GDC: weapon design balancing.

A Boojum Snark

Toraipoddodezain Mazahabado
aa
Nov 2, 2007
4,775
7,669
I thought this was an interesting little read, even if few of us have any direct use for it.
http://doublebuffered.com/2010/03/1...per-rifle-from-0-5-to-0-7-seconds-for-halo-3/

However, I'd like to highlight two points I think apply to mapping quite well...
• Work on serious playtesting at this point. You want players to play, and you shouldn’t argue with them. Look for their reactions, NOT their solutions. “I don’t like x” is useful, “I don’t like x because of y” is great, and “You should do x” is useless. Trust the player’s gut (intuition) but don’t trust their reasoning as they do NOT have the same mental context you do as the designer.
• Negative feedback generally means that the game in their head does not match the game as it actually exists. Either try to match it better, or do a better job of realistically setting expectations via teaching.

Now, I realize that when you're playing with other mappers (or pro players) they are closer to your "mental context" than RandomPlaytester273, and some people do have good solutions, but the general idea still makes sense.
The second point applies too in the sense of layout design and signage. Maps need to be intuitive to begin with. You can nudge players' thoughts in the right direction, but if there is just too big of a divide you'll never get anywhere with them.

Lastly, this amused me in context of TF2 :p
Identify the specific goals of your playtester and keep that context in mind. Optimizers look to find the best overall, Ragers quit when frustrated, Role players always try the same weapon, “Your mom” will get confused, Griefers will try to destroy it for others, and Pros will hate you for any randomness.
 

DJive

Cake or Death?
aa
Dec 20, 2007
1,465
741
lol too true. Random crits or etc have forever pissed me off.
 

Moose

L6: Sharp Member
Nov 4, 2009
312
616
Even if it's a dumb suggestion, there's usually a good reason behind somebody making it. Unless it's just some idiot spewing nonsense.

Also lol at the part about randomness
 

grazr

Old Man Mutant Ninja Turtle
aa
Mar 4, 2008
5,441
3,814
Work on serious playtesting at this point. You want players to play, and you shouldn’t argue with them. Look for their reactions, NOT their solutions. “I don’t like x” is useful, “I don’t like x because of y” is great, and “You should do x” is useless. Trust the player’s gut (intuition) but don’t trust their reasoning as they do NOT have the same mental context you do as the designer.

This is something that chimed with me.
 

lana

Currently On: ?????
aa
Sep 28, 2009
3,075
2,778
So now we know why Flame hates us.
 

owly-oop

im birb
aa
Apr 14, 2009
819
1,215
Yeah, that's what I hate about some mappers. They'll ask "Well how should I fix it" but in reality they should only be asking "Why don't you like it?" and should figure out how to make their map better by themselves.


Pretty much this. Oh, and to be safe, "What do you suggest I change to it" is different and better from "What do I change?"


People need to brainstorm more. Having more ideas the better, because once you think of one idea, more will pop up eventually leading to the double rainbow best solution
 

TheBladeRoden

L420: High Member
Oct 26, 2007
491
168
So basically Valve should pay more attention to the "WTF OMG THIS PATCH SUX" threads and ignore the "My suggestion on how to fix this" threads?
 

Numerous

L4: Comfortable Member
Oct 14, 2009
150
72
So basically Valve should pay more attention to the "WTF OMG THIS PATCH SUX" threads and ignore the "My suggestion on how to fix this" threads?

Actually, I think they should still pay more attention to the "my suggestion" threads, as the "wtf omg this patch sux" is more likely to have QQ without explaining WHY the QQ, and "my suggestion" will have more "I hate this, because of situation X and Y and Z", before going on and listing the potential fixes (which, like mentioned above, don't necesarily need to be considered).

EDIT: I read it, and it basically says "there'll always be QQers', which I've always believed to always be true, given a standard statistically probable audience.
 
Last edited: