FamDiaper-Wearing Dog On A BallJoin Date: 2002-02-17Member: 222Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
<!--quoteo(post=1726562:date=Sep 8 2009, 10:22 PM:name=Opprobrious)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Opprobrious @ Sep 8 2009, 10:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1726562"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Casual players just want to win games. Anyone that can dominate them will be resented. That's it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I for one enjoy the occasional bit of casual domination.
I dislike the idea of commanders in general, they don't add anything to the game, all their functions <i>should</i> be done by the game itself, all they really do is create a way for the game to suck because suddenly a lot of fundamental mechanics like building spawning and research just stopped working for one side.
Of course I recognise that in some cases they may be neccesary due to technology limitations, and in very rare cases they can add something because a squad leader might want to micromanage a squad, but in most situations the commander doesn't have an overarching strategy, in most cases they're just some pubber like everyone else on the server who does the job because nobody else wants to and they can't play the game without a commander, or at least that's what they would be if NS2 becomes a popular game with lots of servers.
I think multiple commanders may relieve some of the issues of a single commander but the idea of the game being dependent on the commander to be playable is really dumb, it just means the commander is either going to do their job, in which case you don't notice them because they are essentially doing what the automatic objectives system in enemy territory quake wars does, combined with what the alien gorges used to do which is drop structures, or they just ###### up and the game sucks because now you can't capture areas and once you all die a few times and your intiial IP gets eaten the game is over.
I like the mechanics the commander oversees, like buildings which help make the game a bit different every time, but I don't like that it's a human doing it instead of the computer. It's like releasing counter strike except you need to have a dude in spectator who presses buttons to make rounds start and ensure the bomb goes off when it's supposed to. Buildings and research are just something that happens for 90% of the players on the server, and a lack of commander just means they stop happening.
<!--quoteo(post=1726577:date=Sep 8 2009, 06:56 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Sep 8 2009, 06:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1726577"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I dislike the idea of commanders in general, they don't add anything to the game, all their functions <i>should</i> be done by the game itself, all they really do is create a way for the game to suck because suddenly a lot of fundamental mechanics like building spawning and research just stopped working for one side.
Of course I recognise that in some cases they may be neccesary due to technology limitations, and in very rare cases they can add something because a squad leader might want to micromanage a squad, but in most situations the commander doesn't have an overarching strategy, in most cases they're just some pubber like everyone else on the server who does the job because nobody else wants to and they can't play the game without a commander, or at least that's what they would be if NS2 becomes a popular game with lots of servers.
I think multiple commanders may relieve some of the issues of a single commander but the idea of the game being dependent on the commander to be playable is really dumb, it just means the commander is either going to do their job, in which case you don't notice them because they are essentially doing what the automatic objectives system in enemy territory quake wars does, combined with what the alien gorges used to do which is drop structures, or they just ###### up and the game sucks because now you can't capture areas and once you all die a few times and your intiial IP gets eaten the game is over.
I like the mechanics the commander oversees, like buildings which help make the game a bit different every time, but I don't like that it's a human doing it instead of the computer. It's like releasing counter strike except you need to have a dude in spectator who presses buttons to make rounds start and ensure the bomb goes off when it's supposed to. Buildings and research are just something that happens for 90% of the players on the server, and a lack of commander just means they stop happening.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's all well and good if you don't want to be a commander yourself, but you seem to be missing the point of the game as a RTS/FPS hybrid...without a commander calling the shots and making strategic decisions, the game is just a pumped up FPS with a couple RTS/RPG elements tossed in there. Commanding wasn't added as a way to get around having the computer make decisions for your team.
