My thoughts about balancing

[.pot.OptimusPrime]

This touches the very depths of XMP´s balancing system. Now many people think the balance should be area based. Snipers dominate outdoors, techs do their noobing pretty much everywhere and gunners keep indoors clear. I think this doesn´t work too well mainly because most maps have extremely wide and flat outdoors and little, if at all closed areas. This has lead to favoring snipers over other classes. Also the concept of sniper as offensive, tech both of & def and gunner as defensive doesn´t really work. In most cases gunner is very bad on defense because it´s so slow and attackers can swiftly flee to safety behind walls.

I think that a better system would give equal opportunities for every class to operate in different environments. This doens´t mean that all classes should be the same, definitely no. It means that with different playing style every class has the chances in every situation. In its best this kind of thinking would increase the variation of gaming in this already complex game. This means that every class should be able to attack against enemies in all distaces.

Discussion plz. Go ahead and flame as§ much as you like if you get your vibes out of it.

 

[Spacelord (GER)]

This means that every class should be able to attack against enemies in all distaces.

Well every class could - exept tech-class
And in UTXMP his abilities in long range combat are just more aweful then in U2Xmp (Range, Duster altern. fire). Think about it !

/loves complaining bout the tech

 

[Stoneblind]

I think inequality and inequal opportunities among the classes is an intentional aspect of game; the classes consist of specialists designed to excel in specific tasks, and the goal of the game requires the specialities of the classes to function together to win; sure, a lot of people will say "The ranger is meant for offense. The tech is meant for midfield. The gunner is meant for defense," but we as human players tend to use things further than its purpose.

Given the specialties of each class, the environment is definitely a deciding factor of which is the "favored" class; a lot of times it maybe seem like the ranger because of the fact that most maps seem to be outdoors with the usual open terrain and lack of indoor environments; think about it; in U2XMP, what was the common characteristic of most of the maps? A red and blue base separated by a larger outdoor terrain. Garden. Lowlands. Alcazar. Xaemia. Emerald. Naularn. Vally of the Apes, Crash Flight, etc. Same thing.

It does not take long for a good ranger to snipe his way through opponents outside and sprint with a dodge boost and scurry his little monkey ass into a poorly defended base and get back outside, and when he does, if he is far enough from opponents, the outdoor environment should lean more in his favor, assuming he has good aim and dodging manuevers. Probably the most common obstacle a good ranger has to face regularly is base defense; if he can smoke through turrets, mines, tripmines, and forcewalls and players in a node room no problem, the rest should be gravy, assuming his team has over 800 energy points and especially if health packs are activated...unless he does not see a hiding autoturret or gets killed by a tech spamming shotgun rounds endlessly from afar and homing rockets, that is.

Anyways, what if that typical map layout was altered? What if vital areas such as energy sources and deploy points were in claustrophobic areas and corridors, and that wide open terrain was reduced and had several places to put turrets, mines, etc? What if simple things, like ceilings, were abnormally lower than usual? Though mappers may not realize it, but they too can affect the way the game is played.

 

[dutch_gecko]

I'd have to disagree with your analysing of the typical class roles Optimus. the gunner can be remarkably useful in an offensive position, whereas the tech is useless at the enemy node. He's best left to hacking things.
Also, the ranger doesn't have to keep running from base to base. A lot of them will simply hang around in midfield, harassing the enemy.
And yes, Stoneblind, you're absolutely spot on as usual

 

[Gumby]

Tech useless at the enemy node my arse

 

[dutch_gecko]

Well, he can turret spam I suppose... I know what you mean, but he tends to feel more out of place there.

 

[.pot.OptimusPrime]

Good points Stoneblind. It´s pity that maps seem to be made with the same pattern all over again. Currently the concept isn´t working because maps aren´t consistent with expected playing style. Bases aren´t closed areas in which defensive gunners would dominate but easy acces open artifact nodes that you can visit for two secs in order to get the toys. The mysterious mid-field is just the same old open area for ultimate sniping orgies though techs do pretty well against rangers unless the distance is too much for shotty. And the rangers part: run across the map in ten seconds and shoot everything you see. Don´t bother supporting your mates and go with them when you attack because you´re the hero of the game!
Either maps or playing style has to change and I don´t think it´s hard to guess which one the old farts would like to decide... So here comes a challenge for the mappers. Do some maps that really support the so called perfect balance that XMP has!

(These were rough stereotypes but sometimes way too descriptive.)

 

[Loqa]

I think the solution to the classes (in)balance and the maps being more or less of the same is fairly simple. Teamwork. In my experience the moment a game starts getting an actual game is when there is a solid defence that requires more than just a smoke grenade to take an arti. Which requires a solid midfield to control some energy and deploypoints.
When it starts getting important which deploys are yours and it is difficult to get them back that's when you start playing XMP instead of CTF.
Without balanced teamwork it is very easy for any map to become an artifact grabfest where, like on RGB, the only thing that decides the game is skilled Rangers.