Gameplay Preview Phase 3 Results

[UniqPhoeniX]

So if the overall line in wins losses, on the X server, with flying grangers, spitting bouncing instant death barbs, and 1 shot kill blasters was *fairly straight*, would you call the X server balanced?

The point I've tried to make, but instead its lead to nerd-rage defense of the discipline of statistics is, its
impossible to define balance and trying to do so via statistics, to me, shouldn't be the primary method. Since if you
gave both teams instant kill weapons, and map clearing AoEs, if both team had them, its *balanced*. Does it *feel*
balanced? Does it feel, regardless of which team you are playing, balanced in the regards, that both teams have equal
chance at all stages?

We are in year 2, of the *improvement*, "I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.", is I imagine we will see year 3. I'm trying to say, things need to be *acted upon* timely, because at this point, I feel its more about love for analysis then actually completing anything.

Need to reach a final state, leave the door open for patches, and consolidate the trem playing community back into
one minded group, *eagerly awaiting* new model, new maps, and *needed adjustments.

I don't quite understand how the lines on the graphs show balance, but yes, it would still be balanced. As would a game with grangers vs grangers only. And your post totally missed any point there might have been. There is no *feel* for balance, there are whiners, and statistics. A single game can't show whether the game is balanced.
What you might have wanted to say was, "does the gameplay (not balance) feel good/interesting?". In which case I'd have to say yes.
Also, wtf is with the newlines in the end of your posts? IIRC someone else had those aswell.

[scrape]

So if the overall line in wins losses, on the X server, with flying grangers, spitting bouncing instant death barbs, and 1 shot kill blasters was *fairly straight*, would you call the X server balanced?

The point I've tried to make, but instead its lead to nerd-rage defense of the discipline of statistics is, its
impossible to define balance and trying to do so via statistics, to me, shouldn't be the primary method. Since if you
gave both teams instant kill weapons, and map clearing AoEs, if both team had them, its *balanced*. Does it *feel*
balanced? Does it feel, regardless of which team you are playing, balanced in the regards, that both teams have equal
chance at all stages?

We are in year 2, of the *improvement*, "I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.", is I imagine we will see year 3. I'm trying to say, things need to be *acted upon* timely, because at this point, I feel its more about love for analysis then actually completing anything.

Need to reach a final state, leave the door open for patches, and consolidate the trem playing community back into
one minded group, *eagerly awaiting* new model, new maps, and *needed adjustments.

I don't quite understand how the lines on the graphs show balance, but yes, it would still be balanced. As would a game with grangers vs grangers only. And your post totally missed any point there might have been. There is no *feel* for balance, there are whiners, and statistics. A single game can't show whether the game is balanced.
What you might have wanted to say was, "does the gameplay (not balance) feel good/interesting?". In which case I'd have to say yes.
Also, wtf is with the newlines in the end of your posts? IIRC someone else had those aswell.

Finally.
So you agree this is more about feel,than about raw stats, in determining *gameplay*. Call it balance (the ability
for both teams to defend and assault with equal yet different means) or gameplay (the feeling both teams are able
to defend and assault with equal yet different means + is it fun). Beyond the debate over semantics, or the merit of
statistics, we agree on gameplay is determined by personal experience (and consensus of the trem user
base) ?

I am using opera to post this, I am not adding any new lines intentionally in the edit box, if its being added, I
have no idea why. Why is this important?

[mooseberry]

If it isn't right away, than no, you probably couldn't tell the difference, but I don't see what that has to do with your point. If somebody decons the human's base this does not change the weapons needing to be stronger or weaker, and an experienced gamer will not help with this, he would be less accurate than stats as to determening how many times someone decons.

Here is the main point: Look at some of the graphs, if the the overall line is fairly straight, that means the game is pretty balanced. If, after 1,000 games, the line is more or less straight, (balanced between human and alien wins [as it has been]) than you can know that the changes are correctly balancing the gameplay, which includes, as to your example, greifers. Since we can assume that over a large enough sampling, the numbers show an average Tremulous game play, and that this will include some greifing, it seems safe to say that this is not a problem, balance-wise. As far as individual games  go, that is for admins, and not something balancing deals with.

Besides which, I find it hard to believe you haven't at least noticed all the posts in this thread and others, even if you havn't taken the time to read them. In it, there are many examples of feedback being given to the developers, and it being acted upon. It is obvious that statistics and data must be needed to balance a game, and it is obvious that player feedback must also be needed. Given that both seem to be happening, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

You still are seeming to misunderstand what statistics do though, with enough sampling of data, you find what can be assumed to be the best averages, and you balance the game towards that.

So if the overall line in wins losses, on the X server, with flying grangers, spitting bouncing instant death barbs, and 1 shot kill blasters was *fairly straight*, would you call the X server balanced?

Yes... that would actually be balanced... that is what balanced means, fair for each team. You might not enjoy it, but that doesn't make it unbalanced.

The point I've tried to make, but instead its lead to nerd-rage defense of the discipline of statistics is, its
impossible to define balance and trying to do so via statistics, to me, shouldn't be the primary method. Since if you
gave both teams instant kill weapons, and map clearing AoEs, if both team had them, its *balanced*. Does it *feel*
balanced? Does it feel, regardless of which team you are playing, balanced in the regards, that both teams have equal
chance at all stages?

We are in year 2, of the *improvement*, "I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.", is I imagine we will see year 3. I'm trying to say, things need to be *acted upon* timely, because at this point, I feel its more about love for analysis then actually completing anything.

Need to reach a final state, leave the door open for patches, and consolidate the trem playing community back into
one minded group, *eagerly awaiting* new model, new maps, and *needed adjustments.

Of course player feedback is needed.... That has been said hundreds of times, including right before you. I really wish you bothered to pay attention.

And it seems you didn't bother reading anyone elses posts much, and have degraded to insults, so I'm done trying to talk to you, I hope for your sake Norf has more pateince than me, although he had to get through at least three posts to explain to you that people actually need to back their ideas, not just shout them and expect them to be answered.

[UniqPhoeniX]

Finally.
So you agree this is more about feel,than about raw stats, in determining *gameplay*. Call it balance (the ability
for both teams to defend and assault with equal yet different means) or gameplay (the feeling both teams are able
to defend and assault with equal yet different means + is it fun). Beyond the debate over semantics, or the merit of
statistics, we agree on gameplay is determined by personal experience (and consensus of the trem user
base) ?

In determining if some part of the gameplay is fun, yes it's about feel, tho stats can help. Gameplay and balance are not the same, tho they are related. Just you kept trying to call in "balance" when you were talking about whether something "feels" fun. A "feel" is also an opinion not a fact. IMO this whole gameplay preview is about balancing win/loss ratio (the chance for either team to win in an avg game), making all classes/weapons useful (not over/underused), AND trying to keep the gameplay fun.

Unfortunately, a manufacturer cannot rely on those that state "its better", because 1 person, who dislikes it,
reflects 1000 silent people who also feel the same. The company has the desire to acquire more customers\clients
so complaints take priority, over satisfied customers. So we need to focus on solving what stops new players from
playing, and old players from leaving. Yes, a manufacturer will take the word of an engineer initially  but would
not go to production without market research.(ie do the people actually like the change)

Yes, 1 person can reflect some larger part of the market, but more persons are disagreeing with you and they would reflect a bigger part of the market. Your complaints are not discarded because it's "just 1 person", but because it's the minority of opinions and a lack of reasons.
And as others have said, you will need better reasoning for whatever changes you want made. And yes, keep the insults out of here. You might think luci is too cheap just because it's the most powerful weapon, but noone here seems to agree . Looking at your original post in this thread, you suggested changes only based on lack of similarity between teams, or on nothing at all.
Now, if you understand why ppl are disagreeing with you, go review your post, and see if you can salvage anything from there. And add proper reasoning.

[scrape]

If it isn't right away, than no, you probably couldn't tell the difference, but I don't see what that has to do with your point. If somebody decons the human's base this does not change the weapons needing to be stronger or weaker, and an experienced gamer will not help with this, he would be less accurate than stats as to determening how many times someone decons.

Here is the main point: Look at some of the graphs, if the the overall line is fairly straight, that means the game is pretty balanced. If, after 1,000 games, the line is more or less straight, (balanced between human and alien wins [as it has been]) than you can know that the changes are correctly balancing the gameplay, which includes, as to your example, greifers. Since we can assume that over a large enough sampling, the numbers show an average Tremulous game play, and that this will include some greifing, it seems safe to say that this is not a problem, balance-wise. As far as individual games  go, that is for admins, and not something balancing deals with.

