI siege frigate rushes were nice, they made the AI a bit challenging. Nerfing it made the AI weaker and imho made singleplayer less fun too.

Also changes to single player with regards to siege frigates should have been done via the AI. Make the AI use less sieges, or don't rush with them.

I wholly agree with Thinking42Man. The game has to be balanced for multiplayer. Singleplayer balance can be made through the AI, but never on the cost of multiplayer balance.
DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #3 from Sins Forums Top

I think a little less melodrama would go a long way.  I know my own desire to hang out on these forums has declined dramatically with all the moaning that seems to be much ado about nothing. There are users with real issues that need to be dealt with.

Does that mean I think 1.03 is perfectly balanced? No. I don't think any game is.  But I do know it's unfortunate that a relatively small group is making post after post after post in order to try to get their particular issue addressed.  Why not make a 1.04 suggestion thread? 

The average player (myself included) are not finding the game unbalanced. We'll look through reasonable feedback and suggestions and work wtih Ironclad to get things addressed. But like I said, people don't do themselves any favors by making hysterical posts (this post is fine, I'm referring to ones with ridiculous titles).

Reply #4 from Sins Forums Top
It's kinda funny that he just comes out and says he doesn't care about issues that hound every RTS ever, namely unit balance and multiplayer success. Sure, Stardock makes SP games, and that's fine. RTS's live and die by multiplayer popularity, which is generally based on unit balance and 'competitiveness'. Ignoring these issues (even worse, actively working AGAINST them) mean the game will never reach the high levels of popularity that it might do if they were addressed, because it's otherwise a great game.

I think the forums are full of some whining, but that's true for any game. Getting on a high horse and ignoring it because single player is 'more important' is just blinkered thinking.

The statement 'is pretty well balanced out of the box' boggles the mind. I didn't -notice- the problems (with my friendly MP games), but just a quick glance at competitive games showed how skewed the 1.00 balance was. Denying that is, again, blinkered. I would guess that what he means is 'the balance issues weren't very obvious in single player', but that's more due to the horrible AI than anything else.
Reply #5 from Sins Forums Top

What would you have me say to that.  You and I disagree. 

I don't know how many times in how many different ways we can say that we look at the posts, play through the game, and make recommendations on balancing changes based on player feedback?

But at the same time, I don't agree that elite level multiplayer issues are going to take precedence over, for instance, improving the computer AI or getting AI players to replace dropped players or making it easier to join multiplayer games.

 

Reply #6 from Sins Forums Top
Nobody is suggesting that it should: simply that players like that look at the stats and optimise more than friendly games or single player, and they will find the problems first. That's important for multiplayer, simply because once found, they're easily communicated, and now the small flaws in the unit balance mean 80% of all games play the same way, x faction is never used, y unit is never used, etc.

Like I said, I'd never noticed most of the balance issues because I have no interest in competitive multi with random people. However, that doesn't make them go away, and indeed those balance issues are a major reason why player stay away from multi (ie, the fear that people with the 'optimised' 'build orders' will automatically win, which is the case in many RTS's). It's still awesome fun to play MP with friends, but competitive multi is what sustains RTS's over time (in my experience), once everyone has bought the game, played SP, and become bored with it and seek more challenge.

Nobody is ever going to complain about boosting the AI, but making balance changes that negatively affect multiplayer (or ignoring unit issues that don't show up as much in SP) is going to cause problems. That said, not instantly moving to placate the 'forum community' is a much better attitude than devs who cater too much and end up making nobody happy. :)
Reply #7 from Sins Forums Top
But at the same time, I don't agree that elite level multiplayer issues are going to take precedence over, for instance, improving the computer AI or getting AI players to replace dropped players or making it easier to join multiplayer games.
End of quote


That's why GalCiv3 also should be only singleplayer.

Ah, don't hate me just because I'm lovely.

;)
Reply #8 from Sins Forums Top
Thanks, Frogboy. Having returned to CoH and DoW after being away for a while and seeing what has happened to those games due to catering to hardcore MPers vice SP or even more casual MPers, has been discouraging.

N
Reply #9 from Sins Forums Top
Brad, thanks for continuing to show up and talk to us about this stuff. The last guy who had anything like the same availability I can remember was Oleg from 1C who used to come in and chat about all sorts of flightsim related things over on the Il-2 ubi forums. Unfortunately the same thing happened there, people just took it at license to scream and whine (usually a BF-109 bug would be treated with more passionate anger than a topic about the holocaust - not hyperbole!) and after 2-3 heroic years of doing it he finally lost patience. I know it must seem like a futile exercise where sometimes people find something to whine about no matter what you say, but it is very much appreciated that you do.

