locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1681287:date=Jun 16 2008, 09:30 PM:name=haymo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(haymo @ Jun 16 2008, 09:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681287"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It makes for frustration, unfair map design and a less-action-packed NS style gameplay. (if that's what they're still aiming towards)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe I'm missing something, but AFAIK none of have devs have said anything about toning down the action in NS2. They did talk about making the downtime more interesting with minigames, so maybe that's where you picked that up from.
<!--quoteo(post=1681245:date=Jun 16 2008, 03:11 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jun 16 2008, 03:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681245"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->He doesn't really need numbers. Why wouldn't a player want to be able to see his opponent better?
The only reason I can imagine is that they were concerned over atmosphere. If that's really a big deal to people, that's okay I guess, but it doesn't make sense to me to gimp your ability to play so that you can feel a certain "mood lighting."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I use the default brightness settings and manually bunnyhop not because I like the atmosphere but because I want a self-imposed challenge and because I want to feel the game at my fingertips. When I beat players I know are from the Euro competitive scene 1 on 1 I know I did so at a disadvantage, so it's more of a reward for me. Competitive players on pubs like to think they're tearin' it up because they're 100% better than the other players, they don't like to think about the fact that all the tweaks they've made to their game are giving them an advantage over the average player (obviously they do give them an advantage or they wouldn't make those tweaks in the first place).
I'd love to see a tourney played with NS at default settings, then we'd see who the real pros are (the ones who have raw skills and can adapt to the playing field, whatever the environment).
<!--quoteo(post=1681449:date=Jun 18 2008, 05:33 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jun 18 2008, 05:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681449"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Have you guys read <a href="http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_PlayToWinPart1.htm" target="_blank">:this article:</a> recently?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->No, but my friend in fact has his book -which I've read portions of- and we've discussed the main ideas in it, so please at least give non-competitive players some credit. Don't assume just because we don't play competitively that we are any less equipped to understand the motivation behind competitive play, or indeed play competitively ourselves. Definitely don't make out that your way of playing is 'better' or 'the right' or 'the pure' way of playing. This isn't an accusation, just a forewarning.
Sirlin's article does precisely this. His ideas are correct, but only if applied to a specific type of gamer. He tries to assert competitive-mindedness as 'the way to play'. But in reality his arguments only hold true in a competitive environment. I could make a whole lot of supporting arguments to try to say that I am winning simply because I am not exploiting every weakness of the game to get an advantage (or to give myself an equal advantage as my opponant). But I'm not dismissive like Sirlin.
The truth of the matter is it's all irrelevant if all players are on a level playing field. Whether this is with or without the use of scripts, CFG tweaks, the best hardware, the best internet connection. It's all to do with the agreed boundaries that the players as a whole set themselves.
---
(But for the hell of it I'll take a dismissive, better-than-thou Sirlin approach)
My comment before about a 'default settings' NS tourney wasn't aimed at the people at the very top (who win out at the very top level, and therefore prove themselves), but the middle-ranked competitive players who feed on pub servers to boost their ego. These guys are saps who are using all their kiddie-scripts as a crutch to give them an advantage over players who don't know about or don't want to make use of these enhancements. Sirlin's argument is that 'scrubs' are players who limit themselves by fiction-based rule systems. I think the very players I just described are doing exactly the same, they are deluding themselves.
I'm doing my best not to prejudge people based on their experience in or out of league play - but a few posters' arguments seem to not factor Sirlin's points into consideration very well - am I mistaken?
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited June 2008
<!--quoteo(post=1681451:date=Jun 18 2008, 12:43 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jun 18 2008, 12:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681451"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm doing my best not to prejudge people based on their experience in or out of league play - but a few posters' arguments seem to not factor Sirlin's points into consideration very well - am I mistaken?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Without specific examples I couldn't tell you. I think the point that <b>crispy</b> is trying to make is that while it is important to account for the depth viewpoint, it's equally important to account for the atmosphere viewpoint. One could make an incredibly competitive, but incredibly boring game, just as easily as an incredibly shiny, but incredibly shallow/gimmicky game. The former will fail in volume, and have a weak player base; the latter will fail in longevity, and also have a weak player base.
So yes, the competitive viewpoint should be taken into account when suggesting ideas, but it's not the only thing that matters. The real goal is not to cater to Sirlin's ideas but include them in every discussion where applicable.
<!--quoteo(post=1681458:date=Jun 18 2008, 01:30 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Jun 18 2008, 01:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681458"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Without specific examples I couldn't tell you. I think the point that <b>crispy</b> is trying to make is that while it is important to account for the depth viewpoint, it's equally important to account for the atmosphere viewpoint.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not even remotely as important. While the argument you're implying (that a graphically pleasing game is critical to the selling point of a given title) is true, the points I was referring to exist only within the scope of atmosphere, which is a core part of the NS game series I agree, but should be subordinate to gameplay at absolutely <b>every</b> turn.
<!--quoteo(post=1681469:date=Jun 18 2008, 01:47 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jun 18 2008, 01:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681469"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not even remotely as important. While the argument you're implying (that a graphically pleasing game is critical to the selling point of a given title) is true, the points I was referring to exist only within the scope of atmosphere, which is a core part of the NS game series I agree, but should be subordinate to gameplay at absolutely <b>every</b> turn.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is it not possible for atmosphere and gameplay to run hand in hand as atmosphere being the result of game play elements and not just looks and sounds but actions as well?