Besides which, I find it hard to believe you haven't at least noticed all the posts in this thread and others, even if you havn't taken the time to read them. In it, there are many examples of feedback being given to the developers, and it being acted upon. It is obvious that statistics and data must be needed to balance a game, and it is obvious that player feedback must also be needed. Given that both seem to be happening, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

You still are seeming to misunderstand what statistics do though, with enough sampling of data, you find what can be assumed to be the best averages, and you balance the game towards that.

So if the overall line in wins losses, on the X server, with flying grangers, spitting bouncing instant death barbs, and 1 shot kill blasters was *fairly straight*, would you call the X server balanced?

Yes... that would actually be balanced... that is what balanced means, fair for each team. You might not enjoy it, but that doesn't make it unbalanced.

The point I've tried to make, but instead its lead to nerd-rage defense of the discipline of statistics is, its
impossible to define balance and trying to do so via statistics, to me, shouldn't be the primary method. Since if you
gave both teams instant kill weapons, and map clearing AoEs, if both team had them, its *balanced*. Does it *feel*
balanced? Does it feel, regardless of which team you are playing, balanced in the regards, that both teams have equal
chance at all stages?

We are in year 2, of the *improvement*, "I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.", is I imagine we will see year 3. I'm trying to say, things need to be *acted upon* timely, because at this point, I feel its more about love for analysis then actually completing anything.

Need to reach a final state, leave the door open for patches, and consolidate the trem playing community back into
one minded group, *eagerly awaiting* new model, new maps, and *needed adjustments.

Of course player feedback is needed.... That has been said hundreds of times, including right before you. I really wish you bothered to pay attention.

And it seems you didn't bother reading anyone elses posts much, and have degraded to insults, so I'm done trying to talk to you, I hope for your sake Norf has more pateince than me, although he had to get through at least three posts to explain to you that people actually need to back their ideas, not just shout them and expect them to be answered.

Where did I insult? It was never my intention to insult. I only started my first forum account, after years of playing,
to express my opinions, so regardless of how valid it may be, I got my 2 cents in.

"so I'm done trying to talk to you, I hope for your sake Norf has more pateince than me"

For my sake? Whats my punishment? This is how you prove you aren't adversarial and this is an open discussion?
So what is the point of a forum in trem, when anyone that doesn't agree 100% is considered a "whiner".
(its been said before once already)

You say "of course player feedback is needed" but each phase, the apparent determing factor seems to be stat analyis,
can you point out a moment where it wasn't 1 devs, or stat based change?

Geez.

[scrape]

Finally.
So you agree this is more about feel,than about raw stats, in determining *gameplay*. Call it balance (the ability
for both teams to defend and assault with equal yet different means) or gameplay (the feeling both teams are able
to defend and assault with equal yet different means + is it fun). Beyond the debate over semantics, or the merit of
statistics, we agree on gameplay is determined by personal experience (and consensus of the trem user
base) ?

In determining if some part of the gameplay is fun, yes it's about feel, tho stats can help. Gameplay and balance are not the same, tho they are related. Just you kept trying to call in "balance" when you were talking about whether something "feels" fun. A "feel" is also an opinion not a fact. IMO this whole gameplay preview is about balancing win/loss ratio (the chance for either team to win in an avg game), making all classes/weapons useful (not over/underused), AND trying to keep the gameplay fun.

Unfortunately, a manufacturer cannot rely on those that state "its better", because 1 person, who dislikes it,
reflects 1000 silent people who also feel the same. The company has the desire to acquire more customers\clients
so complaints take priority, over satisfied customers. So we need to focus on solving what stops new players from
playing, and old players from leaving. Yes, a manufacturer will take the word of an engineer initially  but would
not go to production without market research.(ie do the people actually like the change)

Yes, 1 person can reflect some larger part of the market, but more persons are disagreeing with you and they would reflect a bigger part of the market. Your complaints are not discarded because it's "just 1 person", but because it's the minority of opinions and a lack of reasons.
And as others have said, you will need better reasoning for whatever changes you want made. And yes, keep the insults out of here. You might think luci is too cheap just because it's the most powerful weapon, but noone here seems to agree . Looking at your original post in this thread, you suggested changes only based on lack of similarity between teams, or on nothing at all.
Now, if you understand why ppl are disagreeing with you, go review your post, and see if you can salvage anything from there. And add proper reasoning.