In the case of Oleg's Ready Room I think the key issue was that the Ubisoft moderators were terrible at throwing out inconsolably angry/bitter people - I think you will find yourself enjoying things a lot more if you loosen up your banhammer arm. I don't mean ban anyone who says the game sucks, but there is saying it sucks and saying it sucks in a way that suggests they will never offer any polite or civil discussion on why that is.

Reply #10 from Sins Forums Top
From reply #5, very recently posted by Frogboy :

I don't agree that elite level multiplayer issues are going to take precedence over, for instance, improving the computer AI or getting AI players to replace dropped players or making it easier to join multiplayer games.

I 100% agree with that position ... without repeating the arguments I have recently posted on other threads in favour of that type of non-elitist, more inclusive position.

"Elite level multiplayer issues" probably affect only 0.1% (and even less) of Stardock/Ironclad's SINS customers ... the vast majority being « casual gamers » who do not have the time, energy, power-lust to care about competing at that tiny elite level.


Reply #11 from Sins Forums Top
Thanks, Frogboy. Having returned to CoH and DoW after being away for a while and seeing what has happened to those games due to catering to hardcore MPers vice SP or even more casual MPers, has been discouraging. N
End of quote


Oh yeah, DoW is a good modern example of what happens when devs listen to forum whinging too much. NERF EVERYTHING LOL! While I think Brad's traditional SP-focus is misplaced in a straight RTS like Sins, it's probably better than trying to satisfy everyone with 'fixes' to things that are 'broken' and break the game.

Sorcereress, it's not 'elite multiplayer issues'. It's 'anyone who looks up what units are good or how to play'. They'll all hear about the balance issues and the 'best' or 'good' ways to play. It's NOT 0.1% of players who know about this stuff, and the proportion is going to rise (as casual players stop playing and those that don't find out to remain competitive). Remember how many RTS's have 'online communities' so rigid that everyone plays almost the same way?

EDIT - oh, I didn't notice that Brad posted before my first post. I was responding to the quotes in the OP, not your post, Frogboy, sorry if there was any misunderstanding.
Reply #12 from Sins Forums Top
It is very hard to create balance between races without having them all be cookie cutters of each other. I think Ironclad has done a great job of making the races different enough that there are multiple strategies to win. This is why people playing the game different ways complain about different ships being Overpowered.

OMG: LRMs! / Siege Frigs / HC's / Bombers / Flak / Returning Armada

Actually, the game is pretty damn good, and it is very tweakable / moddable, so it is only going to get better. I think we will see great things in the future, not just with the standard build, but with mods. If Vanilla won't suit your fancy, come back in a couple months, there will probably be a mod that interests you and is mature in its own right.

Reply #13 from Sins Forums Top
While I'm looking forward to some mods myself, saying 'wait for mods to get balance' is an admission of failure. The fact that people complain about different things is just an example of the signal-noise ratio you get on forums, and the reason why it's good IC and SD don't listen to everyone. The real problems can be seen and demonstrated in play pretty easily (so long as you're not playing 'friendly' games).
Reply #14 from Sins Forums Top
I've been playing computer/video games for 24 years. There will always be cry babies complaining about this and about that. It's normally after they have been crushed in a game and their feeeeelings are hurt.

This game rocks! It's very balanced. So, let's have some fun!
Reply #15 from Sins Forums Top

Nobody is suggesting that it should: simply that players like that look at the stats and optimise more than friendly games or single player, and they will find the problems first. That's important for multiplayer, simply because once found, they're easily communicated, and now the small flaws in the unit balance mean 80% of all games play the same way, x faction is never used, y unit is never used, etc.
End of quote

We agree. The problem is that it's hard for us to seperate the signal and the noise in the forum at times. A lot of the feedback is borderline absusive and even more of it reeks of "My cheese strategy no longer works".  It's hard to tell which feedback is legitimately thought out and which feedback are just people who don't want to adapt their strategies.

Some people have explicitly said that the hard core multiplayer players are the heart of the community and must be made top priority.  And that's something I can't accept.  Our goal has to remain to make sure as many people as possible enjoy the game. 

