Yeah this is definitely a necessary thing. I play both competitively, and public. When I pub, I like to join the 30 slot servers. So yeah, I agree with you.
It's kind of hard to find out exactly what IS imbalanced though. I can think of a few things that are inbalanced, but the main thing I think is the alien resource system.
You have to realize that if there are 15 aliens, that means that many aliens can be saving up for fade, so you have to be careful if you scale the resources according to players. Yeah, I think it needs to be sped up a bit with a lot of players, but not too much as to cause the marines to get overwhelmed by 10 fades every game.
I think a good way to balance NS for larger servers is to simply make larger maps. Right now there are only like 8-10 rts on a map. If you increase the map size, and put in, say, 20 rts, the aliens actually have a chance to capture and hold the necessary ammount of RTs needed for a good resflow. As of now, the map is too damn small to be able to hold enough RTs, unless of course you have fades and 3 hives and onoses and crap, which in that case you're doing fine anyway.
Maps designed for 30+ players would be intesting. Instead of having 30 players crunched together on a map designed for 6v6, you could basically have individual games going on at different sides of the map.
This is going to happen but I thought it was a neat idea.
Edit: You also have to realize that it's going to be hard to balance something that like 80% of the pubbers out there don't even know how to play correctly.
Example. You can't just make the 2nd hive weak just because every pub comm out there never attacks the 2nd hive.
Now that I think about it, you guys should really just forget about trying to balance NS for competive play. I would be more than happy if you just made it even more kick ###### than it is on 30+ slot public play. There's only like 30 competitive players left anyway.
<!--quoteo(post=1616217:date=Mar 22 2007, 05:04 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Mar 22 2007, 05:04 AM) [snapback]1616217[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> But I thought your point was that we aren't talking about it. This is hilarious really. Are you describing your own posts or mine?
As I have already stated, we are looking at large game balance for the 3.2.x patches. 3.2.1 will contain some changes in this area, and we will discuss solutions privately based on feedback gained publicly. There are plenty of topics discussing the issue right now ( including this one ) for you to post your feedback and observations in. Alternatively you can just continue your passive aggressive accusations as normal. Either way , I don't really care what you personally have to say about me, or the rest of the NS team. It's mildly entertaining to watch all your hot air rise to dissipate. For an added bonus, you can restate how you are leaving this community <i>soon</i>. Following up with a definition of <i>soon</i> might help you actually take the step you have so frequently threatened. In response to Hellabeans: Yes there are many positive reasons to have a vet program, but based on previous experience the time required to make such a system effective is beyond what we as a team have to spend on it. We use the constellation system now and let communities ( including the clan scene ) to run the game early and post feedback - which we listen to carefully. For 3.2 we even did public testing because we weren't sure about some of our decisions. We tried to get scrims and gathers going in all three regions but there wasn't a huge amount of activity. For a finish, we did some some high quality feedback from the clan scene and have produced a 3.2 that is well balanced for 6v6 play. The problems being addressed in this topic are for 12v12 to 16v16 play, and that isn't something the vet system would have solved anyway. Furthermore, we will be watching 3.2 matches and demos and talking to players about balance over the coming weeks as we lead into the 3.2.1 design tweaks. We will start some more formal feedback topics soon and you and your friends in ANSL are very welcome to post your thoughts. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
AGAIN,
Failure to attack the framework of design, just character. AGAIN, large game balance has been an issue since 1.04 that was "going to be dealt with" since that patch and is allegedly going to be dealt with now.
Hot air eh? You are the one making the personal insults, where as my balance suggestions attack the dev team's work, not their individual character. If you do not wish to respond to it, please just say so and this will be dropped immediately.
At no point did I ever say that the dev team was stupid, lacked talent, or anything negatively. I only criticized the work that was done based on the evidence that I saw. You are the one who is taking this personally, not me <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
As for leaving the community, I'm not gonna let one version of the game deter me from taking a break and coming back (as I've done in the past), unless of course I am asking too many questions that you do not wish to be asked.
Puzl if my company is undesirable here please tell me in a PM, because violating your OWN forum rules to dodge questions seems a little unprofessional and in a way, disappointing.
Take Care <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
Man, you really like to make drama out of nothing. It isn't 'allegedly' going to be dealt with now, it is actually going to be dealt with now. The critical difference here is that we have now said we are going to deal with it. You hold our promise up to a past history of zero commitment to a solution and try to cast it in a light of us being unwilling to fullfill our commitments. I'll freely admit that there have been problems in NS since 1.04 and that there are problems in NS right now. However, we have never said we will balance NS for large servers until just recently, so at most you can accuse us of inaction, and not incompetence. Anyway, I have the advantage of knowing what I plan to do over the next few weeks, so debating this with you is really pointless. We'll work with the large server communities to improve balance without negatively impacting our traditional game sizes and you can then move onto the next bone of negativity.
You seem to have some issues with us not making the time to respond to you personally or something. I'm not dodging any forums rules whatsoever, if you think I am take it up with Mouse and/or Comprox, I expect no special treatment.
I don't want you or anyone to leave, but you are the one that keeps threatening it. I just find that you make a rather unusual effort to make negative statements that are totally unnecessary. Feel free to do this, it doesn't bother me at all, but don't expect us to answer your serious questions when 90% of what you post is contrived negativity. Comparing your posts to someone like Sarisel tells a lot. I don't always like what the guy has to say, but I recognise it as objective and worth considering.
All I asked for was a dev team response to the framework of design I posted, no more no less. Again, you are the one had to mention that I lost PT, which really has nothing to do with this conversation at all.
Of course you will get special treatment, so there is no point in debating that.
Let me ask you with this.
If I had posted that framework for design under an anonymous identity, would I have gotten a response from the dev team?
All I want for you to do is to read through that framework, and discuss with me what you agree with (if anything) or what you do not agree with (if anything). That is all I want from this conversation, no more, no less.
If you choose not to take a look at it please just tell me you have no interest in it, and that is has 0 merit whatsoever, this is the least desirable of options but I will have no choice to respect your decision.
As far as comparing posts with my old teammate, I see my framework as being one of the more productive posts with regards to balance in a long time, and has also been recieved by the ID mod development team, as well as a few posters on this forums that agree with me either completely or partially. If you cannot see the merits of the post than I have to question whether or not YOU are looking at the poster, rather than the posts.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
You have a poor memory. We discussed that post on irc after you posted it on the CAL forums ( at least, that was where I fist saw it, I see you claim you originally posted it on the id forums ).
The main point I made was that they were design discussions to have at the start of a project, and not on an iterative patch. We are not in the business of redesigning NS from scratch, that is what NS2 is for. I also said in that discussion that we shared a lot of your conclusions and disagreed with others. Have you forgotten this discussion?
I don't think you received any negative treatment because of your past. We don't get into design debates in public, we simply don't have the time to do it. I have a hectic social life, a demanding gf, a very busy RL job, and I have to make time to play NS about as much as I spend discussing it. Sometimes I venture out of the dev/pt forum to discuss this stuff, but that is a luxury I can rarely afford. The time I spend talking with the community is usually spent trying to understand feedback and issues, not in reviewing the macro design decisions made 5 years ago, that I was not party to. My job is to maintain NS, not to rebuild it, and despite what some people throw at us, I'm proud of what has been achieved and readily acknowledge that we have more to do. I guarantee you that if you tried to work with us constructively instead of constantly undermining us at every turn you would get much further with your stated goals.
Another recent example was during 3.2 testing. I saw that you tried to help by motiving a more organised structure to the public testing, but this manifested as you flaming our QA team as incompetent, and some rather odd references to 'a lack of statistics on win/lose ratios'. As has been discussed here recently, we do public testing so that the community can organise the feedback themselves ( and many communities were very fruitful on this count ), we also don't pay much attention to win/lose ratios as they don't give you insights into the type of detail you need to understand when changing multiple variables at once. Despite all this, I think that the end result of 3.2 vindicates our approach. The game is reasonably balanced for the game sizes we focused on. We recognise that we have not converged on exactly where we want 3.2 to be and the 3.2.x patches will continue to tune the game, but by and large our broad objectives for 3.2 have been achieved.
Obviously, as has already been admitted, we need to expand our focus to include the now very popular 28+ player servers, but I would like to point out ( and this is not in anyway a negative criticism of any community ) that no large server community participated in the beta process. Many of the initial complaints we got from 32 player servers had also been received from 18 player servers when the 3.2 first went into testing, and as players adapted many of the problems either disappeared or were greatly reduced in magnitude. We're hoping that this will happen on the 32 player severs too as people learn to master the new changes.
<!--quoteo(post=1615885:date=Mar 20 2007, 06:50 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Mar 20 2007, 06:50 PM) [snapback]1615885[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Firewater, I don't think you'll get a response from the devs about it. Game design discussions are strictly conducted behind closed doors. I'd like to argue that there should be instances where certain units become completely powerless. This allows for the game's conclusion. IMO, there is more of a problem in concluding the game quickly once the powerless state of the game is reached. However, powerless situations cannot be avoided due to the RTS nature of NS. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well the onos in this particular case is can be powerless, not due to player ability or skill, but mostly based on the marine's level of tech. How often do you see "good" onos die compared to good fades. The onos, despite being more expensive, is more likely to die because it not a skill base class. The fade on the other hand requires a combination of tech, skill and sometimes teamwork depending on how good the fade and marine(s) are. The onos really just require the firepower and time, as aiming at an onos is not difficult at all. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> This paragraph is in reference to hive lockdowns and how it effectively caps the ability of the aliens to do anything. Another solution, other than making upgrades separate from # of hives, would be to buff the onos as a mobile siege weapon, instead of the fairy that it is right now. I think hive lockdowns are a risk that the comm should be allowed to take, but the aliens need to have a way to effectively break these lockdowns at 1 hive, given that they have the resources and time, without having to mass 800 resources for 8 onos. Currently, the lockdowns lead to stagnant games. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well the problem of the hive lockdowns is that the aliens short of an onos is that the aliens for the most part do no have an effective way to break this. This was not always the case however. In 1.04 the turrets were less effective against moving targets and there was no electricity. So effectively a skulk with good FPS skills could circle strafe the turret factory and effectively take it down. Lockdowns required marine effort to maintain, which would often put them on the defensive rather than the offensive. Doing that allowed for aliens to develope resource towers as well as take the other hive to get more lifeforms.
