Difference between revisions of "Mission balance"

From FreeSpace Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Tips for mission balancing moved to Mission balance: Since it's in the 'FRED Tips' category, it is redundant to have the 'Tips for' in the article title)
(Undo revision 38736 by Hired (Talk))
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Several FreeSpace missions suffer from '''bad mission balance'''. By a mission being "badly balanced," we usually mean that a mission is on the either extreme of the difficulty spectrum. It is either too hard or too easy.
+
Several FreeSpace missions suffer from '''bad mission balance'''. A poorly balanced mission stands on one extreme of the difficulty spectrum or the other, rather than at a comfortable and challenging midpoint.
  
Too hard missions typically come about by very skilled players who match a mission's difficulty to their abilities. These missions are too hard for mediocre players. It is also possible that the FREDder makes a mission and tests it all along with one strategy. Players who take a different approach to the mission will encounter unexpected difficulties. This is bad for the mission designer, too, because it becomes clear that only one "approach" to the mission is tested.
+
Missions that are too difficult typically come about when very skilled players match a mission's difficulty to their abilities. These missions are too hard for most other players, who lack the gameplay experience of the mission designer. It is also possible that the FREDder makes a mission and tests it using solely one strategy. Players who take a different approach to the mission will encounter unanticipated difficulties. This reflects poorly upon the mission designer because the use of a single-strategy testing scheme will be apparent to other players.
  
Too easy missions require at most a minimal amount of effort from the player to be successfully completed. A good example for this is "[[Surrender, Belisarius!]]," the first mission of the FreeSpace 2 main campaign. Even if the player's dogfighting abilities are limited, the mission will be successful. This is an adequate approach, given the fact that this is the first mission of the campaign. However, the first mission ("[[Eve of Destruction]]") in FreeSpace 1 is a worse example of an "easy mission." As a commentator noted, it is not necessary for the player to intervene at all. "Surrender, Belisarius" can be lost if the player does not intervene on any level.
+
Opposite the missions that are too challenging are missions that require nearly no effort from the player to successfully complete. Such missions typically include a hostile force that is woefully outnumbered and/or outgunned by friendlies and therefore present a minimal threat, allowing the player to heedlessly dash through the mission objectives or even fly away, while the friendly force is left to complete the mission itself.
  
Granting the "right" balance to a mission requires time, patience, circumspection, and enthusiasm. Make the mission (very) easy at first. Mission balancing is something you don't have to worry about until your mission is whole. Make sure all your messages show up, debriefings appear over the condition they are expected, nobody can cross your calculations by ordering transports and cruisers around etc. It is easier to reach the end of an easy mission than an unbearably hard one. Sometimes the thing you want to test is at the end of the mission and you simply cannot reach the end if your mission is very hard. It is the end product that should work fine. Do mission balancing only after all the other parts of the mission are satisfactory.
+
Achieving balance in a mission (that is, challenging the player, without frustrating him/her) requires time, patience, circumspection, and enthusiasm. Make the mission very easy at first. Mission balancing is something you don't have to worry about until your mission is whole. Address technical concerns, such as messages, scripting, and the arrival, departure, and movements of major units, before dealing with balance. It is much less exhausting to repeatedly test an easy mission than an unbearably hard one. Testing events and scripting at the end of a mission can be impossible, if completing the mission objectives is initially too difficult. The mission, in its final state, must be appropriately balanced, but the technical aspects must function as expected as well, so initially creating a very easy mission separates the challenges of building a technically-correct and a well-balanced mission into two manageable components.
  
 
==Hints==
 
==Hints==
 
===Human factor===
 
===Human factor===
A mission designer must know how his flying skills compare to that of an "average FreeSpace player." What is just fine for a renowned PXO veteran will be overwhelming for an average player. While it is possible to lower the difficult level, a mission that can only be completed on Very Easy by an average player is badly balanced. It helps if a mission designer tests and optimizes the mission on the setting he is used to playing on. That difficulty setting will enable him to draw comparisons more easily than on other difficulty levels.
+
A mission designer must know how his flying skills compare to that of "the average FreeSpace player." What is appropriately challenging for a long-time multiplayer veteran will be overwhelming for other players. While it is possible for players to lower the difficulty level, they should not be expected to do so for specific missions.  If a player must adjust the difficulty level for particular missions, whether it is upward to generate a challenge or downward to mitigate frustration, then those missions are poorly balanced. Finding balance can be easier for a mission designer when testing and optimizing the mission on the setting at which he/she normally plays. That difficulty setting will enable easier assessment of the mission's level of challenge versus other missions the designer has played.
  
