#BAR needs to have a higher bar (literally)

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

frank rampart
#

There has been a noticeable rise in the level of conversation, particularly in internal threads around unit redesigns lately.

Buffing advanced solar, building titans with new t3 cons, making bedbugs t1 units, making turtles the primary t2 arm tank, decreasing stout/brute speed while buffing thug/mace speed. These are a handful of examples, but many many more exist.

These ideas have very-low individual merit and come from the desire of an extremely small minority of Contributors to redesign the game.

What is troubling is that these same Contributors with little to no game design experience are inserting themselves into internal balance conversations in an increasingly loud manner.

This is a public call in defense of the game we love, kindly asking that the Founders take steps to remove the offending Contributors from internal game discussion threads.

Thank you

#

@paper orchid sorry for the ping but this message is directed above all towards you

gentle minnow
#

Anyone can present ideas, not everyone can implement them, and fewer have the authority to approve of them. You don't exclusively have the right to determine what ideas are valuable and what aren't, which contributors bring value and which don't. This isn't really a helpful suggestion, this is just veiled criticism towards certain developers (I don't even know who), with whom I'd rather you just discuss with directly than use the suggestions forum as your soapbox.

@honest karma please close the thread at your discretion, I don't believe it follows the guidelines for the forum, but you know better than I do

frank rampart
#

Taking all criticism as being against guideline is extremely toxic, the important part of this message is that there needs to be a higher BAR for who gets to make internal suggestions

split hull
# gentle minnow Anyone can present ideas, not everyone can implement them, and fewer have the au...

Why should this thread be closed without discussion? It's a valid topic. The way people can become contributors for some random work and then immediately insert themselves into balance discussions and gain significant power for change because no one has the power or the willingness to tell them to stop is a very big point of friction and it's worth discussing. We both know of some cases where this has happened and I think we agree that it was a problem. It's healthy for the broader community to make their voices heard in the topic, especially if they see changes in a direction they don't like.

Several of the proposed changes mentioned in the OP are being implemented into main-release balance changes right now, so it's especially relevant.

gentle minnow
#

I believe this post falls foul of the first 2 rules for posting suggestions in this forum as posted and pinned by Seth that being:

  1. Don't shame others over disagreements
  2. Don't post slop

The point of this post is not to discuss particular balance changes, but who is suggesting them, and calling for their removal from the dev team. This kind of "suggestion" is just malicious, it does not intend to talk about the value or lack there off of a balance consideration or concept, or game design issue, but is solely made to attack those whose suggestions the OP finds undesirable in their opinion.

split hull
#

Where is anyone being shamed? Where is the slop? The op is very clear and also doesn't name names, it invites discussion about how people get involved in balance and what kind of baseline experience should be expected for someone to be involved in that space. We expect people contributing code and art to meet high standards, but for some reason we don't do that with balance and it's worth discussing why, and how that could change.

abstract island
#

Regardless of how OP worded it, there is a real point/concern to be had

#

maybe someone can narrow it down

frank rampart
#

There could be a valid argument towards maliciousness if anyone was named.

There could be a valid argument this is slop if it was, well sloppy.

It’s neither of those things.

But more to the point there needs to be a higher bar for the internal contributions towards game balance discussions.

gentle minnow
#

I don't think our structure and decision making process when it comes to balance is so weak that those who aren't exactly paragons of balance considerations or really, even that good at the game, can singlehandedly change the entire direction of the game itself.

I don't stay 1000% on top of every balance discussion or proposal happening internally as I know my limits: I'm not exactly a pro at the game and there's many things I still have to learn, so partaking in those discussions imo muddies the water for others, but the river is not so fragile that even if others drop some mud into it, it'll become a total mudslide.

I find that there is reasonable pushback on those who excitedly propose changes whose actualisation is probably not gonna be a good idea, from the discussions that I have peeked into, but perhaps I just haven't seen instances where this isn't the case.

At any rate, the balance propositions themselves should be considered more than who is making them: ultimately the who doesn't matter if the what isn't very high quality, the pool of suggestions will correct themselves.

If there is an issue with people constantly injecting themselves into discussions where they aren't contributing much, then that situation should be discussed with those individuals privately, instead of demanding their removal front the dev team. We're all here for a reason, even if some of us should stay in their lane, it doesn't mean if they can't we kick them out of the car. Personal attacks like that are just unhelpful and unprofessional, and we shouldn't entertain it from anyone, no matter who they are.

abstract island
#

i mean your opinion that someone should be removed is just your opinion as long as you don't go disrupting chat everywhere

frank rampart
abstract island
#
  1. Balance and especially design decisons happen behind closed doors. For some good reasons and some less good reasons. Players in general don't have much say.
  2. People with internal privileges starts working very hard to redesign the game, beyond their apparent experience and what they can show with evidence will improve the game. Hardcore players don't know how decisons are made internally or the internal discourse, so this is worrying to them.
gentle minnow
split hull
# gentle minnow I don't think our structure and decision making process when it comes to balance...

If there is an issue with people constantly injecting themselves into discussions where they aren't contributing much, then that situation should be discussed with those individuals privately, instead of demanding their removal front the dev team.
This is inviting a drama bomb for no gain.

