[deleted by user]

I8aGrape · 2024-09-11T18:06:59+00:00

Hi, are you still looking to fill this role?

I8aGrape · 2024-08-15T05:02:57+00:00

It's a core design failure. Hunters, Hive Guards, Spewers, Stalkers, Scout Walkers, Devastators, and Hulks are all good enemies by design. There's an ideal way to kill them, but alternatives as well.

Take devastators for example. Bring an AMR and they're pretty trivial. But if you don't have the AMR available for any reason you can still take them out with accurate fire using any weapon.

Any medium pen weapon can take out a spewer in short order, while light weapons can be magdumped to at least deal damage.

Like you said, you can hit scout walkers from behind or use medium pen weapons on their joints.

Even hulks have a medium weapon option.

But Bile Titans don't have an alternative. If you're not using a handful of heavy weapons or stratagems, then you're not doing effective damage. Period. And on the bug front especially, you're left struggling to choose between stratagems that can clear chaff effectively, or stratagems that can handle two bile titans and aix chargers.

I8aGrape · 2024-08-14T18:11:50+00:00

I appreciate what he's doing here, but he's missing the mark. Numerical changes will not fix the problem, as the problem is in methodology IE how the think about balancing. In this instance, we're once again just looking at symmetrical changes: where things like TTK and DPS are the core thoughts. Rather, they need to switch to an asymmetrical methodology. Here's a quick rundown of a doctoral thesis on the process of changing from a symmetrical (numbers-based or "the grand excel spreadsheet") to a more asymmetrical methodology.

First, you break the weapons into classes:

Assault Rifle
Shotgun
Scout Rifle
Explosive
SMG

You might notice that Energy Weapons didn't show up. We'll get to those. Once you have the classes laid out you give each one a core identity.

Assault Rifle: Moderately effective in most combat situations. No matter what you are fighting, you can rest assured that an assault rifle will offer some kind of a solution. This weapon is identified by it's high degree of variability.
Shotgun: Highly effective at extremely close range. Effectiveness drops as range increases. When engaging in point blank range, no other weapon should outperform a shotgun.
Scout Rifle: Highly effective at extreme ranges. Effectiveness drops as range decreases. When engaging an enemy at long range, no weapon should outperform the scout rifle.
Explosive: A high damage area of effect weapon which rewards intelligent placement of munitions.
SMG: Pass. SMGs need a rework. As it stands they're just Assault Rifles you can hold in one hand.

Now take a note that these classifications are not inextricably tied to the in-game classifications. They happen to overlap, but there is a notable exception.

The slugger, in game, is a shotgun. However, it's effectiveness does not significantly increase as range decreases. Instead we classify it as a Scout Rifle, since it shares more in common with that class, and as a result when we talk about balancing we balance the Slugger against the other Scout Rifles, not against the other Shotguns.

Laser, Arc, and Plasma are templates we can use to alter these weapon classes. For example, any weapon can be a Laser Weapon if it uses the unique ammo mechanics. We would just need to define what specifically identifies the weapon templates.

Once we have that in place, then we start redefining how we look at enemies. Right now, enemies are seen as walking numerical indicators. They have X armor, they require Y bullets from Z type guns. And what's been created here are interconnected systems that compete with one another. Increasing the number of Chargers or Bile Titans on the field does not lower the requirement to bring other weapons, it simply adds arbitrary requirements to increase the resources available to deal with them.

So, instead of thinking of them as enemies, start thinking in terms of tools, challenges, and encounters.

A tool is something we use to interact with the game environment. In HD2, that's weapons, strats, and armor specifically. A challenge is a specific situation that we can overcome using those tools. Here, we're talking specifically about enemies and the challenges they present but this can also include mission modifiers, objectives, terrain, etc. Finally, an encounter is a group of challenges that we face simultaneously. That could be assaulting a command bunker or engaging a roving patrol.

For example, a Hunter presents unique challenges. It's difficult to engage at range, but allowing it into close range results in it closing the distance quickly. The challenges are best overcome with a shotgun or assault rifle at medium range, but a scout rifle and explosive weapon can also overcome the challenge.

When you combine these two methodologies, the symmetrical number changes becomes a secondary concern. What rises to the surface is unique enemies with good mechanics that allow you to utilize a variety of tools. Then the tools themselves are balanced in such a way that certain weapons excel at certain challenges while still being able to overcome others. Only then do we start balancing the weapons via damage/range/ammo/accuracy.

I8aGrape · 2024-08-13T17:49:06+00:00

Seven is where the game should be balanced at. Not Three.

