|
Av027 posted:I prioritized monster last, though I still did end up playing it some. I prefer to play as the underdog. I just think it's a little too far in that direction presently. I don't think overall win rates really paint a good picture of the balance situation. Good monster players went undefeated. Records like 100 and 0. Plenty of them did not play Wraith at all. The whole undefeated thing made me a little upset, but apparently there was a bug (or maybe intentional, who knows) that if you left a match in progress it wouldn't count as a loss. So if the monster knew he was gonna die, he could just leave and not take the loss on his W/L ratio.
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 09:53 |
|
|
Av027 posted:The problem is, bad players are bad players too. Given the nature of the asymmetrical gameplay, you need 4 good hunter players working well together to have any chance of beating a good monster player. In pub games, you're far more likely to get a single good monster player than you are to get two good hunters, let alone 4, and it is especially punishing to have a bad player in a key role. It is very unlikely that your average pub hunter team is going to be competent across the board. The monster doesn't require any teamwork, only personal skill. Playing poorly should cost the monster the game, given that one weak link or mistake on the hunter team often does, but that's not always the case right now. I've seen really bad monsters pull out a win because they managed to down the healer. On the other end of the spectrum, playing well as a monster shouldn't mean a 50% deviation from the desired winrate (50%), but that's what we're seeing. The stats they have published don't really support what you are saying. Right now it's showing that at low skill levels it is in favor of the Hunters, at medium it swings toward the Monster then at high levels is starts to swing back toward the Hunters. By "swing" it's going less than 4% at most in the favor of one side. So if you are really concerned about high skill play currently they see high skill Hunters will be beating the high skill Monsters more. Also the 100% winrate people were apparently exploiting a bug, they actually lost but did some exploit to turn it into a win on their stats.  Further reinforcing that paying attention to those tiny sub 1% cases is useless for overall balance. Space Skeleton fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Wee Tinkle Wand posted:The stats they have published don't really support what you are saying. Right now it's showing that at low skill levels it is in favor of the Hunters, at medium it swings toward the Monster then at high levels is starts to swing back toward the Hunters. By "swing" it's going less than 4% at most in the favor of one side. I'm aware of the quit bug, but I don't believe all of them were abusing it. As I said, I played against most of the top 10 monster players on PC, and I had decent hunter teams most of those games too. But the games weren't competitive. Good monster players are nigh impossible to catch, and they tend to wreck your poo poo when they do engage. I'm interested to see if those winstreaks continue at release, since I'm sure they're going to have that bug fixed. My bet is, they do. But again, the number one thing I see that would help even things up is jetpack recharge. There are just too many times that you'll see Goliath charge you, but be unable to respond because you're out of jets. After 10 minutes of chasing with no payoff, being unable to dodge is frustrating to say the least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Av027 posted:I'm aware of the quit bug, but I don't believe all of them were abusing it. As I said, I played against most of the top 10 monster players on PC, and I had decent hunter teams most of those games too. But the games weren't competitive. Good monster players are nigh impossible to catch, and they tend to wreck your poo poo when they do engage. There was an issue in this beta with jetpacks that many people weren't aware of. You are supposed to be able to climb vertical surfaces even without jetpack fuel but that wasn't happening due to an adjustment they had made to an exploit. After feedback this beta the Devs updated the cliff climbing, supposedly they won't limit your ability to climb if you are going over rough terrain which was how they countered an exploit, and you will now have a boost to the climb rate when out of jetpack fuel, so that terrible feeling of inching up a cliff should be gone. I am interested in seeing how this changes things, as even good hunters can end up out of fuel and I suspect this is a large contributor to being entirely unable to catch the monster. stopgap1 fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
stopgap1 posted:There was an issue in this beta with jetpacks that many people weren't aware of. You are supposed to be able to climb vertical surfaces even without jetpack fuel but that wasn't happening due to an adjustment they had made to an exploit. After feedback this beta the Devs updated the cliff climbing, supposedly they won't limit your ability to climb if you are going over rough terrain which was how they countered an exploit, and you will now have a boost to the climb rate when out of jetpack fuel, so that terrible feeling of inching up a cliff should be gone. There was a message during the beta about this, but I figured since it didn't seem to work so well that the intention was that if you were at the edge of the top, you could mantle over it even if you've run out of jetpack fuel, which would only be marginally useful. Glad to see that it was a bug and the intention is for full vertical movement even with no fuel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
