Noob traps and why we need to avoid them.

Yeah, right back at you.

I can't speak to that, as I know nothing about it. I was only speaking to the way people were talking in their posts. Specifically I was talking about stuart98's choice of words.

Nothing, when I played first person shooters, had ever frustrated me more than the fact that the only thing viable at high level play was assault rifles and SMGs. Shotguns, LMGs, snipers, explosives, they were simply not consistent enough, and did not have the proper qualities.

In many cases, you have to choose which audience you wish to satisfy, even if the analogy isn't perfect. It's like saying 'you can't have your cake and eat it'.

Saying that someone is wrong is not insulting them. If I had called Scathis an idiot for thinking that his balance direction would work, then that would have been insulting him. Instead I said that what he was doing wouldn't work.

StarCraft manages to do both. So do quite a few other games.

I don't know, but in FPS games, it certainly does not happen where many playstyles and gun choices are not viable at tons. One may make the argument that one ought to pick Protoss at lower levels in StarCraft 2 due to their generally easier learning curve. Also, generally, there is a huge emphasis on 'build orders', with reasonable flexibility in reaction to the other player's actions, StarCraft is very rigid, and the unit selection is more narrow. Balance is easier, but one may not say that certain things such as Battlecruisers or Dark Templars are viable at higher levels at all times.

Maybe its a language thing, since English isn't my first language, but I find your way to express things on the forums in general very bossy, leaving a bad taste so to speak.

You sound like a young enthusiastic person thinking you know everything and your opinion is the only true opinion. Reminds me on when I was young. Just lean back a bit and try to look through other eyes sometimes, it won't do you any bad in the long run.

If your talking to me, im sorry, i probably should have smoked 1 before going here

This is an insidious sort of personal attack. It appears to disparage a person here for the very act of stating an opinion boldly, writing them off as naive and "bossy".

Truly, let us discuss opinions, not personalities here.

So far this thread has discussed strategic traps, but I don't think I've seen anyone (and I could be just missing it) directly address the idea that all three factories should be able to launch a full frontal assault. I know bots don't work as intended, but should an assault force composed of just bots (particularly T1 bots) be able to directly attack the base of someone using vehicles/air. Is that, in fact, a given? Is that generally agreed upon?

I wonder if Scathis would disagree.

Character and personality play into whether one will be able to acknowledge the full measure of logic and reason. Byte's admonition does not seem in tone and word choice to be aggressive, rather, that he is calling Stuart to see this point. Any pride on anyone's part will blind them, even if it is in the most minor detail or an unvirtuous way of thinking. The point of 'not being a jerk' is not disregarding character altogether, but it is to gently point out each others defects that we may better ourselves as a whole. Granted, it could have been worded with even more love on Byte's part.

I was merely stating my opinion on the part that "saying something is wrong is not insulting". That statement is in itself flat out wrong, as the way something is said is likewise important. if i came over to harsh i apologize.

Not to derail the thread, but I feel that byte was (in my esteem, politely) expressing his opinion about the way mot was posting (to which mot responded like a champ -- mad props, mot!). I didn't feel it was a personal attack.

Likewise, I feel byte has a valid point: form can be as important as content when it comes to conveying a message; I think we all have an obligation to say what we have to say as politely and constructively as possible.

Back to the subject of the thread:

Correct me if I'm wrong, I think that "noob traps" actually refers to a choice that, to any experienced player, represents a non-choice.

For example: most experienced players would never build a bot factory first, knowing that bots are poor in combat right now. Though they can supplement vehicles, they can't stand on their own. Consequently, experienced players know that building bots will just set them back a factory.

By contrast, an inexperienced player might say, "Huh. Bots. Let's do that." And they build bots, innocently thinking they will have choices there that can help them win the game without specialized knowledge. The player goes on to lose the game without knowing what they did wrong, because it wasn't made clear to them.

Now, to an extent, this is part of the learning process. In this scenario, the player can think to themselves, "Hm, I wonder why that happened?" They can look at the chrono cam, see how combat fell out, and determine that bots, as the player was using them, don't work. The player can then choose to try different bot compositions, or choose to go vehicles-first.

