Numbers
Author
My thoughts are:A FPS is very much a kill frenzy. Agility alows you to survive and win. When combat got better in FPS games, better sounds, better character and level design, down times have been introduced. Now you had to reload your weapon , half life for instance, and strafe during combat wasn’t required anymore.
A RTS has a diferent dynamic. You have not one but several machineguns, not one but several cannons. In a RTS you are also building momentum. There is no killing at the beggining of the game for instance. When you build something in a RTS you can see a direct consequence of your actions. You build a refinery, you can start gathering oil right away. You build an archery, you can start producing archers right away. But good RTS games have down times that “make no sense”. You need to deploy a tank to improve the fire range. Or you need to build a suplly depot to be albe to keep producing units. A supply depot provides no upgrades and doen’t produce units. It’s a wait time “just because”. My question is how do you decide numbers like building and unit build time or building and unit build cost? Factors like this are fine tuned by taking into account betatesters feedback, I understand that. But is betatesters or user feedback the only factor that is decisive?
Calin said:But is betatesters or user feedback the only factor that is decisive? Be your own betatester. : )It's simple: Current AAA game is made by hundreds of people. One does not know what the others do. Decisions made are implemented by somebody down the hierarchy. It's chaos out of control, and thus those hundreds of devs need hundreds of betatesters to figure out if their game even eventually works.But if you make your game as a single person, you have everything under control. You have an idea, you implement it, you see yourself if it works as desired and how it feels. No need for additional testers. Ofc. you'll show your game to others and observe their responses if you can, but it's not a requirement.That's just personal opinion ofc.
Advertisement
Author
>Be your own betatesterHahaIs willingnes to take a survey a chatacteristic of a good American?
Calin said:Is willingnes to take a survey a chatacteristic of a good American? Haven't seen a lot of good americans recently : /
Author
>Haven’t seen a lot of good Americans recentlyTrying to mind my own business but you should keep the faith
Author
>haven’t seen a lot of good Americans recentlyDoes it mean you have seen people turning down requests to take a survey?
Advertisement
Calin said:>haven’t seen a lot of good Americans recently Does it mean you have seen people turning down requests to take a survey? No, but i've seen an american president applauding another nostalgic dictator on invading the continent of his ancestors, treating his neighbors like shit, doing damage to the whole world for nothing, and playing golf while tzar bombs getting ready.But well, it's never to late to learn. Maybe things improve.Otherwise, my ragdolls can walk now and making them run wont be too hard. Shooting is easy. Maybe i should head some kilometers eastwards to ask if they want to build some biped drones as well.Keep working on skynet. We might need it soon.
In case forum hides my posted image again, this is Arnie. Good American.
Calin said:My question is how do you decide numbers like building and unit build time or building and unit build cost? Factors like this are fine tuned by taking into account betatesters feedback, I understand that. But is betatesters or user feedback the only factor that is decisive? That kind of tuning is part of what designers do.Often up front everything is cranked up to extreme values just to find how big the fun and oddity can be. During play crank the super-sprint feature so you can run across the map faster than it loads. Adjust the super-strength feature to the point where bumping into something is an insta-kill, bumping into trees knocks them down, take out a building by touching it. It feels absurd when playing, but it's important do experiment around it.Designers will continue to fine tune values through development and even into launch. In highly competitive games designers might adjust by very tiny amounts to adjust balance, reducing the timing of something by a frame based on what they see players doing, or nudging points up or down. Often players talk about their favorite thing being ‘nerfed’ or ‘buffed’ when it happens. Generally no single thing is authoritative. Feedback from playing the game themselves, feedback from QA, feedback from playtests, feedback from data of how players are playing, the way the game feels in practice, all of them provide valuable information.Usually designers try to establish some sort of power curve that fits the game. Maybe a weapon that takes X ms per shot should do X*Y damage, so a rapid fire gun feels like a peashooter, a gun with a 2 second windup could destroy a tank, but they're also fairly balanced so if you hit with the peashooter for exactly 2 seconds you do about the same damage. Maybe different systems generate resources at a given rate, but across the board everything that costs X generates Y resources per minute, the upgraded level of the tools that costs 2X generates about 4Y resources, the third upgrade that costs 4X generates about 16Y resources. They figure it out for the game.For other types of balancing, such as the draw to pick certain behaviors versus other behaviors, that's again something done through iteration and playtesting. If an AI system isn't picking a behavior, nudge it. Working on The Sims, the designers would put a few objects on the lot and watch as Sims