Well it seems to me that the entire basis of this discussion has festered from the afterthought to the anti-rambo system to reduce rambos which was, "What if we <i>like</i> having rambos?" I don't even know how to respond to that. How could you ever want to have a team game with 8 individual "I'll pwn you" players rather than 8 players who work together to win the game?
Seems to me like a step backwards. The fact that the developers have declared that there won't be a natural selection 2 combat style play is evidence enough to me that the creators of this mod think along the same lines as me. I'm not even arguing that a marine player can't go off solo in natural selection 2. I'm only saying you should die a quick yet painful death as a consequence.
<!--quoteo(post=1696195:date=Dec 16 2008, 03:36 PM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Dec 16 2008, 03:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696195"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well it seems to me that the entire basis of this discussion has festered from the afterthought to the anti-rambo system to reduce rambos which was, "What if we <i>like</i> having rambos?" I don't even know how to respond to that. How could you ever want to have a team game with 8 individual "I'll pwn you" players rather than 8 players who work together to win the game?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> For years I've been wondering how people can play a team-based strategy game on public for longer periods of time. It takes all kinds I guess. There simply is a cap on teamwork and strategy on public games, after you've got to that level it's more about knowing that cap than getting past it.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1696195:date=Dec 16 2008, 10:36 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Dec 16 2008, 10:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696195"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well it seems to me that the entire basis of this discussion has festered from the afterthought to the anti-rambo system to reduce rambos which was, "What if we <i>like</i> having rambos?" I don't even know how to respond to that. How could you ever want to have a team game with 8 individual "I'll pwn you" players rather than 8 players who work together to win the game?
Seems to me like a step backwards. The fact that the developers have declared that there won't be a natural selection 2 combat style play is evidence enough to me that the creators of this mod think along the same lines as me. I'm not even arguing that a marine player can't go off solo in natural selection 2. I'm only saying you should die a quick yet painful death as a consequence.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes - let's continue jumping from one extreme to the other. One side will continue saying that the other is promoting "skill communism" and teammate humping, while the other side will claim that the opponents want miniature Rambos running around the map destroying everything. Do you seriously think that this kind of approach achieves anything?
Anybody can just as easily point out that since the devs are moving to more player-oriented and individualized form of marine play (more independent from the commander), that this pretty much negates your evidence. Beyond this...
Post #80 again: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->1. There is already marine teamwork. 1*. Forcing marines to move together does not equate to teamwork and can actually be counterproductive and un-fun, especially in a fast paced environment like NS. 2. Solo marines are <!--coloro:#FFFF00--><span style="color:#FFFF00"><!--/coloro-->already challenged as it is<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, just more so after second hive. 3. Most alien players are terrible at handling their lifeforms or making strategic decisions - this should not be a reason to nerf marines, but rather to strive towards educating alien players more effectively. <!--coloro:#FFFF00--><span style="color:#FFFF00"><!--/coloro-->There is a problem with the alien learning curve, not with solo marine players.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> 4. Map design and HL engine physics creates problems for alien movement, which makes fighting marines more difficult than it should be. 5. Things like the skulk bite animation are a trademark of the NS 'style', but are stupid and maladaptive when new players have to use the skulk.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1696175:date=Dec 16 2008, 02:44 AM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Dec 16 2008, 02:44 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696175"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If I knew I could make it through the level by myself if I wanted to and those other guys can stick together if they want, it's obvious that everybody else would be affected by that mentality too.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b><!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->Marines can not solo unless the opposing team fails to ambush, or is otherwise completely inept at providing resistance to stop them. Once that happens teamwork becomes a necessity no matter how solo-oriented the game is because of a numbers game and a need for redundant support.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b>
Hawkeye: Your argument necessitates that no influx of players are contingent on the popularity of NS1 and its highly dynamic (independent <b>and</b> interdependent) gameplay. If you plan to have any NS1 players buy NS2 (and if you're adhering to Mr. Cleveland's rule of thirds) NS2 is not a blank slate, your argument falls apart, and the onus for proof still remains on the side of proximity-only team play.
Original intent means nothing. Fun is everything. Arbitrarily telling a player, who is interested in depth, that they can't achieve a new level of understanding in a complex game because their teammates are getting in the way is not fun.
This is essentially a fundamental difference of opinion. Your side believes that idiots should be forced to do intelligent things like puppets, my side promotes intelligent and gradualistic movement into depth by the wisdom of the player, and if said player is unwilling to adapt themselves to the game, that player should be naturally selected out, not of the ability to help their team <b>by solo capping for instance</b> but of ability to achieve a high degree of success in combat against other players who choose to more aggressively apply their abilities to achieve greater heights in skill.
<!--quoteo(post=1696195:date=Dec 16 2008, 07:36 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Dec 16 2008, 07:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696195"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How could you ever want to have a team game with 8 individual "I'll pwn you" players rather than 8 players who work together to win the game?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, because it is clearly impossible for players to contribute to the team while not traveling in large packs of 8.
It's okay guys. It's common knowledge that teamwork is cluster######ing in as tight of a group as possible. If your view isn't being obscured by 5 other backpedaling marines you're not doing it right.
<!--quoteo(post=1696207:date=Dec 16 2008, 11:57 AM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Dec 16 2008, 11:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696207"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b><!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->Marines can not solo unless the opposing team fails to ambush, or is otherwise completely inept at providing resistance to stop them. Once that happens teamwork becomes a necessity no matter how solo-oriented the game is because of a numbers game and a need for redundant support.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you're telling me that no marine team ever sends out players alone for any reason during an evenly-matched scrim? It certainly happens all the time in evenly matched pub games of respectable skill.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hawkeye: Your argument necessitates that no influx of players are contingent on the popularity of NS1 and its highly dynamic (independent <b>and</b> interdependent) gameplay. If you plan to have any NS1 players buy NS2 (and if you're adhering to Mr. Cleveland's rule of thirds) NS2 is not a blank slate, your argument falls apart, and the onus for proof still remains on the side of proximity-only team play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> How many NS1 players are really going to boycott NS2 because it became a little more strictly team-oriented? Honestly the odds of something like this being a remotely significant factor in anyone's initial purchase decision are extremely small.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Original intent means nothing. Fun is everything. Arbitrarily telling a player, who is interested in depth, that they can't achieve a new level of understanding in a complex game because their teammates are getting in the way is not fun.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> 9 out of 10 players do not equate fun with depth. And there are other types of depth than twitch skills and learning how to kick ass by yourself.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is essentially a fundamental difference of opinion. Your side believes that idiots should be forced to do intelligent things like puppets, my side promotes intelligent and gradualistic movement into depth by the wisdom of the player, and if said player is unwilling to adapt themselves to the game, that player should be naturally selected out, not of the ability to help their team <b>by solo capping for instance</b> but of ability to achieve a high degree of success in combat against other players who choose to more aggressively apply their abilities to achieve greater heights in skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> First of all I see no problem with forcing an idiot to do intelligent things, it's better than an idiot doing idiotic things. But this has nothing to do with idiots, I'm suggesting that players interested in doing what's best for their team should have less incentive to run solo and more to work with their teammates. Your main objection to this idea seems to be that it means less opportunity to demonstrate your personal skill, to which I say no I don't really care about that, so certainly it is a difference of opinion. I never said that balancing the game in this direction would be better for everybody, but to claim that there's no upside is just ignorant.
<!--quoteo(post=1696217:date=Dec 16 2008, 04:47 PM:name=Underwhelmed)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Underwhelmed @ Dec 16 2008, 04:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696217"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, because it is clearly impossible for players to contribute to the team while not traveling in large packs of 8.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo(post=1696221:date=Dec 16 2008, 06:09 PM:name=enigma)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(enigma @ Dec 16 2008, 06:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696221"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's okay guys. It's common knowledge that teamwork is cluster######ing in as tight of a group as possible. If your view isn't being obscured by 5 other backpedaling marines you're not doing it right.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Funny, I don't remember ever suggesting we mandate that marines travel in packs of 5+ at all times. People moving in pairs is cool with me. The devs have already discussed enhancing the squad system so if most marine teams are divided into squads of 2-4 operating separately I think that would be great.
<!--quoteo(post=1696222:date=Dec 17 2008, 02:02 AM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Dec 17 2008, 02:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696222"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So you're telling me that no marine team ever sends out players alone for any reason during an evenly-matched scrim? It certainly happens all the time in evenly matched pub games of respectable skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Handling the pressure team often pushes aliens to the limit. At that point its understandable to fail to take out the lone marines elsewhere. Once the pressure is down, a scattered marine team will get overrun in less than a minute. That's a dynamic and interesting system at its best.
They send individuals out when the strategy calls for it because NS, being a game of strategy, allows for this dynamic. They can't self-support when the other team resists them effectively. That doesn't mean they can't do <b>anything by themselves</b>.
I said nothing about boycotts.
Your numbers for those interested in depth are impressive, but have no data to support them.
You see no problem in forcing idiots into hitbox orgies because your gameplay paradigm is differs from mine. See my previous post.
<!--quoteo(post=1696231:date=Dec 17 2008, 12:36 AM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Dec 17 2008, 12:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696231"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your numbers for those interested in depth are impressive, but have no data to support them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> And you have numbers to support your idea that players don't want to be hindered by teammates?
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is essentially a fundamental difference of opinion. <i>Your side believes that idiots should be <b>forced</b> to do intelligent things like puppets</i>, my side promotes intelligent and gradualistic movement into depth by the wisdom of the player, and if said player is unwilling to adapt themselves to the game, that player should be naturally selected out, not of the ability to help their team by solo capping for instance but of ability to achieve a high degree of success in combat against other players who choose to more aggressively apply their abilities to achieve greater heights in skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><i>You see no problem in <b>forcing</b> idiots into hitbox orgies </i>because your gameplay paradigm is differs from mine. See my previous post.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->...I'm not even arguing that a marine player can't go off solo in natural selection 2. I'm only saying you should die a quick yet painful death as a consequence...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->...I'm suggesting that players interested in doing what's best for their team should have less incentive to run solo and more to work with their teammates...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Incentive isn't forcing. I think you're missing the point entirely. You're welcome to play natural selection 2 in however style you wish. If playing solo means not letting 'teammates' get in the way of fun as you say, you should have fun in natural selection 2 running off in whichever direction opposite of those of your teammates, right? The incentive part comes in when you don't do so hot playing in that way. Still, it's your choice. Nobody forced you to download natural selection 2 and nobody forced you to play rambo. However, if you prefer to play that way, I think Zek will agree here, nobody is going to stop you, and that is certainly not what we're arguing to do.
Though the day in which we allow a moderately skilled player to do well playing solo on a natrual selection 2 map is the day in which at least 1/3rd of all players in natural selection 2 will go rambo because teamwork isn't an effective strategy as 'pwning' them with your pistol and your 1337 bunny hopping skillz. I see something fundamentally wrong with that idea, but this is where argument turns into opinion, and if you disagree, I can't make you think otherwise. Though I don't think most would prefer that style of gameplay, honestly.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
edited December 2008
I'd like to reiterate yet again that solo marines have enough trouble as it is against a competent team of aliens. Nothing about them needs to be changed. The alien characters are less intuitive to play with than are the marines - that is what needs work, to help players learn how to ambush and maybe make it easier to use the lifeforms (ex. change the skulk bite animation). Right now, the only time solo marines really stand a chance is right at the beginning when bad aliens rush them head on and right near the end when there are jps/hmgs, at which point aliens <b>should</b> be having trouble anyway. That's the nature of the tech game.
The problem with this thread is that nobody is giving any concrete evidence that there even IS a rambo problem beyond bad aliens versus solo marines.
<!--quoteo(post=1696222:date=Dec 17 2008, 02:02 AM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Dec 17 2008, 02:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696222"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And there are other types of depth than twitch skills and learning how to kick ass by yourself.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> A lot of NS' depth involves the dynamic positioning, game sense and movement around map. That's a difficult one to achieve unless you can move alone or have got 12+ teammates that are very aware of the gameplay. Generally speaking I find it silly to speak of depth here, as the present system is really dynamic and creative in that aspect. Rambos and carryplayers seem way more reasonable arguments to me.
<!--quoteo(post=1696251:date=Dec 17 2008, 09:52 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Dec 17 2008, 09:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696251"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd like to reiterate yet again that solo marines have enough trouble as it is against a competent team of aliens. Nothing about them needs to be changed. The alien characters are less intuitive to play with than are the marines - that is what needs work, to help players learn how to ambush and maybe make it easier to use the lifeforms (ex. change the skulk bite animation). Right now, the only time solo marines really stand a chance is right at the beginning when bad aliens rush them head on and right near the end when there are jps/hmgs, at which point aliens <b>should</b> be having trouble anyway. That's the nature of the tech game.
The problem with this thread is that nobody is giving any concrete evidence that there even IS a rambo problem beyond bad aliens versus solo marines.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It has been established that rambos are used frequently on every level of play, from pubs to scrims. That, IMHO, is a problem. Rambos are too low risk a strategy because they can handle themselves against roaming skulks(yes, even good ones) better than they should be able to by themselves. Even, if you ambush the marine can still kill you with an LMG if he's good, doubly so with a shotty/HMG, and I know you know that. It's different with JPs yeah, but if aliens don't have Leap by then they're pretty boned.
In a nutshell, my biggest complaint with NS rambos is that a skilled marine is capable of walking right into a skulk ambush and still having a strong chance of surviving no matter how good the skulk is. The reason is a combination of a number of factors, namely bite knockback, HL's goofy jumping physics(which will probably be gone with the new engine, btw), and the lack of a real disorient effect. Going solo should be a poor way to play marines, and a poorly played marine should almost always lose to a decent skulk playing to his strengths. Just like a skulk that runs in straight lines always loses to even a mediocre marine. Even a Fade that doesn't blink will die to a solo LMG, and similarly even a shotty/HMG that goes alone should die to a skulk ambush. Sending a lone rambo in NS is a low risk strategy exactly because you know that even if he runs into a skulk he'll probably win - I'm saying the risk should be that if a competent skulk finds him he's toast. If you're damn certain all the aliens are busy then go right ahead, but it should be dangerous.
<!--quoteo(post=1696255:date=Dec 17 2008, 10:06 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bacillus @ Dec 17 2008, 10:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696255"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A lot of NS' depth involves the dynamic positioning, game sense and movement around map. That's a difficult one to achieve unless you can move alone or have got 12+ teammates that are very aware of the gameplay. Generally speaking I find it silly to speak of depth here, as the present system is really dynamic and creative in that aspect. Rambos and carryplayers seem way more reasonable arguments to me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> NS is a team game. If you're the best player on earth and your 11 teammates are garbage then yes, you lose, sorry.
<!--quoteo(post=1696280:date=Dec 17 2008, 07:15 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Dec 17 2008, 07:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696280"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It has been established that rambos are used frequently on every level of play, from pubs to scrims. That, IMHO, is a problem. Rambos are too low risk a strategy because they can handle themselves against roaming skulks(yes, even good ones) better than they should be able to by themselves. Even if you ambush the marine can still kill you with an LMG if he's good, doubly so with a shotty/HMG, and I know you know that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If a marine has enough ammo and skill to land most his shots, why should being alone matter with regards to killing skulks? You still haven't given a good explanation other than the use of the word "Shouldn't"
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In a nutshell, my biggest complaint with NS rambos is that a skilled marine is capable of walking right into a skulz ambush and still having a strong chance of surviving no matter how good the skulk is. The reason is a combination of a number of factors, namely bite knockback, HL's goofy jumping physics(which will probably be gone with the new engine, btw), and the lack of a real disorient effect. Going solo should be a poor way to play marines, and a poorly played marine should almost always lose to a decent skulk playing to his strengths. Just like a skulk that runs in straight lines always loses to even a mediocre marine. Even a Fade that doesn't blink will die to a solo LMG, and similarly even a shotty/HMG that goes alone should die to a skulk ambush. Sending a lone rambo in NS is a low risk strategy exactly because you know that even if he runs into a skulk he'll probably win - I'm saying the risk should be that if a competent skulk finds him he's toast. If you're damn certain all the aliens are busy then go right ahead, but it should be dangerous. NS is a team game. If you're the best player on earth and your 11 teammates are garbage then yes, you lose, sorry.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Solo play is still dangerous. If the skulks cannot kill a solo marine, how are they going to beat him while he or she is in a squad or group?
