slayaDmoney said:
If the noobs have no skill, why do they win?
The issue is that some games have weapons, and consequently tactics, which are imbalanced in a way that makes it a very uphill battle to overcome them. This is pretty clearly illustrated in betas or games early in release, like Dawn of War 2 was recently. As the game was patched for balance, large segments of the player community seesawed between the race and strategy du jour in order to exploit issues with balance. It seemed that every other head to head game was, after the first patch, a fight against Howling Banshees(which were middle-priced units inordinately effective against most infantry and all vehicles) and Suppression Platforms under a Warp Spider Exarch, and after the next patch a huge number of players switched to the Tyranids' Hive Tyrant with the Venom Cannon upgrade(which can only be described as broken).
It's not that these tactics were unbeatable, indeed, they seemed rare among high-level players, but dealing with them required an inordinate amount of skill, micromanagement, or resources due to a paucity of truly effective counters. Though it's frustrating to deal with imbalances like that, the real nuisance is that it makes games less interesting. If a game begins to boil down to who can most effectively execute an overpowered strategy, it becomes a technical exercise which plays out with a disturbing similarity game after game. The supremacy of a few options marginalizes others, which in turn makes them a very rare sight and reduces the game's variety. A game in which half the options aren't viable except as novelties feels in many ways like half of a game.
The riposte that a truly skilled player could counter by exploiting the limited weaknesses(if any) of an imbalanced weapon or tactic is undermined by the fact that games are designed primarily to amuse. If an aspect of a game is really reducing the fun for many players, it's part of the
developer's job to take that into account in future patches and releases.
It's my experience that most high-profile, popular multiplayer titles are quite balanced by the time they ship, and the ones with enduring communities probably represent the better-balanced of these titles (Relic's famously awful balance notwithstanding). My gut feeling is that the standards for balance on consoles, especially before Live, were looser, though this may stem from the particular multiplatform games I've played. I don't have an xBox, so my only experiences with Halo have been in the homes of friends, where concern over balance goes out the window to the amusement of chasing each other with flamers and jumping Mongeese.
PS my post is completely invalidated by timesplitters 2 which has absolutely no semblance of balance and is a blast but don't point that out to anyone