I was the monster drug out the game to 47 minutes fyi. That game wasn't fun
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:What? That doesn't make any goddamned sense. Buffing the hunters or nerfing the monster has the same effect to balance. Who cares? Fine, if for whatever loving reason you can't handle a monster nerf but you're okay with a hunter buff, then make it a hunter buff. There are neutral elements to the game so those are not the same thing. Especially because of how asymmetrical the game is, which means there are different ways to buff or nerf each side and they are not all going to have the same consequences. Monster/hunter balance isn't going to be a single line. Laterbase posted:Solution, halve the monsters health and damage when against a non-premade team. Mercenaries game mode, no pre-mades, weaker monster. I hope this is a joke but I honestly can't tell and that worries me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
In games I usually love the concept of a 'Mercenary Mode' so you can avoid friends teaming up to poo poo stomp people, but with the way teams are in this game, to a monster that would translate to: 'Most likely to eat all targets.'
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Gestalt Intellect posted:There are neutral elements to the game so those are not the same thing. Especially because of how asymmetrical the game is, which means there are different ways to buff or nerf each side and they are not all going to have the same consequences. Monster/hunter balance isn't going to be a single line. That's actually true, balance in this is multivariable. But he just seemed offended at a nerf on the face of it, he wasn't arguing it against recharge rates or damage against neutral mobs or something like that. He was saying that nerfs are perceived as worse by the community than buffs outright. There's a kernel of truth to that, but it doesn't really apply to a game that currently can't be played and isn't yet out. If we were playing the beta every day, we might notice something like that. If it was already out, then we probably would. But between the beta and release? If you're not expecting a ton of balance changes, I think you're nuts. And I don't think people are going to buy the game and go "oh what the gently caress, the monster hits for less damage than in that beta? I'm so angry, I wish it was a buff to hunters instead of a nerf, that's just not fair" It just seems like a stretch. But you're right, there are some tertiary reasons why you'd favor balancing one side over the other.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
I wasn't offended at the idea of nerfing the monster, I just think that nerfing the monster for something silly like being matched up against pubs is pretty loving stupid! And I know the game isn't out, I'm talking in relation to the beta we just played, I can't speak for changes that will be made between now and release. I think the monsters sans the wraith for reasons I already mentioned are perfectly fine as they are, and hunter tweaks like increasing jetpack fuel would go a long way. Edit: Now that I think of it, I think the proper term would be "handicap". year199X fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
year199X posted:And I know the game isn't out, I'm talking in relation to the beta we just played, I can't speak for changes that will be made between now and release. Well I was proposing those changes as balance fixes for the release version... so I'm not sure what you're saying. year199X posted:Edit: Now that I think of it, I think the proper term would be "handicap". Yeah, and I don't think that's too outrageous. Handicaps are pretty common in competitive sports when people are mismatched on skill. Considering the skill curve favors the monster a little bit more, for lower skill matchups it would make sense to have slightly different values. I think I understand now that you were more upset by having a different balance on one skill level than another more than a balance that changed hunters up versus monster down, but I still don't think such a 'handicap' is inherently a bad idea. Playing the monster only requires you to know how to play monster, while Hunter requires team co-ordination. When pre-made, that's on you, but if you're playing a team where 4 different people from different parts of the world are suddenly thrust together, they could maybe use a handicap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
FYI guys, Evacuation mode does have a handicap system to try and account for skill gaps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
Wee Tinkle Wand posted:FYI guys, Evacuation mode does have a handicap system to try and account for skill gaps. Which at least i never figured out what it actually did. Does anybody actually know?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