On the other hand: if high-level players effectively agree that bots are not working as-implemented, then that creates a situation in which new players and veteran players alike may be surprised by the presence of an option that, outside of a miracle, simply doesn't work at any level of play. This suggests three courses of action:

1. Fix bots, so they represent a viable choice
2. Make sure players are aware (via a dialogue box or a verbal warning) that building a bot factory first is not recommended: "WARNING: YOU ARE BUILDING A BOT FACTORY WITHOUT OTHER FACTORIES PRECEDING IT"
   
3. Remove bot factories from consideration, either by moving bots over to a land factory, or by making standard bot factories buildable only by advanced air and vehicle fabbers (thereby preventing inexperienced players from making a mistake and removing clutter from the interface)

Discuss?

Id like to see tanks be as viable as bots, preventing either factory from being solo-able.

Actually, the scathis balance isn't too bad at "noob trapping".

Assuming actual balance, where bots are so fast or durable/damaging enough for their speed/cost that they are balanced with tank/air use, noobs will have a simple thing to learn: bots are fast cheap and weaker, tanks cost more and slower for stronger, air isn't sustainable and fragile but excel in their momentary usage.

Same goes for t1 and t2, t2 gives you more power, t2 presents the risk of being attacked without a developed army. We are already getting there, however I believe the power scale is massive and should be weaker. Weaken t2 units a bit, be alright. They can still even be an upgrade. Noobs expect upgrades by generic rts standards.

Really, I do share Stuart's sentiment for "noob traps" though. I play Faster Than Light. I can't stand how the health bay is powered by start and the engine lack a bar of power by start. You will lose significant battle advantage if you don't know every single game to turn health bay off and increase engine for evasion chance. Turn health bay on even if turning oxygen off momentarily if you need to use it for a moment.

To less of a degree, SMNC. There are a lot of characters that aren't obvious how to use correctly and take a lot of learning and self teaching and research and watching/copying other players you see mid-battle. I was one of those who saw a karl hit me with stun-junior-secondary-grapple/prop and insta-died, and actually learned that it must be easy to do all of that in a row if you land a stun. Watched, mimic'd, profit every time.

Then there is street fighter. Some characters, ken, obvious, most noobs who still enjoy the game after their first online match, they stick with him for some straightforward wins. Other characters, their usage doesn't match obvious standards. Dhalsim is slow in-air, that actually is a benefit to give him a large margin to do a lot of in-air with different timing moves. Blanka has akward indirect normals, you use them for their role and don't just throw them random button. Gen has two movesets and most people mash his fast hard hitting mantis but every one of his crane moves does a special ability, his crouch hard punch super long high damage linger, his medium hits low while gen stands, his hard hits high even though gen stands, his crouching light kick juggles in air, his crouching light and medium punch are kind of slow but hit good range and combo into roll with safe frame advantage, his air dive doesn't have to end in dive and can just move around screen baiting a punish on landing.

PA isn't an obvious game because of streaming economy as is. Increasing storage, decreasing economy production, and artificially limiting unit count, fix that noob trap, but ruin the game fundamentally. Really, the best solution is hoping players learn to play properly, as long as the balance doesn't make it very specific and boring. Like bots not being first-viable.

I would disagree with the assessment that the streaming economy doesn't make PA "obvious." In fact, I would say it is more obvious, more transparent, than most RTS games. For example, PA tells you, to the decimal place, your income rate; with games like Starcraft you must estimate based on number of workers you have.

That said, I have to completely agree with you: hard caps, arbitrary or otherwise, suck. =/

Indeed, it's still very much a game, it's just different when compared to 95% of RTS games out there as althought many games do use elements of Streaming Economy here and there very few do it in a way that has proper "Impact" on the gameplay. for exmaple in DoW(1 for sure, never played/remembered much of 2), while it was true the income was streaming it had a negligible impact on the game because the rest of the system was based on the "traditional" Eco model meaning that the Cap points could have just given X amount of resources as a lump sum at Y interval without having an impact on the rest of the game.

Mike

Rise of nations has a similar stream econ style to DoW as well, albeit with like, 5 or so resources, and caps on max streaming rate that needed to be researched to be raised.

Just to clarify here- Are you saying that you want to nerf tanks so that a mixed force is required?

sure, why not.

That sounds like a good idea, but I would rather that bots be able to fight on their own to a certain degree. Really, it's just a personal preference at this point. At the same time, care must be taken to avoid making the two too similar. I was thinking about having one of them- it's up for grabs which one should be which- be a specialist force and the other generalist.
By specialist, I mean they would have one unit who kicks *** at something (wrecking buildings, smashing heavy units, Etc.) but is absolutely terrible at everything else.
Whaddya think of that?

Have you tried ither Statera or the Realm Community Balance Mod?

If you haven't yet you really should.

Mike