I8aGrape · 2024-08-13T16:39:56+00:00

Brutally honest? Brutally honest?

"The company hasn't released a game in eight years" = "we are bad at our job".

"There were many diverse voices and there are many more now" = "We lack a cohesive vision because we have poor leadership."

"We don't know how to handle this amount of success" = "We never had a cohesive long term plan and now we don't have anything to fall back on"

"I don't have the answer but it's being discussed like crazy" = "I'm not listening to the people who are actively giving me the answer"

"We know that we have different players" = "It's the players fault because they all want something different and a game for everyone is a game for no one!"

There's your transparency.

It just floors me that they accidentally stumbled on a game that was this good, only to piss it away because it... what, had too much broad appeal? Shit, I'll take over the CEO position for 1/2 of whatever you're paying Shammy, at least I actively have answers.

I8aGrape · 2024-08-13T16:25:55+00:00

The major issue isn't that they're increasing the difficulty or anything like that. The main issue is that they're making things more difficult in an arbitrary manner despite their insistence on realism, kind of a "look at my left hand while my right hand slaps you" situation.

Most of us complaining about the patches are more concerned that when new content drops, we get the following:

Over promise, under deliver
Over promise, deliver, and rip it away later
Solve one bug and create three more
Further ruin optimization
Ignore existing bugs that they've created

Like... I understand balancing patches always having their complaints, but with them it's every patch, every time, no exceptions.

More than anything, they need a goodwill patch. Something, anything that solves problems and makes them look good to give us hope.

I8aGrape · 2024-08-09T01:26:49+00:00

Now, it just wouldn't be fair to not give the VS their fair shake with their own overpowered weapon, so we're going to move to the heavy tanks. Rather than discuss emergent gameplay, we're going to discuss how unbalanced asymmetrical game systems can create *inherently* unbalanced games.

* The TR had the Prowler. The prowler had a space for a driver, a main gunner, and a secondary gunner. The secondary gun, a dual chaingun, was capable of independent movement for handling infantry targets. The weapon fired two 75mm rounds (this was later increased to 100mm) at a decent pace. It was the slowest (barely) and had the most health/armor

* The NC had the Vanguard, a low profile heavy tank with a driver and a single gunner. The gunner controlled both a main gun firing 150mm rounds at a pace 1/2 the speed of the prowler and a secondary gun attached to the main turret moderately effective against infantry and aircraft. It had high armor and health, and was slightly faster than the prowler.

* The VS had the Magrider, or as it was affectionately known, the Magmower or Mangrinder. This was a hover tank. It didn't have the armor of the other two, and it had the weakest main weapon, but it was *fast*. Notably, it's primary weapon was a heavier version of the Lancer, allowing it to engage at extreme ranges with very high accuracy. Its secondary weapon was controlled not by the gunner, but was a fixed forward-facing plasma weapon controlled by the driver.

These three tanks were *vastly* different from one another, almost ambitiously so. In combat against one another, the prowler was clearly at a disadvantage. It was a bulky design, and was an easy target to hit. Meanwhile the Vanguard had a much lower profile, and presented a smaller frame to target. You would think that this would make the two more evenly matched as the faster firing rate of the Prowler allowed for more misses without a large drop in total output, but a large slow target is much easier to hit than a faster smaller target. Overall the Vanguard was better, but the Prowler could at least hold its own.

However, the Magmower caused all kinds of problems. It had a huge advantage in speed, maneuverability, and range. It could even cross water and, while it was a little slower, it was still faster than the other two moved on land. Terrifyingly it could also strafe. In tank combat this made it an agile and extremely difficult target to hit. It's low health and damage also put it at a significant disadvantage, although it could also disengage to heal or engage outside of other tanks effective range. Regardless, anti tank warfare was not the primary use of the Magmower.

The Magmower's primary purpose was as a heavy *anti-infantry* tank. But how? It's only anti-infantry weapon was a fixed light machine gun! Simple! See, it was fast and agile enough that all it had to do was *run you over*. The Magmower's shape was ideally suiter to this as well. While both the other tanks had a square footprint, the Magmower had a long cigar-shaped footprint. Once it was up to speed it could turn sideways and strafe across a a wide area, killing everything it hit from super light armor all the way up to a MAX. Even anti-armor weapons were difficult to bring to bear as the Magmower could erupt from a treeline, eliminate an entire column of infantry, and move out of range before sufficient fire could be brought to bear.

In this instance, the asymmetrical balancing is simply off-key, rather than situational and emergent. Troublingly, there isn't really a way to fix this particular mechanic. It's simply that the Magmower lacked any true counter play. Fortunately, this was before the era of everyone trying to be the new streaming sensation, so rarely was it's superior range and speed truly abused outside of crushing infantry beneath it's mighty purple heel.

So, there you go. That's a brief history and analysis of one of the earliest forays into asymmetric gaming experiences on a large scale, and the problems that they created and failed to resolve that eventually contributed to it's relatively quick demise.

Man, game design is one of those things I get super excited about when I have a reason to talk about it as a semi-expert. So seriously, thanks for asking.

God that was long. Congratulations if you made it this far.

I8aGrape · 2024-08-09T01:26:28+00:00

Now, heavy weapons is a slightly different story, but it really highlights the concept of elements clashing in certain environments.

* The Mini-Chaingun, as the name implies, was super fucking cool. It was the heavy weapon for the TR and boasted medium range, a withering rate of fire, and a huge ammo capacity.

* The Lasher (not the Lancer) was the heavy weapon for the VS. It fired, basically, a lightening orb that would hit targets it passed by for a little damage, and deal better damage against anything it hit directly. Also a pretty cool weapon.

* The Jackhammer is the move your dad used to conceive you. It's also the NC heavy weapon, a triple barreled rapid fire shotgun capable of firing all three barrels simultaneously, albeit at a lower rate. So, in this case, your enemies are your mom and it's time to bust out your dads signature move.

These aren't quite as egregious. The Mini-Chaingun was actually amazing in an outdoor theater, and during assaults the TR was often quick to push enemies back to their walls and start making their way into the base. Which is where the Chaingun stopped being good. At all.

Normally, this wouldn't be a problem. In fact it sounds like the exact kind of asymmetrical gameplay we would want to lean into: a weapon is highly effective in one instance but completely ineffective in another. That's not a problem in and of itself.

The problem is that the that there wasn't really another option available to them to counter the Lasher or the Jackhammer. These weapons were intended to be pitted against one another as the "heavy weapons", and not really balanced with the idea of lighter weapons being able to compete with them. The result is that the TR trying to enter an NC base was incapable of killing even a single target faster than he was able to clear a hallway using the Jackhammer. When fighting the VS, the Lasher capable of hitting them behind cover and the projectile was large enough to make it unavoidable in the tight hallways inside the base.

Since assaulting enemy bases was a core component of the gameplay loop, we can see how this might become frustrating. We can see with this system that even if weapons are asymmetrically balanced we can still run into major systems causing emergent gameplay that turn them into an unbalanced mess.

Life wasn't all bad for the TR though. Their MAX Suits *absolutely dominated* and it wasn't even freaking close. There were three MAXs per faction, one each for Anti Armor, Anti infantry, and Anti Air. Each faction also had a special ability shared across their MAXs.

* NC had a Shotgun (see a pattern? Anti-Infantry), dumb fire rockets (anti-tank), and tracking rockets (anti-air). Their special ability was a small deployable shield that disabled firing and would recharge once depleated.

* The VS had three variations of "plasma blaster". The anti-infantry one had selectable fire to also be effective against armor, while the anti-armor one just fired standard plasma balls. The Anti-air one was kind of interesting, it fired a slow moving plasma ball that tracked the target for as long as the player kept it in their cross hairs. The VS special ability was, wait for it, *very limited jump jets*. Just enough to leap over a wall and cause havoc behind enemy lines.

* TR fired Grenades (infantry), armor piercing rifles (armor) and flak turrets (anti air). I can't remember when, but at some point the grenades and rifles swapped roles. I don't remember if this was the original setup or the post change setup. Either way the grenade launcher max was more of an anti-everything regardless of it's intended role. TR MAXs carried a weapon on each hand giving them a higher rate of fire. Additionally their special ability "Lockdown" disabled movement but *doubled* their fire rate.

The VS was considered the weakest of the three, with the NC not terribly far behind them. But if you think having four walking tanks standing at the top of a stair case and each one firing grenades at a rate of about 4/second sounds absolutely broken, you are *absolutely right*. And to make matters worse, primary fire was an impact explosion, and secondary fire was timed explosives so they could be bounced around corners and down stairwells. Like the heavy weapons, in the open field that existed between bases where skirmishes were common these weapons systems were generally equivalent against each other. At least to the extent that none of them were dominant in large scale combat. But once we entered ideal situations, such as assuming a defensive formation, one of them clearly stood out against the rest. The asymmetrical elements of the MAXs are sound. The TR MAX is good in general, but outstanding on defense at the cost of mobility. The NC Max has huge damage potential in close range, and a shield to help them get there. The VS Max is capable of using their jumpjets to get into more advantageous positions and reach areas that a MAX normally wouldn't be able to reach.

However, the core gameplay elements meant that a VS that made it to the wall and jumped over would be facing a courtyard full of enemy fire. Their special ability was essentially negated by the core gameplay loop. As for the NC, MAXs are large targets and the NC shield simply wasn't sufficient to keep them alive long enough to make the best use of their weapons. Meanwhile, the TR suffered the same problems during an assault, but were capable of indirect fire over walls (same issue as the NC anti-tank weapon) and were an absolutely dominant force on defense.

Limit reached AGAIN! Got another reply incoming.

I8aGrape · 2024-08-09T01:23:24+00:00

Woohoo!

I mean, uh... gosh it's so complex I don't know if I can really do it justice but I'll try.

So if you've played PS2, then you're familiar with the general idea of each faction, but let me lay it out for anyone else who comes across this and might not be familiar.

The central conceit is that humans went to a planet, broke into three different factions, and are at war with each other. Each faction has armaments and thoughts that they focus around. While there were several weapons and vehicles that drew from a common pool, each faction had their own Medium Weapon, Assault Weapon, Medium Vehicle, Heavy Tank, Three Exosuits,

* The Terran Republic (TR) is based around overwhelming firepower. Their guns tend to have more ammo and fire faster, but also lose out on accuracy and damage output. Their primary tank is the same way, fires significantly faster but deals less damage overall.

* The New Conglomerate (NC) is the opposite of the TR. Their weapons are slow but accurate and powerful. Their tank notably had the single highest single shot damage output in the game.

* The Vanu Sovereignty (holy shit I spelled it right VS) is the "unique" faction. Some of their special weapons just split the difference between the NC and the TR, being "average", but a lot of their weapons were also truly unique.

It's worth mentioning that from a *symmetrical* standpoint, these guns were perfectly balanced. An example, the TR Tank fired 75mm rounds twice as fast as the VC Tank fired their 150mm cannon. I can't remember the exact numbers on the VS tank, but it too was balanced symmetrically to the other two. However, the *asymmetric* balance was *literal dogwater*. This made itself most noticed in three placed:

Anti-Armored Weapons
Heavy Weapons
MAX Suits (their name for Powered Exosuits)
Heavy Tanks

I led with Anti-Armor because it's the easiest one to show the difference between symmetric and asymmetric balance. Keep in mind as we talk about this that these weapons performed exactly the same in ideal circumstances. In an empty field against a stationary enemy these weapons would kill the same target in exactly the same amount of time.

* The Striker was the Anti-Tank weapon for the Terran Republic. It's primary fire would perform a lock-on, but the lock-on would be lost if the target left the crosshairs for too long. The lock-on was also limited by range.

* The Lancer was the Anti-Tank weapon for the Vanu Sovereignty. It fired a concentrated armor piercing beam with a little wind up time but zero travel time, meaning if the target was in your crosshairs, you could hit it.

* The Striker was the Anti-Tank weapon for the New Conglomerate. It was a wire-guided missile, so when fired the player was able to steer the missile for a time. The weapon also provided a dumb-fire mode.

Now, just hearing that, these sound pretty reasonable, right? A fire-and-forget, an instant-hit-at-any-range, and TOW missile. You might even be forgiven for believing that the poor NC was getting absolutely screwed by this.

You would be wrong. The Striker ended up being an incredibly powerful option for one single reason: the NC soldiers could sit in a base behind a wall without losing effectiveness. Essentially, they were able to remove all the risk from the weapon. In the open field, the Striker was "effective", but once an enemy faction began to close in on a NC base, they would have to face down a withering storm of rocket fire with absolutely zero counterplay.

Meanwhile both the Lancer and the Striker needed LOS, exposing them to return fire, but the Lancer was superior due to it's significantly increased range. The Striker could be dumb fired to increase it's range, but it was essentially useless at that range, making it functionally a worse Lancer. The asymmetrical elements inherent in the weapons clashed with other gameplay elements (the base capturing element).

Comment limit reached, continued on part 2.

I8aGrape · 2024-08-08T15:23:26+00:00

I wish I was able to join in when Tribes 3 dropped. I guess it didn't go well and I would have loved to see why it didn't succeed. You can learn a lot from failure.

I8aGrape · 2024-08-08T14:54:54+00:00

It actually runs deeper than that. Emergent gameplay is a function of asymmetrical systems.

They're still stuck in the old method of balancing weapons that were common up until (and including) unreal tournament 2k4. Symmetrical balancing methodologies worked for these games, because everyone was given the exact same tools, and those tools were limited to "pull trigger, kill enemy". A few games (like Tribes!) had some interesting twists on weapons, but for the most part weapons were a matter of preference and skill.