<!--quoteo(post=1696281:date=Dec 17 2008, 07:19 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Dec 17 2008, 07:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696281"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If a marine has enough ammo and skill to land most his shots, why should being alone matter with regards to killing skulks? You still haven't given a good explanation other than the use of the word "Shouldn't"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because that's how marines were always intended to be. Tell me, if you were a completely new player and you read a summary in the manual that describes a team of space marines requiring "intense teamwork" what would be the image in your head? Can you really tell me that you would have imagined a bunch of marines running around by themselves because it's still teamwork as long as they win? Of course not, you'd imagine the marines moving in a pack and supporting eachother, like in the intro:
I think the intent behind the original marine concept was obvious. It didn't end up that way in NS, and NS2 is a chance to fix that mistake.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Solo play is still dangerous. If the skulks cannot kill a solo marine, how are they going to beat him while he or she is in a squad or group?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> With team support obviously. You're still dodging the issue - <i>rambo marines are a common strategy even in high-level games</i>. True or false?
There are plenty of ways to make skulks more effective against lone marines without making them disproportionately strong against groups. One example off the top of my head - suppose the skulk bite did half its current damage, but applied a very heavy disorient affect that made it difficult to shoot the skulk back as long as he keeps biting you. You can still kill them before they get close if they're stupid, and if you're in a group when they ambush it takes long enough to kill you that your teammates can easily cover for you.
<!--quoteo(post=1696282:date=Dec 17 2008, 07:37 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Dec 17 2008, 07:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696282"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because that's how marines were always intended to be. Tell me, if you were a completely new player and you read a summary in the manual that describes a team of space marines requiring "intense teamwork" what would be the image in your head? Can you really tell me that you would have imagined a bunch of marines running around by themselves because it's still teamwork as long as they win? Of course not, you'd imagine the marines moving in a pack and supporting eachother, like in the intro:<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As long as players are doing what the commander says and are contributing postively to the team, they are worth more than the marines that hump each other in packs and get slaughtered. I don't see how a solo player contributing to the team's victory (which is what either team is looking for). I'm not looking for atmosphere, I am looking for a fun game, if solo marines break the original intention (i.e. intro movie) so be it, however that does not mean that solo players are not contributing to the team, and not using teamwork.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the intent behind the original marine concept was obvious. It didn't end up that way in NS, and NS2 is a chance to fix that mistake. With team support obviously. You're still dodging the issue - <i>rambo marines are a common strategy even in high-level games</i>. True or false?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Both. Depends on the team. But to answer your question more clearly I'll use an example of Terror vs. Exigent. Both were top tier teams at their peak. Mustang from Terror would often Rambo off until the lerks started swarming around. Then he would usually come closer to the team. If we got the lerk down, he would go back solo until fades/2nd hive. By then the cap team would have probably capped enough nodes for 2nd tier tech. We would usually split in teams of two, with 1 left over, or do a 3-2 strategy, based on the situation (i.e. Alien assests, 2nd/3rd hive going up etc....).
If Mustang were to solo play the whole game, our chances of victory would diminish, as the higher tier Alien tech (especially vs LMG). But fortunately he didn't. He would listen to the COMMANDER who gave orders based on the inferences he could make in the map. Mustang always followed orders as well as communicated to the team, who he was engaging, where he was and how many aliens he was fighting. He would also allow at times for others to do solo if he was needed elsewhere.
THATS a prime example of how a solo player can contribute to the team work. I am not talking about a random person who goes off on his or her own no matter what. I am talking about using the solo player strategically, much like an isolation play in Basketball, or a screen pass in Football. Isolating the player vs the rest of the team. If solo players didn't work out, we adjust our strategy. But if one player can do the work of two or three on his or her, and still communicate with the team, then I feel that fits the definition of teamwork just fine.
For some reason that has to be penalized, and I'm still scratching my head as to why. It does not make sense if a player can use their weapons effectively, regardless whether in a group or not they should have suffer a penalty because of it. That includes solo players.
<!--quoteo(post=1696290:date=Dec 17 2008, 09:22 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Dec 17 2008, 09:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696290"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As long as players are doing what the commander says and are contributing postively to the team, they are worth more than the marines that hump each other in packs and get slaughtered. I don't see how a solo player contributing to the team's victory (which is what either team is looking for). I'm not looking for atmosphere, I am looking for a fun game, if solo marines break the original intention (i.e. intro movie) so be it, however that does not mean that solo players are not contributing to the team, and not using teamwork.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why are you comparing crap players to good players? How is that productive? I've never said that rambos don't contribute to the team, I said they're against the general theme of the marine team.
If we can agree that the marines were originally intended to move in squads, why shouldn't it be that way in NS2? You could list off to me the advantages of having rocket launchers and railguns and powerups on the map, all of which have been in better competitive games than NS, but they're not in NS because they don't fit the atmosphere or intended gameplay mechanics. I would argue that the prevalence of solo play is the same. In all video games, concept molds gameplay, not the other way around.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Both. Depends on the team. But to answer your question more clearly I'll use an example of Terror vs. Exigent. Both were top tier teams at their peak. Mustang from Terror would often Rambo off until the lerks started swarming around. Then he would usually come closer to the team. If we got the lerk down, he would go back solo until fades/2nd hive. By then the cap team would have probably capped enough nodes for 2nd tier tech. We would usually split in teams of two, with 1 left over, or do a 3-2 strategy, based on the situation (i.e. Alien assests, 2nd/3rd hive going up etc....).
If Mustang were to solo play the whole game, our chances of victory would diminish, as the higher tier Alien tech (especially vs LMG). But fortunately he didn't. He would listen to the COMMANDER who gave orders based on the inferences he could make in the map. Mustang always followed orders as well as communicated to the team, who he was engaging, where he was and how many aliens he was fighting. He would also allow at times for others to do solo if he was needed elsewhere.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So yes, rambo players are very effective in NS as it is, even at high skill levels. Just making sure that's clear to everybody.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->THATS a prime example of how a solo player can contribute to the team work. I am not talking about a random person who goes off on his or her own no matter what. I am talking about using the solo player strategically, much like an isolation play in Basketball, or a screen pass in Football. Isolating the player vs the rest of the team. If solo players didn't work out, we adjust our strategy. But if one player can do the work of two or three on his or her, and still communicate with the team, then I feel that fits the definition of teamwork just fine.
For some reason that has to be penalized, and I'm still scratching my head as to why. It does not make sense if a player can use their weapons effectively, regardless whether in a group or not they should have suffer a penalty because of it. That includes solo players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I've said many times why - because it doesn't fit with the marine aesthetic, and in my opinion being more dependent on teammates makes for a more fun team game. If you're looking for a reason that involves the health of the competitive scene you can stop now, sorry for the confusion. Though I certainly don't see how doing this would make NS2 any more "casual" at all, just different.
I know the idea of being told what to do by the developers sets your teeth on edge, but you should realize that you've been doing that all along. For marines to win a long game they have to build an arms lab and keep buying upgrades and build an armory and then upgrade that armory and then build a proto lab and then research HAs or JPs and then drop a bunch of them... Did you think you guys came up with that all on your own? No, you're doing it because Flayra thought it would be cool if marines had to do that to win. What if you wanted to run unupgraded LMGs the whole game and spend all your res spamming meds? Then you get punished for that when the aliens kick your asses. Every player is at the mercy of the game designer, be they competitive or casual.