I thought NS1 in some respects did this very well, which is why the two sides in the conflict were different beyond just looking and sounding different. That's my guess why so many people thought of Starcraft when playing it, even though I find the Zerg & Kharaa to be very different in purpose for the most part, and would love to see those differences increase even more in NS2, which may just happen with the changes in infestation and welding, among other things like Unified Resource Model and Individual Weapon Load-out.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited June 2008
<!--quoteo(post=1681469:date=Jun 18 2008, 02:47 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jun 18 2008, 02:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681469"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not even remotely as important. While the argument you're implying (that a graphically pleasing game is critical to the selling point of a given title) is true, the points I was referring to exist only within the scope of atmosphere, which is a core part of the NS game series I agree, but should be subordinate to gameplay at absolutely <b>every</b> turn.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're kind of going off on a tangential point. Gameplay != competitive gameplay and atmosphere != graphically pleasing. Atmospheric effects are a part of gameplay and are natural when done right.
Edit: For an example from earlier in this topic: lights dim when covered by infestation. I'm not talking pitch-black-we-need-flares-and-flash-lights I'm talking setting the mood and providing natural cover for kharaa players. (Home-run.)
An example from a different topic: <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=104126" target="_blank">quorum sensing</a> started out as a topic about simply providing a small bonus to players that stick together. So overall good for atmosphere(hunting in packs), but relatively pointless for competitive players. The discussion turned to how to make it something competitive players would use more effectively while still keeping the original base of the idea. (Rounding third)
Again, the goal is to do both right and not sacrifice one for the other.
Edit2: It's a <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=104048" target="_blank">holistic</a> approach.
Long post. Slightly off-topic. Happy to take it to the discussions forum if that's what a mod decides is best. The reason it's not in a PM is because some other people have shown interest in the debate, it's not just a <i>tete a tete</i> between myself and Radix.
<!--quoteo(post=1681451:date=Jun 18 2008, 05:43 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jun 18 2008, 05:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681451"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm doing my best not to prejudge people based on their experience in or out of league play - but a few posters' arguments seem to not factor Sirlin's points into consideration very well - am I mistaken?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I have played for a CS clan that peaked at 5th in Clanbase (albeit some years ago, and for not more than 6 months; but this was when Clanbase was really the only major ladder running),if that's what you're asking. I also used to regularly play on clan servers because I preferred the competition due to the insane amount of time I put into playing CS while I was at school.
My opinion is based on that experience mixed with looking at games from a design point of view (where consideration for all types of players needs to be made). I brought this up because the success of NS is almost certainly not decided by a predilection to design features solely with competitive players in mind. The game must have depth if it is to retain players' attentions, but it must also be simple enough to attract a playerbase large enough to develop and maintain popularity. This means designing a game whose rules are simple to learn, but whose strategy and tactics are deep and open enough to evolve with the players.
My previous post was made with about 2 minutes left of my break at work. I'll refine my argument to say that Sirlin's arguments hold true, but only for conditions where the players being judged by Sirlin's arguments are all playing the same game (i.e. the rules of the game are identical for all players concerned). Here's my reasons for why I think Sirlin is an arrogant ###### and why, even though his ideas are correct, they cannot be applied to Natural Selection as a whole.
1. Sirlin says: <b>Is it harsh to call scrubs naïve?</b> No, it's harsh to deliberately denigrate them by labelling them 'scrubs'. This deliberate attempt to strengthen your argument through ridicule only serves to weaken it because it is so overtly driven at influencing the perspective of the reader through fictional adjectivisation instead of factual data. If your arguments were so solid, you wouldn't need to resort to mockery, since they would stand up on their own, undefiable. [/rant at how Sirlin presents his ideas]
2. Sirlin's example in that essay is Streetfigher, a console game where the rules themselves cannot be altered by the player (he also uses StarCraft, which AFAIK is fairly limited in terms of altering the rules of the game itself to give an advantage). Using a 'turbo' button on a custom gamepad would be 'playing to win', but nobody with any self-respect does it, because it changes the rules of the game and creates an artificial advantage not based on human skill. If you look at his arguments in that essay, NONE of them are for exploits that occur outside of the game. For me, the console is <i>outside of the game</i>, it is a debug measure. There are a lot of things you can do via in-game menus you can do on the console, but you cannot do everything on the console via a front-end or in-game menu. One of the console commands is "sv_cheats 1", another is "developer 1"). These are clearly not 'in-game' commands/options. This is clearly an example of where players have to agree on their own <u>player-based</u> ruleset for the game if they do not wish to play the game using only in-game commands or using only default settings.
3. Natural Selection was not designed as a competitive game, and neither was the first StreetFighter, probably. The difference is that in their <i>natural</i> states only Streetfighter leant itself <i>very well</i> to competitive play. Natural Selection allowed the competitive player to change the rules of the game in order to make the game more viable for competitive play. Calling someone an 'NS scrub' because they are playing a game with unchanged rules and losing against someone who has adapted the rules to suit their playstyle is a monumental feat of irony. Because of my dodgy wireless internet at home, when I play NS I have a tendancy to warp when moving at high speeds if the connection becomes weaker suddenly. Now, if I was brutally just <i>playing to win</i> I would say that I am using an exploit. The distinction Sirlin doesn't make in the essay, because he focuses on a console game, is that only <i>exploits of the game itself</i> qualify to be agreed as permitted. To go one further you would also have to define what constitutes an exploit 'of the game itself'. As I think I have made clear, I would argue that the console is outside of the game, it is not in-game.
4. Sirlin says that many players complain about tactics being unfair. Why do competitive NS players insist the gamma needs to be tweaked and all shadow/light discrepancies negated? Because it's unfair that they have to aim in the dark? * If everyone kept their settngs the same surely the game is still fair? You are responsible for the divide, you have changed the game. You cannot judge us by your rules if you are playing with a different rulebook. If you make changes to the game it is obviously to gain an advantage, to make the game easier. Declaring yourself victor at an easier version of the game is a pointless feat, you are only kidding yourself. The only valid form of victory is against players playing the same game (i.e. other competitive players, better still under LAN conditions, or with numchecking on all files to check for consistency of files defined by the event organisers).