Now lockdowns are a "build and forget" strategy, because there is a very little chance that the alien team will be able to break it down before the marines get enough tech to dominate them. Usually when they do break it down, its too late and the marines are already marching on their main hive while the new hive is building, or vice versa. If the dev team wants to make the aliens more effective, bring back the 1.04 turret setup. If the marines want to lockdown a hive so be it, but turrets alone should not be responsible for holding it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Another solution would be to make lockdowns more significant in the game. Perhaps hives should be double or tripple resource locations (yes, I know, you'd have to scale the res system for this to be 'balanced') which would have a great impact on the marines' ability to tech fast and end the game quickly once two lockdowns are established. Note: I'm arguing this while knowing that many other elements of the game would have to be changed in order to make this proposed change work properly. However, I honestly believe that the change can be made viable. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why this may solve the current situation, I believe that this changing this will open a whole new can of worms that would create more problems than what exists now.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I agree. The game should be spread more evenly across the three hives or the hive system needs to be re-evaluated (I believe this is being looked at in NS2 - hives not based on a particular location). Tech (in the form of hive dependent upgrades) definitely plays a role in the balance problems. I think that while NS cannot be balanced linearly (i.e. both sides will have an equal chance to win at all times), the game can definitely get non-linear balance (i.e. either side has an equal chance to win in the end, but there may be inequalities on the road to the end). <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Unfortunately with the current hive system there is no way to get some of the upgrades sooner, and others later, there is only you have it or you don't. I feel this leads to more alien losses than victories. And unfortunately I do not think its reasonable for NS1 to change to a different system because of either engine limitations, or resource limitations of the developers side.
However, I feel that nerfing any of the automated defenses (including OCs) would help immensely in alien victories. Less reliance on static defenses will force both sides to be more aggressive when they are attempting to establish tech dominance. It requires more action on the part of the players, as well as the commander.
This change I feel IS reasonable and I feel it would help out significantly especially in larger games.
<!--quoteo(post=1616278:date=Mar 22 2007, 12:46 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Mar 22 2007, 12:46 PM) [snapback]1616278[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> You have a poor memory. We discussed that post on irc after you posted it on the CAL forums ( at least, that was where I fist saw it, I see you claim you originally posted it on the id forums ).
The main point I made was that they were design discussions to have at the start of a project, and not on an iterative patch. We are not in the business of redesigning NS from scratch, that is what NS2 is for. I also said in that discussion that we shared a lot of your conclusions and disagreed with others. Have you forgotten this discussion?
I don't think you received any negative treatment because of your past. We don't get into design debates in public, we simply don't have the time to do it. I have a hectic social life, a demanding gf, a very busy RL job, and I have to make time to play NS about as much as I spend discussing it. Sometimes I venture out of the dev/pt forum to discuss this stuff, but that is a luxury I can rarely afford. The time I spend talking with the community is usually spent trying to understand feedback and issues, not in reviewing the macro design decisions made 5 years ago, that I was not party to. My job is to maintain NS, not to rebuild it, and despite what some people throw at us, I'm proud of what has been achieved and readily acknowledge that we have more to do. I guarantee you that if you tried to work with us constructively instead of constantly undermining us at every turn you would get much further with your stated goals.
Another recent example was during 3.2 testing. I saw that you tried to help by motiving a more organised structure to the public testing, but this manifested as you flaming our QA team as incompetent, and some rather odd references to 'a lack of statistics on win/lose ratios'. As has been discussed here recently, we do public testing so that the community can organise the feedback themselves ( and many communities were very fruitful on this count ), we also don't pay much attention to win/lose ratios as they don't give you insights into the type of detail you need to understand when changing multiple variables at once. Despite all this, I think that the end result of 3.2 vindicates our approach. The game is reasonably balanced for the game sizes we focused on. We recognise that we have not converged on exactly where we want 3.2 to be and the 3.2.x patches will continue to tune the game, but by and large our broad objectives for 3.2 have been achieved.
Obviously, as has already been admitted, we need to expand our focus to include the now very popular 28+ player servers, but I would like to point out ( and this is not in anyway a negative criticism of any community ) that no large server community participated in the beta process. Many of the initial complaints we got from 32 player servers had also been received from 18 player servers when the 3.2 first went into testing, and as players adapted many of the problems either disappeared or were greatly reduced in magnitude. We're hoping that this will happen on the 32 player severs too as people learn to master the new changes. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No I do not remember what happened in the CAL forums, and I did try to reference it but i realized that the NS portion of the cal forums is no longer in existence. Sorry but I do not remember every single post I have ever made, I'm just not that good.
As far as your time allowance, I'm sure if it was used more wisely you could have formulated a post attacking the framework, rather than myself.
As far as attacking your Q&A I would just like to see more organized structure on the playtest side of things, by eliminating as many variables as possible. This may have changed, but when I participated there was no competent system for eliminating player skill as a variable. It was either go random or "umm you go here, now you here now you here". I would have liked to seen a little more structure in a game where balance is the most crucial issue in the game.
I disagree with the dev team not having time for debate as I remember that when the NS forums went down I remember quite a few developers responding defensively to comments that were obviously not even made on their own forums. I couldn't help that they the devs that responded felt a little self-conscious about comments made. It seemed at the time the developers were more concerned with saving face rather than making the game better, or working towards getting the website back up.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
Again with the conspiracy theories. Firstly, the developers who responded on CAL ( tankefugl, jazzx and myself ) are not web developers and are not responsible for maintaining the forums here. Secondly, we did not go there to save face but to reassure the members of cal that NS wasn't a dead product. Many posts either claimed that the team was disbanded or that 3.2 was vapourware. On the request of some cal members and admins, we made some posts to show that these rumours were false. Several people called us liars at the time, claiming that 3.2 didn't exist. We still await their apologies, but we won't be holding our breaths. Other members of CAL criticised us heavily, but in a mature and objective way, and these were subsequently invited to become playtesters.
Secondly, I understand that you don't remember every post you make, but you seem to expect me to respond to the ones that you deem response worthy, which isn't exactly fair now, is it?
Closed testing isn't about fine tuning balance, it's about gauging the ramifications of changes so that we can go into public testing with a good idea of where we stand and where we need to get to. It is mainly about QA and game balance is its secondary function. The public testing is where we get to observe a large number of players playing the game for a long period of time. This is an excellent way to familiarise yourself with the state of a patch, and beta2 and 3.2f tweaks represent the solutions to the observed problems. If you want to criticise our methodology then the best way is to directly criticise the changes in those patches, and also the changes you felt should have been in those patches ( AKA feedback for 3.2.1 ). We've taken feedback from all corners of the NS community, even from players who were at the time banned from these forums. Good ideas are good ideas no matter where they originate from, so if you really want to improve NS then the best approach is to organise these equally skilled games you talk about and produce observations in the form of feedback. You are in a position to do what you suggest, so I suggest you do it.
I don't think its unfair to respond to a framework I posted in this thread that you are currently reading that other players are commenting on. Again, you claim you do not have the time to respond to a framework but it appears you have the time to attack me and discredit my character (as you tried to do in this thread). But I guess as you said
I would love to organize a balanced game but I would need the cooperation of the competitive community, and as of now I do have the resources and the time to do so.
But I cannot do it by myself, so if there are any competitive players that want their voices heard, then apparently this is the venue to be used.
If not then all I can do is post my past experiences, and solutions to solve them.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
I propose that there be made a forum for civilized balance discussions. Otherwise, perhaps we should flood the general discussion with a thread per every change that needs to be addressed.
I think two of the problems with large games is the alien spawn time, and the effectiveness of turrets in a lockdown situation.
To put it short,
If the aliens spawned in faster at first hive, they wouldn't have to rely so much on the first wave of spawn to dent the marine spawn queue so they can get some nodes or chambers or even just take some offensive ground.
Turrets when fighting skulks, if placed correctly can act really as aimbotting marines. Their aim is perfect and depending on the location the turret and/or factory may not be able to be attacked due to the supreme accuracy of the turrets. Factor in electricity, and which point as a skulk it does not matter whether or not you can make it to the TF.
Increase the alien spawning for large games, as well as bring back the 1.04 turrets for all games, and I guarentee that the aliens will increase their victory margin significantly.
I don't know why I think this, but for some weird reason 15v15 just feels like crap to me. It isn't like there's balance issues (in my mind); when the beta for 3.2 was out, one of the only American servers with people in it was G42bs, with 30 slots. It was fun, actually, and I credit this to the fact that about one out of every five people was a playtester or constellation member. It was enjoyable playing with goood people.
But now, now that everyone's updated, I just feel like these larger games just aren't worth it. I don't know why, they just.... they lack something I don't know. I don't think it's balance, but rather some quasi-human need for "individuality" in a large crowd. Call me nuts, but I don't think NS needs to be balanced for games of this size.
Getting smaller, as in 10v10, i feel the game is fine. Sure, there's little exploitative advantages and things here and there, but let's be honest, on a pub, the skill range between players and between teams will almost always overcompensate for whatever balance issues there are. To use SmoodCroozn's seemingly endless analogy to chess, the balance issues aren't tactical, but rather positional; an isolated pawn, good bishop vs. bad bishop, a knight post, all issues that may end up winning or losing the game, but may is key. There's still a lot of stuff before that. Sure, in an ideal society the game would be perfect, but heck, I'd say from what I've seen NS is pretty damn close (in relative terms).
The only real type of game left is the small ones, the 6v6. In these though, the game is balanced, or at least meant to be; that's who they tested it for, right? And when it comes down to it, you see these balance issues, these slight positional mistakes, when you play with better players. To try to adhere to pubs would seem, at least to me, a waste, considering the vast skill ranges you'll have in a pub.
The "fix" to balance lies not with the developers of NS, but with the users of NS. People like the infamous White Panther who wrote Xmenu, and many others who've written so many plugins. They provide ways to custimize NS to their own desires; some people think lerks still should have spikes, or marines should be able to weld themselves. Everyone's opinion about where the true balance lies will differ, so to standardize it would still leave many unhappy, as you cannot cater to all beliefs.
So to me, there shouldn't be this audacious outcry against the developers for not caring, but rather an understanding that they should keep the game unbalanced, for while you see unbalance, others see the balance. The call shouldn't be made to the devs, no, it should be made to the people like White Panther, the community of NS, to make these plugins and addons and the sort such that everyone can have the balance that they so desire. To attack the devs for not adhering to whatever outcry anyone has seems, well, sort of biased towards your view, I guess. I don't know, that's my take on the balance of NS. I've always found it to be balanced enough. Even up a pawn, you have to complete the game and checkmate the king. You aren't guaranteed the win.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
The variables we are initially looking at are res flow, spawn rate and possibly rfk. We will not be looking at, at a first pass, anything that changes the direct combat effectiveness of any unit in the game ( including static defences ). We don't want units to start feeling weaker as the number of players grow.
There already is a forum for balance discussions: Ideas and Suggestions.
We don't have a problem with people modding our game F4tMan, but we definitely want to ship a game that is balance for the popular conditions. The strengths you see in modding will still be present in a game balanced for all team sizes.
<!--quoteo(post=1616415:date=Mar 23 2007, 02:22 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Mar 23 2007, 02:22 AM) [snapback]1616415[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Turrets when fighting skulks, if placed correctly can act really as aimbotting marines. Their aim is perfect and depending on the location the turret and/or factory may not be able to be attacked due to the supreme accuracy of the turrets. Factor in electricity, and which point as a skulk it does not matter whether or not you can make it to the TF.