That was implemented by intentionally allowing marines to exist both independently and interdependently so as to make the game more <b>varied and fun</b>.
Should isn't a reason. Fun trumps original intent.
<!--quoteo(post=1696299:date=Dec 17 2008, 11:50 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Dec 17 2008, 11:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696299"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Original intent was to make an interesting game.
That was implemented by intentionally allowing marines to exist both independently and interdependently so as to make the game more <b>varied and fun</b>.
Should isn't a reason. Fun trumps original intent.
Your argument has no basis.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Squad play is more fun than solo fighting.
<!--quoteo(post=1696280:date=Dec 18 2008, 12:15 AM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Dec 18 2008, 12:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696280"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS is a team game. If you're the best player on earth and your 11 teammates are garbage then yes, you lose, sorry.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Is this one of those so-called strawmans?
You're still missing the depth of dynamic marine spread and positioning. That's a big loss in the options that a team can do.
Right now at public games you've got roughly 8/11 garbage teammates and 9/12 gargabe opponents, bringing us back to the learning curves. It's not going to be any fun unless the learning curve issues gets fixed and fixing them should eliminate most rambo issues anyway.
I'll emphasize again that I've been trying to play as a team in public for years. It simply doesn't work unless you get one of the 1/20 teams where there are 5+ individuals actually willing to think about the game and its logic. Fix the learning curve and fix the communication system and it actually should become very effective to form up squads, even if you don't enforce them.
I don't know how the smaller maps are going to affect this though. It might be that people simply don't have enough of room to wander out alone at least on those 32 player servers.
For some reason that has to be penalized, and I'm still scratching my head as to why. It does not make sense if a player can use their weapons effectively, regardless whether in a group or not they should have suffer a penalty because of it. That includes solo players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My problem isn't with the lone alien which defends his territory not being able to do well versus opposition. A skulk or lerk in his own area setup to ambush *should* have a distinct home advantage that increases his odds to killing any marines which throw caution in the wind.
My problem isn't with the lone marine which defends HIS territory by planting himself at the end of a long hallway and shooting any opposition. Again, this is a distinct advantage to the marine for minimizing the chance of surprise or ambush in an attack by the aliens. He *should* have a distinct advantage that increases his odds to killing any aliens.
My problem is with the lone marine who not only enters alien territory and not only completely throws caution into the wind and not spotting the skulk creeping up behind him... and he STILL manages to win. Not only that, he never even took a bite, because he knew perfectly well that aliens don't have movement chambers and any ambushing skulk would have to make noise to catch up to him. Not only that, but he used a pistol so that he can save lmg rounds later.
It was clearly a point in which what should have happened was that that marine died probably without even putting a bullet into that skulk. Furthermore, a good marine player who is soloing in this scenario would have checked for ambushes rather than running full speed into unfrequented map territory. A bad player (at least what I would have assumed would have been an intuitively bad player strategy) should have been the one to not check. The natural selection now is this way, though I don't think that this is reason enough to presume that if natural selection is this way, so should natural selection 2 be this way.
Gameplay must be such that it would be very difficult to recover from a well-executed skulk ambush as a solo player, no matter how skilled you are. The skilled player isn't able to kick ass and chew bubble gum despite well-executed skulk ambushes but rather the skilled player CHECKS for ambushes. That's the difference here, and that should be the basis for gameplay in natural selection 2.
<!--quoteo(post=1696300:date=Dec 17 2008, 11:58 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Dec 17 2008, 11:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696300"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Squad play is more fun than solo fighting.
Oh, hey, look how that works.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Having an integration of solo play and squad play based on the tactical scenario that is provided by the Aliens for more depth and interesting gameplay is more fun.
Ok now that those variables are neutralized, what is your basis again? I seem to be confused as you still have not provided an adequate argument for how Solo play != Team Play. And also, why a bunch of marines lacking male intimacy constitutes team play. (Despite the fact that ultimately listening to the commander's orders would ultimately define teamplay).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->so*lo   /ˈsoʊloʊ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation (soh-loh) –noun 1. a musical composition or a passage or section in a musical composition written for performance by one singer or instrumentalist, with or without accompaniment: She sang a solo. 2. any performance, as a dance, by one person. 3. a flight in an airplane during which the pilot is unaccompanied by an instructor or other person: I'll be ready for my first solo next week. <i>4. a person who works, acts, or performs alone: He used to sing with a quartet, but now he's a solo. </i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->team   /tim/ Show Spelled Pronunciation (teem) –noun 1. a number of persons forming one of the sides in a game or contest: a football team. <i>2. a number of persons associated in some joint action</i>: a team of advisers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think burden on proof is on you, Geronimo. So have at it. Explain how soloplay can be teamplay? Go on. Don't be shy. Up until now, even you guys have called it "going solo," so I think it's correct to clarify terms. How exactly do you define "solo play"?
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
Instead of acting all stupid about it, why not just make the distinction between squad-play and team-play. Proponents of limiting solo potential want squad-play to be more important. Opponents think that team-play is more important overall, where solo potential can still be important if used correctly. Opponents do not think a squad-play requirement is better for the game. Proponents think it is. The two sides disagree - EOS.
<!--quoteo(post=1696314:date=Dec 18 2008, 07:15 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Dec 18 2008, 07:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696314"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Having an integration of solo play and squad play based on the tactical scenario that is provided by the Aliens for more depth and interesting gameplay is more fun.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, having high dependence on your teammates for survival leading to a stronger sense of teamwork is more fun.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ok now that those variables are neutralized, what is your basis again? I seem to be confused as you still have not provided an adequate argument for how Solo play != Team Play. And also, why a bunch of marines lacking male intimacy constitutes team play. (Despite the fact that ultimately listening to the commander's orders would ultimately define teamplay).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Okay, whatever, I'm not here to argue semantics. Solo play != non-solo play. IMHO non-solo play is better. I think tight coordinated squad teamwork is more fun than "I'll go this way you go that way" teamwork. It certainly is more challenging to work closely with your teammates than to just agree on which rooms to play solo in. The simple fact that solo survival is viable makes squad teamwork less engaging it promotes a sense of independence in individual players.
<!--quoteo(post=1696302:date=Dec 18 2008, 12:24 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bacillus @ Dec 18 2008, 12:24 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696302"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Is this one of those so-called strawmans?
You're still missing the depth of dynamic marine spread and positioning. That's a big loss in the options that a team can do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> There's still plenty of depth in determining the size and positioning of squads. Just none of them are 1-man anymore. And in exchange you have the added depth of increased team interdependence.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Right now at public games you've got roughly 8/11 garbage teammates and 9/12 gargabe opponents, bringing us back to the learning curves. It's not going to be any fun unless the learning curve issues gets fixed and fixing them should eliminate most rambo issues anyway.
I'll emphasize again that I've been trying to play as a team in public for years. It simply doesn't work unless you get one of the 1/20 teams where there are 5+ individuals actually willing to think about the game and its logic. Fix the learning curve and fix the communication system and it actually should become very effective to form up squads, even if you don't enforce them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Man why would you even play NS on a pub with average skill level so far below your own? What are the odds of one of them even being a good comm? Nothing you can do makes NS fun in those circumstances IMHO. There are a number of pubs out there with a relatively high average skill level among regulars, and if you want a really good team you can play scrims. Bad teammates make for a bad game no matter how you slice it.
And you can fix the learning curve all you want, but it won't change anything if ramboing is an effective strategy and the good players know it. Especially in a game where all your enemies are below your skill level, if you can wander around killing all their skulks by yourself why would you want to stick with your team?
<!--quoteo(post=1696326:date=Dec 18 2008, 03:59 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Dec 18 2008, 03:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696326"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Man why would you even play NS on a pub with average skill level so far below your own? What are the odds of one of them even being a good comm? Nothing you can do makes NS fun in those circumstances IMHO.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm actually not above anyone in skill anymore, but whatever.