Preferences between any two players is to be taken into account. It is possible for a player to be "simply better" than another one, but it is also possible for a player to be "better in a given role" than the other. A player who prefers pure firepower ([[GTF Hercules Mark II|GTF ''Hercules Mark II'']], [[GTF Erinyes|GTF ''Erinyes'']]) will give such craft to his players. A mission that involves some intense dogfighting may be easy for someone who has gotten used to the Erinyes, but one who prefers pure interceptors in this role will find dogfighting rather difficult. Unless the story (Scramble mission, supply shortages) demands, it is advised to give the player a wider range of ship and weapon selection than the mission designer would normally see fit.
+
Differences between the preferences of any two players must also be taken into account. It is possible for a player to be more skilled overall than another, but it is also possible for a player to be better '''in a given role''' than the other. A designer who prefers utilizing heavy assault fighters, armed with long-range missiles, may provide such craft as the [[GTF Hercules Mark II|GTF ''Hercules II'']] or the [[GTF Ares|GTF ''Ares'']] in his mission to the exclusion of others. Since those playing the mission may be better suited to close-range dogfighting, in more nimble craft, a limited selection, including only these heavier craft will be more challenging and potentially more frustrating. Unless the story demands limited variety (such as in a scramble mission or in a mission set during a supply shortage), providing the player a wider range of ships and weapons can aid mission balance.
  
The first-time player has a major disadvantage compared to the mission designer. The first-time player will not know if he is supposed to win or lose the mission, when and from which direction hostiles arrive, etc. In other words, the player will lack certain information that the mission creator has always had. The mission designer must pretend to the first timer for best effect. That means that even though the mission designer knows that a Moloch can be destroyed by destroying its Reactor subsystem, the player will not unless properly informed. Confusing—or contradictory—briefing stages will make the mission harder, because a player must base his actions on what he has been told. If the player is supposed to lose the mission, like in FreeSpace 2's "[[The Great Hunt (FS2)|The Great Hunt]]," make it explicit that he should not keep fighting. A [[Return to base directive]] will do that, so will seeing the ''Ravana'' foil the mission five seconds after it jumped in.
+
The first-time player has a major disadvantage compared to the mission designer, in that the designer has intimate knowledge of the intended course of the mission that the player will lack. The mission designer must carefully consider what information will be available to the player, or a mission that the designer considers simple may actually be quite difficult for players to complete. For example, a mission designer knows that the [[SCv Moloch|Moloch]] in his mission is scripted to self-destruct when the reactor subsystem is destroyed, but the player will not and may try a conventional assault, unless the reactor vulnerability is mentioned in the briefing or a message. Confusing—or contradictory—briefing stages will make any mission harder, because a player must base his actions on what he has been told.
  
Optionally, it also helps a lot to have another tester around, preferably one whose FS skill level is different than the mission designer's.
+
If the player is supposed to lose the mission, such as [[The Great Hunt (FS2)|''The Great Hunt'']], in the main FreeSpace 2 campaign, state explicitly when the player's involvement in the fight is over.  A [[return to base directive]] will do that, as will messages from Command and the player's wingmen.  Don't assume that an insurmountable challenge alone is enough to stop a player from thinking he/she must overcome the odds.  A player may become disgruntled and quit, assuming the mission was poorly designed, if there is not any dialogue to indicate that failure was the only possible outcome.
 +
 
 +
Additional people testing prerelease versions of the mission can be a great asset as well, since they can provide the perspective of both a first-time player and a player at a different skill level than the mission's designer.
  