It is true that relying on a commander adds an extra way for the marines to lose the round, but when done right a commander can really add to the marine experience
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1726565:date=Sep 8 2009, 05:31 PM:name=Opprobrious)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Opprobrious @ Sep 8 2009, 05:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1726565"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Go on to your average pub(Not <gud>).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> There is no average pub, there are all of 5 US classic pub servers now. I can talk about the average pub of two years ago when the scene was still relatively strong compared to now. <!--quoteo(post=1726565:date=Sep 8 2009, 05:31 PM:name=Opprobrious)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Opprobrious @ Sep 8 2009, 05:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1726565"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Observe the upgrade order, the base build, the speed at which requests are answered. 99% of players that play in a competitive style were part of the competitive scene.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> DC first used to be all you saw in pubs(and competitive). Then it was all MC. Now usually MC with some SC thrown in and this has mirrored competitive scene. The building of pgs and ips away from walls and other buildings near them, forward obs and armories, the resurgence of mines, the earlier shotguns, and rt pushes from both teams. These are all things that were not known in pubs in the beginning but have become part of the pub scene as well. You're trying pretend the two have no influence on each other, but that's just sticking your fingers in your ears. <!--quoteo(post=1726565:date=Sep 8 2009, 05:31 PM:name=Opprobrious)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Opprobrious @ Sep 8 2009, 05:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1726565"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The ONLY thing that the public servers have aped is the MC first standard. That generally started when aliens were able to use/spit hives with ff OFF. That change to the game was ADDED after observations of the competitive scene. The MC first started in the competitive scene, were aliens with ff on could attack building hives in order for aliens to movement over.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly, it was a balance change from competitive which improved the game for competitve and casual players by making SC first sometimes viable. <!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Opprobrious)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Opprobrious)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I guess I should spend more time pandering?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you seriously think not being completely dismissive and pretentious is "pandering" then I have to agree with <b>a_civilian</b>. <!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Opprobrious)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Opprobrious)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As you are well aware, the competitive scene tried extremely hard to improve it's image. #farmteams, NSlearn, NS guides, etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> NSlearn and NSDojo were relatively successful for simple word of mouth campaigns and I think did do a lot to generate good will. NS Guides was hopelessly understaffed and had the broad goal of teaching new players the game rather than focusing on the competitive scene like later programs. I never even heard of farm teams. <!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Opprobrious)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Opprobrious)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The reality is that it isn't personality clashes that created the divide. It is a casual scene that blames it's inadequacies on "scripts and hacks" rather than trying to improve their own gameplay. Extremely friendly competitive players are routinely singled out for abuse on public servers, just due to their HUGE skill advantage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I've never seen <i>friendly</i> clan players "routinely singled out for abuse". I've seen a lot of real ######s banned and kicked though. I've seen a few idiot admins ban for skill reasons, but those servers never lasted long. Usually what happened was everyone would be playing fine, then a casual or new player would do something "wrong" and the soon to be banned player would yell or berate the new player or grief because the game was "over". Sometimes these players were competitive and sometimes they were not. Often they were perceived as competitive players though because they would try and spout some credentials for why there way was "right" before leaving or being kicked. <!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Opprobrious)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Opprobrious)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Casual players just want to win games. Anyone that can dominate them will be resented. That's it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Casual players just want to have fun. They don't care about winning as much as the competitive player and that's where the disconnect that occurs. They don't care if there are players that dominate as long as the teams are even. If another player is yelling at them, or griefing, or using gamesmanship and stacking the teams they're not going to have fun and that's what they'll resent.
I resented the aCom at first, but it's literally a must. The NS1 resource model just isn't going to cut it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That change to the game was ADDED after observations of the competitive scene.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thus proving his point. The casual side uses the strategies that the competitive side creates. Arguing against that is like arguing against the idea of gravity.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The reality is that it isn't personality clashes that created the divide. It is a casual scene that blames it's inadequacies on "scripts and hacks" rather than trying to improve their own gameplay. Extremely friendly competitive players are routinely singled out for abuse on public servers, just due to their HUGE skill advantage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On the other side, Opprobrious is correct here. While most casual players just ragequit, deal with the skill difference, or don't even care enough to think about it there are still a decent amount of casual players that create problems for the higher skilled players. A good example of this in NS would have been my e-buddies and myself. We never spoke ingame, so we couldn't have been considered unfriendly to the casuals in that server, and we always obeyed server rules where applicable but we were banned from some 100+ servers and have pages worth of screenshots of casual players insulting us and accusing us of cheating.
This is where Firewater's idea of a feature for server admins to self label their server (Casual, Competitive, Learning, etc) comes into play. If you have a competitive player owning a casual server and it's labeled as such, you know that guy is a ###### and not someone just trying to find a place to play. Most competitive players want to play with people in their own skill grade anyway, since that's the quickest way to improve.
The bottom line is that casual players need the competitive side, the competitive side needs the casual side, and you have die-hard morons on both sides whom hate the other just like anything else in life. Seeing how most of the people on these forums now are the NS1 diehards it's not surprising to see anti-casual or anti-competitive player comments.