So you agree, but just have a semantic issue with the terms balance or gameplay. Regardless we have the same motives.
If the majority of the trem public disagrees, then thats OK. Then we will retain players, and possibly gain more. Its only MY opinion from playing experience over years, that certain items have created imbalanced moments.

I've reach a point of ultimate Oo. I expect to be disagreed with, I only posted my opinions, not imperatives I
expected to be acted upon. I expect an open discussion, I don't expect anything to be changed in favor of what I
am stating. Why oh why, do you keep replying to me, If anything I say lacks merit. How long of a essay must I write, in order for my *Personal opinions* to be read. I don't expect them to be acted upon, I posted here to get them public, my personal views, THATS it.

The irony in all this, the only thing I got validated was the adversarial stance, I felt existed.

If you feel disagreeing is an "insult", or stating opinions about apparent behaviors "insults" perhaps this is
a culutral thing. I never said "so an so is an idiot. or anything to that nature"

[Norfenstein]

That doesn't happen, the seat is changed, and a test group, sits in the seat, and gives their opinions on
"how comfortable it is". The engineers take the information from the test group, to re-engineer a better seat.
(Not from ass to seat time contact statistics ) They don't however require the car owners to *prove*
the seat is uncomfortable, no snaps shots of cherry red asses are acquired and analyzed, or doctor's statements.

So, my point is, it will be unsuccessful to get mr "leik wack lawlz" to prove himself, just at least hear his\her
complaint and see if there is any basis or consensus on it.

Since the end of phase one the only thing I've been using the statistics for is verifying that the choices I make aren't major regressions, and for hinting at what needs to be changed when the feedback isn't enough. In fact, we have an example of exactly the process you describe already: there was a general consensus that humans had too little stamina, I looked into it and made a change, and statistics had absolutely nothing to do with any of it. The problem is that it's very rare for such a consensus to arise, so when a suggestion doesn't have a majority opinion backing it up, then yes, the suggester needs to back it up with something else. Understand also that subjective and objective ideas are going to be judged differently: if you say "the lucifer cannon is overpowered, period", I can just say "no it isn't", but if you say "I think area-effect weapons are cheap" then that's a different discussion (which we ought to get to eventually...).

Well, the lol'ing morons, whether they can make any coherent statement, are still infact players, and users of the
game software. So at least you have to investigate their complaints to see if it has grounds.

A "lol'ing" moron is someone who doesn't make coherent statements. Everyone else gets consideration (and even the aforementioned get consideration until I'm good and certain that reading their posts is a waste of time, and there aren't many people that have reached that point so far).

So if the overall line in wins losses, on the X server, with flying grangers, spitting bouncing instant death barbs, and 1 shot kill blasters was *fairly straight*, would you call the X server balanced?

Yes, that would be balanced. The point of balance is to make the game more fun though, which is why I'm hardly using the statistics at all anymore. UniqPhoeniX has the right idea:

In determining if some part of the gameplay is fun, yes it's about feel, tho stats can help. Gameplay and balance are not the same, tho they are related. Just you kept trying to call in "balance" when you were talking about whether something "feels" fun. A "feel" is also an opinion not a fact. IMO this whole gameplay preview is about balancing win/loss ratio (the chance for either team to win in an avg game), making all classes/weapons useful (not over/underused), AND trying to keep the gameplay fun.

Though, obviously, fun is the first priority.

You say "of course player feedback is needed" but each phase, the apparent determing factor seems to be stat analyis,
can you point out a moment where it wasn't 1 devs, or stat based change?

I don't think you've been paying close enough attention. Every change has been either because of feedback or my own intuition, with the statistics only serving to back up those decisions (and not even every decision).

Phase 1

• Chaingun damage increased - I saw complaints and didn't disagree because the statistics showed humans losing more than aliens.
• Flamer damage increased - I felt it wasn't useful enough yet, and the statistics showed humans losing more than aliens.
• Granger spit slow time reduced - It annoyed me (mostly, see the post for other reasons).

Phase 2

• Flamer further adjusted - Splash damage reduced because of feedback and my own experience; statistics showed it wasn't accomplishing much in the way of player and structure kills.
• Stamina changes - As mentioned, this was changed solely because of feedback; I didn't really feel like there was a problem, but also saw no harm in making it better. Statistics weren't involved.
• Goon changes - Changed because, after playing with it enough, I came to agree with the feedback (and because it had been long enough that I could trust that the feedback wasn't based on people being too used to the old goon).