 
===FRED-related===
 
===FRED-related===
Here are some general tips for altering mission difficulty in FRED. The more of these you apply between two test runs the more radically difficulty will change. It is not recommended to do all these tricks all at once or work with intense values between two test runs. If mission difficulty is altered unfavorably between such two test runs, it may not always be evident which change caused that.
+
Below are some general tips for altering mission difficulty in FRED.
 +
 
 +
*The most general hint is to test your mission every time you modify something gameplay-related in it. While spell-checking has no impact on how the mission is played, changing the position of a capital ship does.  By placing, for example, an [[GTD Orion|Orion]] 500 meters closer to its target, it may be able to fire a different set of turrets at the target from a different angle, and depending on its orders, its AI may behave differently.
 +
 
 +
*Remember that the more you change between testing runs, the more radically difficulty will change. If the difficulty level of your mission only needs a slight adjustment, making many changes between testing sessions may be overcompensating and carries the risk of imbalancing a mission in the opposite manner it had been before.  (i.e. An easy mission may become too difficult, and a difficult mission may become too easy.)
 +
 
 +
*Adding more enemy/friendly fighters or increasing the number of enemy/friendly wings can have undesirable consequences.  Add more units, only if a given side has a significantly higher chance of winning.  If this chance is relatively small, this step can suddenly make the mission turn to the other side's favor.
 +
 
 +
*The AI uses certain weapons, such as the [[GTM Tornado|Tornado]] quite effectively.  This can make a seemingly subtle change of ordnance create a drastic change in gameplay.  For example, a wing of fighters with [[GTW Subach HL-7|Subach HL-7's]] and [[GTM Harpoon|Harpoon missiles]] may be an appropriate threat to a transport the player must escort, but the same wing with Tornado missiles in place of Harpoons will devastate the transport before the player can respond.
 +
 
 +
*Not only can you adjust the length of a mission by adjusting the arrival delays between new wings and waves in each wing, but you can normalize the number of fighters the player must defend against at any one time.
 +
 
 +
*Removing or changing the weapons on capital ships has a significant effect on balance.  Consider the [[GTC Aeolus|Aeolus]]:  It is much easier to attack (and more difficult to defend) if a mission designer reduces the number of [[Standard Flak|flak turrets]] in favor of [[Terran Turret|laser turrets]].  The principle applies to other anti-fighter and anti-warship defenses as well.  Again, this can have a significant effect on mission balance, if undertaken with a heavy hand.  Consider carefully where a capital ship needs more or less defense and alter a few turrets in that area.
 +
 
 +
*The importance of distance is most apparent at escort missions:  The player stands a better chance of defending something if the attacking force arrives farther from its target than if it arrives within firing range.  Many bombers, for example, arriving too close to their target can render that target impossible to defend, but if those same bombers are set to arrive several kilometers further away, they may be too easily intercepted to pose a threat.
 +
 
 +
*AI skill levels provide a subtle means of affecting mission balance by improving (or diminishing, at lower levels) a given fighter or turret's accuracy and handling characteristics.
 +
 
 +
*Scripted events offer a powerful means of adjusting mission balance because of the wide range of options available to the mission designer.  Take care when scripting events for the purpose of mission balance, though.  Some events (such as repairing damaged wingmen at an opportune moment) are more subtle than others (such as applying a protect-ship event to Alpha 1, which will allow fighters and turrets to follow and track but, not fire upon, the player).
  
*The most general hint is to test your mission every time you modify something gameplay-related in it. While spellchecking has no impact on how the mission is played, changing the position of a capital ship does. By placing, for example, an [[GTD Orion|Orion class]] 500 meters closer to its target, it will be able to fire a different set of turrets at it from a different angle, and will behave differently.
+
*Remember to update the orders of fighter and bomber wings throughout the mission. Wings that accomplish their standing objectives, without being given new orders, will loiter and may no longer play a major role in the mission, without prodding from the player. Remember that some players manage their wingmen more than others, so it is important that even friendly wings have some kind of goals set after their initial task is complete.
*Adding more enemy/friendly fighters or increasing the number of enemy/friendly wings can easily result in unwanted results. Do this if a given side has a significantly higher chance of winning. If the difference is relatively slight, this step can suddenly make the mission turn to the other side's favor. Do this only when one of the sides has a significant advantage.
 
*Changing weapons on fighters. The AI uses the Tornado quite well; this can also be good or bad. Bear this in mind. Make sure the fighters are compatible with the weapons you want to give them.
 
*Wing arrival delay: Not only can you make your mission longer/shorter by changing the arrival delays, but you can normalize the number of fighters the player and his/her wingmen are going against, too.
 
*Changing weapons on capital ships or transports. Removing or changing the warheads on capital ships means a lot. Take the Lilith, for example. It is much easier to attack if it does not have warheads. You can also do the same with flaks or anti-fighter beams. Do not remove or change a significant amount of weapons, modify a few of them and test. Be patient, because exagerating the modifications can end up with something nasty.
 