<!--quoteo(post=1726581:date=Sep 8 2009, 06:00 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Sep 8 2009, 06:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1726581"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Casual players just want to have fun. They don't care about winning as much as the competitive player and that's where the disconnect that occurs. They don't care if there are players that dominate as long as the teams are even. If another player is yelling at them, or griefing, or using gamesmanship and stacking the teams they're not going to have fun and that's what they'll resent.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> +1 I agree 100%. I'm a casual player, always have been even though I've been around long enough not to be a nub anymore. I never got competitive, and never understood the whole competitive scene. I always go gorge because I like being the backbone of the team, if no one is gorge everyone fails, no new hives, no res tower, no chambers. I can't tell you the number of times I've been ######ed at for calling a chamber vote and dropping it, then the guys in the minority whine, "the game is over." Or some "pro" rage quits because "SC first, is for nubs."
Most of the serious servers I played on, never kicked anyone for being too good, or hacking. If there was suspicion, someone would just go observe the guy, record a demo of his gameplay, and submit it to an admin if they found it suspicious. Only people who got banned were griefers, spammers, and people with bad manners.
Still the addition of the Alien commander worries me because the impact on the gorge class makes it seem less important. Who is going to care about the cute little gorgies anymore if they don't build hives, res towers, and upgrade chambers. Is a fade fleeing from shirt guns just going to leave the gorge to his fate now, instead of diverting their attention and healspray combo winning?
<!--quoteo(post=1726579:date=Sep 9 2009, 01:39 AM:name=monopolowa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (monopolowa @ Sep 9 2009, 01:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1726579"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's all well and good if you don't want to be a commander yourself, but you seem to be missing the point of the game as a RTS/FPS hybrid...without a commander calling the shots and making strategic decisions, the game is just a pumped up FPS with a couple RTS/RPG elements tossed in there. Commanding wasn't added as a way to get around having the computer make decisions for your team.
It is true that relying on a commander adds an extra way for the marines to lose the round, but when done right a commander can really add to the marine experience<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes I realise that there is a possibility that having a commander can lead to some amazing strategic tactical ghost recon ninja hardcore experience or something, but if NS2 is anything like NS1, it's a fast paced FPS, and pretty arcade styled.
I mean I don't think there are many people who like fast paced arcade shooters who also have a particular penchant for ninja strategy tactics stuff. And <i>most players</i> in any popular game will not be that sort of player, most of them will just be people who want to shoot baddies. Even games like armed assault which are almost unplayable as a simple shooter attract those sort of gamers (in armed assault the strategy buffs spend most of their time complaining about how there are too many people who like shooting things and the game should be more about strategy and less about shooting people) so I really don't think that making the playability of the game <i>contigent</i> on the commander is a good idea.
I don't have any objection at all to making it possible to command people, because if people want to do it that's fine, whatever makes you happy, but you can be quite certain that most of the time, people won't want to do that, and making it neccesary will just ruin the game for all those people who don't care about the commander/unit interaction, and just want a good shooter with a different experience each time.
All games have a huge capacity for close knit teamwork, NS has it intrinsically simply due to the combat style, you need to watch your back and stick in groups, as a marine, because you simply don't have the coverage to defend against aliens on your own, this is enhanced if the groups have good coordination as this will allow them to protect more space with fewer people, and this is accomplished entirely without the commander, a microphone and a bunch of people you know who like that sort of gaming are your best bet there, and hell I think you could make a really good cooperative game based around the same concept, having the computer control the aliens, sort of like left4dead except with much more of an aliens feel to it, less mindless shooting and more being scared silly by the dark corners and the possibility of encountering aliens. That's a fine thing for any game to have because if you do have the coordination, it helps you, but if you don't you can still play the game, you don't have to be an ace marine in NS1 (or at least you didn't in the years ago I played it last), you just stuck with a bunch of other dudes and you were bound to get a few kills. It expands the game by introducing two methods of play.
The commander/player interaction however isn't like that, the game simply does not work if the commander isn't up to snuff, and that's not good, imagine if NS became unplayable whenever any member of your squad wasn't sticking precisely to his assigned fire zone or something, the game would be horrible, because you cannot guarantee that sort of discipline in a public game, and a popular game is primarily a public game. Making it a requirement damages the game, it doesn't add a mode of play because it makes the other method unplayable, and as the other method is the one you sort of default to in any game, it makes the game less playable as a result.
