I said that marines that solo are already heavily disadvantaged in NS1 (this is without the introduction of any additional Anti-Rambo system).
I didn't say that a good marine isn't capable of ramboing if he so chooses.
Are you proposing that a good marine shouldn't have an advantage over incompetent aliens? You are completely ignoring the skill factor of ns!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> My point was simply that if a lone marine has so many disadvantages, why do people continue to play as such? If you died virtually everytime playing rambo style, you'd probably feel you'd have more fun backing up your teammates instead, getting more success in that sense. The fact that rambos are still used is a testament to the fact that a lone marine has a great deal more success than they probably should playing with a tactic less than "smart".
I never said a good marine shouldn't have an advantage over incompetant aliens. I'm only saying a good marine should have an advantage as great as his skill and the situation in which he places himself. Should a player with great skill kill all aliens regardless of positioning or class or upgrades? No, certainly not. There are far more variables to consider. My thoughts were simply that "great skill" shouldn't allow you to survive a well-placed ambush. It's not ignoring the skill factor of ns in this sense, as "great skill" would thus become that of players which cover themselves or at least lone marines which do a fairly thorough job of watching out for ambushes.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for the one skulk should be equal to one marine: This argument is nonsense. Ns is a team game and a skillful game, therefore the team AS A WHOLE must be considered. If you do not consider the speed of skulks (as well as fades and lerks) to be an advantage in map control, then we are clearly playing a different online game. For example, if I am a lerk, and my teammate parasites a marine near the hive (which may have taken a good 20-30 seconds walking), I will come and gas him, then bite him (taking about 5 seconds). The speed factor (as well as the synergistic nature of the alien team) MUST be considered in a debate about balance! One skulk should not be the perfect equal of one marine. If it were, aliens would NEVER lose!!!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's where the teamwork comes in. If a lone marine gets parasited and then bitten on the ass by a lerk, he's getting teamed up. Marines would and shouldn't ever win playing like that. If a skulk tried to parasite a couple marines, he'd be lucky not to get picked off. Assuming he survived, that lerk might have a hard time surviving two lmgs as fast as he could be, though he might get lucky and kill one before dying or flying away. In the end, you achieve balance. Two alien players vs two marines stands on fairly equal ground. What is the skill of the team as a whole when you divide it by the number of players? You get the amount of skill a single player could provide playing on his own or helping out a fellow ally.
Of course again we're talking in a very abstract sense, but the idea is the same. When I say the skill of a single player, I'm not only talking about the skill that player has fighting on his own (though it might be easier to think that way). We're talking about cooperation with the rest of the team as a contribution to the entire skill of the team. If you rambo, this cooperation with the rest of the team is reduced to almost nil, thereby lowering your overall helpfulness to the team. If you don't contribute much ramboing because you continue to die, you deserved it 110%, and if you rather spent that time covering another marine and stayed alive a lot longer, I think you'd find your overall usefulness to the team (at least should) increase by quite a bit.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Overall, there are plenty of reasons why working with a team mate is superior to ramboing in many situations. In some cases, a solo marine is more appropriate. Fundamentally, it is about choices and consequences. I like to be able to choose whether to follow a team-mate, or solo off on my own. I also understand that there are consequences as a result of my choices. I like it this way. There is no good reason for an Anti-Rambo feature in NS2 (no 'fear' feature etc).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you accept the disadvantages of being alone, how would that be any different with an anti-rambo system? If you accept you're at a disadvantage already, having an increased disadvantage doesn't alter anything. It simply means your success as a solo marine has been lowered even more. Your choice to do so has not been taken away by any means, no more than your choice to jump around the base shooting the floor as a fighting tactic has been taken away from you.
<!--quoteo(post=1697722:date=Jan 15 2009, 09:03 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Jan 15 2009, 09:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697722"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My point was simply that if a lone marine has so many disadvantages, why do people continue to play as such?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Most of the public teammates are not reliable to any extend and there's no need to stick together as long as aliens fail even to parasite you, not to speak of using teamwork to take you out. Brings us back to the learning curve and communication issues.
Having an effective communication method could be huge. Right now you've got half of the team muted due to music spammage/foreign chat and quite a few people have got voice_enable 0 (can't blame them). Separating the usless stuff from the actual gameplay communication and giving proper support for group communication would be the first step. Right now you've got very little ways of making sure that the guy next to you hears/sees your message and understands its meant for him.
<!--quoteo(post=1697718:date=Jan 15 2009, 02:01 AM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 15 2009, 02:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697718"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree, choices are good. The question is about the consequences. I would argue that the current consequences for running around solo are insufficient. It's no different from all the other myriad of bad choices you can make in NS resulting in terrible consequences, just a small shift in what works and what doesn't. As for the reason, it's simply because it would make the marine team less arcadey and more about tactical action, and the aliens more independent rambo types, which reinforces the original asymmetric concepts of the teams.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which brings this discussion back again to the premise of your argument: I like to play this way, so you should too.
And before you begin retorting with ephemeral claims of what is fun for different users, remember that I'm not suggesting that we stop tactics from working- on the contrary, working in teams and playing with friends is one of my favorite elements of NS (except when I'm playing with terrible teammates like Anni who doesn't buy hand nades) ..
... The point is, I want to allow people to play with as much team cohesion as they desire- I don't want to suddenly kill off a random player when people are clustering "too much" - see, that's the difference between our arguments Zek, and you've seemed intelligent in the past so I'm unclear as to why you can't grasp this:
You want to limit players, I want to empower them to play however they want.
<!--quoteo(post=1697733:date=Jan 15 2009, 03:50 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jan 15 2009, 03:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697733"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->except when I'm playing with terrible teammates like Anni who doesn't buy hand nades<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> 10 res in the early game also buys you a mine pack which you can use to help you kill Radix four times in marine start by yourself. Although they aren't really needed for that.
<!--quoteo(post=1697733:date=Jan 15 2009, 10:50 AM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jan 15 2009, 10:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697733"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Which brings this discussion back again to the premise of your argument: I like to play this way, so you should too.
And before you begin retorting with ephemeral claims of what is fun for different users, remember that I'm not suggesting that we stop tactics from working- on the contrary, working in teams and playing with friends is one of my favorite elements of NS (except when I'm playing with terrible teammates like Anni who doesn't buy hand nades) ..
... The point is, I want to allow people to play with as much team cohesion as they desire- I don't want to suddenly kill off a random player when people are clustering "too much" - see, that's the difference between our arguments Zek, and you've seemed intelligent in the past so I'm unclear as to why you can't grasp this:
You want to limit players, I want to empower them to play however they want.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> And I don't understand why you can't grasp that empowering one team limits the other. What if I want to play a solo skulk? Given a choice between empowering marines to be able to rambo if they want, and empowering skulks to be able to play solo and reliably win ambushes, the latter just makes more sense.
<!--quoteo(post=1697743:date=Jan 15 2009, 01:43 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 15 2009, 01:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697743"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What if I want to play a solo skulk? Given a choice between empowering marines to be able to rambo if they want, and empowering skulks to be able to play solo and reliably win ambushes, the latter just makes more sense.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your gameplay proclivities are your business. The teams are asymmetrical by design - if you empower skulks enough for them to straightline (you can already solo as skulk in games where skill is irrelevant, and in other games teamwork is mandatory because it has a necessary multiplicative effect) then you will unbalance aliens.
Skulks are weak because fades are strong, not because marines are strong.
<!--quoteo(post=1697756:date=Jan 15 2009, 05:01 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jan 15 2009, 05:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697756"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your gameplay proclivities are your business. The teams are asymmetrical by design - if you empower skulks enough for them to straightline (you can already solo as skulk in games where skill is irrelevant, and in other games teamwork is mandatory because it has a necessary multiplicative effect) then you will unbalance aliens.
Skulks are weak because fades are strong, not because marines are strong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Uh, what? When did I ever say anything about buffing their ability to straightline? Firewater's the one who wants to buff their HP. I think skulks should be better at their specialty, ambushing, and I don't mind if their straightlining gets nerfed to compensate.
Fades are the shock troop unit, skulks are the ambushers. I think the vanilla units should be "equal" in that whichever one of them gets the situational advantage will win. Marines already win at a distance, now skulks should win up close.
<!--quoteo(post=1697733:date=Jan 15 2009, 10:50 AM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jan 15 2009, 10:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697733"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Which brings this discussion back again to the premise of your argument: I like to play this way, so you should too.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This argument is a double-edged sword, and you know it. Why shouldn't natural selection 2 encourage teamplay style? You seem stuck on the idea that Natural Selection 2 must be like Natural Selection, because... ?? all this work is to improve the graphics engine I suppose?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->... The point is, I want to allow people to play with as much team cohesion as they desire- I don't want to suddenly kill off a random player when people are clustering "too much" - see, that's the difference between our arguments Zek, and you've seemed intelligent in the past so I'm unclear as to why you can't grasp this:
You want to limit players, I want to empower them to play however they want.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Changing the rules of the game isn't limiting players anymore than deciding resource nodes should take twice as long to build is limiting players. If I wanted to half-way build a resource node and go prancing along, I could do it, but it'd be a likely waste of comm resources if another marine didn't finish the job.
The rules of the game are the rules of the game. This proposal is even an extremely flexible rule in that if you wanted to waste your time ramboing, you can. Call it empowerment or whatever you like. I call it poor playing style, and I think this should be remedied in Natural Selection 2 by making the playing style match the outcome.
You can mince it around forever if you want. It's a personal preference mostly.
The only thing I'm telling you is that if the squad based gameplay is emphasized, you'll need a huge improvement in the gaming sense and metagame understanding of your average nsplayer. Otherwise it's double the frustrating as now and 9/10 decent players won't take even a look at the public games, or they play public games on their own servers. I find it a little silly that making game accessible threads get maybe 1/5 of the responses that threads like these get.
I doubt it's even possible to eliminate these problems through the better game quality, but I'm quite sure it's still much more useful and interesting than going through every individual effort and balance issue caused by it.
Straightlining is an unintended side effect of the gameplay changes that you don't realize you're suggesting.
If skulks auto-win at close range then ramboing is completely impossible and every game becomes "oh look galiens dropped skill chamber again."
This restricts marines for no reason besides "I like to win with no skill when I ambush." Which is an ephemeral gameplay fetish and not an argument.
I don't want that because it reduces the ability of any marine to move around the map. Ignoring spawncamps and whatever other political agenda you seem to have, this restriction in mobility is not good game design. Besides that, you would make the combat in the game completely deterministic. NS is fun because when I get ambushed I <b>might</b> die, not because I can run around as a good little marine in a 2-path rts.