Increase the alien spawning for large games, as well as bring back the 1.04 turrets for all games, and I guarentee that the aliens will increase their victory margin significantly. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't really believe that skulks should be able to overcome a turreted position on a map, and that static defenses - to some extent - should limit and force movement of lower tech players (skulks, 'vanilla' marines) to another route. While one might suggest that its annoying to be defeated by a stationary, static CPU defense, I could argue that this being a game of strategy, static defenses do play a major strategic role in the game by limiting movement as I said before.
Skulks can overcome a turreted position by attacking in numbers greater than one or two - the turrets themselves are very weak. With the help of a nearby gorge, continual hit and run attacks would actually make short work of the static defenses (theres no reason to only go after the TF itself), as do marines when the commander is presiding over him and assisting him with medpacks.
All in all, I believe static defenses <b>should</b> be an impenetrable wall for players that are ramboing or not utilizing teamwork to their advantage. To the latter, they should slow them down enough to give the team that houses said defenses a fair warning to the advancing team, to allow them to move to that position and defend it.
<!--quoteo(post=1616415:date=Mar 23 2007, 02:22 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Mar 23 2007, 02:22 AM) [snapback]1616415[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->...and the effectiveness of turrets in a lockdown situation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I might be misreading this as well, but if you're referring to a hive lockdown, or a 'lockin' (as in, the aliens can't move away from their hive because it is bordered by turrets at each exit) then the only place to lay blame is the alien team, not to the design of the game. That's an extremely hard position to obtain when you're playing the marine team (as is a completely secure two hive lockdown) and shouldn't ever actually <i>be seen</i> in a game against a competent alien team. Its like playing tic-tac-toe, and someone has three of the corner spaces, handing them the game when you make your next move - its just something any 'experienced tic-tac-toe player' doesn't let happen, and the fundamentals of tic-tac-toe aren't changed because such an advantage is possible to be achieved by one player.
<!--quoteo(post=1616515:date=Mar 23 2007, 03:32 PM:name=Haze)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Haze @ Mar 23 2007, 03:32 PM) [snapback]1616515[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I don't really believe that skulks should be able to overcome a turreted position on a map, and that static defenses - to some extent - should limit and force movement of lower tech players (skulks, 'vanilla' marines) to another route. While one might suggest that its annoying to be defeated by a stationary, static CPU defense, I could argue that this being a game of strategy, static defenses do play a major strategic role in the game by limiting movement as I said before. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that notion is a little ridiculous, I don't see any reason that static defenses should beat human players unless they make a critical error, this whole notion of build and forget is what is killing alien play right now in most servers. It is strategical, but that does not it is balanced. For example, in 1.04 teams would rush jetpacks before the aliens could get a lerk. Strategical? Absolutely? Fun for the alien team? Nope, Balanced? Not a chance in hell. There are other ways of limiting movement other than using +use.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Skulks can overcome a turreted position by attacking in numbers greater than one or two - the turrets themselves are very weak. With the help of a nearby gorge, continual hit and run attacks would actually make short work of the static defenses (theres no reason to only go after the TF itself), as do marines when the commander is presiding over him and assisting him with medpacks. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Failure. Turret factories can be electrified, and depending on turret placement skulks may get killed before punching a hole into a turret factory just to earn the privilege of being struck by electricity rather than bullets. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->All in all, I believe static defenses <b>should</b> be an impenetrable wall for players that are ramboing or not utilizing teamwork to their advantage. To the latter, they should slow them down enough to give the team that houses said defenses a fair warning to the advancing team, to allow them to move to that position and defend it. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anything that is guarenteed should be removed from the game. Guarantees take away from player skill, and ultimately the further development of tactics and strategies in the game. Just because one team gains superior posistion they should not be entitled to keep it unless they are able to repel the enemy attacks. Making turrets perfectly aim as well as electricity take away from this concept and gives too much control away, with very little chance of return.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I might be misreading this as well, but if you're referring to a hive lockdown, or a 'lockin' (as in, the aliens can't move away from their hive because it is bordered by turrets at each exit) then the only place to lay blame is the alien team, not to the design of the game. That's an extremely hard position to obtain when you're playing the marine team (as is a completely secure two hive lockdown) and shouldn't ever actually <i>be seen</i> in a game against a competent alien team. Its like playing tic-tac-toe, and someone has three of the corner spaces, handing them the game when you make your next move - its just something any 'experienced tic-tac-toe player' doesn't let happen, and the fundamentals of tic-tac-toe aren't changed because such an advantage is possible to be achieved by one player. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am talking about the commanders that lockdown the middle hive and electrify every node before saving up for heavies to eliminate the other team. There should BE NO SUCH LUXURY. Game should not be over with 20 minutes left to play. Lockdowns play huge role because it is denying the alien team resources with very little merit and player skill involved. The game should go back and forth, attacking and counter attacking. Right now its a rush to get that hive for marines. Limiting turret use and electricity would promote offensive play rather than passive-aggressive play. Aggressive play leads to more players determining the outcome of the game, rather than computer controlled entities. It puts the power back into the players.
I like this defenses idea, but I'd like it to help aliens more.
And what I mean by this is it would be as said, to stop ramboing marines from wandering off. However, some teamwork effort would take down this defense.
So...
I like large servers. To me, more players, means more combat, means more fun. But in NS, it's quite a different story. I play at G4B2S and 80% of the time, the game works like this:
- few pro marines run to alien start - prevent aliens from exiting hive (OMG SKULKS AMBUSH!) - rest of marines take the map - few minutes jps, hmgs blah blah
Then you have a game where the commander is drunk/sloppy, where aliens have a chance.
I don't like excluding people from servers, but a few good players ruins it for everyone else. We don't feel, "OMG LETS TRAIN HARDER" when these players come in. Aliens give up and other marines feel useless. It's as if you threw all the weights in boxing together and expected a fair game.
Clan matches work because players are generally on the same level of skill. And about the testing, if 3.2 pub testing did anything, it should show you how skewed games are. 90% of the res coming from 1 or 2 players seems wrong.
Some people here are in clans and of course they have no problem with this design. But others such as myself and pubbers do feel there should be something done about this.
There's this saying of do better that goes around here. I'm sure there are many people who've been here since 1.04. But most of these people do not get to the skills of players like Romano, who decides games.
The real problem is you throw all of the weights together and somehow expect a fair game from it. But it turns into the game of who's the best and the other players hope they can do something for the team. If we have new players, they shouldn't play against pros who will come to the hive and spawn camp them for a game. It's like trying a new game on hard mode the first time.
This is the problem and although my methods might not be the best, I'm happy to hear any others.
<!--quoteo(post=1616978:date=Mar 26 2007, 08:41 AM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Mar 26 2007, 08:41 AM) [snapback]1616978[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I like this defenses idea, but I'd like it to help aliens more.
And what I mean by this is it would be as said, to stop ramboing marines from wandering off. However, some teamwork effort would take down this defense.
So...
... <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In eu servers I play in there aren't much of rounds like that. I don't know about the American servers, but I can't think of any player who could stand against spore and parasite combined with a few skulks as long the comm isn't a med maniac. In such 32 plr servers it should be kinda easy to organise even 5 or 6 skulk rushes, which is pretty much deadly for a single marine as long as you rush at the same time.
A few proper marines with welders and a solid comm is another story. Still, the para spore combination should be quite effective even at lower skill levels.
<!--quoteo(post=1616964:date=Mar 26 2007, 02:55 AM:name=AlphaWolf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AlphaWolf @ Mar 26 2007, 02:55 AM) [snapback]1616964[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Hmm...is clan play really that different? I've been playing NS since it first came out and never played on anything but a pub server before. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not really talking competitive play, as unfortunately it is diminished and there a lot of talented players who do not get the oppurtunity to play NS as it once was.
I am talking about public play, and the thing that frustrates a lot of players, not just competitive ones. All my points are based off extensive american public play.
<!--quoteo(post=1616978:date=Mar 26 2007, 01:41 AM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Mar 26 2007, 01:41 AM) [snapback]1616978[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Bullish omitted <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Marines like Makaveli are able to get 15:1 ratios because, frankly, your average skulk on G4B2S is incompentent. I mean this in both the tactical and strategic sense. If I had a penny everytime I saw a skulk on that server try to walk down a couple marines across an open field, I'd be rich. I'm tired of seeing your retarded posts exaggerating everything to the point of absurdity. As far as I am concerned, the team with the better teamwork and skill is supposed to win, and if Makaveli is really equivalent to 15 pubbers, then you deserve to lost for being so pathetic.
Firewater, just chill dude. Puzl is trying to help, really. Give him a chance, jebus. End of discussion.
Some sketchy points, but ones I feel are important if I was editing NS all on my own:
3. Skulk movement: faster by a bit? and marines to can't hoppity-hop all day because they'll get "tired"?
2. Yes alien resource methods on large servers, but in particular gorges. Gorges win games, period. But you end up waiting resources unable to help your team other than healing (but you can't go too offensive or the marines will hunt you down) for in large games.
1. More elaborate tech tree's for both teams. And why does everything except med packs, ammo packs, and cat packs in this game need to a multiple of 5? Why not have a turret or OC cost 12 or 11 res instead of 10?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I think that notion is a little ridiculous, I don't see any reason that static defenses should beat human players unless they make a critical error, this whole notion of build and forget is what is killing alien play right now in most servers. It is strategical, but that does not it is balanced. For example, in 1.04 teams would rush jetpacks before the aliens could get a lerk. Strategical? Absolutely? Fun for the alien team? Nope, Balanced? Not a chance in hell. There are other ways of limiting movement other than using +use. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see why static defenses should be overcome by one single human player, and its obviously the difference of opinion we have here. My reference to it being strategic is that in a game such as Quake there are not as many (if any at all) RTS elements as there are in Natural-Selection, and that static defenses in an RTS have been a staple of the genre in several games, which is why there should be no problem with the static defenses being a staple in Natural-Selection. Although you do bring up a good point with the jetpack/HMG rush, and it simply comes down to the fact that you believe a player should not be stopped by a static defense whereas I believe that its perfectly acceptable. Would it be wrong to say I cannot convince you otherwise? ^^;
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Failure. Turret factories can be electrified, and depending on turret placement skulks may get killed before punching a hole into a turret factory just to earn the privilege of being struck by electricity rather than bullets. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The skulks don't need to go after the turret factory itself. With the assistance of an adrenaline gorge they could <b>easily</b> take down the turrets themselves (two skulks and a gorge is the party in my mind, by the way) if the commander has entrenched as turrets needing to be an alternative. Nevermind the fact that if a commander had enough res to put down an electrified turret factory with at least 3 - 5 turrets in the area he has spent a significant amount of resources and it is obviously not early in the game, as early game resources are not squandered so carelessly. I would hope to assume that there would be a fade, or an onos (with the help of a gorge for both instances), for the alien team to retaliate, which would make short work of the turret factory establishment (this all assuming that they're still at hive one as well!). If the marines do have a phase gate set up as a link in between marine start and the turret establishment, further coordination can be utilized to have two attack teams - one that continually attacks the turret emplacement, while another harasses the marine start, forcing the marines to either devote all of their resources to one area of defense, or split their force into two as well. All the while, there can be one lone player circling the map and destroying marine resource towers.