5. The fact of the matter is that NS wasn't suitable for competitive play and competitive players have created a new game that is not the same as the original in order to play it competitively. The NS you play is not the same one as I play, so I do reject any claims of 'general' superiority from a competitive NS player over a 'normal' NS player in a non-competitive environment. The distinct exception I will make is for claims of superiority in a specific area that is obviously heavily based upon human ability, e.g. aiming. However, increased rate of fire or simplified bunny-hopping by use of binds that cannot by inputted via an options menu is where the grey areas start to appear. By all means assert that you have a better aim than me if you are clearly better in that regard, but to say you are a better 'player', without a level playing field to prove such a claim, will only be met with indifference. For that claim to be true we would need to see how my fortes and your fortes, under extremely similar playing conditions, would add up to give an overall account of skill.
I'll say it again: true victory can only be obtained when all *non in-game conditions*, except the *human conditions* of the participants involved are fair and equal. Even then the concepts with asterisks need defining, to clarify grey areas like stimulants (steroids versus energy drinks) and what items fall under 'in-game conditions'.
* A possible counter-argument for the example in #4 is that 'players with different monitors get different experiences from maps with darker lighting; some might not be able to turn up their monitor brightness to an acceptable level' - rubbish. I could use the same argument to say that I should be able to use an aimbot script to partially make up for the fact my ######ty mouse can't track as accurately as your professional gaming mouse. Either way you are changing the game via a back-end alteration made by doctoring game files or utilizing a debug menu.
P.S. For the record I don't have a ######ty mouse, I was just playing devil's advocate.
Upon rereading Radix's posts, it seems he was using that article as a way of saying "Please don't force atmosphere upon the players. Just because one person likes their moody lighting, the other may want to 'play to win' and not want that darkness." If that's the case, then it's in the best interest of everyone for those brightness options to be in game, rather than console commands, for the reasons you describe.
I don't think he was trying to say "I'm a competitive player and when I go on pubs I kick ass because I'm so much better than everyone."
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited June 2008
<!--quoteo(post=1681542:date=Jun 19 2008, 09:02 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SentrySteve @ Jun 19 2008, 09:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681542"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think he was trying to say "I'm a competitive player and when I go on pubs I kick ass because I'm so much better than everyone."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <b>Crispy</b> didn't say anything like that at all, so I doubt you actually read his post. He's saying that, in NS, competitive players, in NS, change the attributes of the game to make it competitive which is different from the type of games described in the Sirlin article. Thus, when players put forth that competitive play is always more important than public play, they're presenting a very one sided view of NS that is willfully naive itself.
Edit: As for the brightness controls, I agree that is probably the best solution.
<!--quoteo(post=1681544:date=Jun 19 2008, 09:17 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Jun 19 2008, 09:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681544"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>Crispy</b> didn't say anything like that at all, so I doubt you actually read his post. He's saying that, in NS, competitive players, in NS, change the attributes of the game to make it competitive which is different from the type of games described in the Sirlin article. Thus, when players put forth that competitive play is always more important than public play, they're presenting a very one sided view of NS that is willfully naive itself.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I may have misread something, but I still get the sense that Crispy was talking about when competitive gamers compare themselves to public gamers. The whole point of his post was the fact that the playing fields must be equal in order for the two gamers to compare themselves before one can claim superior skill over the other. I don't think Radix was trying to compare them at all.
Things Crispy said that made me think that:
1) <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is clearly an example of where players have to agree on their own player-based ruleset for the game if they do not wish to play the game using only in-game commands or using only default settings.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2) <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Calling someone an 'NS scrub' because they are playing a game with unchanged rules and losing against someone who has adapted the rules to suit their playstyle is a monumental feat of irony.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
3) <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why do competitive NS players insist the gamma needs to be tweaked and all shadow/light discrepancies negated? Because it's unfair that they have to aim in the dark?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
4) <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->By all means assert that you have a better aim than me if you are clearly better in that regard, but to say you are a better 'player', without a level playing field to prove such a claim, will only be met with indifference<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> (I mean, here, it really seems like he's trying to defend against a point Radix never tried to make.)
5)<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'll say it again: true victory can only be obtained when all *non in-game conditions*, except the *human conditions* of the participants involved are <b><u>fair and equal.</b></u><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I mean, really, it's hard for me to find something in his post that isn't "you can't compare clanners to pubbers because the playing field isn't equal." I'm starting to doubt <i>you</i> even read it, because that's most of what I take away. I don't think Radix was interested in equal playing fields, and I don't think he was interested in comparing anyone.
I think he was just saying that one style of play should not be forced upon the other; something we can all agree with. I personally hate dark corners, I don't care about atmosphere as that's not the reason I play games. You might love atmosphere -- so let's both have our in-game settings in a way that lets us play the game the way we want to play it. Sure, the playing field isn't even, but it doesn't have to be so long as the other doesn't take offense when one tries to say "man I'm better than you."
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited June 2008
<!--quoteo(post=1681545:date=Jun 19 2008, 09:41 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SentrySteve @ Jun 19 2008, 09:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681545"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I mean, really, it's hard for me to find something in his post that isn't "you can't compare clanners to pubbers because the playing field isn't equal." I'm starting to doubt <i>you</i> even read it, because that's most of what I take away. I don't think Radix was interested in equal playing fields, and I don't think he was interested in comparing anyone.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Those parts are talking about the Sirlin article, and how it does and does not apply to NS. The last paragraph uses that argument to point out that since playing "competitively" is not the only "right way to play" approaching designing a game/features from only a competitive perspective is lopsided and fallacious. <!--quoteo(post=1681545:date=Jun 19 2008, 09:41 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SentrySteve @ Jun 19 2008, 09:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681545"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think he was just saying that one style of play should not be forced upon the other; something we can all agree with.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Definately. That's just the crux of <b>crispy</b>'s argument, and why I agreed adjusting brightness should be part of the game options. <b>Radix</b>'s argument, at least in the last few pages, seemed to be that since darkness in a game didn't add anything for competitive players(because they'd just ramp their gamma) it shouldn't be included. That seems to be an example of forcing a style of play to me.