Phase 3

• Further goon and flamer changes - Based on feedback and my intuition; I actually looked at the stats after deciding what to change in this phase.
  
• Marauder air acceleration increase - Entirely based on feedback, just like the stamina change (I would have just let it go if not for people complaining about it)
• Friendly fire - not a balance change, but I wouldn't have done any testing with friendly fire on at all if not for so many people requesting it.

Also notice how the balance graphs got worse between phase two and phase three. Ideally they'd be flat and even, but they can only tell you so much.

Are we able to evolve midair still?

Not only can you (still) evolve in the air, but you no longer lose your velocity when you do it (pounce -> tyrant -> crush -> ).

[Aviator]

Are we able to evolve midair still?

Not only can you (still) evolve in the air, but you no longer lose your velocity when you do it (pounce -> tyrant -> crush -> ).

[Liskey]

• Friendly fire - not a balance change, but I wouldn't have done any testing with friendly fire on at all if not for so many people requesting it.

Assuming that many/most 1.2 servers will play with FF on, how could it not be on for testing?  Flamer, luci, pulse are all so much more powerful if you can just fire into a crowd without worrying who gets hit.  If they were balance-tuned with FF off, then they would be far too nerfed for servers with FF on.

[Norfenstein]

Assuming that many/most 1.2 servers will play with FF on, how could it not be on for testing?  Flamer, luci, pulse are all so much more powerful if you can just fire into a crowd without worrying who gets hit.  If they were balance-tuned with FF off, then they would be far too nerfed for servers with FF on.

Because I don't like it, and would have been content to only balance for it off (which, incidently, is how 1.1 was playtested)? That was the point I was making: I only care about it because other people do.

Besides that, I totally disagree that it makes as much difference as you're suggesting. As of now, I have no plans to adjust anything because of friendly fire; the game really feels hardly any different at all now that people have adjusted to it.

[Asvarox]

Besides that, I totally disagree that it makes as much difference as you're suggesting. As of now, I have no plans to adjust anything because of friendly fire; the game really feels hardly any different at all now that people have adjusted to it.

Actually it makes great difference when people have adjusted to it - mass human rushes have more cons, you can't spam rifle/lasgun/pulse/anything when you see your teammate being attacked by lisk or dretch swarm, as alien you have to make sure you won't hit a teammate instead of an enemy, and so on. Basically it makes assisting harder, and in certain situations solo play easier than it used to. The good, IMO, example is nano, with friendly fire off I rarely saw aliens winning it, now it's actually playable.

[Norfenstein]

I understand how it's different, but there's nothing about it that stands out as warranting a change. The ratio of wins is tilting more in favor of aliens now, so maybe something will become obvious, but until then I'm not going to change things just to suit the graphs when nothing major is bothering me about the gameplay.

[FisherP]

....I'm not going to change things just to suit the graphs when nothing major is bothering me about the gameplay.

+1

Good going, I like you Norf.

[scrape]

[...]
[snipped]
...but if you say "I think area-effect weapons are cheap" then that's a different discussion (which we ought to get to eventually...).

w00t  , Yes, Thank you.
While I do see a need to *end* a game:

• the instant base death to adv mara team zap
  
• psaw grenade spam suicide rushes

...make defending almost impossible. Its hard to even shoot the maras for fear of tking
the base, and you cannot stop a grenade popped out at death. It wasn't such an issue in 1.1 because
tyrants were overpowered and build point regeneration was almost instant.

In regards to the phase list changes, I guess I'm also referring to changes that happened, during the course of the 2
years prior, and the reasoning behind such things as *dodge*. Everything else was a nerf or a boost, or to make items
more useful (ie Hives and Repeaters) by why add an additional movement buff? Why not just make the existing jump
higher instead of a new much stronger horizontal jump.

[3th4n]

I want the battery pack to make my PAIN saw deal out more PAIN! PAIN! gg
kgo.

Maybe battpack gives +8 range?

Im sure youve read that post structure a few million too many times xD

More On Topic..

I cant wait until 1.2 (is there an estimated date to release it?). i would play on the gpp server, however my ping is about 250+ on that server. We did have a server running when the first gpp was released but many people disliked the changes.
Nevertheless, Australia will merge over to 1.2 once it is released.