Now if all of the RTs are electrified and the turret emplacements so well dug in with marine's equipped to handle attacks with ease, then I would certainly hope that the aliens are on a similar level of technology and resource, or else they have already lost the game and the point is moot. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" /> Would it be far fetched to say that the gorge helping with the attacks has set up a few OCs, a defense and movement chamber in one portion as a fall back point if the marines push the attack back and the aliens on the defense?
All in all, static defenses are easily dealt with by <b>coordinated efforts,</b> and the only deterrence they offer is towards lone players.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Anything that is guarenteed should be removed from the game. Guarantees take away from player skill, and ultimately the further development of tactics and strategies in the game. Just because one team gains superior posistion they should not be entitled to keep it unless they are able to repel the enemy attacks. Making turrets perfectly aim as well as electricity take away from this concept and gives too much control away, with very little chance of return.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I only said they should be impenetrable to a solo player, and even that is stretching the truth. A two hive fade can easily make work of a turret emplacement given enough time. If you don't believe that is time well spent by the fade than the position that is turreted is obviously not important enough to complain about to begin with. The only thing this guarantee by static defenses against rambo players provides is a requirement of coordination on the opposing team's part to overcome such defenses.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I am talking about the commanders that lockdown the middle hive and electrify every node before saving up for heavies to eliminate the other team. There should BE NO SUCH LUXURY. Game should not be over with 20 minutes left to play. Lockdowns play huge role because it is denying the alien team resources with very little merit and player skill involved. The game should go back and forth, attacking and counter attacking. Right now its a rush to get that hive for marines. Limiting turret use and electricity would promote offensive play rather than passive-aggressive play. Aggressive play leads to more players determining the outcome of the game, rather than computer controlled entities. It puts the power back into the players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While it is an unfortunate outcome, there is no one else to blame but the alien team (or marine team) itself when a position such as full lockdown is achieved. There are certainly steps the other team can take to prevent this from occuring and even steps to take to wiggle out of such a position <i>while</i> it is occuring. If the opposing team holds such a strong presence across the map that the other team is effectively neutralized, then the other team deserved to lose, plain and simple. <b>A full lock-down <u>will not</u> be achieved when two evenly matched teams are contending.</b> Unfortunate again is that pub games do not always have evenly matched teams.
This entire discussion obviously hinges on the opinion of static defense and their effectiveness against players, and I am strongly in favor of static defenses holding worth other than pretty decorations in Natural-Selection.
<!--quoteo(post=1617109:date=Mar 26 2007, 04:56 PM:name=Haze)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Haze @ Mar 26 2007, 04:56 PM) [snapback]1617109[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I don't see why static defenses should be overcome by one single human player, and its obviously the difference of opinion we have here. My reference to it being strategic is that in a game such as Quake there are not as many (if any at all) RTS elements as there are in Natural-Selection, and that static defenses in an RTS have been a staple of the genre in several games, which is why there should be no problem with the static defenses being a staple in Natural-Selection. Although you do bring up a good point with the jetpack/HMG rush, and it simply comes down to the fact that you believe a player should not be stopped by a static defense whereas I believe that its perfectly acceptable. Would it be wrong to say I cannot convince you otherwise? ^^; <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said that they should be overcome by a single player, I'm just saying if they are left alone they should be easily eliminated. Static defenses should a deterrant with support. You also mention that Static Defense is common in RTSs which is true. All Static defenses however ARE BROKEN without unit support to back them up. This is not the common case in NS with the turret and electricity combination. Most weak hive 1 units that go after an electrified lockdown will most likely lose on their own or with minimal reinforcement (such as a marine or two rushing the gorge that is healing).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The skulks don't need to go after the turret factory itself. With the assistance of an adrenaline gorge they could <b>easily</b> take down the turrets themselves (two skulks and a gorge is the party in my mind, by the way) if the commander has entrenched as turrets needing to be an alternative. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So the skulks and gorge are rewarded after taking down the turrets one by one with an electrified Turret factory, resource node or both, combined with the likely combination of a phase gate and the hand grenade tech that is ever so popular with the marines these days. Also by declaring an Adrenaline gorge you are restricting the hive 1 tech chamber to movement something I believe the development team wants to get away from as it does limit strategies and tactics.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nevermind the fact that if a commander had enough res to put down an electrified turret factory with at least 3 - 5 turrets in the area he has spent a significant amount of resources and it is obviously not early in the game, as early game resources are not squandered so carelessly. I would hope to assume that there would be a fade, or an onos (with the help of a gorge for both instances), for the alien team to retaliate, which would make short work of the turret factory establishment (this all assuming that they're still at hive one as well!). If the marines do have a phase gate set up as a link in between marine start and the turret establishment, further coordination can be utilized to have two attack teams - one that continually attacks the turret emplacement, while another harasses the marine start, forcing the marines to either devote all of their resources to one area of defense, or split their force into two as well. All the while, there can be one lone player circling the map and destroying marine resource towers. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Often times in lockdown situations by the time the aliens get enough resources its too late to even fathom a counter attack. By the time the aliens can get an onos, and unless the commander is a complete moron, either the hive you start with will be dead shortly with level 3 technology and possible proto tech, or the hive you want to build will be destroyed. In either case the 1 fade or onos that you will get due to the lack of resources on the alien side will get slaughtered by the HMG and shotgun fire that will never end because your team is so focused on breaking the lock they forgot to take down the resource nodes. Even if they do take down the resource nodes they will just be recapped. Alien progress is HALTED COMPLETELY while marine progress has minor setbacks that in the end only waste time.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Now if all of the RTs are electrified and the turret emplacements so well dug in with marine's equipped to handle attacks with ease, then I would certainly hope that the aliens are on a similar level of technology and resource, or else they have already lost the game and the point is moot. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" /> Would it be far fetched to say that the gorge helping with the attacks has set up a few OCs, a defense and movement chamber in one portion as a fall back point if the marines push the attack back and the aliens on the defense? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not arguing that the game is lost, so the point is not moot. I have been arguing that when the aliens become the zerglings vs. the wraiths, the game STOPS being fun for the aliens, and can act as a major turn off. I have seen games go on longer than they should have due to ineffiencies of the marine team. I am not talking five minutes, I am talking around 10-20 minutes extra after the game is clearly lost. It would be far fetched to fathom any strategy on the pub side because you never know what you are going to get, and you do not know their resource situation. So yes it is far fetched.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->All in all, static defenses are easily dealt with by <b>coordinated efforts,</b> and the only deterrence they offer is towards lone players. I only said they should be impenetrable to a solo player, and even that is stretching the truth. A two hive fade can easily make work of a turret emplacement given enough time. If you don't believe that is time well spent by the fade than the position that is turreted is obviously not important enough to complain about to begin with. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not arguing what a second hive fade is capable of. I am arguing the whole time what the first hive skulks and gorge go up against a lockdown that puts a DIRECT halt on their advancement. I am quite knowledgable of what a fade is and is not capable of.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only thing this guarantee by static defenses against rambo players provides is a requirement of coordination on the opposing team's part to overcome such defenses.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Failure. Properly funded and placed lockdowns keep more than just rambos out. If the entire early alien team rushed a lockdown with half of the marine team reinforcing, they would get slaughtered, even if the marines are poor at aiming. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> While it is an unfortunate outcome, there is no one else to blame but the alien team (or marine team) itself when a position such as full lockdown is achieved. There are certainly steps the other team can take to prevent this from occuring and even steps to take to wiggle out of such a position <i>while</i> it is occuring. If the opposing team holds such a strong presence across the map that the other team is effectively neutralized, then the other team deserved to lose, plain and simple. <b>A full lock-down <u>will not</u> be achieved when two evenly matched teams are contending.</b> Unfortunate again is that pub games do not always have evenly matched teams. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Technically it only takes one marine to build a TF, phase gate and turrets. Realistically, a squad of 3 people can take a hive before the 1 minute mark with just turrets, then wait for phase tech. Once that hive is locked the game is mostly over. Pub teams are never even, and its difficult to balance for pubs because its very difficult to determine whether or not loss or victory is a result of game balance, or player talent. I am arguing that the ability to use your +use key to eliminate an expansion site for the aliens should not define victory, especially when once that location is secured completely, the aliens have next to little chance of making a comeback. The game should not focus on static defenses which reduce player involvement. It should focus (like in RTS play) aggressiveness and attack counter attack. Right now, the game is like "BGH NO RUSH 15 MINUTES" it should be "LOST TEMPLE, ATTACK ANYTIME". Allowing static defenses to dominate the game takes away from player involvement. Removing player involvement removes the player's lack of control. Removing control takes away from motivation of the player to play, because he or she may not be able to make a significant impact while playing. In the end it will remove players due to the stale gameplay, and the insignificance of the players. Just getting those turrets up and your good to go!
I understand the conflict over lockdowns. The most efficient lockdown is always to electrify the rt, place the pg and tf beside it, and then a turret or two (though turrets and tf optional). It requires at least a fade to take this out, realistically. If the marines choose to have a response time of over 30 seconds, then a gorge and two skulks can take it out, but thats really a rarity when dealing with balanced teams.
What if there was a counter to electrification?
An idea: -gorge healspray 'shortcircuits' the elec for two seconds (maybe more, maybe less). Offers an opportunity for the skulks to hit the PG without the elec damage; though realistically, if a gorge was doing this anyways, the skulks would survive long enough to take out the PG. But it could be a counter to elec in general.
I'm not sure about the idea. It just came to me now, and in some ways seems like it has potential, in others, it seems kinda redundant (since healing counters the damage anyways). But whatever kind of a counter to lockdowns that we can conjure up (that doesnt involve fade or onos), it probably shouldn't involve skulks, aside from their normal use; damage. That led me to gorge and lerk.
Talking about lerk, what if: -SPORE 'shortcircuits' the elec for two seconds. This could be more interesting. Already a support class, we could see even more teamwork in use here. It would require the lerk to remain less mobile (and hence far easier of a target), and his energy would be a balancing issue, giving incentive to go adren lerk.
But, such a change would likely need a counter-balance, perhaps a drop in elec price by 5-10.
Either way, lets spawn some ideas for how to make lockdown hives more counterable. Should this idea be put into its own thread?