<!--quoteo(post=1697787:date=Jan 16 2009, 04:18 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Jan 16 2009, 04:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697787"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This argument is a double-edged sword, and you know it. Why shouldn't natural selection 2 encourage teamplay style? You seem stuck on the idea that Natural Selection 2 must be like Natural Selection, because... ?? all this work is to improve the graphics engine I suppose? Changing the rules of the game isn't limiting players anymore than deciding resource nodes should take twice as long to build is limiting players. If I wanted to half-way build a resource node and go prancing along, I could do it, but it'd be a likely waste of comm resources if another marine didn't finish the job.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why are solo players that are contributing to the team's overall goal not considered teamwork? Why is the definition of teamwork marines huddled around by each other? There has been no adequate explanation of any of this through out this thread.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The rules of the game are the rules of the game. This proposal is even an extremely flexible rule in that if you wanted to waste your time ramboing, you can. Call it empowerment or whatever you like. I call it poor playing style, and I think this should be remedied in Natural Selection 2 by making the playing style match the outcome.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Double Edged sword argument on your part. If solo marines are not to exist than why do they? You claim that "its not the way its supposed to be played" and "I like this style and you should too"
No one who is for solo player (at least with half way decent mind) is saying that everyone should run around the map on their own. Squads have their role for the team, and so do Solo players. If one solo player can do the work of 3 or 4 marines, why not send the person of on their own to do some damage, and draw more aliens? Same thing with the aliens, if one skulk can drop 3 marines, send him or her off on his or her own and go after the marines.
For some reason the people who support this want to put those who are capable on a leash.
I have one question: Do you believe that all players are equal in terms of skill?
<!--quoteo(post=1697847:date=Jan 17 2009, 03:48 AM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jan 17 2009, 03:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697847"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Straightlining is an unintended side effect of the gameplay changes that you don't realize you're suggesting.
If skulks auto-win at close range then ramboing is completely impossible and every game becomes "oh look galiens dropped skill chamber again."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> As I said, there are many ways to buff ambushing without overpowering straightlining. If I had my way skulks would be worse at straightlining than they are now, in exchange for better ambushing. And I have no idea how you brought chambers into the argument.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This restricts marines for no reason besides "I like to win with no skill when I ambush." Which is an ephemeral gameplay fetish and not an argument.
I don't want that because it reduces the ability of any marine to move around the map. Ignoring spawncamps and whatever other political agenda you seem to have, this restriction in mobility is not good game design. Besides that, you would make the combat in the game completely deterministic. NS is fun because when I get ambushed I <b>might</b> die, not because I can run around as a good little marine in a 2-path rts.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Setting up an ambush is a skill, as is carrying it out. NS is all about situational advantages. Walking into an ambush is a mistake. When I make the best use of my skill and they screw up, yes, I want to win. Marines have a definitive advantage at range, so why don't skulks have a definitive advantage when ambushing? A good marine will never die to a skulk that charges at him from a distance. It's only fair that a good skulk should never die to a marine that walks into his trap.
<!--quoteo(post=1697906:date=Jan 18 2009, 11:08 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 18 2009, 11:08 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697906"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why are solo players that are contributing to the team's overall goal not considered teamwork? Why is the definition of teamwork marines huddled around by each other? There has been no adequate explanation of any of this through out this thread.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> There's a difference between contributing to victory and actually working with your team. I am talking about the latter. I don't care what terminology you want to use, if there's a word you would prefer then go ahead and just substitute it into my posts when I say "teamwork." It would be one thing if playing by yourself involved any sort of direct interaction with your teammates elsewhere on the map, but in reality that's rare. You know what to do and you do it by yourself without input. At best the comm sent you on your way.
A team game is more than a shared victory condition. It's about cooperating with your teammates. If you're playing a team deathmatch game and everybody just runs around independently shooting anything of the wrong color, sure they might win but that's not teamwork.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Double Edged sword argument on your part. If solo marines are not to exist than why do they? You claim that "its not the way its supposed to be played" and "I like this style and you should too"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> They exist because it works in the current game rules. If it didn't work, they wouldn't exist except with crappy players. And can you honestly tell me that you're not arguing in favor of solo play because you like that style? Because you can't have it both ways, by making it a viable strategy you force it on everybody who plays the game. Solo skulks have to lose to solo rambos because they want to be viable, and marines who prefer squad play have less teammates to work with because the ones who prefer to play alone have been validated.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No one who is for solo player (at least with half way decent mind) is saying that everyone should run around the map on their own. Squads have their role for the team, and so do Solo players. If one solo player can do the work of 3 or 4 marines, why not send the person of on their own to do some damage, and draw more aliens? Same thing with the aliens, if one skulk can drop 3 marines, send him or her off on his or her own and go after the marines.
For some reason the people who support this want to put those who are capable on a leash.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> We're suggesting changing the game rules so one solo player can't do the work of 3 or 4 marines. It's different with aliens because their team was designed for the players to be relatively independent, that's part of the asymmetry. No one is suggesting a written law that says you can't run alone even if it's the best strategy. We're saying that it should rarely be the best strategy or even a good strategy.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have one question: Do you believe that all players are equal in terms of skill?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> lol? So, you're saying a marine dying reliably to a skulk ambush is skill communism. What about a skulk dying when he charges across a room no matter how skilled he is? Why are you okay with that?
<!--quoteo(post=1697918:date=Jan 18 2009, 02:25 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 18 2009, 02:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697918"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have no idea how you brought chambers into the argument.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you make the game as deterministic as you are suggesting every game will feel like sensory first.
<!--quoteo(post=1697918:date=Jan 18 2009, 02:25 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 18 2009, 02:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697918"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Setting up an ambush is a skill, as is carrying it out. NS is all about situational advantages.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NS is not the focus of this discussion, but this belief is the faulty presupposition behind all of your arguments. Games do not need to feel exactly like <a href="http://tgns.ytmnd.com" target="_blank">Tactical Gamer</a> to be fun or balanced.
NS is as twitch-focused as it is tactical. Skulks do have an advantage in close range, and if you give them many more perks without changing the fundamental way that they fight the combat will become deterministic, which is bad for gameplay.
<!--quoteo(post=1697918:date=Jan 18 2009, 02:25 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 18 2009, 02:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697918"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Marines have a definitive advantage at range, so why don't skulks have a definitive advantage when ambushing?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They do. Aiming takes skill. Ambushing takes forethought. Forethought cannot be balanced in the same way that skill is without breaking the game.
<!--quoteo(post=1697918:date=Jan 18 2009, 02:25 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 18 2009, 02:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697918"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A good marine will never die to a skulk that charges at him from a distance. It's only fair that a good skulk should never die to a marine that walks into his trap.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good skulks generally don't - but good skulks use good traps. Those traps require teamwork. Marines are more able to solo at the beginning of the game because that's how they were designed. There is no need to make the skulk - a completely asymmetrical gameplay element - the exact inverse of the marine. The argument that you're making is a class mistake, and I can only gather that your desire for this to be so comes from a deep misunderstanding about the game itself.
<!--quoteo(post=1697920:date=Jan 18 2009, 03:07 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jan 18 2009, 03:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697920"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you make the game as deterministic as you are suggesting every game will feel like sensory first.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sensory first is frustrating because cloak is annoying and generally not a fun mechanic to play against. With cloak an ambush can happen at any time with zero skill unless the comm babysits you with scans(which conversely is not fun for aliens because it shuts off their upgrade). I wouldn't be opposed to removing cloaking effects. Putting that aside, you're only in danger passing through typical ambush spots. I don't see how it's the same thing at all.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS is not the focus of this discussion, but this belief is the faulty presupposition behind all of your arguments. Games do not need to feel exactly like <a href="http://tgns.ytmnd.com" target="_blank">Tactical Gamer</a> to be fun or balanced.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, you could have fooled me. I must be confused, what are we talking about again? I never suggested enforcing teamwork for every game there is, but for a game like NS it makes sense.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS is as twitch-focused as it is tactical. Skulks do have an advantage in close range, and if you give them many more perks without changing the fundamental way that they fight the combat will become deterministic, which is bad for gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's not deterministic at all when you bring groups into it. I see no issue with 1v1 being largely deterministic because this is not in any way a 1v1 game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They do. Aiming takes skill. Ambushing takes forethought. Forethought cannot be balanced in the same way that skill is without breaking the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Forethought is a skill. Knowing what makes the best ambush spots, predicting marine movements and perfecting the timing of the ambush are all things that come with experience. It's easy to take it for granted, but poor players are often just as bad if not worse in that category than they are at aiming. And there's still the twitch element of staying close and landing your bites.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Good skulks generally don't - but good skulks use good traps. Those traps require teamwork. Marines are more able to solo at the beginning of the game because that's how they were designed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's how it ended up, but what reason do you have to think it was intentional?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is no need to make the skulk - a completely asymmetrical gameplay element - the exact inverse of the marine. The argument that you're making is a class mistake, and I can only gather that your desire for this to be so comes from a deep misunderstanding about the game itself.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's cute but I played NS for five years, I do understand the game which is exactly why I'm suggesting this as a change from the way things are now. What's wrong with the skulk being the exact inverse of the marine? There are other alien lifeforms to fight with them on even ground. I think strong specialization makes for more interesting classes.
<!--quoteo(post=1697923:date=Jan 18 2009, 03:48 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 18 2009, 03:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697923"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's cute but I played NS for five years, I do understand the game which is exactly why I'm suggesting this as a change from the way things are now. What's wrong with the skulk being the exact inverse of the marine? There are other alien lifeforms to fight with them on even ground. I think strong specialization makes for more interesting classes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are many people who have been playing the game for quite a long time and DO NOT understand the entire picture.
BTW the playtesters were responsible for the 1.04 sYn rush that was develop and used widely to dominate pubs and in competitive play. These playtesters from what I understand had the game for 6 months and never attempted any rush strat. GOGOGO 2 hive LOLdown. These players at the beginning were considered to be "experts".
<!--quoteo(post=1697924:date=Jan 18 2009, 04:12 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 18 2009, 04:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697924"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There are many people who have been playing the game for quite a long time and DO NOT understand the entire picture.
BTW the playtesters were responsible for the 1.04 sYn rush that was develop and used widely to dominate pubs and in competitive play. These playtesters from what I understand had the game for 6 months and never attempted any rush strat. GOGOGO 2 hive LOLdown. These players at the beginning were considered to be "experts".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> And this strat took how long to develop? 1.04 came out three months after release. You'd be surprised how long it takes to discover stuff in a new game that seems obvious in hindsight, especially when you're working with a small team of playtesters. More importantly, what you're talking about is a balance issue, not design. Of course balance can't be fine-tuned until the game is released to the masses. When the game isn't even out yet the PTs have more important things to test than going over every possible strat with a fine-tooth comb.
I have to say, I can quite comfortably kill solo marines as a solo skulk at the start of the game.
