Is it acceptable if a weapon isn't purchased frequently?



  • I think it’s hard to argue that a lot of weapons currently aren’t being purchased frequently or basically ever. I don’t have the means to properly record the statistics on this, but given that I could, I would strongly guess it would support my case. Either way, it’s probably true, so I’d ask from this, is it really okay for this to be the case or would improvements be potentially in order? The common assumption is that personal preference factors in and that choice is being provided but I’m not so sure this is the case. I’d like to think the reasoning for these weapons being not purchased frequently is they just aren’t “good”.


  • Banned

    :shrug_tone2: you’ve got it the wrong way. it’s not that the less often bought guns are not good, they were always good, its that the guns that are most frequently bought at the moment are ridiculously good and should be nerfed to match the less often bought guns.
    e: its acceptable but nerf some guns like glock anyways



  • You seem like you’re suggesting weapons are too strong as they currently are.

    See, with what I’m assuming, that would reduce the overall power level of guns as is since they are the most bought, if what you’re saying is true. If that’s not true though, and it turns out some weapons really aren’t “good” and end up being fixed to match what is currently frequently taken in terms of weapons, it doesn’t change the overall weapon strength really at all.


  • Administrators

    Are we counting Worth weapons as well? If so the mine layer can be an exception since it’s a situational and role specific weapon and unless its OP like it used to be not a lot of people get it.


  • Banned

    @Raox said in Is it acceptable if a weapon isn't purchased frequently?:

    You seem like you’re suggesting weapons are too strong as they currently are.

    See, with what I’m assuming, that would reduce the overall power level of guns as is since they are the most bought, if what you’re saying is true. If that’s not true though, and it turns out some weapons really aren’t “good” and end up being fixed to match what is currently frequently taken in terms of weapons, it doesn’t change the overall weapon strength really at all.

    So you are saying, that we should buff weapons so that we have more op guns so humans have even greater advantage against zombies? Having maps with 40%+ win rates, and multiple rounds in a row where humans just spawncamp the zombies until wave 4 or wave 5 is an indicator that guns should be buffed in your opinion?:raising_hand_tone2: :face_palm_tone2:



  • So you are saying, that we should buff weapons so that we have more op guns so humans have even greater advantage against zombies? Having maps with 40%+ win rates, and multiple rounds in a row where humans just spawncamp the zombies until wave 4 or wave 5 is an indicator that guns should be buffed in your opinion?:raising_hand_tone2: :face_palm_tone2:

    I wouldn’t like to say that, but that’s what you seem to think I’m inferring. My standpoint is trying to be that, I couldn’t myself determine if a weapon is truly “good”, I’m trying to judge it based on the purchase frequency. Your identified correlation seems to be that weapons purchased more are “beyond good” and the possibility that a weapon is “bad” isn’t possible and there is a perfect baseline.

    Are we counting Worth weapons as well? If so the mine layer can be an exception since it’s a situational and role specific weapon and unless its OP like it used to be not a lot of people get it.

    Yeah we’re counting worth weapons too. I guess the mine layer is different enough that it feels a bit more a tool weapon (hence the location on the worth menu).


  • Banned

    @Raox said in Is it acceptable if a weapon isn't purchased frequently?:

    So you are saying, that we should buff weapons so that we have more op guns so humans have even greater advantage against zombies? Having maps with 40%+ win rates, and multiple rounds in a row where humans just spawncamp the zombies until wave 4 or wave 5 is an indicator that guns should be buffed in your opinion?:raising_hand_tone2: :face_palm_tone2:

    I wouldn’t like to say that, but that’s what you seem to think I’m inferring. My standpoint is trying to be that, I couldn’t myself determine if a weapon is truly “good”, I’m trying to judge it based on the purchase frequency. Your identified correlation seems to be that weapons purchased more are “beyond good” and the possibility that a weapon is “bad” isn’t possible and there is a perfect baseline.

    Judging if a gun is good by purchase frequency doesn’t really work. Of course the better guns are bought more often than the worse guns by point greedy players. It doesn’t really tell you anything other than which guns are better (or thought to be better by players) compared to other guns. It doesn’t tell you if the less purchased guns are good or bad. I don’t have means to tell if a gun is “bad” or “op” either, but right now the gamemode is heavily favoring humans so much that being part of the zombie team seems like a punishment, to not be allowed to leave your spawn for 20 minutes on certain maps etc. Personally, I would not mind seeing some nerfs on humans/guns and a good place to start might be the guns that are most frequently bought every round. Might even solve your problem aswell and make people buy other guns more.



  • You have a point, but I think that one of the main problems with these rarely purchased weapons is players’ uncertainty in their ability to give back even the same amount of points that they’ve wasted for ammo for them. Guns like the AUG and Reaper, which are very good, still won’t give back the same ammount of points that you’ve wasted on 30 rounds for them, even if you take out a zombie alone and get those full 5 points. But your average player in most situations (which are being in a barricade with other people which are shooting at the same target as you) will quickly run out of ammo because they don’t even come with extra bullets and the points are split between all the shooters.

    Perhaps the ammo is a bit too expensive, forcing players to try to constantly save up for the best guns so that they can be fully sure they can get their worth out of it? Maybe it’s meant to be this way, but I think this uncertainty in these lower-tier weapons is one of the main problems.