Or make it zap for 90 dmg, recharge for 15 seconds or so and then zap again. It would be easy to discharge it with a gorge, but it still protects vs lone skulks.
e: Zap when lifeform gets in range, then recharge and wait till another lifeform gets in range.
<!--quoteo(post=1617694:date=Mar 29 2007, 10:06 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bacillus @ Mar 29 2007, 10:06 AM) [snapback]1617694[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Or make it zap for 90 dmg, recharge for 15 seconds or so and then zap again. It would be easy to discharge it with a gorge, but it still protects vs lone skulks. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Chomp for 13 seconds, standback while it zaps, return to chewing.
It would be nice if electrification was just replaced by something that would keep a RT alive and pumping res longer.
Say you get the normal health when you build an rt, then later if you have an advanced armory, you can research structure plating (from the armslab), say it would cost 20 to tech and 15 to up on a given structure, and triple its health. It should take a long time to upgrade though, and personally I would require a marine there to build it again after building the rt, for realism's sake if nothing else.
On second thought, you might put it on the proto, instead of the arms. Armslabs are enough of a target for baserushes as it is.
<!--quoteo(post=1617090:date=Mar 26 2007, 02:22 PM:name=Underwhelmed)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Underwhelmed @ Mar 26 2007, 02:22 PM) [snapback]1617090[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Marines like Makaveli are able to get 15:1 ratios because, frankly, your average skulk on G4B2S is incompentent. I mean this in both the tactical and strategic sense. If I had a penny everytime I saw a skulk on that server try to walk down a couple marines across an open field, I'd be rich. I'm tired of seeing your retarded posts exaggerating everything to the point of absurdity. As far as I am concerned, the team with the better teamwork and skill is supposed to win, and if Makaveli is really equivalent to 15 pubbers, then you deserve to lost for being so pathetic. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's a German server with a plugin that basically rates every player on the team, and then adds it together to form your team's strength. The marines and aliens' team strength had to be somewhat even or else the server would F4 everyone. Well apparently I was equal to 14 players on that server, so they banned me because the server kept F4ing us. LoL
<!--quoteo(post=1617694:date=Mar 29 2007, 12:06 PM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bacillus @ Mar 29 2007, 12:06 PM) [snapback]1617694[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Or make it zap for 90 dmg, recharge for 15 seconds or so and then zap again. It would be easy to discharge it with a gorge, but it still protects vs lone skulks.
e: Zap when lifeform gets in range, then recharge and wait till another lifeform gets in range. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Electrified RTs should really just be removed from the game. It's not that hard to send an LMG to save RTs.
Comments
It's kind of hard to find out exactly what IS imbalanced though. I can think of a few things that are inbalanced, but the main thing I think is the alien resource system.
You have to realize that if there are 15 aliens, that means that many aliens can be saving up for fade, so you have to be careful if you scale the resources according to players. Yeah, I think it needs to be sped up a bit with a lot of players, but not too much as to cause the marines to get overwhelmed by 10 fades every game.
I think a good way to balance NS for larger servers is to simply make larger maps. Right now there are only like 8-10 rts on a map. If you increase the map size, and put in, say, 20 rts, the aliens actually have a chance to capture and hold the necessary ammount of RTs needed for a good resflow. As of now, the map is too damn small to be able to hold enough RTs, unless of course you have fades and 3 hives and onoses and crap, which in that case you're doing fine anyway.
Maps designed for 30+ players would be intesting. Instead of having 30 players crunched together on a map designed for 6v6, you could basically have individual games going on at different sides of the map.
This is going to happen but I thought it was a neat idea.
Edit: You also have to realize that it's going to be hard to balance something that like 80% of the pubbers out there don't even know how to play correctly.
Example. You can't just make the 2nd hive weak just because every pub comm out there never attacks the 2nd hive.
Now that I think about it, you guys should really just forget about trying to balance NS for competive play. I would be more than happy if you just made it even more kick ###### than it is on 30+ slot public play. There's only like 30 competitive players left anyway.
But I thought your point was that we aren't talking about it.
This is hilarious really. Are you describing your own posts or mine?
As I have already stated, we are looking at large game balance for the 3.2.x patches. 3.2.1 will contain some changes in this area, and we will discuss solutions privately based on feedback gained publicly. There are plenty of topics discussing the issue right now ( including this one ) for you to post your feedback and observations in. Alternatively you can just continue your passive aggressive accusations as normal. Either way , I don't really care what you personally have to say about me, or the rest of the NS team. It's mildly entertaining to watch all your hot air rise to dissipate. For an added bonus, you can restate how you are leaving this community <i>soon</i>. Following up with a definition of <i>soon</i> might help you actually take the step you have so frequently threatened.
In response to Hellabeans:
Yes there are many positive reasons to have a vet program, but based on previous experience the time required to make such a system effective is beyond what we as a team have to spend on it. We use the constellation system now and let communities ( including the clan scene ) to run the game early and post feedback - which we listen to carefully. For 3.2 we even did public testing because we weren't sure about some of our decisions. We tried to get scrims and gathers going in all three regions but there wasn't a huge amount of activity. For a finish, we did some some high quality feedback from the clan scene and have produced a 3.2 that is well balanced for 6v6 play. The problems being addressed in this topic are for 12v12 to 16v16 play, and that isn't something the vet system would have solved anyway. Furthermore, we will be watching 3.2 matches and demos and talking to players about balance over the coming weeks as we lead into the 3.2.1 design tweaks. We will start some more formal feedback topics soon and you and your friends in ANSL are very welcome to post your thoughts.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
AGAIN,
Failure to attack the framework of design, just character. AGAIN, large game balance has been an issue since 1.04 that was "going to be dealt with" since that patch and is allegedly going to be dealt with now.
Hot air eh? You are the one making the personal insults, where as my balance suggestions attack the dev team's work, not their individual character. If you do not wish to respond to it, please just say so and this will be dropped immediately.
At no point did I ever say that the dev team was stupid, lacked talent, or anything negatively. I only criticized the work that was done based on the evidence that I saw. You are the one who is taking this personally, not me <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
As for leaving the community, I'm not gonna let one version of the game deter me from taking a break and coming back (as I've done in the past), unless of course I am asking too many questions that you do not wish to be asked.
Puzl if my company is undesirable here please tell me in a PM, because violating your OWN forum rules to dodge questions seems a little unprofessional and in a way, disappointing.
Take Care <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
You seem to have some issues with us not making the time to respond to you personally or something. I'm not dodging any forums rules whatsoever, if you think I am take it up with Mouse and/or Comprox, I expect no special treatment.
I don't want you or anyone to leave, but you are the one that keeps threatening it. I just find that you make a rather unusual effort to make negative statements that are totally unnecessary. Feel free to do this, it doesn't bother me at all, but don't expect us to answer your serious questions when 90% of what you post is contrived negativity. Comparing your posts to someone like Sarisel tells a lot. I don't always like what the guy has to say, but I recognise it as objective and worth considering.
Of course you will get special treatment, so there is no point in debating that.
Let me ask you with this.
If I had posted that framework for design under an anonymous identity, would I have gotten a response from the dev team?
All I want for you to do is to read through that framework, and discuss with me what you agree with (if anything) or what you do not agree with (if anything). That is all I want from this conversation, no more, no less.
If you choose not to take a look at it please just tell me you have no interest in it, and that is has 0 merit whatsoever, this is the least desirable of options but I will have no choice to respect your decision.
As far as comparing posts with my old teammate, I see my framework as being one of the more productive posts with regards to balance in a long time, and has also been recieved by the ID mod development team, as well as a few posters on this forums that agree with me either completely or partially. If you cannot see the merits of the post than I have to question whether or not YOU are looking at the poster, rather than the posts.
The main point I made was that they were design discussions to have at the start of a project, and not on an iterative patch. We are not in the business of redesigning NS from scratch, that is what NS2 is for. I also said in that discussion that we shared a lot of your conclusions and disagreed with others. Have you forgotten this discussion?
I don't think you received any negative treatment because of your past. We don't get into design debates in public, we simply don't have the time to do it. I have a hectic social life, a demanding gf, a very busy RL job, and I have to make time to play NS about as much as I spend discussing it. Sometimes I venture out of the dev/pt forum to discuss this stuff, but that is a luxury I can rarely afford. The time I spend talking with the community is usually spent trying to understand feedback and issues, not in reviewing the macro design decisions made 5 years ago, that I was not party to. My job is to maintain NS, not to rebuild it, and despite what some people throw at us, I'm proud of what has been achieved and readily acknowledge that we have more to do. I guarantee you that if you tried to work with us constructively instead of constantly undermining us at every turn you would get much further with your stated goals.
Another recent example was during 3.2 testing. I saw that you tried to help by motiving a more organised structure to the public testing, but this manifested as you flaming our QA team as incompetent, and some rather odd references to 'a lack of statistics on win/lose ratios'. As has been discussed here recently, we do public testing so that the community can organise the feedback themselves ( and many communities were very fruitful on this count ), we also don't pay much attention to win/lose ratios as they don't give you insights into the type of detail you need to understand when changing multiple variables at once. Despite all this, I think that the end result of 3.2 vindicates our approach. The game is reasonably balanced for the game sizes we focused on. We recognise that we have not converged on exactly where we want 3.2 to be and the 3.2.x patches will continue to tune the game, but by and large our broad objectives for 3.2 have been achieved.
Obviously, as has already been admitted, we need to expand our focus to include the now very popular 28+ player servers, but I would like to point out ( and this is not in anyway a negative criticism of any community ) that no large server community participated in the beta process. Many of the initial complaints we got from 32 player servers had also been received from 18 player servers when the 3.2 first went into testing, and as players adapted many of the problems either disappeared or were greatly reduced in magnitude. We're hoping that this will happen on the 32 player severs too as people learn to master the new changes.
Firewater, I don't think you'll get a response from the devs about it. Game design discussions are strictly conducted behind closed doors.
I'd like to argue that there should be instances where certain units become completely powerless. This allows for the game's conclusion. IMO, there is more of a problem in concluding the game quickly once the powerless state of the game is reached. However, powerless situations cannot be avoided due to the RTS nature of NS.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well the onos in this particular case is can be powerless, not due to player ability or skill, but mostly based on the marine's level of tech. How often do you see "good" onos die compared to good fades. The onos, despite being more expensive, is more likely to die because it not a skill base class. The fade on the other hand requires a combination of tech, skill and sometimes teamwork depending on how good the fade and marine(s) are. The onos really just require the firepower and time, as aiming at an onos is not difficult at all.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
This paragraph is in reference to hive lockdowns and how it effectively caps the ability of the aliens to do anything. Another solution, other than making upgrades separate from # of hives, would be to buff the onos as a mobile siege weapon, instead of the fairy that it is right now. I think hive lockdowns are a risk that the comm should be allowed to take, but the aliens need to have a way to effectively break these lockdowns at 1 hive, given that they have the resources and time, without having to mass 800 resources for 8 onos. Currently, the lockdowns lead to stagnant games.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well the problem of the hive lockdowns is that the aliens short of an onos is that the aliens for the most part do no have an effective way to break this. This was not always the case however. In 1.04 the turrets were less effective against moving targets and there was no electricity. So effectively a skulk with good FPS skills could circle strafe the turret factory and effectively take it down. Lockdowns required marine effort to maintain, which would often put them on the defensive rather than the offensive. Doing that allowed for aliens to develope resource towers as well as take the other hive to get more lifeforms.