It just takes a little patience and intelligence... It gets REALLY easy with 3 mcs or 2+ scs.
But anyway, the "one marine vs one skulk" situation is very rare in Australian servers. Even in a standard pub, several skulks will work to bait/ambush the marines without any direct communication. (for example, at west in ns_veil, one skulk will take the vents, two skulks will wait outside the door. The door aliens may bait/para, and the vent alien will rush. The one on one argument is fairly irrelevant in a team game, just as irrelevant as trying to argue that a team of gorges should be able to spit an HA/HMG to death...
tldr; team game, so one vs on is irrelevant
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why are solo players that are contributing to the team's overall goal not considered teamwork? Why is the definition of teamwork marines huddled around by each other? There has been no adequate explanation of any of this through out this thread.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good point. Teamwork certainly doesn't mean being in a tight knit group around each other... In many cases, it's best for a marine to go to another nearby location to cut off incoming skulks, rather than sit close to the person building the RT (etc). For example, a marine may be more useful spawncamping satcom (on tanith) while a teammate builds a pg in the corridors - rather than sitting right beside him. Also, a marine may be better off going into the tunnels between waste and cargo while a teammate builds double rts - so that he can cut the aliens off. In many games, especially on US servers, I tend to rush to the hive, because I can very frequently waste about a third of the alien team's time (sometimes setting up a spawn camp). I would argue that this is definitely benefiting the team, because I'm allowing them to cap resources.
>>Teamwork is NOT equal to packing marines like sardines in a can.
The current ns1 model is ideal. Ramboing is viable before lerks appear (and then diminishes in effectivness). A decent group is necessary to rush or seige a hive. Welding encourages HA to stick together. A solo ninja can often get a surprise phasegate, but wouldn't be able to spawn camp a midgame hive. The current system encourages marines to act like a squad in many cases, but doesn't insist on marines bunching together - especially in early game. (Note: in many cases, a 'squad' may only be 2-3 people, especially if the game is nice and small, like 6v6).
If I want to play a forced squad based game, I may as well get a job as a babysitter, because that's what it will be like playing pub ns.
<!--quoteo(post=1697926:date=Jan 18 2009, 04:21 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 18 2009, 04:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697926"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And this strat took how long to develop? 1.04 came out three months after release. You'd be surprised how long it takes to discover stuff in a new game that seems obvious in hindsight, especially when you're working with a small team of playtesters. More importantly, what you're talking about is a balance issue, not design. Of course balance can't be fine-tuned until the game is released to the masses. When the game isn't even out yet the PTs have more important things to test than going over every possible strat with a fine-tooth comb.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Strat took a few games, when Uubu (a very offensive-based/rush based starcraft player) realized that you can just pay for scans (or get the armslab first) and just allow the marines to dominate. I understand that the playtesters can't review every strat, however 1.04 while fun, was BROKEN. Thats on the playtesters man regardless of what perspective you have.
I was talking to playtesters who said they NEVER tested it out of all the games they played. I'm curious as to how many times a squad needs to do a 2 hive lockdown in order to figure out its effecitveness.
<!--quoteo(post=1697929:date=Jan 18 2009, 05:12 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 18 2009, 05:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697929"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Strat took a few games, when Uubu (a very offensive-based/rush based starcraft player) realized that you can just pay for scans (or get the armslab first) and just allow the marines to dominate. I understand that the playtesters can't review every strat, however 1.04 while fun, was BROKEN. Thats on the playtesters man regardless of what perspective you have.
I was talking to playtesters who said they NEVER tested it out of all the games they played. I'm curious as to how many times a squad needs to do a 2 hive lockdown in order to figure out its effecitveness.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Alright if you say so, can we get back on topic? You never did respond to my post. In particular I'm curious how you justify the definitive advantage that a marine has at range - if the best skulk in the world charges a competent marine from across the room, he's still going to die no matter what he does or how well he bunnyhops barring a blunder on the marine's part. If this is acceptable, why is it wrong for the best marine in the world to be unable to defeat a well-executed ambush by a competent skulk?
<!--quoteo(post=1697935:date=Jan 18 2009, 07:02 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 18 2009, 07:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697935"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Alright if you say so, can we get back on topic? You never did respond to my post. In particular I'm curious how you justify the definitive advantage that a marine has at range - if the best skulk in the world charges a competent marine from across the room, he's still going to die no matter what he does or how well he bunnyhops barring a blunder on the marine's part. If this is acceptable, why is it wrong for the best marine in the world to be unable to defeat a well-executed ambush by a competent skulk?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because the game does not start off on an even keel due to Asyemtrical properties. a Vanilla Skulk != Vanilla Marine (if of equal skill). This is countered by the fact that skulks spawn in faster.
Like I said, if the ambush fails, how can you considered it well-executed? If the skulk gets first bite on the marine and fails to kill it, then that is on the skulk for missing bites.
I really would like to see video of a "well executed" skulk ambush in the early game, I bet for everyone that you should me I could probably figure out what the skulk did wrong.
<!--quoteo(post=1697923:date=Jan 18 2009, 03:48 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 18 2009, 03:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697923"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well, you could have fooled me. I must be confused, what are we talking about again? I never suggested enforcing teamwork for every game there is, but for a game like NS it makes sense.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> We were discussing theory on the best way to design NS2's core gameplay. I was taking the pro side of the argument to keep personal skill as well as allowing players to work in groups and utilize tactics, and you were refuting that side by arguing the opinion that players should be prevented from being good at the game so that bad skulks can feel better about themselves or for some arbitrary sense of balance or ephemeral concept of fun.
For reference I would refer to the quoted post above in which you insist with some fervor that players must for some unknown reason be forced by the designer to huddle close together in order to be successful.
<!--quoteo(post=1697941:date=Jan 18 2009, 10:37 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 18 2009, 10:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697941"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because the game does not start off on an even keel due to Asyemtrical properties. a Vanilla Skulk != Vanilla Marine (if of equal skill). This is countered by the fact that skulks spawn in faster.
Like I said, if the ambush fails, how can you considered it well-executed? If the skulk gets first bite on the marine and fails to kill it, then that is on the skulk for missing bites.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Marines spawn in faster if they build a second IP. And either way that's just a single number that can be tweaked later for balance if necessary. I think for the sake of a fun game, vanilla players of both sides should be equal in their own ways.
And that's just false, it's completely possible for a skulk to get the first bite and aim perfectly but still be killed and you know it. Either the marine kills it too fast or he gets out of range using the knockback. I consider an ambush well-executed if the skulk didn't do anything wrong. It's ridiculous to blame him because the marine knew to expect an ambush and was facing the right way. As an exclusively ranged team I don't think marines should have such a solid chance in a melee encounter - the counter to losing your range advantage against an alien should be to have a teammate that still has his shoot him off you. On the contrary to running around the map holding hands at all times, this means maintaining a safe distance from your squadmates while maintaining line of sight on eachother and covering whoever takes point. Heavy dependence on this sort of gameplay makes for a much stronger team dynamic than the every man for himself approach.
<!--quoteo(post=1697947:date=Jan 19 2009, 02:45 AM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jan 19 2009, 02:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697947"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We were discussing theory on the best way to design NS2's core gameplay. I was taking the pro side of the argument to keep personal skill as well as allowing players to work in groups and utilize tactics, and you were refuting that side by arguing the opinion that players should be prevented from being good at the game so that bad skulks can feel better about themselves or for some arbitrary sense of balance or ephemeral concept of fun.
For reference I would refer to the quoted post above in which you insist with some fervor that players must for some unknown reason be forced by the designer to huddle close together in order to be successful.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Give the juvenile exaggerations a rest already, it's not helping your case at all. From the beginning I've only been arguing about the 1v1 scenario, twitch skill still plays a huge role in group combat. The outcome of a group fight is determined primarily by the combined twitch skill of each side. And twitch skill would still be a requirement to make use of your inherent advantage 1v1. A marine who can't aim might lose to a skulk who straightlines, and a skulk who can't aim might die to a marine he ambushes. I'm talking about good/great skulks who still can't guarantee an ambush kill against an attentive rambo marine because for some inexplicable reason marines have the ability to excel in both range and melee combat with only a basic requisite level of skill. There's more to skill in this game than the ability to ditch your teammates and still get a high k/d ratio.
And I never said marines should have to stay "huddled close together," I said they shouldn't be running around solo in some remote corner of the map. You can still be part of a squad while your teammates are spread across multiple rooms, covering a wider area is a valid strategy. That's completely different from a lone hotshot spawning and running off to do solo missions.
Every balance change can be isolated to a single variable if you narrow the scope enough. To say that you only have to change spawn rate completely changes the validity of other mechanics like zerging a hive, spamming 4 ips in the center of the map, the validity of mines in base, the danger of exiting the commchair, the validity of aliens to rush base, the requirements on the commander to medspam, the necessity for marines to succeed in capping a node and the resulting multiplied loss in resources over time as measured in the discrepancy between respawn and move time now and the amount of time it would take a marine with the new proposed speed of IP spawn.
This is only to name a few, and each one has ripple effects on most of the others.
Your definition of fun, as several of the individuals supporting your side have pointed out to me in this thread, is irrelevant. This is about design - fun is subjective until playtesting, design for gameplay validity can be theroized effectively with some effort.
<!--quoteo(post=1697984:date=Jan 19 2009, 04:29 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 19 2009, 04:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697984"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And that's just false, it's completely possible for a skulk to get the first bite and aim perfectly but still be killed and you know it. Either the marine kills it too fast or he gets out of range using the knockback. I consider an ambush well-executed if the skulk didn't do anything wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You assume in this argument that a skulk simultaneously fails to track the marine and does everything perfectly. Which is it?
Further, you said that forethought is a skill, do you include its use in your assumption that the skulk is doing everything perfectly, or are you referring only to twitch skill? If only twitch skill, then you appear to be supporting my side when I say that twitch skill should determine an encounter, not ability caps or number of teammates that you bait in front of you waiting to enter CAT.
<!--quoteo(post=1697984:date=Jan 19 2009, 04:29 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 19 2009, 04:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697984"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Give the juvenile exaggerations a rest already, it's not helping your case at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not making a case, I'm explaining to you why you're wrong while simultaneously trying to keep your arguments from creating prohibitive discussion scope. If my wordage is offensive I apologize, but you could work on narrowing down the points you want to discuss because as it stands the tangential vectors we would be endlessly pursuing are frustratingly extraneous.