I think if people took a step back and looked at 1.03, having better AI (even if it isn't "good enough" for some people, it is still much much better than 1.02), AI players replacing players who drop are, by themselves, a much bigger deal for most people than the tinkering one way or the other with unit values. 

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. I gotta get back to trying to help figure out the forum performance issue this weekend. :)

Reply #16 from Sins Forums Top
Sorcereress, it's not 'elite multiplayer issues'.
End of quote


I was merely quoting Frogboy himself, when he mentioned, in his reply #5, « elite level multiplayer issues ».

My tiny contribution was simply to offer, as support, that I agreed with his statement on the relative lack of importance of those type of elitist issues.
Reply #17 from Sins Forums Top
Stick to your guns, Frogboy. We SP (and casual MP) gamers love what you're saying. If the "elite" think one race has an advantage, they can either mod it themselves or all play as the same "advantaged" race. Some people would complain even if you hung them with a new rope.
Reply #18 from Sins Forums Top
Sorcereress, it's not 'elite multiplayer issues'. I was merely quoting Frogboy himself, when he mentioned, in his reply #5, « elite level multiplayer issues ». My tiny contribution was simply to offer, as support, that I agreed with his statement on the relative lack of importance of those type of elitist issues.
End of quote


That's great, but they're NOT minor or elitist, because anyone can look at a thread about TEC builds and learn the cheese. The issues identified by the tiny proportion of 'elite' players are communicated very easily, and once you know about them it's hard to ignore them. They're not unimportant if I can start up a game now and use them to beat someone who didn't read the thread/website/faq.

I can appreciate IC and SD's frustration reading the forums: I've often wondered how the devs for games feel about all the gnashing going on (particularly on the World in Conflict forums, where every second thread is either a 'zomg unit sux' or 'zomg noobs sux' thread). :) A part of the problem is that Sins is new, so many players will still be acclimatising and thus seeing problems where none exist: but there are several posters who make good, supported, demonstrable points about balance concerns.

Reply #19 from Sins Forums Top
From (Stardock CEO) Frogboy's reply #15 :

Some people have explicitly said that the hard core multiplayer players are the heart of the community and must be made top priority. And that's something I can't accept. Our goal has to remain to make sure as many people as possible enjoy the game.

To the tiny 0.1% « competitive elite » :

Is that clear enough for you non-noob, non-moron, non-stupid guys ?!






Reply #20 from Sins Forums Top
Again, this whole "elite" thing is a red herring that rationalizes not making multiplayer changes. There is no difference between a "elite" and "casual" player online when it comes to the issues plaguing MP. I've seen plenty of newbies that have quit in disgust after an ally of mine starts slamming their mixed fleets with LRM spam, and there are ways to use siege frigates effectively that aren't "elitist".
Reply #21 from Sins Forums Top
We appreciate your, and the others, hard work, Frog. =) Putting up with players can often be a hard, and very tedious task. Just keep it up. You've done a fantastic job. And many many many people appreciate that. Don't lose sight of that. =D
Reply #22 from Sins Forums Top
I only partly agree, Frogboy.

Yes, the game should be enjoyable for all players, including the SP and casual gamers.
But Sins does not even offer a SP campaign and it was shipped with a horrible AI so the focus obviously was not on SP. Using SP now as reason to not fix MP balance issues is ... strange.
Yes, the AI update probably helped there (didn't make a 1.03 game yet) but it doesn't change the basic fact that Sins is all about MP.

But lets look at the most successful strategy game ever - StarCraft. It was been optimized for competitive play and it has done way beyond great in that matter. Still, having a well balanced game is fun for the casual gamers.
Those casual gamers probably won't notice possible imbalance but they also won't complain if they get a perfectly balanced game. That's the beauty of it: In a balanced game, everybody is happy.

About the noise-filtering: There you are absolutely right. The whining on this board is quite ridiculous and people attitude is often very annoying. But I do not see the huge problem with the filtering process. It's quite obvious who seriously knows what he is doing in the game and who isn't. If all else fails, just look up peoples stats on ICO ;)
Or just write PMs to the good people asking for advice. You can work with the heads of the major Sins clans, they should know about game balance. And you can always use your own brain ;) Obviously something that does 20 DPS and has 2000 HP should cost more then something with 10 DPS and 200 HP. Something that has 200 HP and 6000 range should do a little less damage then something with 200 HP and 2000 range. Or the same damage and therefor less HP.