Edit: This is an aside separate from the argument above but on the same topic. Darkness in games is not anti-competitive anyway as long as it's consistent. Whether or not you like it is completely different from a depth and competitive gameplay argument. I'm not saying I want Doom3 darkness across maps; I'm just pointing out that the depth in NS wouldn't be affected if darkness was added in with moderation, and that arguments against it are personal preference. Personally I wouldn't want a lot of darnkness either and think ti would alienate a large base of players who simply don't like it.
Sorry but it gets me riled when someone links to an article like Sirlin's without stating which points they agree with; it's easy to get the impression they are using the article as their argument. Part of the article is this odious tone from Sirlin, and the whole 'scrub' thing is totally dismissive of other players, even insinuating their style is inferior. I think the guy makes some good points but he comes across as an ass. I didn't mean to direct any bile towards Radix personally (the post before my last was clearer in that respect).
Also Radagast's comment was fairly assuming.
Anyway I definitely agree that there should be menu options to change the brightness and basically tweak any major elements to do with movement, perception and keymapping so that NS2 doesn't have to go through the blockscripts or the gammahax debates like NS has.
<!--quoteo(post=1681542:date=Jun 19 2008, 01:02 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SentrySteve @ Jun 19 2008, 01:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681542"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Upon rereading Radix's posts, it seems he was using that article as a way of saying "Please don't force atmosphere upon the players. Just because one person likes their moody lighting, the other may want to 'play to win' and not want that darkness." If that's the case, then it's in the best interest of everyone for those brightness options to be in game, rather than console commands, for the reasons you describe.
I don't think he was trying to say "I'm a competitive player and when I go on pubs I kick ass because I'm so much better than everyone."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Word of warning about brightness. Some video cards for reasons unknown have weird gamma settings, so turning up the gamma and brightness in game is made of fail compared to other systems. Please do not make maps/games that force players to change default settings to survive, not to mention even worse having to change low level driver settings.
As much as I love FEAR and moody lighting atmosphere in my games, I personally feel there's better way to do that than make dark corners in a map for skulks to hide in, which might not be so dark for the truly haxor driver-level play-to-wins. Different color lights has worked out extremely well in NS1.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The Thief series and Splinter Cell series heavily rely on darkness as a gameplay element, and that is by no means a gameplay flaw.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->They use shadows, not darkness specifically. That means you don't have to make the light areas dark as well. Plus, they're primarily singleplayer games where atmosphere plays a more important role than in multiplayer games.
New gamers couldnt care less whats going on in the game or who dominates what, they just get a hype out of playing a new game. And if they find some servers difficult they change to a server that suits them, with people more to their standards. Sure enough you get some people who dominate on different sides, but that all comes with practise. Tweaks and so forth are just a norm now, cs has them and alot of other games have them. And some people can be worse or better with different tweaks. Mouse sensitivity... You can't say we would all be great on the same mouse sensitivity. If new people to the game are curious how to get better or what tweaks can help in different area's, they just search it on google or so forth. And if you have played the game for awhile and you are still complaining about people who tweak their game have more of an advantage, then i suggest you practise. There is nothing wrong with tweaking, it just improves the competitive players gaming!
<!--quoteo(post=1681549:date=Jun 19 2008, 10:21 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Jun 19 2008, 10:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681549"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Those parts are talking about the Sirlin article, and how it does and does not apply to NS. The last paragraph uses that argument to point out that since playing "competitively" is not the only "right way to play" approaching designing a game/features from only a competitive perspective is lopsided and fallacious.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually that's not true. Competitive players are far more apt to "break" game mechanics, and are much more likely to recognize game elements such as balance, good map flow, diversification of gameplay, and many others - including how fun a game <i>is capable of being</i> (vs how much fun a given player is having at a given time).
Balancing around competitive play will necessitate good game design for even casual players, so long as you take into consideration the fact that casual players won't always know the best choices to make, and take a lesson from Nintendo on creating intuitive and rewarding entry-level gameplay.
Also, I didn't say that <!--quoteo(post=1681549:date=Jun 19 2008, 10:21 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Jun 19 2008, 10:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681549"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->since darkness in a game didn't add anything for competitive players(because they'd just ramp their gamma) it shouldn't be included.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I <i>did</i> say <!--quoteo(post=1681469:date=Jun 18 2008, 02:47 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jun 18 2008, 02:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681469"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[Atmosphere] is a core part of the NS game series<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not against atmosphere nor is anyone I've ever talked to (competitive or otherwise), nor am I trying to force super ultra hera-bright maps on everyone. I'm saying that atmosphere is a secondary element, and that a good game will place it in a position of being <!--quoteo(post=1681469:date=Jun 18 2008, 02:47 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jun 18 2008, 02:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681469"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->subordinate to gameplay at absolutely <b>every</b> turn.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1681696:date=Jun 21 2008, 12:29 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jun 21 2008, 12:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681696"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actually that's not true. Competitive players are far more apt to "break" game mechanics, and are much more likely to recognize game elements such as balance, good map flow, diversification of gameplay, and many others - including how fun a game <i>is capable of being</i> (vs how much fun a given player is having at a given time).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The problem with that thinking is that a game may be fun at higher levels but boring at lower levels. If kharaa win 80% of the time on all of the public servers, it doesn't matter if the game is balanced at the highest level of play, it's still broken. There's a better answer so it's balanced at both levels, hopefully by removing barriers and not by nerfing skill moves.
how balanced was/is ns1, ive never played competativly (in a clan). but i thought the vanilla pub play was fairly balanced there were a few players who had an advantage, either through skill or some other mystical force but from a pure aliens vs marines team opposition balance i thought each team had a reasonable chance of scoring vicotry. There were some uneven maps but most werent so bad, and even on the uneven maps both ive seen both teams claim vicotry at one time or another.