interacted with it, based on the attributes the object would interact with. They might put 3 different exercise items on a lot with an active-traited sim, crank the speed up, and watch how often they use them all versus do different things. For entertainment objects, are they using it about the same as other entertainment objects, for food objects are they using it about the same as other food objects. How does the draw for the object measure up compared to higher priority tasks like a timer to go to work or go to school? For larger games people in QA and design are playing the game constantly to get a feel for how the balance works. For AAA games everyone in the QA teams generally are asked about balance, and in meetings they discuss when something feels like it is too much or too little, and designers adjust them constantly.It's also important to build a range of probability distribution tools so designers can adjust probability. Not just random in a range, but the basics of uniform distributions, weighted value distributions, constant curves, logarithmic curves, Gaussian and/or Poisson and binomial distribution curves, sigmoids, control points on a spline for distribution, and whatever tools the developers can give to the designers that improves that game. In short-term games where you play a match like RTS games, you also want power levels to continue increasing over time to help avoid a stalemate. In an RTS you want pieces to keep escalating until both sides are pumping out nuclear bombs with their collection of nuclear bomb factories, the entire game is about churning out the high-power game ending units without an error. Or like FPS games with a “storm” where players get forced into smaller regions where they can't avoid each other plus must continuously travel around the board or lose. If the storm is closing around you the decision to take the high option or the low option can make the difference between having an escape route or facing death when the storm moves again. Or like high-level multiplayer Tetris, at some point even record-holding players are no longer focused on screwing over the opponent through attack moves but entirely focused on not making an error with what the game is constantly throwing at them. Instead of being about one player triggering a dump on their opponent, it becomes about raw survival against the breakneck pace of the game, the first player who doesn't play perfectly loses. How and when to make those shifts is part of game balancing.
Author
>I’ve seen an american prezident aplauding another nostalgic dictatorNo one is perfect.>designers workOk I get it. An orc programmer would say “I don’t work with that kind of numbers”…Setting those numbers is very easy, a designer must fill the remaining part of the day with something. My guess is he must be filtering through a ton of statistics provided by betatesters. After changing the numbers in question, a designer probably runs some kind of rudimentary battle autocalc. Waiting the results of a betatesting matchtakes too much time. They are probably relying on something else not just on betatesting.
#numbers
Numbers
Author
My thoughts are:A FPS is very much a kill frenzy. Agility alows you to survive and win. When combat got better in FPS games, better sounds, better character and level design, down times have been introduced. Now you had to reload your weapon , half life for instance, and strafe during combat wasn’t required anymore.
A RTS has a diferent dynamic. You have not one but several machineguns, not one but several cannons. In a RTS you are also building momentum. There is no killing at the beggining of the game for instance. When you build something in a RTS you can see a direct consequence of your actions. You build a refinery, you can start gathering oil right away. You build an archery, you can start producing archers right away. But good RTS games have down times that “make no sense”. You need to deploy a tank to improve the fire range. Or you need to build a suplly depot to be albe to keep producing units. A supply depot provides no upgrades and doen’t produce units. It’s a wait time “just because”. My question is how do you decide numbers like building and unit build time or building and unit build cost? Factors like this are fine tuned by taking into account betatesters feedback, I understand that. But is betatesters or user feedback the only factor that is decisive?
Calin said:But is betatesters or user feedback the only factor that is decisive? Be your own betatester. : )It's simple: Current AAA game is made by hundreds of people. One does not know what the others do. Decisions made are implemented by somebody down the hierarchy. It's chaos out of control, and thus those hundreds of devs need hundreds of betatesters to figure out if their game even eventually works.But if you make your game as a single person, you have everything under control. You have an idea, you implement it, you see yourself if it works as desired and how it feels. No need for additional testers. Ofc. you'll show your game to others and observe their responses if you can, but it's not a requirement.That's just personal opinion ofc.
Advertisement
Author
>Be your own betatesterHahaIs willingnes to take a survey a chatacteristic of a good American?
Calin said:Is willingnes to take a survey a chatacteristic of a good American? Haven't seen a lot of good americans recently : /
Author
>Haven’t seen a lot of good Americans recentlyTrying to mind my own business but you should keep the faith
Author
>haven’t seen a lot of good Americans recentlyDoes it mean you have seen people turning down requests to take a survey?
