New vs. Old, Beta vs. Not
 

Having read the latest crop of balance concern threads, I've noticed a couple of common strands that seem to run throughout them that I feel are in error.

First, someone said that 'old' players don't consider how 'new' players play, and that they should look at it 'from the new player's POV'. That's rather funny, and quite democratic, but rather hypocritically amusing to me.

See, the problem here is that everyone assumes they're equal. Unfortunately, they're not. 'Old'/'Good'/'Experienced' players know what's it like to be a 'New'/'Bad'/'Raw' player; they were once one themselves, after all. However, the 'New' player really can't say what it's like to be an 'Old' player, because they haven't gotten there yet. Therefore, the 'Old' player should receive more respect and should be listened to more than the 'New' player where issues of game balance are concerned. Or, IOW, the 'Old' players are much more aware of what's best for the game, because they can see the game from both the 'Old' Player's POV and the 'New' Player's POV. This is something that 'New' Players cannot duplicate.

Intertwined with this is the similar issue of all of the hate being directed towards the Beta testers of this game, who are generally the 'Old' players. As a former playtester for two different CCG companies, I can explain something about 'playtesting'/'betatesting'.

It's a thankless job. No one likes the playtester. Much as has happened here, they get blamed for everything that goes wrong with the game for no good reason. They _test_ the game, they don't _make_ the game. The extent of a tester's influence over the game is finding problems with the game. _It is not their duty to fix the problems._ Whether or not the testers are allowed to suggest solutions for the problems is a company-by-company policy, but it's generally not the case. Even if it is, the designers of the game are under no obligation, real or imagined, to use solutions suggested by their testers.

Looking at the latest issues to come up from a tester's perspective, it's entirely possible that playtesters found what they thought was a problem (say, the VQ), told the Designers that it was a problem, and the Designers disagreed. That is the Designers' perogative. Something I must give IW mad props for is the fact that they publicly came out and said this. Some of the companies I have worked for were only too happy to implicitly leave their testers twisting in the wind.

Now, please, everyone should really calm down and let things subside. Attacking the older players and the beta testers simply for the fact that they are more experienced doesn't help the situation, and hurts the game in general. A lot of the older players can come off as sensitive if not downright antisocial. One of the most common reasons for this is that they are tired of constantly reiterating their arguments, _knowing_ how people will respond. The Last thing anyone wants to see happen is the older players packing up and leaving because the newer players basically made the work not worth the reward.

Anyway, that's my plea. I hope at least a few people listen.

Scott Hebert
'New' Player

Re: New vs. Old, Beta vs. Not
 

I just wanted to point out that the beta testers active in this forum are not for the most part the beta testers that are responsible for the balancing of the game as it stands. Zen, Jasper and Något have not beeen beta testers for more than a month or two, Daynarr, Psitticine and the Shrapnel betas were brought in when the game was essentially finished. So many of the snipes directed are the beta are entirely unfounded. Most of the long time beta testers go back to dom 1, are swedish and never post here. But most of the balance input has not been from beta but from some 6 years with playing dom 1 and dom2 from illwinter itself.

edited for grammar spelling etc

[ May 05, 2004, 13:14: Message edited by: johan osterman ]

Re: New vs. Old, Beta vs. Not
 

Well I want to point out something you seems to implicit and I dont agree with.

You say that :

'Old'/'Good'/'Experienced' players know what's it like to be a 'New'/'Bad'/'Raw' player

So apparently you say that an old player is also a good and experienced one and a new player is obviously a bad and raw...

Seems more right to say that there is

Old players and New players.
Good players and Bad players.
Experienced and Raw players.

Old players are usually Experienced players, but that doesn't make them automatically Good. Some Old players are still Raw ( lack of playing ) and even Bad.

New players tend to be Raw, and this affect their gameplay wich tend to be Bad. But some New player learn fast ( forums ) and play a lot wich build them Experience ( developped by years of practicing similars games ) and make them Good players.

You start to see my point ?

Problem seems that people keep using Old/Betas as an adjective opposite to News/Newbies. They uses thoses as taunt and equivalent to play quality or game knowledge ( "Stupid Newbie" ).

I guess we can go a long way toward correctness and mutual comprehension if we all make effort to try to use the Right adjectives for the Right people toward their Right capability.

Re: New vs. Old, Beta vs. Not
 

There are excellent new players. The problem is that the game is very deep, and the balance is not the type of balance people expect from other games. It is not a "chessboard" balance which many games use where the pieces are all equal but slight variations in color. it is not a player-vs-player balance where each nation is expected to have equality with every other nation.

Its a world balance where something can seem way out of balance but as long as there is a counter tactic somewhere then its not considered broken.

Im not talking about the clams or the Vampire Queen discussions specifically (the devs are already showing an interest there if the excited people in those conversations dont piss them off). But this is about new players vs old players. We often hear the new players tell us how broken things are.

There are some great new players. There are new players who can beat me in the game. Most especially new players for very useful for exploring new areas and finding new twists. But dont be surprised that if they explore old territory and declare it broke, that the reaction they get is "play some more"

Re: New vs. Old, Beta vs. Not
 

Actually, I never intended to say that newer players are necessarily any less skilled than older players. If you thought that, I apologize.

What I wanted to make clear (and obviously didn't) is that those words _are_ being used synonymously in most threads. And there is a grain of truth to it. With age comes experience, and there really is no substitute for it.

Anyway, I am sorry to have confused everyone. I thought the quote marks would have been sufficient.

Re: New vs. Old, Beta vs. Not
 

Instead of bashing/chastizing all "new" players or all "old" players in a thread, I'ld rather PM the one I have a disagreement with, lay down some basic rules of conduct and then continue the discussion in a civil way in a thread of my liking. "New" players have every right to question the ballance of a game unknown to them. "Old" players have every right too inform the "new" players how or if they are mistaken.

The discussions here are the main reason I come to this board. I think everybody has seen forums with much worse behavior.

Reminds me of Axis and Allies. Some think the technological research (superweapons etc.) is unballancing, others say it belongs to the game. Now those who don't like it, play without it. Same can be done in dom2 via modding the VQ [just as an example]. But if you stumble across somebody who wants to play with the rules as they are in the game, you have to either compromise or find a new oponent.

On a side note: happy cinco de mayo (5th may)to all mexicans out there.