Now lockdowns are a "build and forget" strategy, because there is a very little chance that the alien team will be able to break it down before the marines get enough tech to dominate them. Usually when they do break it down, its too late and the marines are already marching on their main hive while the new hive is building, or vice versa. If the dev team wants to make the aliens more effective, bring back the 1.04 turret setup. If the marines want to lockdown a hive so be it, but turrets alone should not be responsible for holding it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Another solution would be to make lockdowns more significant in the game. Perhaps hives should be double or tripple resource locations (yes, I know, you'd have to scale the res system for this to be 'balanced') which would have a great impact on the marines' ability to tech fast and end the game quickly once two lockdowns are established. Note: I'm arguing this while knowing that many other elements of the game would have to be changed in order to make this proposed change work properly. However, I honestly believe that the change can be made viable.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why this may solve the current situation, I believe that this changing this will open a whole new can of worms that would create more problems than what exists now.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I agree. The game should be spread more evenly across the three hives or the hive system needs to be re-evaluated (I believe this is being looked at in NS2 - hives not based on a particular location).
Tech (in the form of hive dependent upgrades) definitely plays a role in the balance problems. I think that while NS cannot be balanced linearly (i.e. both sides will have an equal chance to win at all times), the game can definitely get non-linear balance (i.e. either side has an equal chance to win in the end, but there may be inequalities on the road to the end).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunately with the current hive system there is no way to get some of the upgrades sooner, and others later, there is only you have it or you don't. I feel this leads to more alien losses than victories. And unfortunately I do not think its reasonable for NS1 to change to a different system because of either engine limitations, or resource limitations of the developers side.
However, I feel that nerfing any of the automated defenses (including OCs) would help immensely in alien victories. Less reliance on static defenses will force both sides to be more aggressive when they are attempting to establish tech dominance. It requires more action on the part of the players, as well as the commander.
This change I feel IS reasonable and I feel it would help out significantly especially in larger games.
You have a poor memory. We discussed that post on irc after you posted it on the CAL forums ( at least, that was where I fist saw it, I see you claim you originally posted it on the id forums ).
The main point I made was that they were design discussions to have at the start of a project, and not on an iterative patch. We are not in the business of redesigning NS from scratch, that is what NS2 is for. I also said in that discussion that we shared a lot of your conclusions and disagreed with others. Have you forgotten this discussion?
I don't think you received any negative treatment because of your past. We don't get into design debates in public, we simply don't have the time to do it. I have a hectic social life, a demanding gf, a very busy RL job, and I have to make time to play NS about as much as I spend discussing it. Sometimes I venture out of the dev/pt forum to discuss this stuff, but that is a luxury I can rarely afford. The time I spend talking with the community is usually spent trying to understand feedback and issues, not in reviewing the macro design decisions made 5 years ago, that I was not party to. My job is to maintain NS, not to rebuild it, and despite what some people throw at us, I'm proud of what has been achieved and readily acknowledge that we have more to do. I guarantee you that if you tried to work with us constructively instead of constantly undermining us at every turn you would get much further with your stated goals.
Another recent example was during 3.2 testing. I saw that you tried to help by motiving a more organised structure to the public testing, but this manifested as you flaming our QA team as incompetent, and some rather odd references to 'a lack of statistics on win/lose ratios'. As has been discussed here recently, we do public testing so that the community can organise the feedback themselves ( and many communities were very fruitful on this count ), we also don't pay much attention to win/lose ratios as they don't give you insights into the type of detail you need to understand when changing multiple variables at once. Despite all this, I think that the end result of 3.2 vindicates our approach. The game is reasonably balanced for the game sizes we focused on. We recognise that we have not converged on exactly where we want 3.2 to be and the 3.2.x patches will continue to tune the game, but by and large our broad objectives for 3.2 have been achieved.
Obviously, as has already been admitted, we need to expand our focus to include the now very popular 28+ player servers, but I would like to point out ( and this is not in anyway a negative criticism of any community ) that no large server community participated in the beta process. Many of the initial complaints we got from 32 player servers had also been received from 18 player servers when the 3.2 first went into testing, and as players adapted many of the problems either disappeared or were greatly reduced in magnitude. We're hoping that this will happen on the 32 player severs too as people learn to master the new changes.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No I do not remember what happened in the CAL forums, and I did try to reference it but i realized that the NS portion of the cal forums is no longer in existence. Sorry but I do not remember every single post I have ever made, I'm just not that good.
As far as your time allowance, I'm sure if it was used more wisely you could have formulated a post attacking the framework, rather than myself.
As far as attacking your Q&A I would just like to see more organized structure on the playtest side of things, by eliminating as many variables as possible. This may have changed, but when I participated there was no competent system for eliminating player skill as a variable. It was either go random or "umm you go here, now you here now you here". I would have liked to seen a little more structure in a game where balance is the most crucial issue in the game.
I disagree with the dev team not having time for debate as I remember that when the NS forums went down I remember quite a few developers responding defensively to comments that were obviously not even made on their own forums. I couldn't help that they the devs that responded felt a little self-conscious about comments made. It seemed at the time the developers were more concerned with saving face rather than making the game better, or working towards getting the website back up.
Secondly, I understand that you don't remember every post you make, but you seem to expect me to respond to the ones that you deem response worthy, which isn't exactly fair now, is it?
Closed testing isn't about fine tuning balance, it's about gauging the ramifications of changes so that we can go into public testing with a good idea of where we stand and where we need to get to. It is mainly about QA and game balance is its secondary function. The public testing is where we get to observe a large number of players playing the game for a long period of time. This is an excellent way to familiarise yourself with the state of a patch, and beta2 and 3.2f tweaks represent the solutions to the observed problems. If you want to criticise our methodology then the best way is to directly criticise the changes in those patches, and also the changes you felt should have been in those patches ( AKA feedback for 3.2.1 ). We've taken feedback from all corners of the NS community, even from players who were at the time banned from these forums. Good ideas are good ideas no matter where they originate from, so if you really want to improve NS then the best approach is to organise these equally skilled games you talk about and produce observations in the form of feedback. You are in a position to do what you suggest, so I suggest you do it.
I would love to organize a balanced game but I would need the cooperation of the competitive community, and as of now I do have the resources and the time to do so.
But I cannot do it by myself, so if there are any competitive players that want their voices heard, then apparently this is the venue to be used.
If not then all I can do is post my past experiences, and solutions to solve them.
I think two of the problems with large games is the alien spawn time, and the effectiveness of turrets in a lockdown situation.
To put it short,
If the aliens spawned in faster at first hive, they wouldn't have to rely so much on the first wave of spawn to dent the marine spawn queue so they can get some nodes or chambers or even just take some offensive ground.
Turrets when fighting skulks, if placed correctly can act really as aimbotting marines. Their aim is perfect and depending on the location the turret and/or factory may not be able to be attacked due to the supreme accuracy of the turrets. Factor in electricity, and which point as a skulk it does not matter whether or not you can make it to the TF.
Increase the alien spawning for large games, as well as bring back the 1.04 turrets for all games, and I guarentee that the aliens will increase their victory margin significantly.
But now, now that everyone's updated, I just feel like these larger games just aren't worth it. I don't know why, they just.... they lack something I don't know. I don't think it's balance, but rather some quasi-human need for "individuality" in a large crowd. Call me nuts, but I don't think NS needs to be balanced for games of this size.
Getting smaller, as in 10v10, i feel the game is fine. Sure, there's little exploitative advantages and things here and there, but let's be honest, on a pub, the skill range between players and between teams will almost always overcompensate for whatever balance issues there are. To use SmoodCroozn's seemingly endless analogy to chess, the balance issues aren't tactical, but rather positional; an isolated pawn, good bishop vs. bad bishop, a knight post, all issues that may end up winning or losing the game, but may is key. There's still a lot of stuff before that. Sure, in an ideal society the game would be perfect, but heck, I'd say from what I've seen NS is pretty damn close (in relative terms).
The only real type of game left is the small ones, the 6v6. In these though, the game is balanced, or at least meant to be; that's who they tested it for, right? And when it comes down to it, you see these balance issues, these slight positional mistakes, when you play with better players. To try to adhere to pubs would seem, at least to me, a waste, considering the vast skill ranges you'll have in a pub.
The "fix" to balance lies not with the developers of NS, but with the users of NS. People like the infamous White Panther who wrote Xmenu, and many others who've written so many plugins. They provide ways to custimize NS to their own desires; some people think lerks still should have spikes, or marines should be able to weld themselves. Everyone's opinion about where the true balance lies will differ, so to standardize it would still leave many unhappy, as you cannot cater to all beliefs.
So to me, there shouldn't be this audacious outcry against the developers for not caring, but rather an understanding that they should keep the game unbalanced, for while you see unbalance, others see the balance. The call shouldn't be made to the devs, no, it should be made to the people like White Panther, the community of NS, to make these plugins and addons and the sort such that everyone can have the balance that they so desire. To attack the devs for not adhering to whatever outcry anyone has seems, well, sort of biased towards your view, I guess. I don't know, that's my take on the balance of NS. I've always found it to be balanced enough. Even up a pawn, you have to complete the game and checkmate the king. You aren't guaranteed the win.
There already is a forum for balance discussions: Ideas and Suggestions.
We don't have a problem with people modding our game F4tMan, but we definitely want to ship a game that is balance for the popular conditions. The strengths you see in modding will still be present in a game balanced for all team sizes.
Turrets when fighting skulks, if placed correctly can act really as aimbotting marines. Their aim is perfect and depending on the location the turret and/or factory may not be able to be attacked due to the supreme accuracy of the turrets. Factor in electricity, and which point as a skulk it does not matter whether or not you can make it to the TF.
Increase the alien spawning for large games, as well as bring back the 1.04 turrets for all games, and I guarentee that the aliens will increase their victory margin significantly.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't really believe that skulks should be able to overcome a turreted position on a map, and that static defenses - to some extent - should limit and force movement of lower tech players (skulks, 'vanilla' marines) to another route. While one might suggest that its annoying to be defeated by a stationary, static CPU defense, I could argue that this being a game of strategy, static defenses do play a major strategic role in the game by limiting movement as I said before.