<!--quoteo(post=1697984:date=Jan 19 2009, 04:29 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 19 2009, 04:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697984"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm talking about good/great skulks who still can't guarantee an ambush kill against an attentive rambo marine because for some inexplicable reason marines have the ability to excel in both range and melee combat with only a basic requisite level of skill. There's more to skill in this game than the ability to ditch your teammates and still get a high k/d ratio.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you guarantee the kill you destroy all FPS gameplay quality in the game. I will give you that it is easier to kill a skulk from across the map than it is to ambush a marine who is expecting you, but then, you shouldn't have been so predictable - that is the nature of alien gameplay - the Kharaa are designed to be stealthy and more defensive until lifeforms are up. I don't see why this needs to change in the first place, and if it <i>did</i> need to change, it shouldn't be by disabling marines' ability to outplay the opposition, that's called skill communism, and it's a terrible design decision wherever it's implemented.
If desirable, I think that this natural discrepancy could be narrowed by better active-defensive mechanisms but those seem unlikely to come from UWE.
<!--quoteo(post=1697941:date=Jan 18 2009, 10:37 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 18 2009, 10:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697941"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Like I said, if the ambush fails, how can you considered it well-executed? If the skulk gets first bite on the marine and fails to kill it, then that is on the skulk for missing bites.
I really would like to see video of a "well executed" skulk ambush in the early game, I bet for everyone that you should me I could probably figure out what the skulk did wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok.. then lets take a scenario. You're a heavy armored marine equipped with a HMG with level 3 weapons and level 3 armor. You're squatting at the end of a long hallway by which a skulk rears its head around the corner. Conveniently, comm scans the area, so there's no chance of that skulk sneaking to the end of the hallway.
Because the aliens have no other hives, the skulk has no leap and has at best an additional 30 armor from three defense chambers. Supposing that skulk is the a regular quake 3 tournament winner and has only died four times as a fade out of his 5 year playing. He wall-climbs, he feigns direction, he jumps often... you think he'll take down that heavy armor marine? Realistically? Come on.. I know you can say it... What? What? Did I hear you say no? Was that a whisper? No, you say?
No, of course not. And <b>when</b> that skulk dies, are you going to have the balls to point and say that his attack technique wasn't right? No... you're going to say he was stupid to put himself in that situation. What does that prove? Doesn't prove much, but it proves that there's more to natural selection than your skill level. It's also situational. Truth is, that scenario would never happen because a good skulk player would never go down that hallway in the first place.
Applying that same principle, a skulk in a perfect position attacking at the perfect time can still die. It's less likely than my first scenario, but still very likely. It's not even the case that a perfect ambush would almost always work. Against a skilled player, it rarely works. Fine that way, though right?
Perhaps this sort of balance is fine by you, which is to say extremely powerful high level alien life forms and extremely useless low level alien life forms, but I think if this were leveled out a bit more, games would be a lot more interesting. Rather than hear "onos.. gg", you'd hear "two aliens gaining up on me.. gg" instead. Asymmetry is an important thing in natural selection, but lets not confuse asymmetry for balance. There's a certain symmetry in balance which dictates that not one team nor another should have any advantage early or late in the game unless it is advantage in numbers. And advantage in numbers is teamwork, my friends.
OK Hawkeye, so we've established that you can't argue for the point at hand (anti rambo systems), but that you would like to change the topic to talk about giving skulks the opportunity to play more effectively. This is progress.
You definitely bring up a reasonable point that a good skulk in a good situation may not always win the combat, but a good marine in a good situation will almost invariably do so.
I'm going to split this topic to here at this point because we've completely lost focus (which is good): <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=105516" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=105516</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1697989:date=Jan 19 2009, 06:48 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jan 19 2009, 06:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697989"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Every balance change can be isolated to a single variable if you narrow the scope enough. To say that you only have to change spawn rate completely changes the validity of other mechanics like zerging a hive, spamming 4 ips in the center of the map, the validity of mines in base, the danger of exiting the commchair, the validity of aliens to rush base, the requirements on the commander to medspam, the necessity for marines to succeed in capping a node and the resulting multiplied loss in resources over time as measured in the discrepancy between respawn and move time now and the amount of time it would take a marine with the new proposed speed of IP spawn.
This is only to name a few, and each one has ripple effects on most of the others.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> My point is, balance is a separate issue from design, and NS2 is going to turn everything on its head anyway with all the massive changes that are already planned. The minor details can be worked out later, now's the time to think about changes on a design level. From a conceptual standpoint, I think a game is more fun if players are playing characters that are relatively equal in strength, even if their specialties are different. Naturally this changes with differences in tech, but when it comes to a contest between vanilla units, they should be equal but opposite IMHO. In exchange for feeling helpless at range, skulks should feel dominant in an ambush, and vice versa for marines.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your definition of fun, as several of the individuals supporting your side have pointed out to me in this thread, is irrelevant. This is about design - fun is subjective until playtesting, design for gameplay validity can be theroized effectively with some effort.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Fun is subjective always, of course, but it should always be a goal of design. It's not always easy to add fun after the fact in a game that was designed strictly for deep competitive gameplay.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You assume in this argument that a skulk simultaneously fails to track the marine and does everything perfectly. Which is it?
Further, you said that forethought is a skill, do you include its use in your assumption that the skulk is doing everything perfectly, or are you referring only to twitch skill? If only twitch skill, then you appear to be supporting my side when I say that twitch skill should determine an encounter, not ability caps or number of teammates that you bait in front of you waiting to enter CAT.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> IIRC a good knockback jump by the marine will outpace the skulk running towards him, so the skulk can't always track him perfectly. In either case though, the skulk shouldn't be required to do everything perfectly anyway because he already started the fight with the upper hand. The skulk did well by setting up an effective ambush and the marine screwed up by walking into it by himself, so it should take a real blunder on the skulk's part to offset that advantage. Exactly in the same way that a marine would have to miss pretty badly to allow a skulk to reach and kill him from across the room. In NS now, for the marine to be screwed not only does he have to walk into the ambush, but he also has to be caught with his pants down, which just doesn't happen to good marines.
So yes, I include both forethought and twitch skill in the evaluation of how good the skulk's ambush was. Forethought is being in the right place and timing your attack properly, twitch skill is finishing the job. They're both required, but NS does too little to reward the former. Twitch skill will always matter but it shouldn't be so huge a factor that it trumps everything else.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not making a case, I'm explaining to you why you're wrong while simultaneously trying to keep your arguments from creating prohibitive discussion scope. If my wordage is offensive I apologize, but you could work on narrowing down the points you want to discuss because as it stands the tangential vectors we would be endlessly pursuing are frustratingly extraneous.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't really see how my scope is too large, I'm talking about the appropriate balance of twitch skill vs. tactics/forethought in NS2. Competitive players think very highly of twitch skill and want the potential for endless growth with continuous results, but allowing this to run out of control downplays the strategy elements of the game in favor of lone heroics. There are other games that are perfect for that mindset, as an FPS/RTS I don't think NS should fall into that trap.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you guarantee the kill you destroy all FPS gameplay quality in the game. I will give you that it is easier to kill a skulk from across the map than it is to ambush a marine who is expecting you, but then, you shouldn't have been so predictable - that is the nature of alien gameplay - the Kharaa are designed to be stealthy and more defensive until lifeforms are up. I don't see why this needs to change in the first place, and if it <i>did</i> need to change, it shouldn't be by disabling marines' ability to outplay the opposition, that's called skill communism, and it's a terrible design decision wherever it's implemented.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course the skulk shouldn't have been so predictable, that's why he deserves to die. And the marine who walks into an ambush without support shouldn't have been so foolhardy. When I say to "guarantee" the kill I mean given a certain requisite level of FPS performance on the part of the skulk. A really good marine will require a better skulk to ambush him successfully than a newbie marine, but if the skulk is good enough to do his job correctly then the marine's twitch skill alone shouldn't be able to get him a get-out-of-jail-free card to cover up his strategic blunder. This already exists all over the place in NS, not the least of which being the marine vs. charging skulk scenario, but it's not skill communism because it happens as a result of one player's failure in tactical skill.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If desirable, I think that this natural discrepancy could be narrowed by better active-defensive mechanisms but those seem unlikely to come from UWE. PS: Who do you consider a good/great skulk?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't know, top 30% of the playerbase maybe? Remember, this isn't all combat in the game, just the scenario of 1v1 encounters which are not the main focus of a heavily team-based game like this one. I think trying to apply fighting game concepts to enhance the 1v1 fights in a team FPS/RTS is absurd. That's not at all what this game is about, and even games like CS/Quake don't take it that far.
<!--quoteo(post=1698008:date=Jan 20 2009, 04:56 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Jan 20 2009, 04:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698008"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ok.. then lets take a scenario. You're a heavy armored marine equipped with a HMG with level 3 weapons and level 3 armor. You're squatting at the end of a long hallway by which a skulk rears its head around the corner. Conveniently, comm scans the area, so there's no chance of that skulk sneaking to the end of the hallway.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1 hive skulks are not of a same tech class as a fully upgraded marine. Therefore the win ratio between the two is should be in the favor of the teched marine.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because the aliens have no other hives, the skulk has no leap and has at best an additional 30 armor from three defense chambers. Supposing that skulk is the a regular quake 3 tournament winner and has only died four times as a fade out of his 5 year playing. He wall-climbs, he feigns direction, he jumps often... you think he'll take down that heavy armor marine? Realistically? Come on.. I know you can say it... What? What? Did I hear you say no? Was that a whisper? No, you say?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, of course not. And <b>when</b> that skulk dies, are you going to have the balls to point and say that his attack technique wasn't right? No... you're going to say he was stupid to put himself in that situation. What does that prove? Doesn't prove much, but it proves that there's more to natural selection than your skill level.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ummm I kind of get your sarcasm, but I am kind of blinded by the lack of coherence in your point. Its kind of funny that you probably sat at your monitor all triumphantly and thought you made a well thought out and intelligent post. Too bad you have conflicting logic in your post, and its also irrelevant since we are talking about early game solo players. I especially like this quote
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And <b>when</b> that skulk dies, are you going to have the balls to point and say that his attack technique wasn't right? It's also situational. It's also situational. Truth is, that scenario would never happen because a good skulk player would never go down that hallway in the first place.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't have to have the "balls" to say it, you did an effective job yourself.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Applying that same principle, a skulk in a perfect position attacking at the perfect time can still die. It's less likely than my first scenario, but still very likely. It's not even the case that a perfect ambush would almost always work. Against a skilled player, it rarely works. Fine that way, though right?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep, if you get outplayed it is not the game's fault. Flayra has stated that you can only balance the game, not the players. If you get out-teched, than that happens in the game too.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Perhaps this sort of balance is fine by you, which is to say extremely powerful high level alien life forms and extremely useless low level alien life forms, but I think if this were leveled out a bit more, games would be a lot more interesting. Rather than hear "onos.. gg", you'd hear "two aliens gaining up on me.. gg" instead. Asymmetry is an important thing in natural selection, but lets not confuse asymmetry for balance. There's a certain symmetry in balance which dictates that not one team nor another should have any advantage early or late in the game unless it is advantage in numbers. And advantage in numbers is teamwork, my friends.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If there is no symmetry, then ONE side will always have a tech advantage over the OTHER. The game does NOT start out equal. At any given point in the game ONE side has an advantage over the other tech wise. Skill wise it is a different story, which is why neither side has a 100% win percentage.