*Distances: Its importance is most apparent at escort missions: you stand better chance of defending something if the enemy bombers do not arrive right in front of your defendant. However, enemy bombers can be well-armed and they may outnumber the defenders, but if you place too far away from the target you have to defend, the mission becomes too easy.
 
*AI skill. Has little importance at attacking capital ships, but you can balance some fighters vs. fighters parts by cleverly using the Ai skill. This option does not have any effect on turrets, it only sets how effectively the Ai uses its primary weapons or evades missiles and any incoming threats. You must change the AI of a turret individually in the Weapons Editor. The higher the AI level the better the rate of fire and accuracy in the case of laser turrets and flak guns..
 
*To achieve better wingmen, you can play around with Events. Try making an Event that does the following: When Alpha 2's hull drops below 50%, recharge its shields and repair its hull. Do the same for Alpha 3, 4, and other wingmen.  I personally do not suggest you do this, only when you know nothing better to lengthen the life of your wingmen. You can also make events which gradually regenerate your wingmen's health. For example by 5% every second. Make sure that no regeneration will be done after your wingman in question's hull drops below 50%. People will notice when your wingman's turns gray from red (Wingmen Window, upper-right corner of HUD).
 
*AI orders. Friendly and hostile wings can also benefit from their AI orders. Wingmen who don't have orders will only keep flying around and let themselves killed until they are given some orders. Even then, if something unexpected happens, they will still follow their orders that might cause their doom. The FREDder who knows when and what will happen in the mission must also prepare the AI players for that by giving them orders, either via the [[add-goal]] SEXP or Initial Orders. If a wing of fighters die too quickly and easily at a certain phase of the mission, the mission designer may reconsider altering AI orders.
 
  
 
[[Category:FRED Tips]]
 
[[Category:FRED Tips]]

Latest revision as of 08:42, 19 June 2012

Several FreeSpace missions suffer from bad mission balance. A poorly balanced mission stands on one extreme of the difficulty spectrum or the other, rather than at a comfortable and challenging midpoint.

Missions that are too difficult typically come about when very skilled players match a mission's difficulty to their abilities. These missions are too hard for most other players, who lack the gameplay experience of the mission designer. It is also possible that the FREDder makes a mission and tests it using solely one strategy. Players who take a different approach to the mission will encounter unanticipated difficulties. This reflects poorly upon the mission designer because the use of a single-strategy testing scheme will be apparent to other players.

Opposite the missions that are too challenging are missions that require nearly no effort from the player to successfully complete. Such missions typically include a hostile force that is woefully outnumbered and/or outgunned by friendlies and therefore present a minimal threat, allowing the player to heedlessly dash through the mission objectives or even fly away, while the friendly force is left to complete the mission itself.

Achieving balance in a mission (that is, challenging the player, without frustrating him/her) requires time, patience, circumspection, and enthusiasm. Make the mission very easy at first. Mission balancing is something you don't have to worry about until your mission is whole. Address technical concerns, such as messages, scripting, and the arrival, departure, and movements of major units, before dealing with balance. It is much less exhausting to repeatedly test an easy mission than an unbearably hard one. Testing events and scripting at the end of a mission can be impossible, if completing the mission objectives is initially too difficult. The mission, in its final state, must be appropriately balanced, but the technical aspects must function as expected as well, so initially creating a very easy mission separates the challenges of building a technically-correct and a well-balanced mission into two manageable components.

Hints

Human factor

A mission designer must know how his flying skills compare to that of "the average FreeSpace player." What is appropriately challenging for a long-time multiplayer veteran will be overwhelming for other players. While it is possible for players to lower the difficulty level, they should not be expected to do so for specific missions. If a player must adjust the difficulty level for particular missions, whether it is upward to generate a challenge or downward to mitigate frustration, then those missions are poorly balanced. Finding balance can be easier for a mission designer when testing and optimizing the mission on the setting at which he/she normally plays. That difficulty setting will enable easier assessment of the mission's level of challenge versus other missions the designer has played.

Differences between the preferences of any two players must also be taken into account. It is possible for a player to be more skilled overall than another, but it is also possible for a player to be better in a given role than the other. A designer who prefers utilizing heavy assault fighters, armed with long-range missiles, may provide such craft as the GTF Hercules II or the GTF Ares in his mission to the exclusion of others. Since those playing the mission may be better suited to close-range dogfighting, in more nimble craft, a limited selection, including only these heavier craft will be more challenging and potentially more frustrating. Unless the story demands limited variety (such as in a scramble mission or in a mission set during a supply shortage), providing the player a wider range of ships and weapons can aid mission balance.