Also, could i just ask that the dev team update the news a bit more? (We have a news bot that has made 7 posts since august of 2009). More updates will keep everyone interested in whats happening we really enjoyed critiquing the Tremulous 1.2 weapons preview, and many (two pages i think) comments were made about the epicness of the lucifer cannon images that were leaked

Ugh, im rambling on. My main point is that we love videos showcasing ideas, whether they be bad or good. LETS HAVE SOME UPDATES! Pl0x.

[Norfenstein]

In regards to the phase list changes, I guess I'm also referring to changes that happened, during the course of the 2
years prior, and the reasoning behind such things as *dodge*.

Dodge was added for fun. I like movement abilities and felt that humans deserved something extra, considering how many more aliens have. And I'd been playing Warsow at the time...

Any direct damage item, bite\weapon that can ONE HIT kill, a member of the opposing team.

No weapons are items with extremely low repeat rates and long ranges.

I think I know what you're talking about here -- they're what I call "super weapons": weapons that are so internally imbalanced that they're always either cheap for the wielder (too much penalty for failure) or cheap for the victim (too unfair when successful). I think some things in tremulous do approach this (I'll probably never be happy with the goon chomp at stage one), but for the most part it comes down to being a matter of opinion. I do, however, think it's important for fun's sake to not be shy about having powerful abilities with tradeoffs, so we unfortunately can't just be aggressive about toning these things down indiscriminately.

Cheap items that can AoE(Area of effect) for massive damage.
It removes skill and planning from the game and just ensures mindless spamming.
(grenades, adv mara zap, etc..)

I think the opposite is true, on both accounts.

More strategy (planning), not less, because you have to account for different types of attacks. Instead of (for instance) packing all your defenses together in one front (which is fine if the enemy can only kill one thing at a time) you have to balance between your defensive structures assisting each other and being vulnerable to area effect weapons.

Less mindless spam because with area effect weapons it's actually beneficial to choose your targets carefully. Given three turrets and tyrant it doesn't matter (all else being equal) which one you start slashing first, but with the zap there's actually the question of which target would maximize your damage (e.g. are two close enough to chain but one isn't?). So the same amount of spam really, but not mindless.

In fact, I've intentionally given aliens better area effect weapons because I don't think the game can scale up without them. Versus 30 acid tubes behind a door humans can at least drop a grenade before dying instantly, but without the zap and explosive barbs, aliens can end up in a situation where they can take out no human defenses because they just wouldn't be able to deliver enough damage before being overwhelmed. Area damage fixes that by both giving recourse to the attacker and disincentive to the defender.

And to address your specific examples...

While I do see a need to *end* a game:

• the instant base death to adv mara team zap
  
• psaw grenade spam suicide rushes

...make defending almost impossible. Its hard to even shoot the maras for fear of tking
the base, and you cannot stop a grenade popped out at death.

The cheeky-but-true answer is: stop them before they reach your base. The fact is, multiplayer games need to favor offense over defense (or risk grinding to a standstill), so against a team's best base-attacking options, your only sustainable defense is to do it to them first ("the best defense..."). Team Lightning is pretty devastating, but that's the reward for teamwork (Saw Bros. is pretty devastating too...), but to be really effective requires going kamikaze. So both examples involve burning funds (and even if you don't die as a human, grenades are the only nonrefillable weapon in the game -- definitely the closest thing to a "super weapon" Trem has) in big attacks (which is intentional; the cadence of the game is supposed to be: fight players to earn funds, the team that gets the advantage base-attacks and either wins or exhausts their reserves, repeat till one team does win). So, given their tradeoffs and that they're only almost-impossible to defend if you let the enemy reach that point, I think they help the game more than hurt it.

Also, could i just ask that the dev team update the news a bit more?

http://tremulous.net/forum/index.php?topic=12973.0

[Cadynum]

The only really big problem I can still see is the underpowered dretch.

It feels pretty "correct" to me. What do you still not like?

It's just so damn horribly weak.
It needs to have a slightly more powerful attack (2*hs should almost guarantee a kill)
I also wouldn't mind bumping it's health up a bit.

[SlackerLinux]

The only really big problem I can still see is the underpowered dretch.

It feels pretty "correct" to me. What do you still not like?