Advantage in numbers in the late game? What about the Fade who dominating a whole squad by his or herself? I don't even get what you are trying to sell here. Do you have ANY clue as to the game mechanincs and progression of NS? Because you are posting more theorycraft that doesn't appear to correspond with reality.
Let me ask the question another way, as its repeatedly gets ignored.
"If a marine is capable of dealing 500 damage with his or her LMG, and another 100 damage with his or her pistol at baseline, why shouldn't that damage be able to be applied towards multiple skulks if the person is skilled enough/the skulks are bad enough?"
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->1 hive skulks are not of a same tech class as a fully upgraded marine. Therefore the win ratio between the two is should be in the favor of the teched marine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sorry, did I say otherwise? Could have sworn I was creating some sort of scenario there instead of babbling that a fully upgraded marine could take out a 1-hive skulk. My mistake!
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ummm I kind of get your sarcasm, but I am kind of blinded by the lack of coherence in your point. Its kind of funny that you probably sat at your monitor all triumphantly and thought you made a well thought out and intelligent post. Too bad you have conflicting logic in your post, and its also irrelevant since we are talking about early game solo players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I apologize if your inability to read my post has somehow handicapped your ability to conceptualize my point. Seeing how my arguments are quickly shot down, you leave me no choice than to create rather trivial points, but at least points you can't refute. Green != Blue. 1 + 1 = 2.
I'll remind you again of our discussion, seeing how you've had a moment of temporary blindness (hope you're feeling better). We were discussing how a perfect ambush should kill its intended target and if it doesn't, it simply isn't perfect. I presented you with a similar scenario in which a perfect attack can still fail because moreso than blantant skill, there's also a factor of positioning and intelligent fighting involved with natural selection.
A rambo fighting is practically the antithesis of intelligent fighting. Rather than allow yourself to be backed by other players, you move without them. Rather than avoid ambushes, you plow through them. It would be as if you attempted to kill marines at the end of a long hallway as a skulk. However, the difference here being that skulk attacking from a long distance is instafail while a rambo falling into a perfect ambush is not instafail. Rather, success rate is fairly high amongst the skilled marine players, thus encouraging rambo style fighting.
The only way you could refute this claim in one of three ways: 1) You deny that ambushes are so easily foiled. 2) You could accept it and claim that teams are asymmetric, in that skulks are supposed to be crappy.
If you want to take the asymmetric route, I ask you, if attacking down long hallways isn't a good attack style for skulks and ambushing isn't a good attack style for skulks, what is? I'm still waiting for an answer to the question as to why skulks must be dung fodder. Wanted natural selection to be more like starcraft maybe?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"If a marine is capable of dealing 500 damage with his or her LMG, and another 100 damage with his or her pistol at baseline, why shouldn't that damage be able to be applied towards multiple skulks if the person is skilled enough/the skulks are bad enough?"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Do I really have to answer why it shouldn't be that way? You could technically make marines as powerful as you'd want. For the sake of balance, I'd go for more of a game in which a player on the alien team doesn't die repeatedly, as I'm sure that's quite frustrating for new players. If you're trying to reverse the argument of making aliens stronger, I don't see how aiming for a 1 to 1 kill ratio means making skulks deal 500 damage per bite and 100 damage per parasite hit. 1 to 1 ratio is 1 to 1 by definition. I have a hard time seeing how that is unbalanced.
Hope you got my point this time and that the blindness is not the kind of "fade in and out" type thing. Get well soon!
Comments
I said that marines that solo are already heavily disadvantaged in NS1 (this is without the introduction of any additional Anti-Rambo system).
I didn't say that a good marine isn't capable of ramboing if he so chooses.
Are you proposing that a good marine shouldn't have an advantage over incompetent aliens? You are completely ignoring the skill factor of ns!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My point was simply that if a lone marine has so many disadvantages, why do people continue to play as such? If you died virtually everytime playing rambo style, you'd probably feel you'd have more fun backing up your teammates instead, getting more success in that sense. The fact that rambos are still used is a testament to the fact that a lone marine has a great deal more success than they probably should playing with a tactic less than "smart".
I never said a good marine shouldn't have an advantage over incompetant aliens. I'm only saying a good marine should have an advantage as great as his skill and the situation in which he places himself. Should a player with great skill kill all aliens regardless of positioning or class or upgrades? No, certainly not. There are far more variables to consider. My thoughts were simply that "great skill" shouldn't allow you to survive a well-placed ambush. It's not ignoring the skill factor of ns in this sense, as "great skill" would thus become that of players which cover themselves or at least lone marines which do a fairly thorough job of watching out for ambushes.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for the one skulk should be equal to one marine:
This argument is nonsense. Ns is a team game and a skillful game, therefore the team AS A WHOLE must be considered.
If you do not consider the speed of skulks (as well as fades and lerks) to be an advantage in map control, then we are clearly playing a different online game. For example, if I am a lerk, and my teammate parasites a marine near the hive (which may have taken a good 20-30 seconds walking), I will come and gas him, then bite him (taking about 5 seconds). The speed factor (as well as the synergistic nature of the alien team) MUST be considered in a debate about balance! One skulk should not be the perfect equal of one marine. If it were, aliens would NEVER lose!!!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's where the teamwork comes in. If a lone marine gets parasited and then bitten on the ass by a lerk, he's getting teamed up. Marines would and shouldn't ever win playing like that. If a skulk tried to parasite a couple marines, he'd be lucky not to get picked off. Assuming he survived, that lerk might have a hard time surviving two lmgs as fast as he could be, though he might get lucky and kill one before dying or flying away. In the end, you achieve balance. Two alien players vs two marines stands on fairly equal ground. What is the skill of the team as a whole when you divide it by the number of players? You get the amount of skill a single player could provide playing on his own or helping out a fellow ally.
Of course again we're talking in a very abstract sense, but the idea is the same. When I say the skill of a single player, I'm not only talking about the skill that player has fighting on his own (though it might be easier to think that way). We're talking about cooperation with the rest of the team as a contribution to the entire skill of the team. If you rambo, this cooperation with the rest of the team is reduced to almost nil, thereby lowering your overall helpfulness to the team. If you don't contribute much ramboing because you continue to die, you deserved it 110%, and if you rather spent that time covering another marine and stayed alive a lot longer, I think you'd find your overall usefulness to the team (at least should) increase by quite a bit.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Overall, there are plenty of reasons why working with a team mate is superior to ramboing in many situations. In some cases, a solo marine is more appropriate. Fundamentally, it is about choices and consequences. I like to be able to choose whether to follow a team-mate, or solo off on my own. I also understand that there are consequences as a result of my choices. I like it this way. There is no good reason for an Anti-Rambo feature in NS2 (no 'fear' feature etc).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you accept the disadvantages of being alone, how would that be any different with an anti-rambo system? If you accept you're at a disadvantage already, having an increased disadvantage doesn't alter anything. It simply means your success as a solo marine has been lowered even more. Your choice to do so has not been taken away by any means, no more than your choice to jump around the base shooting the floor as a fighting tactic has been taken away from you.
Most of the public teammates are not reliable to any extend and there's no need to stick together as long as aliens fail even to parasite you, not to speak of using teamwork to take you out. Brings us back to the learning curve and communication issues.
Having an effective communication method could be huge. Right now you've got half of the team muted due to music spammage/foreign chat and quite a few people have got voice_enable 0 (can't blame them). Separating the usless stuff from the actual gameplay communication and giving proper support for group communication would be the first step. Right now you've got very little ways of making sure that the guy next to you hears/sees your message and understands its meant for him.
Which brings this discussion back again to the premise of your argument: I like to play this way, so you should too.
And before you begin retorting with ephemeral claims of what is fun for different users, remember that I'm not suggesting that we stop tactics from working- on the contrary, working in teams and playing with friends is one of my favorite elements of NS (except when I'm playing with terrible teammates like Anni who doesn't buy hand nades) ..
... The point is, I want to allow people to play with as much team cohesion as they desire- I don't want to suddenly kill off a random player when people are clustering "too much" - see, that's the difference between our arguments Zek, and you've seemed intelligent in the past so I'm unclear as to why you can't grasp this:
You want to limit players, I want to empower them to play however they want.
10 res in the early game also buys you a mine pack which you can use to help you kill Radix four times in marine start by yourself. Although they aren't really needed for that.
And before you begin retorting with ephemeral claims of what is fun for different users, remember that I'm not suggesting that we stop tactics from working- on the contrary, working in teams and playing with friends is one of my favorite elements of NS (except when I'm playing with terrible teammates like Anni who doesn't buy hand nades) ..
... The point is, I want to allow people to play with as much team cohesion as they desire- I don't want to suddenly kill off a random player when people are clustering "too much" - see, that's the difference between our arguments Zek, and you've seemed intelligent in the past so I'm unclear as to why you can't grasp this:
You want to limit players, I want to empower them to play however they want.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I don't understand why you can't grasp that empowering one team limits the other. What if I want to play a solo skulk? Given a choice between empowering marines to be able to rambo if they want, and empowering skulks to be able to play solo and reliably win ambushes, the latter just makes more sense.
Your gameplay proclivities are your business. The teams are asymmetrical by design - if you empower skulks enough for them to straightline (you can already solo as skulk in games where skill is irrelevant, and in other games teamwork is mandatory because it has a necessary multiplicative effect) then you will unbalance aliens.
Skulks are weak because fades are strong, not because marines are strong.
Skulks are weak because fades are strong, not because marines are strong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh, what? When did I ever say anything about buffing their ability to straightline? Firewater's the one who wants to buff their HP. I think skulks should be better at their specialty, ambushing, and I don't mind if their straightlining gets nerfed to compensate.
Fades are the shock troop unit, skulks are the ambushers. I think the vanilla units should be "equal" in that whichever one of them gets the situational advantage will win. Marines already win at a distance, now skulks should win up close.
This argument is a double-edged sword, and you know it. Why shouldn't natural selection 2 encourage teamplay style? You seem stuck on the idea that Natural Selection 2 must be like Natural Selection, because... ?? all this work is to improve the graphics engine I suppose?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->... The point is, I want to allow people to play with as much team cohesion as they desire- I don't want to suddenly kill off a random player when people are clustering "too much" - see, that's the difference between our arguments Zek, and you've seemed intelligent in the past so I'm unclear as to why you can't grasp this:
You want to limit players, I want to empower them to play however they want.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Changing the rules of the game isn't limiting players anymore than deciding resource nodes should take twice as long to build is limiting players. If I wanted to half-way build a resource node and go prancing along, I could do it, but it'd be a likely waste of comm resources if another marine didn't finish the job.