The first-time player has a major disadvantage compared to the mission designer, in that the designer has intimate knowledge of the intended course of the mission that the player will lack. The mission designer must carefully consider what information will be available to the player, or a mission that the designer considers simple may actually be quite difficult for players to complete. For example, a mission designer knows that the Moloch in his mission is scripted to self-destruct when the reactor subsystem is destroyed, but the player will not and may try a conventional assault, unless the reactor vulnerability is mentioned in the briefing or a message. Confusing—or contradictory—briefing stages will make any mission harder, because a player must base his actions on what he has been told.

If the player is supposed to lose the mission, such as The Great Hunt, in the main FreeSpace 2 campaign, state explicitly when the player's involvement in the fight is over. A return to base directive will do that, as will messages from Command and the player's wingmen. Don't assume that an insurmountable challenge alone is enough to stop a player from thinking he/she must overcome the odds. A player may become disgruntled and quit, assuming the mission was poorly designed, if there is not any dialogue to indicate that failure was the only possible outcome.

Additional people testing prerelease versions of the mission can be a great asset as well, since they can provide the perspective of both a first-time player and a player at a different skill level than the mission's designer.

FRED-related

Below are some general tips for altering mission difficulty in FRED.

  • The most general hint is to test your mission every time you modify something gameplay-related in it. While spell-checking has no impact on how the mission is played, changing the position of a capital ship does. By placing, for example, an Orion 500 meters closer to its target, it may be able to fire a different set of turrets at the target from a different angle, and depending on its orders, its AI may behave differently.
  • Remember that the more you change between testing runs, the more radically difficulty will change. If the difficulty level of your mission only needs a slight adjustment, making many changes between testing sessions may be overcompensating and carries the risk of imbalancing a mission in the opposite manner it had been before. (i.e. An easy mission may become too difficult, and a difficult mission may become too easy.)
  • Adding more enemy/friendly fighters or increasing the number of enemy/friendly wings can have undesirable consequences. Add more units, only if a given side has a significantly higher chance of winning. If this chance is relatively small, this step can suddenly make the mission turn to the other side's favor.
  • The AI uses certain weapons, such as the Tornado quite effectively. This can make a seemingly subtle change of ordnance create a drastic change in gameplay. For example, a wing of fighters with Subach HL-7's and Harpoon missiles may be an appropriate threat to a transport the player must escort, but the same wing with Tornado missiles in place of Harpoons will devastate the transport before the player can respond.
  • Not only can you adjust the length of a mission by adjusting the arrival delays between new wings and waves in each wing, but you can normalize the number of fighters the player must defend against at any one time.
  • Removing or changing the weapons on capital ships has a significant effect on balance. Consider the Aeolus: It is much easier to attack (and more difficult to defend) if a mission designer reduces the number of flak turrets in favor of laser turrets. The principle applies to other anti-fighter and anti-warship defenses as well. Again, this can have a significant effect on mission balance, if undertaken with a heavy hand. Consider carefully where a capital ship needs more or less defense and alter a few turrets in that area.
  • The importance of distance is most apparent at escort missions: The player stands a better chance of defending something if the attacking force arrives farther from its target than if it arrives within firing range. Many bombers, for example, arriving too close to their target can render that target impossible to defend, but if those same bombers are set to arrive several kilometers further away, they may be too easily intercepted to pose a threat.
  • AI skill levels provide a subtle means of affecting mission balance by improving (or diminishing, at lower levels) a given fighter or turret's accuracy and handling characteristics.
  • Scripted events offer a powerful means of adjusting mission balance because of the wide range of options available to the mission designer. Take care when scripting events for the purpose of mission balance, though. Some events (such as repairing damaged wingmen at an opportune moment) are more subtle than others (such as applying a protect-ship event to Alpha 1, which will allow fighters and turrets to follow and track but, not fire upon, the player).
  • Remember to update the orders of fighter and bomber wings throughout the mission. Wings that accomplish their standing objectives, without being given new orders, will loiter and may no longer play a major role in the mission, without prodding from the player. Remember that some players manage their wingmen more than others, so it is important that even friendly wings have some kind of goals set after their initial task is complete.