Advertisement
Calin said:>haven’t seen a lot of good Americans recently Does it mean you have seen people turning down requests to take a survey? No, but i've seen an american president applauding another nostalgic dictator on invading the continent of his ancestors, treating his neighbors like shit, doing damage to the whole world for nothing, and playing golf while tzar bombs getting ready.But well, it's never to late to learn. Maybe things improve.Otherwise, my ragdolls can walk now and making them run wont be too hard. Shooting is easy. Maybe i should head some kilometers eastwards to ask if they want to build some biped drones as well.Keep working on skynet. We might need it soon.
In case forum hides my posted image again, this is Arnie. Good American.
Calin said:My question is how do you decide numbers like building and unit build time or building and unit build cost? Factors like this are fine tuned by taking into account betatesters feedback, I understand that. But is betatesters or user feedback the only factor that is decisive? That kind of tuning is part of what designers do.Often up front everything is cranked up to extreme values just to find how big the fun and oddity can be. During play crank the super-sprint feature so you can run across the map faster than it loads. Adjust the super-strength feature to the point where bumping into something is an insta-kill, bumping into trees knocks them down, take out a building by touching it. It feels absurd when playing, but it's important do experiment around it.Designers will continue to fine tune values through development and even into launch. In highly competitive games designers might adjust by very tiny amounts to adjust balance, reducing the timing of something by a frame based on what they see players doing, or nudging points up or down. Often players talk about their favorite thing being ‘nerfed’ or ‘buffed’ when it happens. Generally no single thing is authoritative. Feedback from playing the game themselves, feedback from QA, feedback from playtests, feedback from data of how players are playing, the way the game feels in practice, all of them provide valuable information.Usually designers try to establish some sort of power curve that fits the game. Maybe a weapon that takes X ms per shot should do X*Y damage, so a rapid fire gun feels like a peashooter, a gun with a 2 second windup could destroy a tank, but they're also fairly balanced so if you hit with the peashooter for exactly 2 seconds you do about the same damage. Maybe different systems generate resources at a given rate, but across the board everything that costs X generates Y resources per minute, the upgraded level of the tools that costs 2X generates about 4Y resources, the third upgrade that costs 4X generates about 16Y resources. They figure it out for the game.For other types of balancing, such as the draw to pick certain behaviors versus other behaviors, that's again something done through iteration and playtesting. If an AI system isn't picking a behavior, nudge it. Working on The Sims, the designers would put a few objects on the lot and watch as Sims interacted with it, based on the attributes the object would interact with. They might put 3 different exercise items on a lot with an active-traited sim, crank the speed up, and watch how often they use them all versus do different things. For entertainment objects, are they using it about the same as other entertainment objects, for food objects are they using it about the same as other food objects. How does the draw for the object measure up compared to higher priority tasks like a timer to go to work or go to school? For larger games people in QA and design are playing the game constantly to get a feel for how the balance works. For AAA games everyone in the QA teams generally are asked about balance, and in meetings they discuss when something feels like it is too much or too little, and designers adjust them constantly.It's also important to build a range of probability distribution tools so designers can adjust probability. Not just random in a range, but the basics of uniform distributions, weighted value distributions, constant curves, logarithmic curves, Gaussian and/or Poisson and binomial distribution curves, sigmoids, control points on a spline for distribution, and whatever tools the developers can give to the designers that improves that game. In short-term games where you play a match like RTS games, you also want power levels to continue increasing over time to help avoid a stalemate. In an RTS you want pieces to keep escalating until both sides are pumping out nuclear bombs with their collection of nuclear bomb factories, the entire game is about churning out the high-power game ending units without an error. Or like FPS games with a “storm” where players get forced into smaller regions where they can't avoid each other plus must continuously travel around the board or lose. If the storm is closing around you the decision to take the high option or the low option can make the difference between having an escape route or facing death when the storm moves again. Or like high-level multiplayer Tetris, at some point even record-holding players are no longer focused on screwing over the opponent through attack moves but entirely focused on not making an error with what the game is constantly throwing at them. Instead of being about one player triggering a dump on their opponent, it becomes about raw survival against the breakneck pace of the game, the first player who doesn't play perfectly loses. How and when to make those shifts is part of game balancing.
Author
>I’ve seen an american prezident aplauding another nostalgic dictatorNo one is perfect.>designers workOk I get it. An orc programmer would say “I don’t work with that kind of numbers”…Setting those numbers is very easy, a designer must fill the remaining part of the day with something. My guess is he must be filtering through a ton of statistics provided by betatesters. After changing the numbers in question, a designer probably runs some kind of rudimentary battle autocalc. Waiting the results of a betatesting matchtakes too much time. They are probably relying on something else not just on betatesting.
#numbers
·20 Views