The rules of the game are the rules of the game. This proposal is even an extremely flexible rule in that if you wanted to waste your time ramboing, you can. Call it empowerment or whatever you like. I call it poor playing style, and I think this should be remedied in Natural Selection 2 by making the playing style match the outcome.
The only thing I'm telling you is that if the squad based gameplay is emphasized, you'll need a huge improvement in the gaming sense and metagame understanding of your average nsplayer. Otherwise it's double the frustrating as now and 9/10 decent players won't take even a look at the public games, or they play public games on their own servers. I find it a little silly that making game accessible threads get maybe 1/5 of the responses that threads like these get.
I doubt it's even possible to eliminate these problems through the better game quality, but I'm quite sure it's still much more useful and interesting than going through every individual effort and balance issue caused by it.
If skulks auto-win at close range then ramboing is completely impossible and every game becomes "oh look galiens dropped skill chamber again."
This restricts marines for no reason besides "I like to win with no skill when I ambush." Which is an ephemeral gameplay fetish and not an argument.
I don't want that because it reduces the ability of any marine to move around the map. Ignoring spawncamps and whatever other political agenda you seem to have, this restriction in mobility is not good game design. Besides that, you would make the combat in the game completely deterministic. NS is fun because when I get ambushed I <b>might</b> die, not because I can run around as a good little marine in a 2-path rts.
Changing the rules of the game isn't limiting players anymore than deciding resource nodes should take twice as long to build is limiting players. If I wanted to half-way build a resource node and go prancing along, I could do it, but it'd be a likely waste of comm resources if another marine didn't finish the job.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why are solo players that are contributing to the team's overall goal not considered teamwork? Why is the definition of teamwork marines huddled around by each other? There has been no adequate explanation of any of this through out this thread.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The rules of the game are the rules of the game. This proposal is even an extremely flexible rule in that if you wanted to waste your time ramboing, you can. Call it empowerment or whatever you like. I call it poor playing style, and I think this should be remedied in Natural Selection 2 by making the playing style match the outcome.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Double Edged sword argument on your part. If solo marines are not to exist than why do they? You claim that "its not the way its supposed to be played" and "I like this style and you should too"
No one who is for solo player (at least with half way decent mind) is saying that everyone should run around the map on their own. Squads have their role for the team, and so do Solo players. If one solo player can do the work of 3 or 4 marines, why not send the person of on their own to do some damage, and draw more aliens? Same thing with the aliens, if one skulk can drop 3 marines, send him or her off on his or her own and go after the marines.
For some reason the people who support this want to put those who are capable on a leash.
I have one question: Do you believe that all players are equal in terms of skill?
If skulks auto-win at close range then ramboing is completely impossible and every game becomes "oh look galiens dropped skill chamber again."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I said, there are many ways to buff ambushing without overpowering straightlining. If I had my way skulks would be worse at straightlining than they are now, in exchange for better ambushing. And I have no idea how you brought chambers into the argument.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This restricts marines for no reason besides "I like to win with no skill when I ambush." Which is an ephemeral gameplay fetish and not an argument.
I don't want that because it reduces the ability of any marine to move around the map. Ignoring spawncamps and whatever other political agenda you seem to have, this restriction in mobility is not good game design. Besides that, you would make the combat in the game completely deterministic. NS is fun because when I get ambushed I <b>might</b> die, not because I can run around as a good little marine in a 2-path rts.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Setting up an ambush is a skill, as is carrying it out. NS is all about situational advantages. Walking into an ambush is a mistake. When I make the best use of my skill and they screw up, yes, I want to win. Marines have a definitive advantage at range, so why don't skulks have a definitive advantage when ambushing? A good marine will never die to a skulk that charges at him from a distance. It's only fair that a good skulk should never die to a marine that walks into his trap.
<!--quoteo(post=1697906:date=Jan 18 2009, 11:08 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 18 2009, 11:08 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697906"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why are solo players that are contributing to the team's overall goal not considered teamwork? Why is the definition of teamwork marines huddled around by each other? There has been no adequate explanation of any of this through out this thread.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's a difference between contributing to victory and actually working with your team. I am talking about the latter. I don't care what terminology you want to use, if there's a word you would prefer then go ahead and just substitute it into my posts when I say "teamwork." It would be one thing if playing by yourself involved any sort of direct interaction with your teammates elsewhere on the map, but in reality that's rare. You know what to do and you do it by yourself without input. At best the comm sent you on your way.
A team game is more than a shared victory condition. It's about cooperating with your teammates. If you're playing a team deathmatch game and everybody just runs around independently shooting anything of the wrong color, sure they might win but that's not teamwork.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Double Edged sword argument on your part. If solo marines are not to exist than why do they? You claim that "its not the way its supposed to be played" and "I like this style and you should too"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They exist because it works in the current game rules. If it didn't work, they wouldn't exist except with crappy players. And can you honestly tell me that you're not arguing in favor of solo play because you like that style? Because you can't have it both ways, by making it a viable strategy you force it on everybody who plays the game. Solo skulks have to lose to solo rambos because they want to be viable, and marines who prefer squad play have less teammates to work with because the ones who prefer to play alone have been validated.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No one who is for solo player (at least with half way decent mind) is saying that everyone should run around the map on their own. Squads have their role for the team, and so do Solo players. If one solo player can do the work of 3 or 4 marines, why not send the person of on their own to do some damage, and draw more aliens? Same thing with the aliens, if one skulk can drop 3 marines, send him or her off on his or her own and go after the marines.
For some reason the people who support this want to put those who are capable on a leash.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We're suggesting changing the game rules so one solo player can't do the work of 3 or 4 marines. It's different with aliens because their team was designed for the players to be relatively independent, that's part of the asymmetry. No one is suggesting a written law that says you can't run alone even if it's the best strategy. We're saying that it should rarely be the best strategy or even a good strategy.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have one question: Do you believe that all players are equal in terms of skill?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol? So, you're saying a marine dying reliably to a skulk ambush is skill communism. What about a skulk dying when he charges across a room no matter how skilled he is? Why are you okay with that?
If you make the game as deterministic as you are suggesting every game will feel like sensory first.
<!--quoteo(post=1697918:date=Jan 18 2009, 02:25 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 18 2009, 02:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697918"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Setting up an ambush is a skill, as is carrying it out. NS is all about situational advantages.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NS is not the focus of this discussion, but this belief is the faulty presupposition behind all of your arguments. Games do not need to feel exactly like <a href="http://tgns.ytmnd.com" target="_blank">Tactical Gamer</a> to be fun or balanced.
NS is as twitch-focused as it is tactical. Skulks do have an advantage in close range, and if you give them many more perks without changing the fundamental way that they fight the combat will become deterministic, which is bad for gameplay.
<!--quoteo(post=1697918:date=Jan 18 2009, 02:25 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 18 2009, 02:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697918"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Marines have a definitive advantage at range, so why don't skulks have a definitive advantage when ambushing?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They do. Aiming takes skill. Ambushing takes forethought. Forethought cannot be balanced in the same way that skill is without breaking the game.
<!--quoteo(post=1697918:date=Jan 18 2009, 02:25 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 18 2009, 02:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697918"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A good marine will never die to a skulk that charges at him from a distance. It's only fair that a good skulk should never die to a marine that walks into his trap.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good skulks generally don't - but good skulks use good traps. Those traps require teamwork. Marines are more able to solo at the beginning of the game because that's how they were designed. There is no need to make the skulk - a completely asymmetrical gameplay element - the exact inverse of the marine. The argument that you're making is a class mistake, and I can only gather that your desire for this to be so comes from a deep misunderstanding about the game itself.
Sensory first is frustrating because cloak is annoying and generally not a fun mechanic to play against. With cloak an ambush can happen at any time with zero skill unless the comm babysits you with scans(which conversely is not fun for aliens because it shuts off their upgrade). I wouldn't be opposed to removing cloaking effects. Putting that aside, you're only in danger passing through typical ambush spots. I don't see how it's the same thing at all.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS is not the focus of this discussion, but this belief is the faulty presupposition behind all of your arguments. Games do not need to feel exactly like <a href="http://tgns.ytmnd.com" target="_blank">Tactical Gamer</a> to be fun or balanced.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, you could have fooled me. I must be confused, what are we talking about again? I never suggested enforcing teamwork for every game there is, but for a game like NS it makes sense.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS is as twitch-focused as it is tactical. Skulks do have an advantage in close range, and if you give them many more perks without changing the fundamental way that they fight the combat will become deterministic, which is bad for gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not deterministic at all when you bring groups into it. I see no issue with 1v1 being largely deterministic because this is not in any way a 1v1 game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They do. Aiming takes skill. Ambushing takes forethought. Forethought cannot be balanced in the same way that skill is without breaking the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Forethought is a skill. Knowing what makes the best ambush spots, predicting marine movements and perfecting the timing of the ambush are all things that come with experience. It's easy to take it for granted, but poor players are often just as bad if not worse in that category than they are at aiming. And there's still the twitch element of staying close and landing your bites.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Good skulks generally don't - but good skulks use good traps. Those traps require teamwork. Marines are more able to solo at the beginning of the game because that's how they were designed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's how it ended up, but what reason do you have to think it was intentional?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is no need to make the skulk - a completely asymmetrical gameplay element - the exact inverse of the marine. The argument that you're making is a class mistake, and I can only gather that your desire for this to be so comes from a deep misunderstanding about the game itself.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's cute but I played NS for five years, I do understand the game which is exactly why I'm suggesting this as a change from the way things are now. What's wrong with the skulk being the exact inverse of the marine? There are other alien lifeforms to fight with them on even ground. I think strong specialization makes for more interesting classes.
There are many people who have been playing the game for quite a long time and DO NOT understand the entire picture.
BTW the playtesters were responsible for the 1.04 sYn rush that was develop and used widely to dominate pubs and in competitive play. These playtesters from what I understand had the game for 6 months and never attempted any rush strat. GOGOGO 2 hive LOLdown. These players at the beginning were considered to be "experts".
BTW the playtesters were responsible for the 1.04 sYn rush that was develop and used widely to dominate pubs and in competitive play. These playtesters from what I understand had the game for 6 months and never attempted any rush strat. GOGOGO 2 hive LOLdown. These players at the beginning were considered to be "experts".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And this strat took how long to develop? 1.04 came out three months after release. You'd be surprised how long it takes to discover stuff in a new game that seems obvious in hindsight, especially when you're working with a small team of playtesters. More importantly, what you're talking about is a balance issue, not design. Of course balance can't be fine-tuned until the game is released to the masses. When the game isn't even out yet the PTs have more important things to test than going over every possible strat with a fine-tooth comb.