I for example am sure no professional gamer and I'd probably lose 1v1 vs anybody on these boards who knows a little of what he is doing. Still I'd say that I understood the basic problem with LRM / Illuminator spam and why Illuminators are useless early game (and therefor Advent way too weak) but very powerful later. As casual gamer I can say that the recent LRM change didn't make anything better since the core problem (LRM being the by far most versatile unit in the game and Advent LRM being weak in direct comparison with the others in early game) remains unchanged, as a casual gamer I can say that the black market changes don't improve anything, as casual player I can say that there are quite a few completely useless techs that should get an update or even a replacement and most importantly, as a casual gamer I'm very interested in a balanced game.
Reply #23 from Sins Forums Top
Actually, Pnakotus, you misunderstood me. I didn't say wait for a mod for balance, I said wait for a mod that YOU thought was balanced and liked to play better. Or invent it. I think the game is great and tweaking will occur to make it better. I am also excited that there may be some pretty cool mods in the future.

Re: the other thread, while I think that "the elite" often has more insight into game mechanics and can often help identify balance issues the real things this game needs right now is friendlier functionality for multiplay. I think the biggest priority is to make the game more accessible to people who don't know how to set their firewall, and to continue to enhance ICO as a product in its own right.
Reply #24 from Stardock Forums Top
Pnakotus, Frogboy isn't saying that he doesn't care about game balance. He never said that. You just somehow assumed that since he disagreed with you on another point. I mean the guy was a pro Total Annihilation gamer.

"Does that mean I think 1.03 is perfectly balanced? No. I don't think any game is. But I do know it's unfortunate that a relatively small group is making post after post after post in order to try to get their particular issue addressed."

He's upset at the posts that are written like the scathing review of a toddler after being sent to their room. And so many of these posts are filled with insults and false insinuations and clearly divisive language so that any good point they might make is lost completely to the noise.

To sum up that point, if you have issues with the game, post them in a relevant thread (or make a new thread if you can't find one) without resorting to bickering, name-calling, hyperbole etc. Keep out the noise. A lot of people have made good points but made them with anger and frustration. When that anger and frustration carries over into your post, all your points are overshadowed and lost in the noise.

Also, you guys have to keep in mind Frogboy's perspective on the matter. He says over and over that his priority is the single player experience. That makes sense since the majority of people that play this game play mostly single player. He's also probably much more concerned about crashes and bugs and things of that nature than any kind of game balance discussion. That doesn't somehow mean that game balance will never be looked at. It just means that fixing AI issues and crashes etc. are more important than game balance to the overall community. (Sorry to speak for you so much here, Frogboy, feel free to call me out. Having worked before with a development company, I am at least somewhat familiar with the stuff that goes on behind the scenes.)

If we all keep our heads cool and post good feedback, we'll have a really good-looking 1.04 to look forward to. We all have to remember that we ALL want the game to be better. Single player getting attention does not mean that multiplayer will suffer or vice versa. Just keep that in mind. You'd think, listening to Sorceresss, that there were two different games being developed and time only given to one or the other depending on the number of people playing the separate games.
Reply #25 from Sins Forums Top
He says over and over that his priority is the single player experience. That makes sense since the majority of people that play this game play mostly single player. He's also probably much more concerned about crashes and bugs and things of that nature than any kind of game balance discussion. That doesn't somehow mean that game balance will never be looked at. It just means that fixing AI issues and crashes etc. are more important than game balance to the overall community.
End of quote


I get the same impression. It is not that there is nothing on the horizon for the hardcore MP crowd who play several hours a day, just that the whiteboard at IC/SD has 'critical single player issues = 1.03 feb/march' and 'critical multiplayer balance issues = 1.04 april/may' with the demo sandwiched in between. For the moment this seems to mean there will need to be some kind of gentleman's agreement for hardcore games, and this will suck for rounding up strangers for a 5v5, but there is also nothing better for shaking immature players out...

The other thing is, since a lot of the resource rate, speeds, ship specs, etc are user editable and it would no doubt help things along if any of the clan players could make a working draft of their proposed changes and TEST (?!?!?!wow!?!?!?!) them before passing on the recommendations. I don't see a lot of that happening right now, really the best we seem to have is innociv's proposed changes - which show a lot of initiative and hard work underneath the text, but are still speculative until someone actually makes it happen.