It's just so damn horribly weak.
It needs to have a slightly more powerful attack (2*hs should almost guarantee a kill)
I also wouldn't mind bumping it's health up a bit.

this is normal dmg from svn's tremulous.h
#define LEVEL0_BITE_DMG             ADM(36)

in the gpp files i got loc dmg for headbites to be 1.5x more so now the damage is 54

now if the dretch bit the human twice hmm 54x2  108 funny isn't humans max hp 100 well i guess 2 head bites does guarantee a kill already

[Winnie the Pooh]

omg lol slakcer lunix i tink u jst resrchpwnd cadynm

[Cadynum]

The only really big problem I can still see is the underpowered dretch.

It feels pretty "correct" to me. What do you still not like?

It's just so damn horribly weak.
It needs to have a slightly more powerful attack (2*hs should almost guarantee a kill)
I also wouldn't mind bumping it's health up a bit.

this is normal dmg from svn's tremulous.h
#define LEVEL0_BITE_DMG             ADM(36)

in the gpp files i got loc dmg for headbites to be 1.5x more so now the damage is 54

now if the dretch bit the human twice hmm 54x2  108 funny isn't humans max hp 100 well i guess 2 head bites does guarantee a kill already

While this is true it doesn't work like that in practice.
From the time you've landed your first head bite (which is already hard enough against a skilled human) to when you land your second you're in most cases dead.
If you do survive long enough to hit a second time the medkit has had plenty of time to restore a few HPs and you'll need more hits.

[HellsAngelz]

I don't see a problem with dretch headbite. I still die from usually the same people as I used to, and since people can't crouch (to cover headbites) dretch overall has improved. So had goon. In scrims imagine humans crouching to try not to get 1 chomped while s1 now, they'll die.
If you're having trouble headbiting, learn to aim as dretch.

Coming from a very unskilled, trolling player, this must be quite a frontal assault to your ego.

[Asvarox]

I agree that it's a lot easier to kill few dretches with a rifle than to kill few rifles with a dretch. But I don't think dretch is that underpowered (honestly I think it's fine). I believe that rifle is overpowered (as I said few times already). I don't know numbers, so statistically I might be wrong, but I believe that it has higher dps ( - reload time) than lasgun - when there's a mara rc jumping I get rifle, because it's likely that it lost some hp already (in case it's advanced "bug") and I will shoot it down faster. It's fire-rate saved me many times where there was a dretch storm trying to swarm me and it was likely that if I held lasgun I would he died. Sure lasgun is useful in many situations where rifle would kinda suck (ie. shooting aliens from longer distances, tking) but that doesn't compensate the cost difference. I end up using rifle until we have s1 so I don't lose so many credits in case I die.

Curio: I have more kills with rifle than as dretch even when I have played over 8 hours longer as an alien (18h aliens, 10h humans) ^[1]

So what I suggest exactly:
 - Reduce bullets per clip to 25 (30 -> 25) but...
 - Leave time needed to shoot whole clip unchanged (so basically make it shoot slower)
 - [maybe] increase the spread (not sure if that would affect the gameplay in any noticeable way, but would be cool )

[Liskey]

The cheeky-but-true answer is: stop them before they reach your base. The fact is, multiplayer games need to favor offense over defense (or risk grinding to a standstill), so against a team's best base-attacking options, your only sustainable defense is to do it to them first ("the best defense..."). Team Lightning is pretty devastating, but that's the reward for teamwork (Saw Bros. is pretty devastating too...), but to be really effective requires going kamikaze.

+10

If RL soldiers let suicide trucks reach the barbed wire, they've already lost.  Layered defense requires thought.

[David]

Except RL soldiers have skilled tacticians telling them what to do, and know that everyone else will be holding up their end.  Also know everyone else is at least half competent.

In trem there's no coordination (even clan matches can't get near IRL levels of teamwork) and you don't know shit about your team-mates or what they are doing / capable of.

So not a great comparison.

[scrape]

Except RL soldiers have skilled tacticians telling them what to do, and know that everyone else will be holding up their end.  Also know everyone else is at least half competent.

In trem there's no coordination (even clan matches can't get near IRL levels of teamwork) and you don't know shit about your team-mates or what they are doing / capable of.

So not a great comparison.

What David said ^^

I've seen and been on a (bsuit psaw) run through a base of aliens and easily throw a grenade, while
being gang raped by aliens. Only a tyrant has the DPS to kill it fast enough. Now added 3+, and *keep em
coming*, its skill-less human wave attack. Its the best way however, at the moment, to take down a base, due
to the overkill power of it.