Some on whos more experienced in clan play on ns1 could enlighten me as to the balancing problems in the latest version or any other version if they want.
Being a team game good team work is a bigger factor in my opinon than minor balancing issues, certain players may exploit poor balancing for their own kill counts but i didnt see that many games taken by poor balancing of game elements. People are welcome to disagree with me.
Another thing, in ns1 the darkness regularly saved my gorgie skin even with other players gamma cranked up, i still got ambushed by skulks even with my gamma cranked up, tho maybe thats more a reflection of my skill or other players skill rather than the tactical strengths of the darkness.
I dont necesserlly see why game play and atmosphere have to be an either or deicison, surely a good game has both done really well?
i think both sides have made good points. although being killed by something you can't see is kinda frustrating, when you're starting out. although i think if you tell people 'you will get ambushed' (since it's a common tactic), when they do get ambushed, it's not as bad an experience as it would be if they had no warning.
As a casual player of NS, I increased my gamma because I don't like not being in control. I got frustrated because in the game I cannot do things to see better like I can in real life. Namely, grab a flashlight, flick a light switch, cover my eyes from the bright spot of light etc. Forcing me to not be able to see dark spots will just frustrate me and make me look for workarounds.
Oh wow, what a discusion, firstly welcome home cory, guys can you fit a random clock timer in game at the start of a lvl, and add a day night cycle, each new game, picks a time of day, if a game lasts for 2-4 hours or 6 hours or god for bid a 13 hours 1.4 game, the lighting will slowly adjusts, on top of that it keeps it fairish, maybe give mods the ability to change the clock, wouldnt want to see stack teams leaveing and restacking cos it rolled night time, for tournies i can see two games each way in light and dark before team swap.
as for the Sirlin's arguments, I find those that modify there game xp's to be the blind near sighted ones, they go the cookie cutter norm and master the best actions. for a argument that works for street figther completely fails in NS or any other team based game play, those leet players more offtan than not tend to be the ones to bring down a side and or rage quit, again leaveing them further in the mud, being selfish and going early fade, leaveing if you die, or leaveing your gorges to die, who your yelling at to get upgrades ruins the game, your not even going to get to boast about your bhop script or your gamma hacks or altered wad file, unless theres a leet player stack, in most cases your going to end up failing your team. If there is a leet player stack, and you all go cookie cutter, more offtan than not in a team based game, theres always a counter and with good communication and team work, mass cookie cutter teams with all the upgrades, will usualy get countered, given a even playing feild, were both sides have good map control and rough equal res.
Sure more offtan than not your time spent in your cookie cutter leetest roll will see you though most events, but your unoriginal, you hinder your own advancment in your playing ability, you hinder others advancement, you ruin their gameing exsperiance. we cant all be onos, we can but it can be to easly countered, and if we all go onos, theres no upgrades, no hives no res.
with a game thats balanced on a teter totter, and has a snow ball effect, one scripting cookie cutter, can unravel game, and hand the win over to the enemy
his artical may hold true for a game were as a player you control all your peices on the board, but it doesnt have a leg to stand on in a team based game.
these players more offtan than not, dont see the big picture, they arnt playing to win, they are playing to have the highest kill score, it can help a team, but more offtan than not it can hinder them.
besides why are you all playing to live, play to die, you learn more from loseing a argument.
Comments
Maybe I'm missing something, but AFAIK none of have devs have said anything about toning down the action in NS2. They did talk about making the downtime more interesting with minigames, so maybe that's where you picked that up from.
The only reason I can imagine is that they were concerned over atmosphere. If that's really a big deal to people, that's okay I guess, but it doesn't make sense to me to gimp your ability to play so that you can feel a certain "mood lighting."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I use the default brightness settings and manually bunnyhop not because I like the atmosphere but because I want a self-imposed challenge and because I want to feel the game at my fingertips. When I beat players I know are from the Euro competitive scene 1 on 1 I know I did so at a disadvantage, so it's more of a reward for me. Competitive players on pubs like to think they're tearin' it up because they're 100% better than the other players, they don't like to think about the fact that all the tweaks they've made to their game are giving them an advantage over the average player (obviously they do give them an advantage or they wouldn't make those tweaks in the first place).
I'd love to see a tourney played with NS at default settings, then we'd see who the real pros are (the ones who have raw skills and can adapt to the playing field, whatever the environment).
Sirlin's article does precisely this. His ideas are correct, but only if applied to a specific type of gamer. He tries to assert competitive-mindedness as 'the way to play'. But in reality his arguments only hold true in a competitive environment. I could make a whole lot of supporting arguments to try to say that I am winning simply because I am not exploiting every weakness of the game to get an advantage (or to give myself an equal advantage as my opponant). But I'm not dismissive like Sirlin.
The truth of the matter is it's all irrelevant if all players are on a level playing field. Whether this is with or without the use of scripts, CFG tweaks, the best hardware, the best internet connection. It's all to do with the agreed boundaries that the players as a whole set themselves.
---
(But for the hell of it I'll take a dismissive, better-than-thou Sirlin approach)
My comment before about a 'default settings' NS tourney wasn't aimed at the people at the very top (who win out at the very top level, and therefore prove themselves), but the middle-ranked competitive players who feed on pub servers to boost their ego. These guys are saps who are using all their kiddie-scripts as a crutch to give them an advantage over players who don't know about or don't want to make use of these enhancements. Sirlin's argument is that 'scrubs' are players who limit themselves by fiction-based rule systems. I think the very players I just described are doing exactly the same, they are deluding themselves.