It just takes a little patience and intelligence... It gets REALLY easy with 3 mcs or 2+ scs.
But anyway, the "one marine vs one skulk" situation is very rare in Australian servers. Even in a standard pub, several skulks will work to bait/ambush the marines without any direct communication. (for example, at west in ns_veil, one skulk will take the vents, two skulks will wait outside the door. The door aliens may bait/para, and the vent alien will rush. The one on one argument is fairly irrelevant in a team game, just as irrelevant as trying to argue that a team of gorges should be able to spit an HA/HMG to death...
tldr; team game, so one vs on is irrelevant
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why are solo players that are contributing to the team's overall goal not considered teamwork? Why is the definition of teamwork marines huddled around by each other? There has been no adequate explanation of any of this through out this thread.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good point. Teamwork certainly doesn't mean being in a tight knit group around each other... In many cases, it's best for a marine to go to another nearby location to cut off incoming skulks, rather than sit close to the person building the RT (etc). For example, a marine may be more useful spawncamping satcom (on tanith) while a teammate builds a pg in the corridors - rather than sitting right beside him. Also, a marine may be better off going into the tunnels between waste and cargo while a teammate builds double rts - so that he can cut the aliens off. In many games, especially on US servers, I tend to rush to the hive, because I can very frequently waste about a third of the alien team's time (sometimes setting up a spawn camp). I would argue that this is definitely benefiting the team, because I'm allowing them to cap resources.
>>Teamwork is NOT equal to packing marines like sardines in a can.
The current ns1 model is ideal. Ramboing is viable before lerks appear (and then diminishes in effectivness). A decent group is necessary to rush or seige a hive. Welding encourages HA to stick together. A solo ninja can often get a surprise phasegate, but wouldn't be able to spawn camp a midgame hive. The current system encourages marines to act like a squad in many cases, but doesn't insist on marines bunching together - especially in early game. (Note: in many cases, a 'squad' may only be 2-3 people, especially if the game is nice and small, like 6v6).
If I want to play a forced squad based game, I may as well get a job as a babysitter, because that's what it will be like playing pub ns.
Strat took a few games, when Uubu (a very offensive-based/rush based starcraft player) realized that you can just pay for scans (or get the armslab first) and just allow the marines to dominate. I understand that the playtesters can't review every strat, however 1.04 while fun, was BROKEN. Thats on the playtesters man regardless of what perspective you have.
I was talking to playtesters who said they NEVER tested it out of all the games they played. I'm curious as to how many times a squad needs to do a 2 hive lockdown in order to figure out its effecitveness.
I was talking to playtesters who said they NEVER tested it out of all the games they played. I'm curious as to how many times a squad needs to do a 2 hive lockdown in order to figure out its effecitveness.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Alright if you say so, can we get back on topic? You never did respond to my post. In particular I'm curious how you justify the definitive advantage that a marine has at range - if the best skulk in the world charges a competent marine from across the room, he's still going to die no matter what he does or how well he bunnyhops barring a blunder on the marine's part. If this is acceptable, why is it wrong for the best marine in the world to be unable to defeat a well-executed ambush by a competent skulk?
Because the game does not start off on an even keel due to Asyemtrical properties. a Vanilla Skulk != Vanilla Marine (if of equal skill). This is countered by the fact that skulks spawn in faster.
Like I said, if the ambush fails, how can you considered it well-executed? If the skulk gets first bite on the marine and fails to kill it, then that is on the skulk for missing bites.
I really would like to see video of a "well executed" skulk ambush in the early game, I bet for everyone that you should me I could probably figure out what the skulk did wrong.
We were discussing theory on the best way to design NS2's core gameplay. I was taking the pro side of the argument to keep personal skill as well as allowing players to work in groups and utilize tactics, and you were refuting that side by arguing the opinion that players should be prevented from being good at the game so that bad skulks can feel better about themselves or for some arbitrary sense of balance or ephemeral concept of fun.
For reference I would refer to the quoted post above in which you insist with some fervor that players must for some unknown reason be forced by the designer to huddle close together in order to be successful.
Like I said, if the ambush fails, how can you considered it well-executed? If the skulk gets first bite on the marine and fails to kill it, then that is on the skulk for missing bites.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Marines spawn in faster if they build a second IP. And either way that's just a single number that can be tweaked later for balance if necessary. I think for the sake of a fun game, vanilla players of both sides should be equal in their own ways.
And that's just false, it's completely possible for a skulk to get the first bite and aim perfectly but still be killed and you know it. Either the marine kills it too fast or he gets out of range using the knockback. I consider an ambush well-executed if the skulk didn't do anything wrong. It's ridiculous to blame him because the marine knew to expect an ambush and was facing the right way. As an exclusively ranged team I don't think marines should have such a solid chance in a melee encounter - the counter to losing your range advantage against an alien should be to have a teammate that still has his shoot him off you. On the contrary to running around the map holding hands at all times, this means maintaining a safe distance from your squadmates while maintaining line of sight on eachother and covering whoever takes point. Heavy dependence on this sort of gameplay makes for a much stronger team dynamic than the every man for himself approach.
<!--quoteo(post=1697947:date=Jan 19 2009, 02:45 AM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jan 19 2009, 02:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697947"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We were discussing theory on the best way to design NS2's core gameplay. I was taking the pro side of the argument to keep personal skill as well as allowing players to work in groups and utilize tactics, and you were refuting that side by arguing the opinion that players should be prevented from being good at the game so that bad skulks can feel better about themselves or for some arbitrary sense of balance or ephemeral concept of fun.
For reference I would refer to the quoted post above in which you insist with some fervor that players must for some unknown reason be forced by the designer to huddle close together in order to be successful.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Give the juvenile exaggerations a rest already, it's not helping your case at all. From the beginning I've only been arguing about the 1v1 scenario, twitch skill still plays a huge role in group combat. The outcome of a group fight is determined primarily by the combined twitch skill of each side. And twitch skill would still be a requirement to make use of your inherent advantage 1v1. A marine who can't aim might lose to a skulk who straightlines, and a skulk who can't aim might die to a marine he ambushes. I'm talking about good/great skulks who still can't guarantee an ambush kill against an attentive rambo marine because for some inexplicable reason marines have the ability to excel in both range and melee combat with only a basic requisite level of skill. There's more to skill in this game than the ability to ditch your teammates and still get a high k/d ratio.
And I never said marines should have to stay "huddled close together," I said they shouldn't be running around solo in some remote corner of the map. You can still be part of a squad while your teammates are spread across multiple rooms, covering a wider area is a valid strategy. That's completely different from a lone hotshot spawning and running off to do solo missions.
This is only to name a few, and each one has ripple effects on most of the others.
Your definition of fun, as several of the individuals supporting your side have pointed out to me in this thread, is irrelevant. This is about design - fun is subjective until playtesting, design for gameplay validity can be theroized effectively with some effort.
<!--quoteo(post=1697984:date=Jan 19 2009, 04:29 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 19 2009, 04:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697984"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And that's just false, it's completely possible for a skulk to get the first bite and aim perfectly but still be killed and you know it. Either the marine kills it too fast or he gets out of range using the knockback. I consider an ambush well-executed if the skulk didn't do anything wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You assume in this argument that a skulk simultaneously fails to track the marine and does everything perfectly. Which is it?
Further, you said that forethought is a skill, do you include its use in your assumption that the skulk is doing everything perfectly, or are you referring only to twitch skill? If only twitch skill, then you appear to be supporting my side when I say that twitch skill should determine an encounter, not ability caps or number of teammates that you bait in front of you waiting to enter CAT.
<!--quoteo(post=1697984:date=Jan 19 2009, 04:29 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 19 2009, 04:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697984"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Give the juvenile exaggerations a rest already, it's not helping your case at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not making a case, I'm explaining to you why you're wrong while simultaneously trying to keep your arguments from creating prohibitive discussion scope. If my wordage is offensive I apologize, but you could work on narrowing down the points you want to discuss because as it stands the tangential vectors we would be endlessly pursuing are frustratingly extraneous.
<!--quoteo(post=1697984:date=Jan 19 2009, 04:29 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 19 2009, 04:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697984"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm talking about good/great skulks who still can't guarantee an ambush kill against an attentive rambo marine because for some inexplicable reason marines have the ability to excel in both range and melee combat with only a basic requisite level of skill. There's more to skill in this game than the ability to ditch your teammates and still get a high k/d ratio.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you guarantee the kill you destroy all FPS gameplay quality in the game. I will give you that it is easier to kill a skulk from across the map than it is to ambush a marine who is expecting you, but then, you shouldn't have been so predictable - that is the nature of alien gameplay - the Kharaa are designed to be stealthy and more defensive until lifeforms are up. I don't see why this needs to change in the first place, and if it <i>did</i> need to change, it shouldn't be by disabling marines' ability to outplay the opposition, that's called skill communism, and it's a terrible design decision wherever it's implemented.
If desirable, I think that this natural discrepancy could be narrowed by better active-defensive mechanisms but those seem unlikely to come from UWE.
PS: Who do you consider a good/great skulk?
I really would like to see video of a "well executed" skulk ambush in the early game, I bet for everyone that you should me I could probably figure out what the skulk did wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok.. then lets take a scenario. You're a heavy armored marine equipped with a HMG with level 3 weapons and level 3 armor. You're squatting at the end of a long hallway by which a skulk rears its head around the corner. Conveniently, comm scans the area, so there's no chance of that skulk sneaking to the end of the hallway.
Because the aliens have no other hives, the skulk has no leap and has at best an additional 30 armor from three defense chambers. Supposing that skulk is the a regular quake 3 tournament winner and has only died four times as a fade out of his 5 year playing. He wall-climbs, he feigns direction, he jumps often... you think he'll take down that heavy armor marine? Realistically? Come on.. I know you can say it... What? What? Did I hear you say no? Was that a whisper? No, you say?
No, of course not. And <b>when</b> that skulk dies, are you going to have the balls to point and say that his attack technique wasn't right? No... you're going to say he was stupid to put himself in that situation. What does that prove? Doesn't prove much, but it proves that there's more to natural selection than your skill level. It's also situational. Truth is, that scenario would never happen because a good skulk player would never go down that hallway in the first place.
Applying that same principle, a skulk in a perfect position attacking at the perfect time can still die. It's less likely than my first scenario, but still very likely. It's not even the case that a perfect ambush would almost always work. Against a skilled player, it rarely works. Fine that way, though right?