Well "Liskey: ...Layered defense requires thought." but norf said "The fact is, multiplayer games need to favor
offense over defense".
Therefore,the only thing it promotes is camping, you at least need 1 tyrant to camp the base, to prevent it (or try).
Or for aliens, a really tight area, you can place 5+ hives, they *almost* instantly kill bsuits, but
they will still get a *dead mans grenade* out, normally.

So perhaps a change to keep grenades as they are, but promote living over suicide's:
1)
Grenades will only explode if, the player is still alive. On death, all grenade(s) are
removed from the world. I haven't looked at the code to see how grenades are tied to the
player, but I assume they are, due to kill credit. I'd love to see someone explain why, humans
should have a post mortem AoE, if so, why not dead exploding dretches :>
2)
Adv maras perhaps, (egads am I saying it), increase the zaps cooldown time, or make the zap
only effective in a mara team, and weaker solo. To at least keep the ability but promote teamwork.
Even though I consider myself I alien player, I would prefer to see non-splash snipes, the primary
way to take down a base. It was always effective in the past, now we have a crazy tking snipe, and
monster zap.

But if the trem community loves the instant dead base possibility, then so be it.
Some people prefer the challenge of the struggle over the chance of an easy win, and from
years of watching stacked games, we will probably never reach a happy medium. I prefer playing
10 more minutes of a challenging game, over 3 games of instant base death.
--------------------

I agree with Asvarox, I can kill a human with a dretch, but its the rifle, that makes
it appear the dretch is weak.

[Liskey]

Camping is standing on top of a ret inside the base.  But standing outside with a lasgun weakening incoming maras is smart defense, compared to standing in the base with a flamer broiling the arm.

So is poison dretching the incoming bsuits before they have a chance to get inside with a suicide nade, or weaken them so the camping rant can easily finish them off away from the OM.

I like the consequences of failing to properly defend.  I like leveraging the power of a luci against the RC.   And I love poison - it's the best defense ever, when used outside.

[Liskey]

In trem there's no coordination (even clan matches can't get near IRL levels of teamwork) and you don't know shit about your team-mates or what they are doing / capable of.

So not a great comparison.

So because in trem you can't count on teamwork, the game should be tuned to make teamwork unnecessary?  Nah, you didn't really mean that.

There are lots of stacked team games nowadays.  But I think the stacking is just as much a matter of knowing what to do as it is having good aim.   When the stack is just a bunch of killwhoring with no one defending, there is nothing more satisfying than raping their base while they're away.  And that requires strong area effect attacks.

[Conzul]

I prefer playing 10 more minutes of a challenging game, over 3 games of instant base death.

You are familiar with EA's Battlefield series/ Battlefront, yes?

If trem was perfectly balanced, I'd stop playing it instantly and go back to 2142. At least that's balanced and good looking. It's the mayhem and lack of coordination in trem that make it unique, and in my opinion, worth spending time away from more mainstream stuff.


Also, whenever instant base death occurs, it is badly deserved. A single highly skilled player can tip the odds defending vs a rush, where that would be impossible in other games (or unlikely. You may have noticed I generalize a lot).

[Norfenstein]

But if the trem community loves the instant dead base possibility, then so be it.
Some people prefer the challenge of the struggle over the chance of an easy win, and from
years of watching stacked games, we will probably never reach a happy medium. I prefer playing
10 more minutes of a challenging game, over 3 games of instant base death.

I almost never see games ending the way you describe, and when I do it's because there aren't enough players on a team to properly defend (meaning: not enough players to notice their base is under attack until it's too late). Not only does it always (otherwise) take multiple waves of attacks to bring down bases, but competent defense can stop them. A typical example is game I played yesterday on utcs where aliens survived a steady stream of saw-grenade attacks throughout the entire game, and only lost when humans attacked as a team when we were at a funds disadvantage (they had a bunch of chainsuits etc., we had just blown our tyrants and goons trying to attack them). Which is basically exactly how the game is supposed to play out.

Well "Liskey: ...Layered defense requires thought." but norf said "The fact is, multiplayer games need to favor
offense over defense".
Therefore,the only thing it promotes is camping,

Uh, no, your first layer can (and ought to be) offense. That's the point I was trying to make.

I agree with Asvarox, I can kill a human with a dretch, but its the rifle, that makes
it appear the dretch is weak.

Dretches are weaker than rifles, and why shouldn't they be? They're not worth as much.

[temple]

Dretches are weaker than rifles, and why shouldn't they be? They're not worth as much.

They are the only offensive class when you start the game.