It is interesting how both Dota and CS started as weird mods that people played casually and only got competitive and tightly balanced later on. Definitely seems like a game evolving into "competitive mode" is just the next stage after you've made a game that people want to keep playing and get better at. It's also interesting how TF2's design couldn't scale into becoming competitive without fundamental changes to how the game worked.
Balance changes in AS:RD are mostly geared around specific damage thresholds. Changing a weapon to make it so a specific character can kill a specific enemy on a specific difficulty within a specific number of connected shots. More recently we tried making some changes to friendly fire with the flamethrower to try to teach players about the extinguisher sooner, and that's had... mixed success. It gets a lot harder when you're not changing balance for a specific concrete goal but rather for a more abstract community-based goal.
Makes me think of Rainbow 6 which seems to be the only on-going succesful Ubisoft game right now, and it's because the skill ceiling is high and rewarding to learn (and people stick around, even casual with a console where there's no aim assist).
You did exactly what people wanted with that approach. The introduction to 5v5 matchmaking with the whole rating system was exactly what most cs fans wanted. I really wish valve would say "screw the profits!" and release competitive matchmaking to CS source lmao, but I get why that would not be in the best interest for the growth of cs2 and the market. It would be fun tho
Obligatory, well what about TF2? How did valve think about the different class roles and adding weapon loadouts that radically changed those roles? If you were a party to them Sort of a related question: in TF2, there are a bunch of voice lines in the game about needing to "get on the point" even if you have captured it. Whats been tested over time is that simply standing on the point isnt the optimal position, instead controlling general areas (chokepoints, entrances, etc) and maintaining area denial is. My question is, how would you rewrite these (or any i guess) VA lines to not presume game strategies in a MP setting
I always saw Counter-Strike as a competitive game that can be played casually, while TF2 is a casual game that can be played competitively.
You dont have to make it balanced for casual audiences, you just have to make it fun. Giant difference there
It is interesting how both Dota and CS started as weird mods that people played casually and only got competitive and tightly balanced later on. Definitely seems like a game evolving into "competitive mode" is just the next stage after you've made a game that people want to keep playing and get better at.
It's also interesting how TF2's design couldn't scale into becoming competitive without fundamental changes to how the game worked.
Balance changes in AS:RD are mostly geared around specific damage thresholds. Changing a weapon to make it so a specific character can kill a specific enemy on a specific difficulty within a specific number of connected shots.
More recently we tried making some changes to friendly fire with the flamethrower to try to teach players about the extinguisher sooner, and that's had... mixed success. It gets a lot harder when you're not changing balance for a specific concrete goal but rather for a more abstract community-based goal.
Makes me think of Rainbow 6 which seems to be the only on-going succesful Ubisoft game right now, and it's because the skill ceiling is high and rewarding to learn (and people stick around, even casual with a console where there's no aim assist).
You did exactly what people wanted with that approach. The introduction to 5v5 matchmaking with the whole rating system was exactly what most cs fans wanted. I really wish valve would say "screw the profits!" and release competitive matchmaking to CS source lmao, but I get why that would not be in the best interest for the growth of cs2 and the market. It would be fun tho
MAKE CS GREAT AGAIN
Obligatory, well what about TF2? How did valve think about the different class roles and adding weapon loadouts that radically changed those roles? If you were a party to them
Sort of a related question: in TF2, there are a bunch of voice lines in the game about needing to "get on the point" even if you have captured it. Whats been tested over time is that simply standing on the point isnt the optimal position, instead controlling general areas (chokepoints, entrances, etc) and maintaining area denial is. My question is, how would you rewrite these (or any i guess) VA lines to not presume game strategies in a MP setting