Without specific examples I couldn't tell you. I think the point that <b>crispy</b> is trying to make is that while it is important to account for the depth viewpoint, it's equally important to account for the atmosphere viewpoint. One could make an incredibly competitive, but incredibly boring game, just as easily as an incredibly shiny, but incredibly shallow/gimmicky game. The former will fail in volume, and have a weak player base; the latter will fail in longevity, and also have a weak player base.
So yes, the competitive viewpoint should be taken into account when suggesting ideas, but it's not the only thing that matters. The real goal is not to cater to Sirlin's ideas but include them in every discussion where applicable.
It's not even remotely as important. While the argument you're implying (that a graphically pleasing game is critical to the selling point of a given title) is true, the points I was referring to exist only within the scope of atmosphere, which is a core part of the NS game series I agree, but should be subordinate to gameplay at absolutely <b>every</b> turn.
Is it not possible for atmosphere and gameplay to run hand in hand as atmosphere being the result of game play elements and not just looks and sounds but actions as well?
I thought NS1 in some respects did this very well, which is why the two sides in the conflict were different beyond just looking and sounding different. That's my guess why so many people thought of Starcraft when playing it, even though I find the Zerg & Kharaa to be very different in purpose for the most part, and would love to see those differences increase even more in NS2, which may just happen with the changes in infestation and welding, among other things like Unified Resource Model and Individual Weapon Load-out.
You're kind of going off on a tangential point. Gameplay != competitive gameplay and atmosphere != graphically pleasing. Atmospheric effects are a part of gameplay and are natural when done right.
Edit: For an example from earlier in this topic: lights dim when covered by infestation. I'm not talking pitch-black-we-need-flares-and-flash-lights I'm talking setting the mood and providing natural cover for kharaa players. (Home-run.)
An example from a different topic: <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=104126" target="_blank">quorum sensing</a> started out as a topic about simply providing a small bonus to players that stick together. So overall good for atmosphere(hunting in packs), but relatively pointless for competitive players. The discussion turned to how to make it something competitive players would use more effectively while still keeping the original base of the idea. (Rounding third)
Again, the goal is to do both right and not sacrifice one for the other.
Edit2: It's a <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=104048" target="_blank">holistic</a> approach.
<!--quoteo(post=1681451:date=Jun 18 2008, 05:43 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jun 18 2008, 05:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681451"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm doing my best not to prejudge people based on their experience in or out of league play - but a few posters' arguments seem to not factor Sirlin's points into consideration very well - am I mistaken?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I have played for a CS clan that peaked at 5th in Clanbase (albeit some years ago, and for not more than 6 months; but this was when Clanbase was really the only major ladder running),if that's what you're asking. I also used to regularly play on clan servers because I preferred the competition due to the insane amount of time I put into playing CS while I was at school.
My opinion is based on that experience mixed with looking at games from a design point of view (where consideration for all types of players needs to be made). I brought this up because the success of NS is almost certainly not decided by a predilection to design features solely with competitive players in mind. The game must have depth if it is to retain players' attentions, but it must also be simple enough to attract a playerbase large enough to develop and maintain popularity. This means designing a game whose rules are simple to learn, but whose strategy and tactics are deep and open enough to evolve with the players.
My previous post was made with about 2 minutes left of my break at work. I'll refine my argument to say that Sirlin's arguments hold true, but only for conditions where the players being judged by Sirlin's arguments are all playing the same game (i.e. the rules of the game are identical for all players concerned). Here's my reasons for why I think Sirlin is an arrogant ###### and why, even though his ideas are correct, they cannot be applied to Natural Selection as a whole.
1. Sirlin says: <b>Is it harsh to call scrubs naïve?</b> No, it's harsh to deliberately denigrate them by labelling them 'scrubs'. This deliberate attempt to strengthen your argument through ridicule only serves to weaken it because it is so overtly driven at influencing the perspective of the reader through fictional adjectivisation instead of factual data. If your arguments were so solid, you wouldn't need to resort to mockery, since they would stand up on their own, undefiable. [/rant at how Sirlin presents his ideas]
2. Sirlin's example in that essay is Streetfigher, a console game where the rules themselves cannot be altered by the player (he also uses StarCraft, which AFAIK is fairly limited in terms of altering the rules of the game itself to give an advantage). Using a 'turbo' button on a custom gamepad would be 'playing to win', but nobody with any self-respect does it, because it changes the rules of the game and creates an artificial advantage not based on human skill. If you look at his arguments in that essay, NONE of them are for exploits that occur outside of the game. For me, the console is <i>outside of the game</i>, it is a debug measure. There are a lot of things you can do via in-game menus you can do on the console, but you cannot do everything on the console via a front-end or in-game menu. One of the console commands is "sv_cheats 1", another is "developer 1"). These are clearly not 'in-game' commands/options. This is clearly an example of where players have to agree on their own <u>player-based</u> ruleset for the game if they do not wish to play the game using only in-game commands or using only default settings.
3. Natural Selection was not designed as a competitive game, and neither was the first StreetFighter, probably. The difference is that in their <i>natural</i> states only Streetfighter leant itself <i>very well</i> to competitive play. Natural Selection allowed the competitive player to change the rules of the game in order to make the game more viable for competitive play. Calling someone an 'NS scrub' because they are playing a game with unchanged rules and losing against someone who has adapted the rules to suit their playstyle is a monumental feat of irony. Because of my dodgy wireless internet at home, when I play NS I have a tendancy to warp when moving at high speeds if the connection becomes weaker suddenly. Now, if I was brutally just <i>playing to win</i> I would say that I am using an exploit. The distinction Sirlin doesn't make in the essay, because he focuses on a console game, is that only <i>exploits of the game itself</i> qualify to be agreed as permitted. To go one further you would also have to define what constitutes an exploit 'of the game itself'. As I think I have made clear, I would argue that the console is outside of the game, it is not in-game.