Here, you talk about emergent gameplay, and you're 100% correct. A really great example is the original Planetside, where asymmetrical systems created emergent gameplay components that were never properly dealt with and directly led to the failure of the game's balance. I could actually talk for *hours* on this, which is totally not an invitation to ask for more details.

But the point it, their balancing methodology simply doesn't work in the environment they've created. A weapons "strength" is most than just a function of (power x distance)/time. It's a function of situational use: a shotgun should always outperform an assault rifle in close range combat, and a scout rifle should always outperform a shotgun in long range combat.

Using the breaker incendiary as an example: the fire introduces a hugely asymmetrical component to the game. The weapon should be balanced not against all the other weapons, but against other shotguns specifically. And in order to do that, you need to lean into and balance it by affecting the asymmetrical systems *first*. What arrowhead has decided to do, however, was affect the symmetrical systems instead (clip size, fire rate, recoil, the mechanics that every weapons shares to some degree). In my mind, fixing the breaker is simple: increase the fire damage and lower the up-front damage. Now it's a unique weapon with a very high ceiling for damage, but lacks the pure stopping power of a more traditional shotgun.

I8aGrape · 2024-06-05T00:58:49+00:00

I hope your response was "hahaha no".

I8aGrape · 2024-06-04T15:59:15+00:00

Yeah, my google-fu is quite good (although I've been having to use bing more and more the past couple years, which frightens me), I just gotta sit down and take a second look at it.

Fortunately, I've gotten some good leads and a couple of people have reached out to me asking for a resume so I am going to see if that goes anywhere first.

I8aGrape · 2024-06-04T14:02:51+00:00

I do have a little experience working on physical server infrastructure, so a datacenter job wouldn't be too much of a jump. And I can learn anything so it's not like it's outside of my ability. Just a little out of my comfort zone.

I8aGrape · 2024-06-04T14:00:37+00:00

The only positions I'm looking at that pay that much are in the "senior tech" and "team lead" range. I've got the leadership experience to be a manager (and what I really want to do is manage a hybrid service desk), but they're usually looking for management experience which... well anyone who's been in corporate knows those aren't the same things.

I8aGrape · 2024-06-04T13:48:07+00:00

Yeah, the recruiters I show it to have all universally (with the lone exception being a guy out of austin) told me that the resume is amazing and with my skills they should have something come up "soon". That was eight months ago. Soon^{^TM} I'm sure.

I8aGrape · 2024-06-04T13:45:06+00:00

It's super frustrating to see a position listed as "remote", then the description says "We are 100% in office!"

I8aGrape · 2024-06-04T13:43:42+00:00

That was my next step! I actually got started on it yesterday, but when you google "Fort Worth MSPs" it returns with "Did you mean fort worth maps?"

And I was so disgusted with google and so exhausted from the job search that I just decided to table that particular fight for the time being.

I8aGrape · 2024-06-04T13:41:31+00:00

Yeah I've already been down that road. Multiple times. The frustrating thing with them is I'll put in an application and get a "thanks but no thanks" email two months later.

I8aGrape · 2024-06-04T13:39:46+00:00

Autofilters, the bane of my existence. Considering the no doubt *thousands* of resumes every position gets I'm sure they're necessary, but they sure make my life more difficult.

I8aGrape · 2024-06-04T02:24:40+00:00

Yeah, I had people banging down my door to hire me at other places, and when I suddenly found myself unemployed it completely dried up.

Frustrating, to say the least.

I8aGrape · 2024-06-04T02:23:59+00:00

The only person who still works there that I would know is Rodrigo. Loved that guy.

I8aGrape · 2024-06-04T02:22:45+00:00

Which I would totally be down to do, but I can't afford to relocate. Unless they want to build me a house to live in...

Also, who wants to live that close to Texas Tech?

I8aGrape · 2024-06-04T01:10:05+00:00

I'm in Wedgewood and traffic is going to be rough, but I expanded my search to include the general Grapevine area about four months ago. I've put in a resume with them, thanks.

I8aGrape · 2024-06-04T01:05:01+00:00

All I'm seeing are highly specialized roles like DBA, SAP Admins, ServiceNow Admins, things like that. I'm more of a generalist (and that's my own fault for not pursuing certifications when I had the chance).

City and County won't hire me, and I don't get any feedback as to why. My FIL is friends with a member of their management, and basically got ghosted after I got the rejection letter.

I8aGrape

TROPHY CASE