The point that almost every player steadily making progress is going to grow tired of the public even in NS1. The comm dependency is a bad thing here and there, I'd rather not add absolute squad dependency to it. Especially now that I'm kinda busy studying, I'd also like to have some alternatives to competetive play.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And you can fix the learning curve all you want, but it won't change anything if ramboing is an effective strategy and the good players know it. Especially in a game where all your enemies are below your skill level, if you can wander around killing all their skulks by yourself why would you want to stick with your team?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The whole idea of the learning curve worrying is that right now even a total idiot with some aim can walk over public here and there. If we can get people to even perform the very basic skulking routines, the rambo effectiveness drops by 75%. The rest are so good that I doubt they'll be playing that much public anyway. If people started parasiting and maybe even communicating, they'd surely also take out rambos way easier.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's still plenty of depth in determining the size and positioning of squads. Just none of them are 1-man anymore. And in exchange you have the added depth of increased team interdependence.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You seem to assume there are 10+ players on each team. I don't think that adds that much depth to anything either. Rewarding squads and giving them new options might offer new depth, but simply limiting lone marines isn't at least directly going to add anything.
I read through the first 5 pages of the post and started to skip the other ones, because it felt to me like you were circling around and around.
I'm a casual player, or call it noob, whatever you like best, I love to play kharaa and I often fail at soloing / ambushing a single marine, probably it is lack of skill (I always get confused how the bitegun works) and probably it is hard to ambush an rine and win on a 1v1 situation as kharaa.
But if you want to fix this, why do you try to cut into the multiple tactics by enforcing squadplay and weaken solo play, from my point of view it is worth to simplify how the Kharaa team is organized (one step is the Alien Commander) another one would be to improve things like the bitegun for the skulk (I'm not talking about damage or any numbers, just change the camera out of the skulk's mouth for instance).
Another thing to improve Squads is just by improving the Interface, i.e. like a party screen in a mmorpg so you can actually see with whom you are in a squad and what's his status. If it is simple to understand and "cool" to use people will use it more frequently if they succeed with it.
You also might add things like those popular Achievments (they are going 'round in like every game thats new...), so if you follow a pro gamer (measured by those new ingame ranking systems) you get an Achievement like "Teacher" or something like that.
What I'm trying to say is, that in general you don't have to change those numbers or add special game mechanics, but you can just make it easier to handle and understand, just by simple things like an improved UI or Hive Sight etc.
PS: sry for tons of commas, it's a german sickness <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1696337:date=Dec 18 2008, 09:02 PM:name=1mannARMEE)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(1mannARMEE @ Dec 18 2008, 09:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696337"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Another thing to improve Squads is just by improving the Interface, i.e. like a party screen in a mmorpg so you can actually see with whom you are in a squad and what's his status. If it is simple to understand and "cool" to use people will use it more frequently if they succeed with it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Something I'd like to poke in.
Empires is the other FPS/RTS game out there. It is very team work dependent. It also gives nice bonuses for squads, such as faster levels, boosts when sticking together, and info on squad health.
These features do not, of course, cause perfect squad play. Most common situation is the squad starts together, a few die, respawn back at base and have to go elsewhere, squad is now split. On the other hand, it can really make everyone's life easier if you stick to squads.
At the same time, Empires allows the 'rambo'. There's a class dedicated to sneaking in alone and disabling the enemy's buildings. It's also not a bad idea for a solo jeep or tank to disorient the enemy team. Of course, if they're ineffective, good players will quickly re-join the main force.
Basically, if you're wondering how stuff would play out, try out Empires and watch the team dynamics. I will say that it isn't the pinnacle of squad gameplay, and basically most people ignore sticking to their squad. However, it has the potential to be a powerful mechanic if used properly in the game.
Comments
Seems to me like a step backwards. The fact that the developers have declared that there won't be a natural selection 2 combat style play is evidence enough to me that the creators of this mod think along the same lines as me. I'm not even arguing that a marine player can't go off solo in natural selection 2. I'm only saying you should die a quick yet painful death as a consequence.
For years I've been wondering how people can play a team-based strategy game on public for longer periods of time. It takes all kinds I guess. There simply is a cap on teamwork and strategy on public games, after you've got to that level it's more about knowing that cap than getting past it.
Seems to me like a step backwards. The fact that the developers have declared that there won't be a natural selection 2 combat style play is evidence enough to me that the creators of this mod think along the same lines as me. I'm not even arguing that a marine player can't go off solo in natural selection 2. I'm only saying you should die a quick yet painful death as a consequence.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes - let's continue jumping from one extreme to the other. One side will continue saying that the other is promoting "skill communism" and teammate humping, while the other side will claim that the opponents want miniature Rambos running around the map destroying everything. Do you seriously think that this kind of approach achieves anything?
Anybody can just as easily point out that since the devs are moving to more player-oriented and individualized form of marine play (more independent from the commander), that this pretty much negates your evidence. Beyond this...
Post #80 again:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->1. There is already marine teamwork.
1*. Forcing marines to move together does not equate to teamwork and can actually be counterproductive and un-fun, especially in a fast paced environment like NS.
2. Solo marines are <!--coloro:#FFFF00--><span style="color:#FFFF00"><!--/coloro-->already challenged as it is<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, just more so after second hive.
3. Most alien players are terrible at handling their lifeforms or making strategic decisions - this should not be a reason to nerf marines, but rather to strive towards educating alien players more effectively. <!--coloro:#FFFF00--><span style="color:#FFFF00"><!--/coloro-->There is a problem with the alien learning curve, not with solo marine players.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
4. Map design and HL engine physics creates problems for alien movement, which makes fighting marines more difficult than it should be.
5. Things like the skulk bite animation are a trademark of the NS 'style', but are stupid and maladaptive when new players have to use the skulk.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b><!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->Marines can not solo unless the opposing team fails to ambush, or is otherwise completely inept at providing resistance to stop them. Once that happens teamwork becomes a necessity no matter how solo-oriented the game is because of a numbers game and a need for redundant support.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b>
Hawkeye: Your argument necessitates that no influx of players are contingent on the popularity of NS1 and its highly dynamic (independent <b>and</b> interdependent) gameplay. If you plan to have any NS1 players buy NS2 (and if you're adhering to Mr. Cleveland's rule of thirds) NS2 is not a blank slate, your argument falls apart, and the onus for proof still remains on the side of proximity-only team play.
Original intent means nothing. Fun is everything. Arbitrarily telling a player, who is interested in depth, that they can't achieve a new level of understanding in a complex game because their teammates are getting in the way is not fun.
This is essentially a fundamental difference of opinion. Your side believes that idiots should be forced to do intelligent things like puppets, my side promotes intelligent and gradualistic movement into depth by the wisdom of the player, and if said player is unwilling to adapt themselves to the game, that player should be naturally selected out, not of the ability to help their team <b>by solo capping for instance</b> but of ability to achieve a high degree of success in combat against other players who choose to more aggressively apply their abilities to achieve greater heights in skill.
Yes, because it is clearly impossible for players to contribute to the team while not traveling in large packs of 8.