  • @Kolmio said in Is it acceptable if a weapon isn't purchased frequently?:

    Judging if a gun is good by purchase frequency doesn’t really work. Of course the better guns are bought more often than the worse guns by point greedy players.

    But we’re talking tier for tier here, in terms of frequency in which weapons are bought within the tiers.

    It doesn’t really tell you anything other than which guns are better (or thought to be better by players) compared to other guns. It doesn’t tell you if the less purchased guns are good or bad.

    But isn’t that the point? The point I’m gleaning from what you’re saying is that you think weapon purchase frequency isn’t an issue and isn’t deterministic which I suppose is what the thread title actually asks, but it sort of leads me into asking what do you think is the best metric then to actually establish if there are issues?

    I don’t have means to tell if a gun is “bad” or “op” either, but right now the gamemode is heavily favoring humans so much that being part of the zombie team seems like a punishment, to not be allowed to leave your spawn for 20 minutes on certain maps etc.

    But then I’d disagree with that and say I think that’s down some maps which are currently on the map list, which ends up being a different problem entirely. Changing the power level of weapons is what you think as a solution to this.

    Personally, I would not mind seeing some nerfs on humans/guns and a good place to start might be the guns that are most frequently bought every round. Might even solve your problem aswell and make people buy other guns more.

    I think that would actually make the problem worse, you provide an incentive for people not to change the from the weapon they regard to be “good”, which could change under whatever nerfs or buffs occur. A decision like this needs to be less obvious.



  • The real crux of what Raox seems to be getting it, is that a lot of weapons may as well not exist as they are. Take the blaster for an example of the wider problem: It is basically never purchased by anyone who knows what they’re doing, opting for usually crackler. Since nobody takes blaster it is basically a non entity in the game, it only exists to provide the illusion of choice since there is no compelling argument to take it. Establishing a flat level of power that every weapon in a tier stays around provides real choice, for you to choose a weapon situationally instead of just picking the one or two weapons in that tier that are objectively better than all others (more efficient, more useful, better at killing zombies etc).

    Although I’ve used blaster as an example, since the problem is rife in the lower tiers, it is true to an extent of pretty much every tier.

    Making shitty weapons on par with the weapons that are actually used doesn’t change the power curve that much. Instead of having 30 players running around with THE good gun, you’ll have 30 players running around with a selection of different good guns. You might have to balance down the best weapons in tiers slightly to accommodate for humans having more “diversity” but I do not see anyway it could make the game easier if done right.



  • About the point shop guns:
    What’s the point of balancing? it’s always going to be a nerf, a buff over and over.
    Want people to use guns, nerfing/buffing shouldn’t be the only way to go about it.

    Remove them (obviously not happening).

    -OR-

    Add a stock limit per tier with the limit determined by player count, say if there was 30 humans alive on wave 1 start.
    then tier 2 weapons have a stock limit of 30 (or a bit more) shared between the weapons in this tier, the same limit applied for the other tiers.

    Exclude the items with manually defined stock limits.

    This is just an idea, I don’t expect it to happen, at most it’ll make people mad they’re forced to buy weapons they dislike.
    Really though, no one wants to use those guns because they’re either crap, or purely situational.

    The globalized ammo types would be cool to have someday for the ammo inefficient guns.



  • What’s the point of balancing? it’s always going to be a nerf, a buff over and over.
    Want people to use guns, nerfing/buffing shouldn’t be the only way to go about it.

    Right, and I agree, you can’t just do this by purely changing numbers with any kind of ease since it still ends up with the problem of patching holes in a ship. So logically what needs to be taken away from this, and really ends up being the only kind of proper solution, is to do a complete top down balance and attempt to give everything a niche even if it works from a weapon quirk and not the statistics of the weapon. The ideal case if such a thing occured would be that it would be much harder to define a weapon as being “good”.

    The globalized ammo types would be cool to have someday for the ammo inefficient guns.

    I realise now this wouldn’t actually help as much as it could do. It really just increases abstraction in a way which I think causes some issues, such as how to present such information. I was thinking it could be merge of say 7 to 5 ammo types to try and help looting and sharing of ammo in this regard, but it really doesn’t completely improve the problem.



  • Everyone just ‘had’ to have their laser cannons and other random shit before the old weapon inventory was fully balanced. Also, maps should all have less than 5% winrate. and that’s being generous.



  • Zombies are so weak early game it feels like I have to buy a crackler just to compete to get a few shots in(it’s accurate and you waste less potential points if you’re slow). The average zombie outside the gas lives for about two seconds.


  • Game Admins

    @CMastaa said in Is it acceptable if a weapon isn't purchased frequently?:

    Everyone just ‘had’ to have their laser cannons and other random shit before the old weapon inventory was fully balanced. Also, maps should all have less than 5% winrate. and that’s being generous.

    whoa didn’t know noxiousnet had a resident game design expert maybe you can overhaul zs to have 5 people playing at all times



  • @Box said in Is it acceptable if a weapon isn't purchased frequently?:

    What’s the point of balancing?

    Nobody wants content to go to waste. Weapon balance doesn’t have to be so perfect that usage is split down the middle on everything. It’s good simply to have weapons that don’t make the player feel like they’ve wasted worth for picking it.



  • @DoctorDrew brutal


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to NoXiousNet was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.