HOOLY BOOLY posted:Which at least i never figured out what it actually did. Does anybody actually know? Increased outgoing damage and decreased incoming damage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:That's actually true, balance in this is multivariable. It's generally true that people complain more about nerfs than buffs (I guess it feels more personal for something you use to get hit with the nerf bat than for the things you fight to be stronger) but yeah the difference is not particularly large. And I think balancing with an even mix of nerfs and buffs is very important to avoid power creep. I've seen some games with the mentality of "we aren't going to nerf the things you love, we're just going to buff everything else to be up to their level" and it's basically a recipe for power creep that never ends. I haven't watched any of the legions of trailers and hype for this game so maybe there are details I don't know about, but evacuation looks like it's going to have a similar problem to L4D2 because of the bonuses you get for winning on each level in the campaign. So instead of one team pulling ahead from the start and the game being decided halfway before it's over, one side will just snowball and the effect will be about the same. Do you get to pick different characters for each level in the campaign? And does it end immediately if one side gets to 3 wins? Owl Inspector fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Gestalt Intellect posted:It's generally true that people complain more about nerfs than buffs (I guess it feels more personal for something you use to get hit with the nerf bat than for the things you fight to be stronger) but yeah the difference is not particularly large. And I think balancing with an even mix of nerfs and buffs is very important to avoid power creep. I've seen some games with the mentality of "we aren't going to nerf the things you love, we're just going to buff everything else to be up to their level" and it's basically a recipe for power creep that never ends. From what I saw, when you win one match, you get a bonus effect, and they get a bonus handicap increment. The bonus is only for the next map, the handicap snowballs. In the video I saw, the monster won 4 and lost the last. Evilreaver fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Thanks Wee Tinkle Wand for posting all that. I'm overseas on my phone and don't stand a chance of actually copy pasting everything into the thread. Before people go too wonky on balance and those amazing monsters, there was a significant problem everyone was dealing with. All the people from the Big Alpha where in the beta, on PC and PS4 this had the biggest impact, there were people who reached max rank in the Big alpha going through the game again, lots of them. Those people were the disgustingly good monsters who should have been level 40. I got to 30 in the Big alpha on primarily monster, in the beta I'm back to level 1. Match making couldn't account for all that and caused many monsters to just wreck face at the lower levels constantly. On Xbox one this probably was not as bad but still present. The short answer is if half of your population are skilled, the other half are new and everyone is rank one, you will have massive monster win streaks as the new players drag down the hunter teams. What everyone is complaining about is enforced smurfing. I don't think you should re-balance a whole game around that anomaly. We need to see what happens after a week, when pretty much everyone is at 40.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Gestalt Intellect posted:It's generally true that people complain more about nerfs than buffs (I guess it feels more personal for something you use to get hit with the nerf bat than for the things you fight to be stronger) but yeah the difference is not particularly large. And I think balancing with an even mix of nerfs and buffs is very important to avoid power creep. I've seen some games with the mentality of "we aren't going to nerf the things you love, we're just going to buff everything else to be up to their level" and it's basically a recipe for power creep that never ends. I think you have to stick to the same characters throughout, or else everybody would pick Wraith as monster for some levels and then Goliath for the last level. However the way it works is Evilreaver posted:From what I saw, when you win one match, you get a bonus effect, and they get a bonus handicap increment. The bonus is only for the next map, the handicap snowballs. In the video I saw, the monster won 4 and lost the last. Yeah this is how it works. Which should make things really interesting. What I'm wondering though (somebody asked it earlier and I don't think we know) is what the handicap really does. Just damage bonus/nerf? Health? Or what? The round win bonuses have been detailed, and sound like lots of fun. Everything from turrets and teleporters to extra monsters and gas pools. But we don't know for sure what the building handicaps do. Probably just balance in some stat way, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
Did you just spend $500 on buying evolve for friends? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:Those charts all having so many matches go to the max timer suggests to me that most of the hunter wins are down to timeouts. It... doesn't show the number of matches that go to max time? That's the maximum round length, not number of rounds that went to max.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