So you're telling me that no marine team ever sends out players alone for any reason during an evenly-matched scrim? It certainly happens all the time in evenly matched pub games of respectable skill.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hawkeye: Your argument necessitates that no influx of players are contingent on the popularity of NS1 and its highly dynamic (independent <b>and</b> interdependent) gameplay. If you plan to have any NS1 players buy NS2 (and if you're adhering to Mr. Cleveland's rule of thirds) NS2 is not a blank slate, your argument falls apart, and the onus for proof still remains on the side of proximity-only team play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How many NS1 players are really going to boycott NS2 because it became a little more strictly team-oriented? Honestly the odds of something like this being a remotely significant factor in anyone's initial purchase decision are extremely small.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Original intent means nothing. Fun is everything. Arbitrarily telling a player, who is interested in depth, that they can't achieve a new level of understanding in a complex game because their teammates are getting in the way is not fun.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
9 out of 10 players do not equate fun with depth. And there are other types of depth than twitch skills and learning how to kick ass by yourself.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is essentially a fundamental difference of opinion. Your side believes that idiots should be forced to do intelligent things like puppets, my side promotes intelligent and gradualistic movement into depth by the wisdom of the player, and if said player is unwilling to adapt themselves to the game, that player should be naturally selected out, not of the ability to help their team <b>by solo capping for instance</b> but of ability to achieve a high degree of success in combat against other players who choose to more aggressively apply their abilities to achieve greater heights in skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all I see no problem with forcing an idiot to do intelligent things, it's better than an idiot doing idiotic things. But this has nothing to do with idiots, I'm suggesting that players interested in doing what's best for their team should have less incentive to run solo and more to work with their teammates. Your main objection to this idea seems to be that it means less opportunity to demonstrate your personal skill, to which I say no I don't really care about that, so certainly it is a difference of opinion. I never said that balancing the game in this direction would be better for everybody, but to claim that there's no upside is just ignorant.
<!--quoteo(post=1696217:date=Dec 16 2008, 04:47 PM:name=Underwhelmed)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Underwhelmed @ Dec 16 2008, 04:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696217"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, because it is clearly impossible for players to contribute to the team while not traveling in large packs of 8.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1696221:date=Dec 16 2008, 06:09 PM:name=enigma)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(enigma @ Dec 16 2008, 06:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696221"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's okay guys. It's common knowledge that teamwork is cluster######ing in as tight of a group as possible. If your view isn't being obscured by 5 other backpedaling marines you're not doing it right.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny, I don't remember ever suggesting we mandate that marines travel in packs of 5+ at all times. People moving in pairs is cool with me. The devs have already discussed enhancing the squad system so if most marine teams are divided into squads of 2-4 operating separately I think that would be great.
Handling the pressure team often pushes aliens to the limit. At that point its understandable to fail to take out the lone marines elsewhere. Once the pressure is down, a scattered marine team will get overrun in less than a minute. That's a dynamic and interesting system at its best.
I said nothing about boycotts.
Your numbers for those interested in depth are impressive, but have no data to support them.
You see no problem in forcing idiots into hitbox orgies because your gameplay paradigm is differs from mine. See my previous post.
And you have numbers to support your idea that players don't want to be hindered by teammates?
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is essentially a fundamental difference of opinion. <i>Your side believes that idiots should be <b>forced</b> to do intelligent things like puppets</i>, my side promotes intelligent and gradualistic movement into depth by the wisdom of the player, and if said player is unwilling to adapt themselves to the game, that player should be naturally selected out, not of the ability to help their team by solo capping for instance but of ability to achieve a high degree of success in combat against other players who choose to more aggressively apply their abilities to achieve greater heights in skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><i>You see no problem in <b>forcing</b> idiots into hitbox orgies </i>because your gameplay paradigm is differs from mine. See my previous post.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->...I'm not even arguing that a marine player can't go off solo in natural selection 2. I'm only saying you should die a quick yet painful death as a consequence...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->...I'm suggesting that players interested in doing what's best for their team should have less incentive to run solo and more to work with their teammates...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Incentive isn't forcing. I think you're missing the point entirely. You're welcome to play natural selection 2 in however style you wish. If playing solo means not letting 'teammates' get in the way of fun as you say, you should have fun in natural selection 2 running off in whichever direction opposite of those of your teammates, right? The incentive part comes in when you don't do so hot playing in that way. Still, it's your choice. Nobody forced you to download natural selection 2 and nobody forced you to play rambo. However, if you prefer to play that way, I think Zek will agree here, nobody is going to stop you, and that is certainly not what we're arguing to do.
Though the day in which we allow a moderately skilled player to do well playing solo on a natrual selection 2 map is the day in which at least 1/3rd of all players in natural selection 2 will go rambo because teamwork isn't an effective strategy as 'pwning' them with your pistol and your 1337 bunny hopping skillz. I see something fundamentally wrong with that idea, but this is where argument turns into opinion, and if you disagree, I can't make you think otherwise. Though I don't think most would prefer that style of gameplay, honestly.
The problem with this thread is that nobody is giving any concrete evidence that there even IS a rambo problem beyond bad aliens versus solo marines.
A lot of NS' depth involves the dynamic positioning, game sense and movement around map. That's a difficult one to achieve unless you can move alone or have got 12+ teammates that are very aware of the gameplay. Generally speaking I find it silly to speak of depth here, as the present system is really dynamic and creative in that aspect. Rambos and carryplayers seem way more reasonable arguments to me.
The problem with this thread is that nobody is giving any concrete evidence that there even IS a rambo problem beyond bad aliens versus solo marines.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It has been established that rambos are used frequently on every level of play, from pubs to scrims. That, IMHO, is a problem. Rambos are too low risk a strategy because they can handle themselves against roaming skulks(yes, even good ones) better than they should be able to by themselves. Even, if you ambush the marine can still kill you with an LMG if he's good, doubly so with a shotty/HMG, and I know you know that. It's different with JPs yeah, but if aliens don't have Leap by then they're pretty boned.
In a nutshell, my biggest complaint with NS rambos is that a skilled marine is capable of walking right into a skulk ambush and still having a strong chance of surviving no matter how good the skulk is. The reason is a combination of a number of factors, namely bite knockback, HL's goofy jumping physics(which will probably be gone with the new engine, btw), and the lack of a real disorient effect. Going solo should be a poor way to play marines, and a poorly played marine should almost always lose to a decent skulk playing to his strengths. Just like a skulk that runs in straight lines always loses to even a mediocre marine. Even a Fade that doesn't blink will die to a solo LMG, and similarly even a shotty/HMG that goes alone should die to a skulk ambush. Sending a lone rambo in NS is a low risk strategy exactly because you know that even if he runs into a skulk he'll probably win - I'm saying the risk should be that if a competent skulk finds him he's toast. If you're damn certain all the aliens are busy then go right ahead, but it should be dangerous.
<!--quoteo(post=1696255:date=Dec 17 2008, 10:06 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bacillus @ Dec 17 2008, 10:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696255"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A lot of NS' depth involves the dynamic positioning, game sense and movement around map. That's a difficult one to achieve unless you can move alone or have got 12+ teammates that are very aware of the gameplay. Generally speaking I find it silly to speak of depth here, as the present system is really dynamic and creative in that aspect. Rambos and carryplayers seem way more reasonable arguments to me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NS is a team game. If you're the best player on earth and your 11 teammates are garbage then yes, you lose, sorry.
If a marine has enough ammo and skill to land most his shots, why should being alone matter with regards to killing skulks? You still haven't given a good explanation other than the use of the word "Shouldn't"
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In a nutshell, my biggest complaint with NS rambos is that a skilled marine is capable of walking right into a skulz ambush and still having a strong chance of surviving no matter how good the skulk is. The reason is a combination of a number of factors, namely bite knockback, HL's goofy jumping physics(which will probably be gone with the new engine, btw), and the lack of a real disorient effect. Going solo should be a poor way to play marines, and a poorly played marine should almost always lose to a decent skulk playing to his strengths. Just like a skulk that runs in straight lines always loses to even a mediocre marine. Even a Fade that doesn't blink will die to a solo LMG, and similarly even a shotty/HMG that goes alone should die to a skulk ambush. Sending a lone rambo in NS is a low risk strategy exactly because you know that even if he runs into a skulk he'll probably win - I'm saying the risk should be that if a competent skulk finds him he's toast. If you're damn certain all the aliens are busy then go right ahead, but it should be dangerous.
NS is a team game. If you're the best player on earth and your 11 teammates are garbage then yes, you lose, sorry.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Solo play is still dangerous. If the skulks cannot kill a solo marine, how are they going to beat him while he or she is in a squad or group?