Skulks can overcome a turreted position by attacking in numbers greater than one or two - the turrets themselves are very weak. With the help of a nearby gorge, continual hit and run attacks would actually make short work of the static defenses (theres no reason to only go after the TF itself), as do marines when the commander is presiding over him and assisting him with medpacks.
All in all, I believe static defenses <b>should</b> be an impenetrable wall for players that are ramboing or not utilizing teamwork to their advantage. To the latter, they should slow them down enough to give the team that houses said defenses a fair warning to the advancing team, to allow them to move to that position and defend it.
<!--quoteo(post=1616415:date=Mar 23 2007, 02:22 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Mar 23 2007, 02:22 AM) [snapback]1616415[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->...and the effectiveness of turrets in a lockdown situation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I might be misreading this as well, but if you're referring to a hive lockdown, or a 'lockin' (as in, the aliens can't move away from their hive because it is bordered by turrets at each exit) then the only place to lay blame is the alien team, not to the design of the game. That's an extremely hard position to obtain when you're playing the marine team (as is a completely secure two hive lockdown) and shouldn't ever actually <i>be seen</i> in a game against a competent alien team. Its like playing tic-tac-toe, and someone has three of the corner spaces, handing them the game when you make your next move - its just something any 'experienced tic-tac-toe player' doesn't let happen, and the fundamentals of tic-tac-toe aren't changed because such an advantage is possible to be achieved by one player.
I don't really believe that skulks should be able to overcome a turreted position on a map, and that static defenses - to some extent - should limit and force movement of lower tech players (skulks, 'vanilla' marines) to another route. While one might suggest that its annoying to be defeated by a stationary, static CPU defense, I could argue that this being a game of strategy, static defenses do play a major strategic role in the game by limiting movement as I said before.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that notion is a little ridiculous, I don't see any reason that static defenses should beat human players unless they make a critical error, this whole notion of build and forget is what is killing alien play right now in most servers. It is strategical, but that does not it is balanced. For example, in 1.04 teams would rush jetpacks before the aliens could get a lerk. Strategical? Absolutely? Fun for the alien team? Nope, Balanced? Not a chance in hell. There are other ways of limiting movement other than using +use.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Skulks can overcome a turreted position by attacking in numbers greater than one or two - the turrets themselves are very weak. With the help of a nearby gorge, continual hit and run attacks would actually make short work of the static defenses (theres no reason to only go after the TF itself), as do marines when the commander is presiding over him and assisting him with medpacks.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Failure. Turret factories can be electrified, and depending on turret placement skulks may get killed before punching a hole into a turret factory just to earn the privilege of being struck by electricity rather than bullets.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->All in all, I believe static defenses <b>should</b> be an impenetrable wall for players that are ramboing or not utilizing teamwork to their advantage. To the latter, they should slow them down enough to give the team that houses said defenses a fair warning to the advancing team, to allow them to move to that position and defend it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anything that is guarenteed should be removed from the game. Guarantees take away from player skill, and ultimately the further development of tactics and strategies in the game. Just because one team gains superior posistion they should not be entitled to keep it unless they are able to repel the enemy attacks. Making turrets perfectly aim as well as electricity take away from this concept and gives too much control away, with very little chance of return.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I might be misreading this as well, but if you're referring to a hive lockdown, or a 'lockin' (as in, the aliens can't move away from their hive because it is bordered by turrets at each exit) then the only place to lay blame is the alien team, not to the design of the game. That's an extremely hard position to obtain when you're playing the marine team (as is a completely secure two hive lockdown) and shouldn't ever actually <i>be seen</i> in a game against a competent alien team. Its like playing tic-tac-toe, and someone has three of the corner spaces, handing them the game when you make your next move - its just something any 'experienced tic-tac-toe player' doesn't let happen, and the fundamentals of tic-tac-toe aren't changed because such an advantage is possible to be achieved by one player.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am talking about the commanders that lockdown the middle hive and electrify every node before saving up for heavies to eliminate the other team. There should BE NO SUCH LUXURY. Game should not be over with 20 minutes left to play. Lockdowns play huge role because it is denying the alien team resources with very little merit and player skill involved. The game should go back and forth, attacking and counter attacking. Right now its a rush to get that hive for marines. Limiting turret use and electricity would promote offensive play rather than passive-aggressive play. Aggressive play leads to more players determining the outcome of the game, rather than computer controlled entities. It puts the power back into the players.
And what I mean by this is it would be as said, to stop ramboing marines from wandering off. However, some teamwork effort would take down this defense.
So...
I like large servers. To me, more players, means more combat, means more fun. But in NS, it's quite a different story. I play at G4B2S and 80% of the time, the game works like this:
- few pro marines run to alien start
- prevent aliens from exiting hive (OMG SKULKS AMBUSH!)
- rest of marines take the map
- few minutes jps, hmgs blah blah
Then you have a game where the commander is drunk/sloppy, where aliens have a chance.
I don't like excluding people from servers, but a few good players ruins it for everyone else. We don't feel, "OMG LETS TRAIN HARDER" when these players come in. Aliens give up and other marines feel useless. It's as if you threw all the weights in boxing together and expected a fair game.
Clan matches work because players are generally on the same level of skill. And about the testing, if 3.2 pub testing did anything, it should show you how skewed games are. 90% of the res coming from 1 or 2 players seems wrong.
Some people here are in clans and of course they have no problem with this design. But others such as myself and pubbers do feel there should be something done about this.
There's this saying of do better that goes around here. I'm sure there are many people who've been here since 1.04. But most of these people do not get to the skills of players like Romano, who decides games.
The real problem is you throw all of the weights together and somehow expect a fair game from it. But it turns into the game of who's the best and the other players hope they can do something for the team. If we have new players, they shouldn't play against pros who will come to the hive and spawn camp them for a game. It's like trying a new game on hard mode the first time.
This is the problem and although my methods might not be the best, I'm happy to hear any others.
I like this defenses idea, but I'd like it to help aliens more.
And what I mean by this is it would be as said, to stop ramboing marines from wandering off. However, some teamwork effort would take down this defense.
So...
...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In eu servers I play in there aren't much of rounds like that. I don't know about the American servers, but I can't think of any player who could stand against spore and parasite combined with a few skulks as long the comm isn't a med maniac. In such 32 plr servers it should be kinda easy to organise even 5 or 6 skulk rushes, which is pretty much deadly for a single marine as long as you rush at the same time.
A few proper marines with welders and a solid comm is another story. Still, the para spore combination should be quite effective even at lower skill levels.
Hmm...is clan play really that different? I've been playing NS since it first came out and never played on anything but a pub server before.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not really talking competitive play, as unfortunately it is diminished and there a lot of talented players who do not get the oppurtunity to play NS as it once was.
I am talking about public play, and the thing that frustrates a lot of players, not just competitive ones. All my points are based off extensive american public play.
Bullish omitted
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Marines like Makaveli are able to get 15:1 ratios because, frankly, your average skulk on G4B2S is incompentent. I mean this in both the tactical and strategic sense. If I had a penny everytime I saw a skulk on that server try to walk down a couple marines across an open field, I'd be rich. I'm tired of seeing your retarded posts exaggerating everything to the point of absurdity. As far as I am concerned, the team with the better teamwork and skill is supposed to win, and if Makaveli is really equivalent to 15 pubbers, then you deserve to lost for being so pathetic.
Some sketchy points, but ones I feel are important if I was editing NS all on my own:
3. Skulk movement: faster by a bit? and marines to can't hoppity-hop all day because they'll get "tired"?
2. Yes alien resource methods on large servers, but in particular gorges. Gorges win games, period. But you end up waiting resources unable to help your team other than healing (but you can't go too offensive or the marines will hunt you down) for in large games.
1. More elaborate tech tree's for both teams. And why does everything except med packs, ammo packs, and cat packs in this game need to a multiple of 5? Why not have a turret or OC cost 12 or 11 res instead of 10?
I think that notion is a little ridiculous, I don't see any reason that static defenses should beat human players unless they make a critical error, this whole notion of build and forget is what is killing alien play right now in most servers. It is strategical, but that does not it is balanced. For example, in 1.04 teams would rush jetpacks before the aliens could get a lerk. Strategical? Absolutely? Fun for the alien team? Nope, Balanced? Not a chance in hell. There are other ways of limiting movement other than using +use. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see why static defenses should be overcome by one single human player, and its obviously the difference of opinion we have here. My reference to it being strategic is that in a game such as Quake there are not as many (if any at all) RTS elements as there are in Natural-Selection, and that static defenses in an RTS have been a staple of the genre in several games, which is why there should be no problem with the static defenses being a staple in Natural-Selection. Although you do bring up a good point with the jetpack/HMG rush, and it simply comes down to the fact that you believe a player should not be stopped by a static defense whereas I believe that its perfectly acceptable. Would it be wrong to say I cannot convince you otherwise? ^^;
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Failure. Turret factories can be electrified, and depending on turret placement skulks may get killed before punching a hole into a turret factory just to earn the privilege of being struck by electricity rather than bullets. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The skulks don't need to go after the turret factory itself. With the assistance of an adrenaline gorge they could <b>easily</b> take down the turrets themselves (two skulks and a gorge is the party in my mind, by the way) if the commander has entrenched as turrets needing to be an alternative. Nevermind the fact that if a commander had enough res to put down an electrified turret factory with at least 3 - 5 turrets in the area he has spent a significant amount of resources and it is obviously not early in the game, as early game resources are not squandered so carelessly. I would hope to assume that there would be a fade, or an onos (with the help of a gorge for both instances), for the alien team to retaliate, which would make short work of the turret factory establishment (this all assuming that they're still at hive one as well!). If the marines do have a phase gate set up as a link in between marine start and the turret establishment, further coordination can be utilized to have two attack teams - one that continually attacks the turret emplacement, while another harasses the marine start, forcing the marines to either devote all of their resources to one area of defense, or split their force into two as well. All the while, there can be one lone player circling the map and destroying marine resource towers.
Now if all of the RTs are electrified and the turret emplacements so well dug in with marine's equipped to handle attacks with ease, then I would certainly hope that the aliens are on a similar level of technology and resource, or else they have already lost the game and the point is moot. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" /> Would it be far fetched to say that the gorge helping with the attacks has set up a few OCs, a defense and movement chamber in one portion as a fall back point if the marines push the attack back and the aliens on the defense?