4. Sirlin says that many players complain about tactics being unfair. Why do competitive NS players insist the gamma needs to be tweaked and all shadow/light discrepancies negated? Because it's unfair that they have to aim in the dark? * If everyone kept their settngs the same surely the game is still fair? You are responsible for the divide, you have changed the game. You cannot judge us by your rules if you are playing with a different rulebook. If you make changes to the game it is obviously to gain an advantage, to make the game easier. Declaring yourself victor at an easier version of the game is a pointless feat, you are only kidding yourself. The only valid form of victory is against players playing the same game (i.e. other competitive players, better still under LAN conditions, or with numchecking on all files to check for consistency of files defined by the event organisers).
5. The fact of the matter is that NS wasn't suitable for competitive play and competitive players have created a new game that is not the same as the original in order to play it competitively. The NS you play is not the same one as I play, so I do reject any claims of 'general' superiority from a competitive NS player over a 'normal' NS player in a non-competitive environment. The distinct exception I will make is for claims of superiority in a specific area that is obviously heavily based upon human ability, e.g. aiming. However, increased rate of fire or simplified bunny-hopping by use of binds that cannot by inputted via an options menu is where the grey areas start to appear. By all means assert that you have a better aim than me if you are clearly better in that regard, but to say you are a better 'player', without a level playing field to prove such a claim, will only be met with indifference. For that claim to be true we would need to see how my fortes and your fortes, under extremely similar playing conditions, would add up to give an overall account of skill.
I'll say it again: true victory can only be obtained when all *non in-game conditions*, except the *human conditions* of the participants involved are fair and equal. Even then the concepts with asterisks need defining, to clarify grey areas like stimulants (steroids versus energy drinks) and what items fall under 'in-game conditions'.
* A possible counter-argument for the example in #4 is that 'players with different monitors get different experiences from maps with darker lighting; some might not be able to turn up their monitor brightness to an acceptable level' - rubbish. I could use the same argument to say that I should be able to use an aimbot script to partially make up for the fact my ######ty mouse can't track as accurately as your professional gaming mouse. Either way you are changing the game via a back-end alteration made by doctoring game files or utilizing a debug menu.
P.S. For the record I don't have a ######ty mouse, I was just playing devil's advocate.
Upon rereading Radix's posts, it seems he was using that article as a way of saying "Please don't force atmosphere upon the players. Just because one person likes their moody lighting, the other may want to 'play to win' and not want that darkness." If that's the case, then it's in the best interest of everyone for those brightness options to be in game, rather than console commands, for the reasons you describe.
I don't think he was trying to say "I'm a competitive player and when I go on pubs I kick ass because I'm so much better than everyone."
<b>Crispy</b> didn't say anything like that at all, so I doubt you actually read his post. He's saying that, in NS, competitive players, in NS, change the attributes of the game to make it competitive which is different from the type of games described in the Sirlin article. Thus, when players put forth that competitive play is always more important than public play, they're presenting a very one sided view of NS that is willfully naive itself.
Edit: As for the brightness controls, I agree that is probably the best solution.
I may have misread something, but I still get the sense that Crispy was talking about when competitive gamers compare themselves to public gamers. The whole point of his post was the fact that the playing fields must be equal in order for the two gamers to compare themselves before one can claim superior skill over the other. I don't think Radix was trying to compare them at all.
Things Crispy said that made me think that:
1) <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is clearly an example of where players have to agree on their own player-based ruleset for the game if they do not wish to play the game using only in-game commands or using only default settings.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2) <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Calling someone an 'NS scrub' because they are playing a game with unchanged rules and losing against someone who has adapted the rules to suit their playstyle is a monumental feat of irony.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
3) <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why do competitive NS players insist the gamma needs to be tweaked and all shadow/light discrepancies negated? Because it's unfair that they have to aim in the dark?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
4) <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->By all means assert that you have a better aim than me if you are clearly better in that regard, but to say you are a better 'player', without a level playing field to prove such a claim, will only be met with indifference<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> (I mean, here, it really seems like he's trying to defend against a point Radix never tried to make.)
5)<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'll say it again: true victory can only be obtained when all *non in-game conditions*, except the *human conditions* of the participants involved are <b><u>fair and equal.</b></u><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I mean, really, it's hard for me to find something in his post that isn't "you can't compare clanners to pubbers because the playing field isn't equal." I'm starting to doubt <i>you</i> even read it, because that's most of what I take away. I don't think Radix was interested in equal playing fields, and I don't think he was interested in comparing anyone.
I think he was just saying that one style of play should not be forced upon the other; something we can all agree with. I personally hate dark corners, I don't care about atmosphere as that's not the reason I play games. You might love atmosphere -- so let's both have our in-game settings in a way that lets us play the game the way we want to play it. Sure, the playing field isn't even, but it doesn't have to be so long as the other doesn't take offense when one tries to say "man I'm better than you."
Those parts are talking about the Sirlin article, and how it does and does not apply to NS. The last paragraph uses that argument to point out that since playing "competitively" is not the only "right way to play" approaching designing a game/features from only a competitive perspective is lopsided and fallacious.
<!--quoteo(post=1681545:date=Jun 19 2008, 09:41 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SentrySteve @ Jun 19 2008, 09:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681545"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think he was just saying that one style of play should not be forced upon the other; something we can all agree with.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Definately. That's just the crux of <b>crispy</b>'s argument, and why I agreed adjusting brightness should be part of the game options. <b>Radix</b>'s argument, at least in the last few pages, seemed to be that since darkness in a game didn't add anything for competitive players(because they'd just ramp their gamma) it shouldn't be included. That seems to be an example of forcing a style of play to me.
Edit: This is an aside separate from the argument above but on the same topic. Darkness in games is not anti-competitive anyway as long as it's consistent. Whether or not you like it is completely different from a depth and competitive gameplay argument. I'm not saying I want Doom3 darkness across maps; I'm just pointing out that the depth in NS wouldn't be affected if darkness was added in with moderation, and that arguments against it are personal preference. Personally I wouldn't want a lot of darnkness either and think ti would alienate a large base of players who simply don't like it.