Because that's how marines were always intended to be. Tell me, if you were a completely new player and you read a summary in the manual that describes a team of space marines requiring "intense teamwork" what would be the image in your head? Can you really tell me that you would have imagined a bunch of marines running around by themselves because it's still teamwork as long as they win? Of course not, you'd imagine the marines moving in a pack and supporting eachother, like in the intro:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4Zd5lcxpn4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4Zd5lcxpn4</a>
I think the intent behind the original marine concept was obvious. It didn't end up that way in NS, and NS2 is a chance to fix that mistake.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Solo play is still dangerous. If the skulks cannot kill a solo marine, how are they going to beat him while he or she is in a squad or group?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
With team support obviously. You're still dodging the issue - <i>rambo marines are a common strategy even in high-level games</i>. True or false?
There are plenty of ways to make skulks more effective against lone marines without making them disproportionately strong against groups. One example off the top of my head - suppose the skulk bite did half its current damage, but applied a very heavy disorient affect that made it difficult to shoot the skulk back as long as he keeps biting you. You can still kill them before they get close if they're stupid, and if you're in a group when they ambush it takes long enough to kill you that your teammates can easily cover for you.
As long as players are doing what the commander says and are contributing postively to the team, they are worth more than the marines that hump each other in packs and get slaughtered. I don't see how a solo player contributing to the team's victory (which is what either team is looking for). I'm not looking for atmosphere, I am looking for a fun game, if solo marines break the original intention (i.e. intro movie) so be it, however that does not mean that solo players are not contributing to the team, and not using teamwork.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the intent behind the original marine concept was obvious. It didn't end up that way in NS, and NS2 is a chance to fix that mistake.
With team support obviously. You're still dodging the issue - <i>rambo marines are a common strategy even in high-level games</i>. True or false?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Both. Depends on the team. But to answer your question more clearly I'll use an example of Terror vs. Exigent. Both were top tier teams at their peak. Mustang from Terror would often Rambo off until the lerks started swarming around. Then he would usually come closer to the team. If we got the lerk down, he would go back solo until fades/2nd hive. By then the cap team would have probably capped enough nodes for 2nd tier tech. We would usually split in teams of two, with 1 left over, or do a 3-2 strategy, based on the situation (i.e. Alien assests, 2nd/3rd hive going up etc....).
If Mustang were to solo play the whole game, our chances of victory would diminish, as the higher tier Alien tech (especially vs LMG). But fortunately he didn't. He would listen to the COMMANDER who gave orders based on the inferences he could make in the map. Mustang always followed orders as well as communicated to the team, who he was engaging, where he was and how many aliens he was fighting. He would also allow at times for others to do solo if he was needed elsewhere.
THATS a prime example of how a solo player can contribute to the team work. I am not talking about a random person who goes off on his or her own no matter what. I am talking about using the solo player strategically, much like an isolation play in Basketball, or a screen pass in Football. Isolating the player vs the rest of the team. If solo players didn't work out, we adjust our strategy. But if one player can do the work of two or three on his or her, and still communicate with the team, then I feel that fits the definition of teamwork just fine.
For some reason that has to be penalized, and I'm still scratching my head as to why. It does not make sense if a player can use their weapons effectively, regardless whether in a group or not they should have suffer a penalty because of it. That includes solo players.
Why are you comparing crap players to good players? How is that productive? I've never said that rambos don't contribute to the team, I said they're against the general theme of the marine team.
If we can agree that the marines were originally intended to move in squads, why shouldn't it be that way in NS2? You could list off to me the advantages of having rocket launchers and railguns and powerups on the map, all of which have been in better competitive games than NS, but they're not in NS because they don't fit the atmosphere or intended gameplay mechanics. I would argue that the prevalence of solo play is the same. In all video games, concept molds gameplay, not the other way around.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Both. Depends on the team. But to answer your question more clearly I'll use an example of Terror vs. Exigent. Both were top tier teams at their peak. Mustang from Terror would often Rambo off until the lerks started swarming around. Then he would usually come closer to the team. If we got the lerk down, he would go back solo until fades/2nd hive. By then the cap team would have probably capped enough nodes for 2nd tier tech. We would usually split in teams of two, with 1 left over, or do a 3-2 strategy, based on the situation (i.e. Alien assests, 2nd/3rd hive going up etc....).
If Mustang were to solo play the whole game, our chances of victory would diminish, as the higher tier Alien tech (especially vs LMG). But fortunately he didn't. He would listen to the COMMANDER who gave orders based on the inferences he could make in the map. Mustang always followed orders as well as communicated to the team, who he was engaging, where he was and how many aliens he was fighting. He would also allow at times for others to do solo if he was needed elsewhere.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So yes, rambo players are very effective in NS as it is, even at high skill levels. Just making sure that's clear to everybody.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->THATS a prime example of how a solo player can contribute to the team work. I am not talking about a random person who goes off on his or her own no matter what. I am talking about using the solo player strategically, much like an isolation play in Basketball, or a screen pass in Football. Isolating the player vs the rest of the team. If solo players didn't work out, we adjust our strategy. But if one player can do the work of two or three on his or her, and still communicate with the team, then I feel that fits the definition of teamwork just fine.
For some reason that has to be penalized, and I'm still scratching my head as to why. It does not make sense if a player can use their weapons effectively, regardless whether in a group or not they should have suffer a penalty because of it. That includes solo players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've said many times why - because it doesn't fit with the marine aesthetic, and in my opinion being more dependent on teammates makes for a more fun team game. If you're looking for a reason that involves the health of the competitive scene you can stop now, sorry for the confusion. Though I certainly don't see how doing this would make NS2 any more "casual" at all, just different.
I know the idea of being told what to do by the developers sets your teeth on edge, but you should realize that you've been doing that all along. For marines to win a long game they have to build an arms lab and keep buying upgrades and build an armory and then upgrade that armory and then build a proto lab and then research HAs or JPs and then drop a bunch of them... Did you think you guys came up with that all on your own? No, you're doing it because Flayra thought it would be cool if marines had to do that to win. What if you wanted to run unupgraded LMGs the whole game and spend all your res spamming meds? Then you get punished for that when the aliens kick your asses. Every player is at the mercy of the game designer, be they competitive or casual.
That was implemented by intentionally allowing marines to exist both independently and interdependently so as to make the game more <b>varied and fun</b>.
Should isn't a reason. Fun trumps original intent.
Your argument has no basis.
That was implemented by intentionally allowing marines to exist both independently and interdependently so as to make the game more <b>varied and fun</b>.
Should isn't a reason. Fun trumps original intent.
Your argument has no basis.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Squad play is more fun than solo fighting.
Oh, hey, look how that works.
Is this one of those so-called strawmans?
You're still missing the depth of dynamic marine spread and positioning. That's a big loss in the options that a team can do.
Right now at public games you've got roughly 8/11 garbage teammates and 9/12 gargabe opponents, bringing us back to the learning curves. It's not going to be any fun unless the learning curve issues gets fixed and fixing them should eliminate most rambo issues anyway.
I'll emphasize again that I've been trying to play as a team in public for years. It simply doesn't work unless you get one of the 1/20 teams where there are 5+ individuals actually willing to think about the game and its logic. Fix the learning curve and fix the communication system and it actually should become very effective to form up squads, even if you don't enforce them.
I don't know how the smaller maps are going to affect this though. It might be that people simply don't have enough of room to wander out alone at least on those 32 player servers.
For some reason that has to be penalized, and I'm still scratching my head as to why. It does not make sense if a player can use their weapons effectively, regardless whether in a group or not they should have suffer a penalty because of it. That includes solo players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My problem isn't with the lone alien which defends his territory not being able to do well versus opposition. A skulk or lerk in his own area setup to ambush *should* have a distinct home advantage that increases his odds to killing any marines which throw caution in the wind.
My problem isn't with the lone marine which defends HIS territory by planting himself at the end of a long hallway and shooting any opposition. Again, this is a distinct advantage to the marine for minimizing the chance of surprise or ambush in an attack by the aliens. He *should* have a distinct advantage that increases his odds to killing any aliens.