The art department which you are involved in wisely has secluded much of its work from public view so that people with no clue don't throw a wrench into things and slow things down with pointless opinions and lazy contributions. For some reason, the bar for being involved in balance discussions is.... Literally just get contributor role for any reason, and immediately be able to be involved in everything. Balance is the most complex part of the game without a doubt, and it's also the part of the game where getting experience externally is the hardest. The bar should be very high, especially considering the state of player sentiment towards balance changes. The changes are not in directions people like, and everyone who is at a certain skill level is either annoyed or quitting because of the dire state of balance. Higher standards are needed, and people who are involved in balance that either don't play the game at a high level (or don't play it at all, as the case may be) should be removed from balance discussions.

abstract island
#

A lot of the proposed changes are more like design changes than balance changes, which are many times more complicated

gentle minnow
# split hull > If there is an issue with people constantly injecting themselves into discussi...

I see your point now, but I also don't have any balance related roles, so I wonder if there are some more enclosed, focused discussion groups that we're not privy to.

Generally, I like BAR because it's BAR, and I wouldn't want it to turn it into another game, I try to remind folks when they get too off the rails in those balance threads, so I think we're on the same page on that aspect at least, I just don't want this partitioning of roles to be borne out of personal dislike of those proposing some of the more extreme changes.

frank rampart
#

If you repeatedly make abjectly bad balance suggestions, people will form a poor opinion of your balancing skill level - no two ways about that

abstract island
#

It's easy to form a preference to "I think the game should play like this", it's VERY hard to understand the root of BAR's current design problems, the good parts of what currently exists, and understand the implications of certain changes on gameplay. Opinionated game design is unavoidable and even necessary, but really we want someone experienced and careful. There are lots of examples of games gone bad because of changes that don't match what the players like about the game or didn't understand the implications of said changes.

Worth mentioning that most people play BAR casually so understanding what they enjoy is pretty important too.

#

Example of game design topics in BAR:
-Designing entire theaters (e.g. navy rework, beyond just rebalancing)
-Unit interactions and designing counterplay
-Issue of unit variety in 1v1 (technically you could solve this problem by making 1v1 maps less open and smaller)
-Pacing of bar games
-Resource pooling / Coop
-How tech progression works and the relative costs of getting access to those units

bronze dove
bronze dove
paper orchid
#

The people who the balance team listens to is a decision of the balance team. If they decide someone is being counterproductive or unhelpful in the internal forums they are free to let me know about that. So far there has been no such need. We have asked the contributors which are not part of the design or balance team to go through the public suggestions forum with their ideas like everyone else some time ago already.

storm dock
# paper orchid The people who the balance team listens to is a decision of the balance team. If...

That is great and it is exactly how it should go in my opinion as well - everyone can share their opinions on the public forums whether they are a contributor or not.

However, we can't deny that certain contributors who got their green name through work that had nothing to do with game design or balance have been using that title to justify being involved in EVERY single public balance conversation and have managed to insert themselves into a direct consultant role on the Tech-Split project (the largest BAR redesign in history).

We are talking about direct involvement here, pitching ideas on private channels directly to Raghna (the project lead) and discussing stuff like which unit goes in which lab, which units should have which roles and pitching complete redesigns of existing units and economical buildings.

Here are some quotes made by the people I am referring to:

"Yeah, I proposed that [t2 jammer bots and vehs to be moved to T3] today. It was received well since it reduces the invulnerable cheat for T2 skirmishers, like the Sheldon. "

"As far as I am concerned med tanks are a problem because they are like 3 roles. Health and OK damage makes them Assault units, speed makes them raiders and range makes them skirmishers."

"I don't see why regular cons couldn't make some mines. Minelayers could still be a useful utility unit."

These are the only quotes that make sense out of context but if you catch-up to the Tech-Split thread, it immediately becomes obvious that the 2 most active contributors (the ones in direct involvement) are not high-skill players and don't understand the dynamics of the current game at all.

During the public balance meeting that Blodir organized last week, one of these players jumped into the middle of the meeting and immediately started giving their opinions on balance without any context, knowledge or experience to back up their claims and every other notable balance person started leaving the channel one-by-one.

#

These are the in-game profiles of people directly involved in consulting for the largest BAR redesign ever performed. I am sure they are talented contributors in all the other work they do and I fully appreciate their help for making BAR a better game but looking at this does not make me hopeful about the decision-making behind the game at all.

I love BAR and want it to be the best game ever

image.png image.png
paper orchid
#

Again it's up to Raghna who he listens to. I trust his judgment regarding vetting these ideas, otherwise he would not be a member of the design team.

#

I will look into the voice chat situation, I unfortunately wasn't able to attend that meeting.

honest karma
#

My read on internal discussions is that contributors are expected to uphold a higher standard of civility. It doesn't always happen, but you don't see nearly as much of the disruptive behavior as what you might find in suggestions.
It's just a numbers game. Suggestions is more accessible to the general population and you'll get some bad actors in that mix.
Sometimes people get carried away or get mad or silly stuff internally too. Human nature.

The higher level of mutual respect exhibited internally makes those internal discussion threads more focused and concise. The game specific knowledge of the participants often makes them better at discovering the more nuanced aspects of changes mostly on a technical level.
But even if it's just a bad take, it is presented in a constructive format. Access to those forums is a earned privilege.

Then there are the people making up the decision-making committees. From what I've seen, they peruse meta discussions and suggestions especially the concise and constructive threads. They listen and consider the points brought up internally as well but ultimately every one of them is just as heavily opinionated as anyone here.

"So what?"
Just because somebody is Team Green doesn't mean their opinion is respected. From what I've seen, it barely registers. What it does do is spread awareness.

I was present for the balance team's last meeting. I understand the concern. I joined it early. Rest assured the majority of the meeting happened before the general public found out and joined in.

honest karma
honest karma