All in all, static defenses are easily dealt with by <b>coordinated efforts,</b> and the only deterrence they offer is towards lone players.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Anything that is guarenteed should be removed from the game. Guarantees take away from player skill, and ultimately the further development of tactics and strategies in the game. Just because one team gains superior posistion they should not be entitled to keep it unless they are able to repel the enemy attacks. Making turrets perfectly aim as well as electricity take away from this concept and gives too much control away, with very little chance of return.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I only said they should be impenetrable to a solo player, and even that is stretching the truth. A two hive fade can easily make work of a turret emplacement given enough time. If you don't believe that is time well spent by the fade than the position that is turreted is obviously not important enough to complain about to begin with. The only thing this guarantee by static defenses against rambo players provides is a requirement of coordination on the opposing team's part to overcome such defenses.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I am talking about the commanders that lockdown the middle hive and electrify every node before saving up for heavies to eliminate the other team. There should BE NO SUCH LUXURY. Game should not be over with 20 minutes left to play. Lockdowns play huge role because it is denying the alien team resources with very little merit and player skill involved. The game should go back and forth, attacking and counter attacking. Right now its a rush to get that hive for marines. Limiting turret use and electricity would promote offensive play rather than passive-aggressive play. Aggressive play leads to more players determining the outcome of the game, rather than computer controlled entities. It puts the power back into the players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While it is an unfortunate outcome, there is no one else to blame but the alien team (or marine team) itself when a position such as full lockdown is achieved. There are certainly steps the other team can take to prevent this from occuring and even steps to take to wiggle out of such a position <i>while</i> it is occuring. If the opposing team holds such a strong presence across the map that the other team is effectively neutralized, then the other team deserved to lose, plain and simple. <b>A full lock-down <u>will not</u> be achieved when two evenly matched teams are contending.</b> Unfortunate again is that pub games do not always have evenly matched teams.
This entire discussion obviously hinges on the opinion of static defense and their effectiveness against players, and I am strongly in favor of static defenses holding worth other than pretty decorations in Natural-Selection.
I don't see why static defenses should be overcome by one single human player, and its obviously the difference of opinion we have here. My reference to it being strategic is that in a game such as Quake there are not as many (if any at all) RTS elements as there are in Natural-Selection, and that static defenses in an RTS have been a staple of the genre in several games, which is why there should be no problem with the static defenses being a staple in Natural-Selection. Although you do bring up a good point with the jetpack/HMG rush, and it simply comes down to the fact that you believe a player should not be stopped by a static defense whereas I believe that its perfectly acceptable. Would it be wrong to say I cannot convince you otherwise? ^^;
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said that they should be overcome by a single player, I'm just saying if they are left alone they should be easily eliminated. Static defenses should a deterrant with support. You also mention that Static Defense is common in RTSs which is true. All Static defenses however ARE BROKEN without unit support to back them up. This is not the common case in NS with the turret and electricity combination. Most weak hive 1 units that go after an electrified lockdown will most likely lose on their own or with minimal reinforcement (such as a marine or two rushing the gorge that is healing).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The skulks don't need to go after the turret factory itself. With the assistance of an adrenaline gorge they could <b>easily</b> take down the turrets themselves (two skulks and a gorge is the party in my mind, by the way) if the commander has entrenched as turrets needing to be an alternative.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So the skulks and gorge are rewarded after taking down the turrets one by one with an electrified Turret factory, resource node or both, combined with the likely combination of a phase gate and the hand grenade tech that is ever so popular with the marines these days. Also by declaring an Adrenaline gorge you are restricting the hive 1 tech chamber to movement something I believe the development team wants to get away from as it does limit strategies and tactics.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nevermind the fact that if a commander had enough res to put down an electrified turret factory with at least 3 - 5 turrets in the area he has spent a significant amount of resources and it is obviously not early in the game, as early game resources are not squandered so carelessly. I would hope to assume that there would be a fade, or an onos (with the help of a gorge for both instances), for the alien team to retaliate, which would make short work of the turret factory establishment (this all assuming that they're still at hive one as well!). If the marines do have a phase gate set up as a link in between marine start and the turret establishment, further coordination can be utilized to have two attack teams - one that continually attacks the turret emplacement, while another harasses the marine start, forcing the marines to either devote all of their resources to one area of defense, or split their force into two as well. All the while, there can be one lone player circling the map and destroying marine resource towers.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Often times in lockdown situations by the time the aliens get enough resources its too late to even fathom a counter attack. By the time the aliens can get an onos, and unless the commander is a complete moron, either the hive you start with will be dead shortly with level 3 technology and possible proto tech, or the hive you want to build will be destroyed. In either case the 1 fade or onos that you will get due to the lack of resources on the alien side will get slaughtered by the HMG and shotgun fire that will never end because your team is so focused on breaking the lock they forgot to take down the resource nodes. Even if they do take down the resource nodes they will just be recapped. Alien progress is HALTED COMPLETELY while marine progress has minor setbacks that in the end only waste time.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Now if all of the RTs are electrified and the turret emplacements so well dug in with marine's equipped to handle attacks with ease, then I would certainly hope that the aliens are on a similar level of technology and resource, or else they have already lost the game and the point is moot. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" /> Would it be far fetched to say that the gorge helping with the attacks has set up a few OCs, a defense and movement chamber in one portion as a fall back point if the marines push the attack back and the aliens on the defense?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not arguing that the game is lost, so the point is not moot. I have been arguing that when the aliens become the zerglings vs. the wraiths, the game STOPS being fun for the aliens, and can act as a major turn off. I have seen games go on longer than they should have due to ineffiencies of the marine team. I am not talking five minutes, I am talking around 10-20 minutes extra after the game is clearly lost. It would be far fetched to fathom any strategy on the pub side because you never know what you are going to get, and you do not know their resource situation. So yes it is far fetched.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->All in all, static defenses are easily dealt with by <b>coordinated efforts,</b> and the only deterrence they offer is towards lone players.
I only said they should be impenetrable to a solo player, and even that is stretching the truth. A two hive fade can easily make work of a turret emplacement given enough time. If you don't believe that is time well spent by the fade than the position that is turreted is obviously not important enough to complain about to begin with.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not arguing what a second hive fade is capable of. I am arguing the whole time what the first hive skulks and gorge go up against a lockdown that puts a DIRECT halt on their advancement. I am quite knowledgable of what a fade is and is not capable of.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only thing this guarantee by static defenses against rambo players provides is a requirement of coordination on the opposing team's part to overcome such defenses.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Failure.
Properly funded and placed lockdowns keep more than just rambos out. If the entire early alien team rushed a lockdown with half of the marine team reinforcing, they would get slaughtered, even if the marines are poor at aiming.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
While it is an unfortunate outcome, there is no one else to blame but the alien team (or marine team) itself when a position such as full lockdown is achieved. There are certainly steps the other team can take to prevent this from occuring and even steps to take to wiggle out of such a position <i>while</i> it is occuring. If the opposing team holds such a strong presence across the map that the other team is effectively neutralized, then the other team deserved to lose, plain and simple. <b>A full lock-down <u>will not</u> be achieved when two evenly matched teams are contending.</b> Unfortunate again is that pub games do not always have evenly matched teams.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Technically it only takes one marine to build a TF, phase gate and turrets. Realistically, a squad of 3 people can take a hive before the 1 minute mark with just turrets, then wait for phase tech. Once that hive is locked the game is mostly over. Pub teams are never even, and its difficult to balance for pubs because its very difficult to determine whether or not loss or victory is a result of game balance, or player talent. I am arguing that the ability to use your +use key to eliminate an expansion site for the aliens should not define victory, especially when once that location is secured completely, the aliens have next to little chance of making a comeback. The game should not focus on static defenses which reduce player involvement. It should focus (like in RTS play) aggressiveness and attack counter attack. Right now, the game is like "BGH NO RUSH 15 MINUTES" it should be "LOST TEMPLE, ATTACK ANYTIME". Allowing static defenses to dominate the game takes away from player involvement. Removing player involvement removes the player's lack of control. Removing control takes away from motivation of the player to play, because he or she may not be able to make a significant impact while playing. In the end it will remove players due to the stale gameplay, and the insignificance of the players. Just getting those turrets up and your good to go!
What if there was a counter to electrification?
An idea:
-gorge healspray 'shortcircuits' the elec for two seconds (maybe more, maybe less). Offers an opportunity for the skulks to hit the PG without the elec damage; though realistically, if a gorge was doing this anyways, the skulks would survive long enough to take out the PG. But it could be a counter to elec in general.
I'm not sure about the idea. It just came to me now, and in some ways seems like it has potential, in others, it seems kinda redundant (since healing counters the damage anyways). But whatever kind of a counter to lockdowns that we can conjure up (that doesnt involve fade or onos), it probably shouldn't involve skulks, aside from their normal use; damage. That led me to gorge and lerk.
Talking about lerk, what if:
-SPORE 'shortcircuits' the elec for two seconds. This could be more interesting. Already a support class, we could see even more teamwork in use here. It would require the lerk to remain less mobile (and hence far easier of a target), and his energy would be a balancing issue, giving incentive to go adren lerk.
But, such a change would likely need a counter-balance, perhaps a drop in elec price by 5-10.
Either way, lets spawn some ideas for how to make lockdown hives more counterable. Should this idea be put into its own thread?
Strike everything that surrounds it. Friendly, enemy, doesn't matter.
e: Zap when lifeform gets in range, then recharge and wait till another lifeform gets in range.
Or make it zap for 90 dmg, recharge for 15 seconds or so and then zap again. It would be easy to discharge it with a gorge, but it still protects vs lone skulks.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Chomp for 13 seconds, standback while it zaps, return to chewing.
It would be nice if electrification was just replaced by something that would keep a RT alive and pumping res longer.
Say you get the normal health when you build an rt, then later if you have an advanced armory, you can research structure plating (from the armslab), say it would cost 20 to tech and 15 to up on a given structure, and triple its health. It should take a long time to upgrade though, and personally I would require a marine there to build it again after building the rt, for realism's sake if nothing else.
On second thought, you might put it on the proto, instead of the arms. Armslabs are enough of a target for baserushes as it is.
Marines like Makaveli are able to get 15:1 ratios because, frankly, your average skulk on G4B2S is incompentent. I mean this in both the tactical and strategic sense. If I had a penny everytime I saw a skulk on that server try to walk down a couple marines across an open field, I'd be rich. I'm tired of seeing your retarded posts exaggerating everything to the point of absurdity. As far as I am concerned, the team with the better teamwork and skill is supposed to win, and if Makaveli is really equivalent to 15 pubbers, then you deserve to lost for being so pathetic.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's a German server with a plugin that basically rates every player on the team, and then adds it together to form your team's strength. The marines and aliens' team strength had to be somewhat even or else the server would F4 everyone. Well apparently I was equal to 14 players on that server, so they banned me because the server kept F4ing us. LoL
<!--quoteo(post=1617694:date=Mar 29 2007, 12:06 PM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bacillus @ Mar 29 2007, 12:06 PM) [snapback]1617694[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Or make it zap for 90 dmg, recharge for 15 seconds or so and then zap again. It would be easy to discharge it with a gorge, but it still protects vs lone skulks.
e: Zap when lifeform gets in range, then recharge and wait till another lifeform gets in range.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Electrified RTs should really just be removed from the game. It's not that hard to send an LMG to save RTs.