Also Radagast's comment was fairly assuming.
Anyway I definitely agree that there should be menu options to change the brightness and basically tweak any major elements to do with movement, perception and keymapping so that NS2 doesn't have to go through the blockscripts or the gammahax debates like NS has.
I don't think he was trying to say "I'm a competitive player and when I go on pubs I kick ass because I'm so much better than everyone."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Word of warning about brightness. Some video cards for reasons unknown have weird gamma settings, so turning up the gamma and brightness in game is made of fail compared to other systems. Please do not make maps/games that force players to change default settings to survive, not to mention even worse having to change low level driver settings.
As much as I love FEAR and moody lighting atmosphere in my games, I personally feel there's better way to do that than make dark corners in a map for skulks to hide in, which might not be so dark for the truly haxor driver-level play-to-wins. Different color lights has worked out extremely well in NS1.
Sorry if that was a bit off-topic.
Sure enough you get some people who dominate on different sides, but that all comes with practise. Tweaks and so forth are just a norm now, cs has them and alot of other games have them. And some people can be worse or better with different tweaks. Mouse sensitivity... You can't say we would all be great on the same mouse sensitivity.
If new people to the game are curious how to get better or what tweaks can help in different area's, they just search it on google or so forth.
And if you have played the game for awhile and you are still complaining about people who tweak their game have more of an advantage, then i suggest you practise. There is nothing wrong with tweaking, it just improves the competitive players gaming!
Matt.
Actually that's not true. Competitive players are far more apt to "break" game mechanics, and are much more likely to recognize game elements such as balance, good map flow, diversification of gameplay, and many others - including how fun a game <i>is capable of being</i> (vs how much fun a given player is having at a given time).
Balancing around competitive play will necessitate good game design for even casual players, so long as you take into consideration the fact that casual players won't always know the best choices to make, and take a lesson from Nintendo on creating intuitive and rewarding entry-level gameplay.
Also, I didn't say that
<!--quoteo(post=1681549:date=Jun 19 2008, 10:21 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Jun 19 2008, 10:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681549"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->since darkness in a game didn't add anything for competitive players(because they'd just ramp their gamma) it shouldn't be included.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I <i>did</i> say
<!--quoteo(post=1681469:date=Jun 18 2008, 02:47 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jun 18 2008, 02:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681469"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[Atmosphere] is a core part of the NS game series<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not against atmosphere nor is anyone I've ever talked to (competitive or otherwise), nor am I trying to force super ultra hera-bright maps on everyone. I'm saying that atmosphere is a secondary element, and that a good game will place it in a position of being
<!--quoteo(post=1681469:date=Jun 18 2008, 02:47 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jun 18 2008, 02:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681469"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->subordinate to gameplay at absolutely <b>every</b> turn.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem with that thinking is that a game may be fun at higher levels but boring at lower levels. If kharaa win 80% of the time on all of the public servers, it doesn't matter if the game is balanced at the highest level of play, it's still broken. There's a better answer so it's balanced at both levels, hopefully by removing barriers and not by nerfing skill moves.
Some on whos more experienced in clan play on ns1 could enlighten me as to the balancing problems in the latest version or any other version if they want.
Being a team game good team work is a bigger factor in my opinon than minor balancing issues, certain players may exploit poor balancing for their own kill counts but i didnt see that many games taken by poor balancing of game elements. People are welcome to disagree with me.
Another thing, in ns1 the darkness regularly saved my gorgie skin even with other players gamma cranked up, i still got ambushed by skulks even with my gamma cranked up, tho maybe thats more a reflection of my skill or other players skill rather than the tactical strengths of the darkness.
I dont necesserlly see why game play and atmosphere have to be an either or deicison, surely a good game has both done really well?
i think both sides have made good points. although being killed by something you can't see is kinda frustrating, when you're starting out. although i think if you tell people 'you will get ambushed' (since it's a common tactic), when they do get ambushed, it's not as bad an experience as it would be if they had no warning.
as for the Sirlin's arguments, I find those that modify there game xp's to be the blind near sighted ones, they go the cookie cutter norm and master the best actions.
for a argument that works for street figther completely fails in NS or any other team based game play, those leet players more offtan than not tend to be the ones to bring down a side and or rage quit, again leaveing them further in the mud, being selfish and going early fade, leaveing if you die, or leaveing your gorges to die, who your yelling at to get upgrades ruins the game, your not even going to get to boast about your bhop script or your gamma hacks or altered wad file, unless theres a leet player stack, in most cases your going to end up failing your team.
If there is a leet player stack, and you all go cookie cutter, more offtan than not in a team based game, theres always a counter and with good communication and team work, mass cookie cutter teams with all the upgrades, will usualy get countered, given a even playing feild, were both sides have good map control and rough equal res.
Sure more offtan than not your time spent in your cookie cutter leetest roll will see you though most events, but your unoriginal, you hinder your own advancment in your playing ability, you hinder others advancement, you ruin their gameing exsperiance.
we cant all be onos, we can but it can be to easly countered, and if we all go onos, theres no upgrades, no hives no res.
with a game thats balanced on a teter totter, and has a snow ball effect, one scripting cookie cutter, can unravel game, and hand the win over to the enemy
his artical may hold true for a game were as a player you control all your peices on the board, but it doesnt have a leg to stand on in a team based game.
these players more offtan than not, dont see the big picture, they arnt playing to win, they are playing to have the highest kill score, it can help a team, but more offtan than not it can hinder them.
besides why are you all playing to live, play to die, you learn more from loseing a argument.
Vanilla ns_* seems fairly balanced to me, although it's easier to win with aliens than with marines.
And I like cookies because they taste good.