Perhaps this sort of balance is fine by you, which is to say extremely powerful high level alien life forms and extremely useless low level alien life forms, but I think if this were leveled out a bit more, games would be a lot more interesting. Rather than hear "onos.. gg", you'd hear "two aliens gaining up on me.. gg" instead. Asymmetry is an important thing in natural selection, but lets not confuse asymmetry for balance. There's a certain symmetry in balance which dictates that not one team nor another should have any advantage early or late in the game unless it is advantage in numbers. And advantage in numbers is teamwork, my friends.
You definitely bring up a reasonable point that a good skulk in a good situation may not always win the combat, but a good marine in a good situation will almost invariably do so.
I'm going to split this topic to here at this point because we've completely lost focus (which is good): <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=105516" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=105516</a>
This is only to name a few, and each one has ripple effects on most of the others.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My point is, balance is a separate issue from design, and NS2 is going to turn everything on its head anyway with all the massive changes that are already planned. The minor details can be worked out later, now's the time to think about changes on a design level. From a conceptual standpoint, I think a game is more fun if players are playing characters that are relatively equal in strength, even if their specialties are different. Naturally this changes with differences in tech, but when it comes to a contest between vanilla units, they should be equal but opposite IMHO. In exchange for feeling helpless at range, skulks should feel dominant in an ambush, and vice versa for marines.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your definition of fun, as several of the individuals supporting your side have pointed out to me in this thread, is irrelevant. This is about design - fun is subjective until playtesting, design for gameplay validity can be theroized effectively with some effort.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fun is subjective always, of course, but it should always be a goal of design. It's not always easy to add fun after the fact in a game that was designed strictly for deep competitive gameplay.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You assume in this argument that a skulk simultaneously fails to track the marine and does everything perfectly. Which is it?
Further, you said that forethought is a skill, do you include its use in your assumption that the skulk is doing everything perfectly, or are you referring only to twitch skill? If only twitch skill, then you appear to be supporting my side when I say that twitch skill should determine an encounter, not ability caps or number of teammates that you bait in front of you waiting to enter CAT.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
IIRC a good knockback jump by the marine will outpace the skulk running towards him, so the skulk can't always track him perfectly. In either case though, the skulk shouldn't be required to do everything perfectly anyway because he already started the fight with the upper hand. The skulk did well by setting up an effective ambush and the marine screwed up by walking into it by himself, so it should take a real blunder on the skulk's part to offset that advantage. Exactly in the same way that a marine would have to miss pretty badly to allow a skulk to reach and kill him from across the room. In NS now, for the marine to be screwed not only does he have to walk into the ambush, but he also has to be caught with his pants down, which just doesn't happen to good marines.
So yes, I include both forethought and twitch skill in the evaluation of how good the skulk's ambush was. Forethought is being in the right place and timing your attack properly, twitch skill is finishing the job. They're both required, but NS does too little to reward the former. Twitch skill will always matter but it shouldn't be so huge a factor that it trumps everything else.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not making a case, I'm explaining to you why you're wrong while simultaneously trying to keep your arguments from creating prohibitive discussion scope. If my wordage is offensive I apologize, but you could work on narrowing down the points you want to discuss because as it stands the tangential vectors we would be endlessly pursuing are frustratingly extraneous.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't really see how my scope is too large, I'm talking about the appropriate balance of twitch skill vs. tactics/forethought in NS2. Competitive players think very highly of twitch skill and want the potential for endless growth with continuous results, but allowing this to run out of control downplays the strategy elements of the game in favor of lone heroics. There are other games that are perfect for that mindset, as an FPS/RTS I don't think NS should fall into that trap.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you guarantee the kill you destroy all FPS gameplay quality in the game. I will give you that it is easier to kill a skulk from across the map than it is to ambush a marine who is expecting you, but then, you shouldn't have been so predictable - that is the nature of alien gameplay - the Kharaa are designed to be stealthy and more defensive until lifeforms are up. I don't see why this needs to change in the first place, and if it <i>did</i> need to change, it shouldn't be by disabling marines' ability to outplay the opposition, that's called skill communism, and it's a terrible design decision wherever it's implemented.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course the skulk shouldn't have been so predictable, that's why he deserves to die. And the marine who walks into an ambush without support shouldn't have been so foolhardy. When I say to "guarantee" the kill I mean given a certain requisite level of FPS performance on the part of the skulk. A really good marine will require a better skulk to ambush him successfully than a newbie marine, but if the skulk is good enough to do his job correctly then the marine's twitch skill alone shouldn't be able to get him a get-out-of-jail-free card to cover up his strategic blunder. This already exists all over the place in NS, not the least of which being the marine vs. charging skulk scenario, but it's not skill communism because it happens as a result of one player's failure in tactical skill.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If desirable, I think that this natural discrepancy could be narrowed by better active-defensive mechanisms but those seem unlikely to come from UWE.
PS: Who do you consider a good/great skulk?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know, top 30% of the playerbase maybe? Remember, this isn't all combat in the game, just the scenario of 1v1 encounters which are not the main focus of a heavily team-based game like this one. I think trying to apply fighting game concepts to enhance the 1v1 fights in a team FPS/RTS is absurd. That's not at all what this game is about, and even games like CS/Quake don't take it that far.
1 hive skulks are not of a same tech class as a fully upgraded marine. Therefore the win ratio between the two is should be in the favor of the teched marine.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because the aliens have no other hives, the skulk has no leap and has at best an additional 30 armor from three defense chambers. Supposing that skulk is the a regular quake 3 tournament winner and has only died four times as a fade out of his 5 year playing. He wall-climbs, he feigns direction, he jumps often... you think he'll take down that heavy armor marine? Realistically? Come on.. I know you can say it... What? What? Did I hear you say no? Was that a whisper? No, you say?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, of course not. And <b>when</b> that skulk dies, are you going to have the balls to point and say that his attack technique wasn't right? No... you're going to say he was stupid to put himself in that situation. What does that prove? Doesn't prove much, but it proves that there's more to natural selection than your skill level.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ummm I kind of get your sarcasm, but I am kind of blinded by the lack of coherence in your point. Its kind of funny that you probably sat at your monitor all triumphantly and thought you made a well thought out and intelligent post. Too bad you have conflicting logic in your post, and its also irrelevant since we are talking about early game solo players. I especially like this quote
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And <b>when</b> that skulk dies, are you going to have the balls to point and say that his attack technique wasn't right? It's also situational.
It's also situational. Truth is, that scenario would never happen because a good skulk player would never go down that hallway in the first place.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't have to have the "balls" to say it, you did an effective job yourself.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Applying that same principle, a skulk in a perfect position attacking at the perfect time can still die. It's less likely than my first scenario, but still very likely. It's not even the case that a perfect ambush would almost always work. Against a skilled player, it rarely works. Fine that way, though right?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep, if you get outplayed it is not the game's fault. Flayra has stated that you can only balance the game, not the players. If you get out-teched, than that happens in the game too.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Perhaps this sort of balance is fine by you, which is to say extremely powerful high level alien life forms and extremely useless low level alien life forms, but I think if this were leveled out a bit more, games would be a lot more interesting. Rather than hear "onos.. gg", you'd hear "two aliens gaining up on me.. gg" instead. Asymmetry is an important thing in natural selection, but lets not confuse asymmetry for balance. There's a certain symmetry in balance which dictates that not one team nor another should have any advantage early or late in the game unless it is advantage in numbers. And advantage in numbers is teamwork, my friends.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If there is no symmetry, then ONE side will always have a tech advantage over the OTHER. The game does NOT start out equal. At any given point in the game ONE side has an advantage over the other tech wise. Skill wise it is a different story, which is why neither side has a 100% win percentage.
Advantage in numbers in the late game? What about the Fade who dominating a whole squad by his or herself? I don't even get what you are trying to sell here. Do you have ANY clue as to the game mechanincs and progression of NS? Because you are posting more theorycraft that doesn't appear to correspond with reality.
Let me ask the question another way, as its repeatedly gets ignored.
"If a marine is capable of dealing 500 damage with his or her LMG, and another 100 damage with his or her pistol at baseline, why shouldn't that damage be able to be applied towards multiple skulks if the person is skilled enough/the skulks are bad enough?"
Sorry, did I say otherwise? Could have sworn I was creating some sort of scenario there instead of babbling that a fully upgraded marine could take out a 1-hive skulk. My mistake!
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ummm I kind of get your sarcasm, but I am kind of blinded by the lack of coherence in your point. Its kind of funny that you probably sat at your monitor all triumphantly and thought you made a well thought out and intelligent post. Too bad you have conflicting logic in your post, and its also irrelevant since we are talking about early game solo players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I apologize if your inability to read my post has somehow handicapped your ability to conceptualize my point. Seeing how my arguments are quickly shot down, you leave me no choice than to create rather trivial points, but at least points you can't refute. Green != Blue. 1 + 1 = 2.
I'll remind you again of our discussion, seeing how you've had a moment of temporary blindness (hope you're feeling better). We were discussing how a perfect ambush should kill its intended target and if it doesn't, it simply isn't perfect. I presented you with a similar scenario in which a perfect attack can still fail because moreso than blantant skill, there's also a factor of positioning and intelligent fighting involved with natural selection.
A rambo fighting is practically the antithesis of intelligent fighting. Rather than allow yourself to be backed by other players, you move without them. Rather than avoid ambushes, you plow through them. It would be as if you attempted to kill marines at the end of a long hallway as a skulk. However, the difference here being that skulk attacking from a long distance is instafail while a rambo falling into a perfect ambush is not instafail. Rather, success rate is fairly high amongst the skilled marine players, thus encouraging rambo style fighting.
The only way you could refute this claim in one of three ways:
1) You deny that ambushes are so easily foiled.
2) You could accept it and claim that teams are asymmetric, in that skulks are supposed to be crappy.
If you want to take the asymmetric route, I ask you, if attacking down long hallways isn't a good attack style for skulks and ambushing isn't a good attack style for skulks, what is? I'm still waiting for an answer to the question as to why skulks must be dung fodder. Wanted natural selection to be more like starcraft maybe?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"If a marine is capable of dealing 500 damage with his or her LMG, and another 100 damage with his or her pistol at baseline, why shouldn't that damage be able to be applied towards multiple skulks if the person is skilled enough/the skulks are bad enough?"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do I really have to answer why it shouldn't be that way? You could technically make marines as powerful as you'd want. For the sake of balance, I'd go for more of a game in which a player on the alien team doesn't die repeatedly, as I'm sure that's quite frustrating for new players. If you're trying to reverse the argument of making aliens stronger, I don't see how aiming for a 1 to 1 kill ratio means making skulks deal 500 damage per bite and 100 damage per parasite hit. 1 to 1 ratio is 1 to 1 by definition. I have a hard time seeing how that is unbalanced.
Hope you got my point this time and that the blindness is not the kind of "fade in and out" type thing. Get well soon!
Puzl before you delete this realize that I'm posting it here to make a point, not as a substitute for PMs. <3