My problem is with the lone marine who not only enters alien territory and not only completely throws caution into the wind and not spotting the skulk creeping up behind him... and he STILL manages to win. Not only that, he never even took a bite, because he knew perfectly well that aliens don't have movement chambers and any ambushing skulk would have to make noise to catch up to him. Not only that, but he used a pistol so that he can save lmg rounds later.
It was clearly a point in which what should have happened was that that marine died probably without even putting a bullet into that skulk. Furthermore, a good marine player who is soloing in this scenario would have checked for ambushes rather than running full speed into unfrequented map territory. A bad player (at least what I would have assumed would have been an intuitively bad player strategy) should have been the one to not check. The natural selection now is this way, though I don't think that this is reason enough to presume that if natural selection is this way, so should natural selection 2 be this way.
Gameplay must be such that it would be very difficult to recover from a well-executed skulk ambush as a solo player, no matter how skilled you are. The skilled player isn't able to kick ass and chew bubble gum despite well-executed skulk ambushes but rather the skilled player CHECKS for ambushes. That's the difference here, and that should be the basis for gameplay in natural selection 2.
Oh, hey, look how that works.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Having an integration of solo play and squad play based on the tactical scenario that is provided by the Aliens for more depth and interesting gameplay is more fun.
Ok now that those variables are neutralized, what is your basis again? I seem to be confused as you still have not provided an adequate argument for how Solo play != Team Play. And also, why a bunch of marines lacking male intimacy constitutes team play. (Despite the fact that ultimately listening to the commander's orders would ultimately define teamplay).
Suppose soloplay = teamplay.
solo + play = team + play.
solo + play - play = team + play - play
solo = team
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->so*lo   /ˈsoʊloʊ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation (soh-loh) –noun
1. a musical composition or a passage or section in a musical composition written for performance by one singer or instrumentalist, with or without accompaniment: She sang a solo.
2. any performance, as a dance, by one person.
3. a flight in an airplane during which the pilot is unaccompanied by an instructor or other person: I'll be ready for my first solo next week.
<i>4. a person who works, acts, or performs alone: He used to sing with a quartet, but now he's a solo. </i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->team   /tim/ Show Spelled Pronunciation (teem) –noun
1. a number of persons forming one of the sides in a game or contest: a football team.
<i>2. a number of persons associated in some joint action</i>: a team of advisers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think burden on proof is on you, Geronimo. So have at it. Explain how soloplay can be teamplay? Go on. Don't be shy. Up until now, even you guys have called it "going solo," so I think it's correct to clarify terms. How exactly do you define "solo play"?
No, having high dependence on your teammates for survival leading to a stronger sense of teamwork is more fun.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ok now that those variables are neutralized, what is your basis again? I seem to be confused as you still have not provided an adequate argument for how Solo play != Team Play. And also, why a bunch of marines lacking male intimacy constitutes team play. (Despite the fact that ultimately listening to the commander's orders would ultimately define teamplay).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, whatever, I'm not here to argue semantics. Solo play != non-solo play. IMHO non-solo play is better. I think tight coordinated squad teamwork is more fun than "I'll go this way you go that way" teamwork. It certainly is more challenging to work closely with your teammates than to just agree on which rooms to play solo in. The simple fact that solo survival is viable makes squad teamwork less engaging it promotes a sense of independence in individual players.
You're still missing the depth of dynamic marine spread and positioning. That's a big loss in the options that a team can do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's still plenty of depth in determining the size and positioning of squads. Just none of them are 1-man anymore. And in exchange you have the added depth of increased team interdependence.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Right now at public games you've got roughly 8/11 garbage teammates and 9/12 gargabe opponents, bringing us back to the learning curves. It's not going to be any fun unless the learning curve issues gets fixed and fixing them should eliminate most rambo issues anyway.
I'll emphasize again that I've been trying to play as a team in public for years. It simply doesn't work unless you get one of the 1/20 teams where there are 5+ individuals actually willing to think about the game and its logic. Fix the learning curve and fix the communication system and it actually should become very effective to form up squads, even if you don't enforce them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Man why would you even play NS on a pub with average skill level so far below your own? What are the odds of one of them even being a good comm? Nothing you can do makes NS fun in those circumstances IMHO. There are a number of pubs out there with a relatively high average skill level among regulars, and if you want a really good team you can play scrims. Bad teammates make for a bad game no matter how you slice it.
And you can fix the learning curve all you want, but it won't change anything if ramboing is an effective strategy and the good players know it. Especially in a game where all your enemies are below your skill level, if you can wander around killing all their skulks by yourself why would you want to stick with your team?
I'm actually not above anyone in skill anymore, but whatever.
The point that almost every player steadily making progress is going to grow tired of the public even in NS1. The comm dependency is a bad thing here and there, I'd rather not add absolute squad dependency to it. Especially now that I'm kinda busy studying, I'd also like to have some alternatives to competetive play.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And you can fix the learning curve all you want, but it won't change anything if ramboing is an effective strategy and the good players know it. Especially in a game where all your enemies are below your skill level, if you can wander around killing all their skulks by yourself why would you want to stick with your team?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The whole idea of the learning curve worrying is that right now even a total idiot with some aim can walk over public here and there. If we can get people to even perform the very basic skulking routines, the rambo effectiveness drops by 75%. The rest are so good that I doubt they'll be playing that much public anyway. If people started parasiting and maybe even communicating, they'd surely also take out rambos way easier.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's still plenty of depth in determining the size and positioning of squads. Just none of them are 1-man anymore. And in exchange you have the added depth of increased team interdependence.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You seem to assume there are 10+ players on each team. I don't think that adds that much depth to anything either. Rewarding squads and giving them new options might offer new depth, but simply limiting lone marines isn't at least directly going to add anything.
I'm a casual player, or call it noob, whatever you like best, I love to play kharaa and I often fail at soloing / ambushing a single marine, probably it is lack of skill (I always get confused how the bitegun works) and probably it is hard to ambush an rine and win on a 1v1 situation as kharaa.
But if you want to fix this, why do you try to cut into the multiple tactics by enforcing squadplay and weaken solo play, from my point of view it is worth to simplify how the Kharaa team is organized (one step is the Alien Commander) another one would be to improve things like the bitegun for the skulk (I'm not talking about damage or any numbers, just change the camera out of the skulk's mouth for instance).
Another thing to improve Squads is just by improving the Interface, i.e. like a party screen in a mmorpg so you can actually see with whom you are in a squad and what's his status. If it is simple to understand and "cool" to use people will use it more frequently if they succeed with it.
You also might add things like those popular Achievments (they are going 'round in like every game thats new...), so if you follow a pro gamer (measured by those new ingame ranking systems) you get an Achievement like "Teacher" or something like that.
What I'm trying to say is, that in general you don't have to change those numbers or add special game mechanics, but you can just make it easier to handle and understand, just by simple things like an improved UI or Hive Sight etc.
PS: sry for tons of commas, it's a german sickness <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Something I'd like to poke in.
Empires is the other FPS/RTS game out there. It is very team work dependent. It also gives nice bonuses for squads, such as faster levels, boosts when sticking together, and info on squad health.
These features do not, of course, cause perfect squad play. Most common situation is the squad starts together, a few die, respawn back at base and have to go elsewhere, squad is now split. On the other hand, it can really make everyone's life easier if you stick to squads.
At the same time, Empires allows the 'rambo'. There's a class dedicated to sneaking in alone and disabling the enemy's buildings. It's also not a bad idea for a solo jeep or tank to disorient the enemy team. Of course, if they're ineffective, good players will quickly re-join the main force.
Basically, if you're wondering how stuff would play out, try out Empires and watch the team dynamics. I will say that it isn't the pinnacle of squad gameplay, and basically most people ignore sticking to their squad. However, it has the potential to be a powerful mechanic if used properly in the game.