It was stated by the Dev that there is a hard limit at 40 minutes so the 47 minute match must have been a bug. The average time for a match was 9minutes which doesn't tell us much as it could be a monster stomping at level 2 or hunters winning early.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
Wee Tinkle Wand posted:FYI guys, Evacuation mode does have a handicap system to try and account for skill gaps. I'm actually okay with that, especially because it's a handicap based on on your team winning or losing, as opposed to a flat handicap for fighting a pub group in a one-off match that may or may not be competent. L4D kind of tried to do something like that in versus with the winning team going first on the next map, giving the losing team knowledge of item and tank spawns for their run.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
As an aside, for those of you jonesing for some asymmetric gameplay while you wait for Evolve to come out, you may want to check out Nosgoth that just went into open beta this week on Steam. 4 Melee Vampires vs 4 ranged hunters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
There's also a divers vs sharks treasure hunting game called Depth. It looks all sorts of janky.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
Gestalt Intellect posted:I hope this is a joke but I honestly can't tell and that worries me. It was sort of a joke. Halving the monster damage and health would be watts too much but maybe tweaking the number of kills needed to evolve or the head start the monster gets, or maybe even small tweaks to damage or health might be a good idea against teams that aren't premade. It sounds like they are already implementing a handicap system in some game modes though so they must have thought of it first anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 09:32
|
|
|
Brackhar posted:As an aside, for those of you jonesing for some asymmetric gameplay while you wait for Evolve to come out, you may want to check out Nosgoth that just went into open beta this week on Steam. 4 Melee Vampires vs 4 ranged hunters. Dying Light (out on the 27th) has 4v1 asymmetric PvP as well. Some sort of dangerous player controlled infected/zombie can invade games at night. Preorder gets you the "be the zombie" option, allowing you to be the invader.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
I'd probably respect you more if you bought that dollar amount of Hatoful Boyfriend to prank your friends.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Haha that guy has plenty of money and friends what a loser.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Could have been just $385 on GMG. Oh well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Dyz posted:The difference being enemies from L4D2 are the weak ones while the survivors are the tanks with a ton of hp. Even the Tank in L4D2 can't camp your body the way the monster can in this game. Of course if L4D is anything to go by as people get better they will have less and less patience with early setbacks and will ragequit as soon as the first hunter goes down, or something. Zephro fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Zephro posted:If L4D is anything to by then players will get better with practise and the quality of pugs will rise steadily. Pubs just want to play a high risk style but not pay for the consequences. Also to type in caps about how the consequences are everyone elses fault. Or be like the guy who sprints through the map noisily aggroing everything and never turning around to shoot backwards so the guy in back can catch up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
By the way, does anyone how minimum the minimum specs on this actually are? Do you get 20fps with loads of stutter or is it actually playable?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Zephro posted:By the way, does anyone how minimum the minimum specs on this actually are? Do you get 20fps with loads of stutter or is it actually playable? One of the character artists (maniacsquirrel or something) has streamed on twitch a lot with his graphics on low and it doesn't look that bad at all really. eDIT: here's a good example i suppose
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Loknik posted:One of the character artists (maniacsquirrel or something) has streamed on twitch a lot with his graphics on low and it doesn't look that bad at all really. Basically a friend is going to try to run this on a laptop with a GeForce 650M. It has a lovely 1366 x 768 screen, which will help a bit, but the graphics card is below the minimum specs. Zephro fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Zephro posted:Thanks. But is he using a gimpy system, or has he just turned the graphics down on a competent right to show off what they look like? Ironically i think its a gimpy system, he made a remark about turning it on low to keep his fps up on another video. That makes me think out of necessity as opposed to showcasing the low graphics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Zephro posted:Basically a friend is going to try to run this on a laptop with a GeForce 650M. It has a lovely 1366 x 768 screen, which will help a bit, but the graphics card is below the minimum specs. I wouldn't, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:I wouldn't, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 09:53 |
|
|
Zephro posted:Neither would I, but he's insisting, and doesn't have a car to bring his actual PC to the LAN anyway. Oh well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 18:01
|
|