Fortunately the touted moddabiliy of NS means someone will likely find ways to make gamemodes which keep the NS appeal but don't involve a commander which you need in order for the game to work, so I'm not too worried about it, but I do wonder whether you'll see the same sort of drama the bohemia interactive forums have about ArmA modes like evolution, which as they don't involve four hours of following a squad leader through a forest and have such heinous features as respawns (even if they involve a lives system it's still terrible!) are obviously too unstrategic for a game like armed assault and the immense popularity of them is an affront to the glorious strategic gaming elite, and that they're killing the game with all their hundreds of full servers etc etc.
a_civilianLikes seeing numbersJoin Date: 2003-01-08Member: 12041Members, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead
<!--quoteo(post=1726581:date=Sep 8 2009, 10:00 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Sep 8 2009, 10:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1726581"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I've never seen <i>friendly</i> clan players "routinely singled out for abuse".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have not seen this either. It is true that a skilled player who is always silent may find himself such a target, but that is not friendly behavior (and it's easy to perceive such a player as unfriendly even if that's not the intent). I've certainly been a target of such abuse in my time, but virtually none of it occurred when I was actually putting some small amount of effort into acting human.
<!--quoteo(post=1726581:date=Sep 9 2009, 02:00 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Sep 9 2009, 02:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1726581"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Casual players just want to have fun. They don't care about winning as much as the competitive player and that's where the disconnect that occurs. They don't care if there are players that dominate as long as the teams are even. If another player is yelling at them, or griefing, or using gamesmanship and stacking the teams they're not going to have fun and that's what they'll resent.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's a little harsh generalization. For example I enjoy winning, but most of all I enjoy challenge, the people you get to know so much better, the extra options and the spirit of improvement and interest in the game. I just feel public NS misses so much of the potential NS has at its best. In competetive game there are no longer questions like "Why is nobody getting the hive?", but "Would it work if we switched our build into 1x Fade, 1x 2MC, 1x MC+RT, 1x RT, 1x Lerk and 1x RT+Hive". I guess it takes a little geeky person to be interested in things like that, but that's just me and my desire to understand and manipulate interesting systems like a game of NS :)
---
As in general:
I don't think most of the competetive scene is that much more frag oriented or elitist than the public gamers, they just get highlighted due to their superior skill and effect on the gameplay. For example, I've seen very nasty behavior towards newbies on Siege maps just because they don't know the specific siegemap starting build orders inside out. It's all about the anonymous internet and being in a position where you've got a change to complain and be bad mannered.
Btw, where do people get the idea that the pubbers are the only ones having fun? The competetive scene is mostly just people having fun in a little different way.
If their goal is to keep the team sizes truly flexible it is going to be extremely difficult to balance skulk vs LMG at different skill levels. Currently, the imbalance caused by reducing team sizes counteracts the imbalance caused by increasing player skill levels (12v12 is balanced in a pub while 6v6 is balanced in a match).
I foresee that their goal of a truly balanced game regardless of team size will be hindered by many mechanics other than the asymmetric command structure and resource systems. I would rather not see the great gameplay associated with vastly asymmetric teams destroyed to peruse a nearly impossible goal.
<!--quoteo(post=1726608:date=Sep 9 2009, 08:47 AM:name=homicide)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (homicide @ Sep 9 2009, 08:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1726608"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If their goal is to keep the team sizes truly flexible it is going to be extremely difficult to balance skulk vs LMG at different skill levels. Currently, the imbalance caused by reducing team sizes counteracts the imbalance caused by increasing player skill levels (12v12 is balanced in a pub while 6v6 is balanced in a match).
I foresee that their goal of a truly balanced game regardless of team size will be hindered by many mechanics other than the asymmetric command structure and resource systems. I would rather not see the great gameplay associated with vastly asymmetric teams destroyed to peruse a nearly impossible goal.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think the kharaa commander gives a decent option to affect the skulk vs LMG scalability and most balance issues. For example the commander can maybe adjust the stats, cast spells and coordinate the alien to adjust the otherwise inflexible alien play into various situations and play styles.
As for the strategical side, I think something had to be done. Every game went the same on the big strategical scale. For example as a commander I'd always check the nodes, estimate the hive/fade timing and adjust the timing to it, there wasn't much else the aliens were going to do. In 6vs6 I basically knew there were going to be 3 alien nodes in specific locations with maybe a few variations. Anything else was a little unexpected, but most of the time counterable by a relatively simple adaptation.
So far we don't know if the alien commander has any similarity to the marine commander apart from the comm status. The res models can still differ from each other.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1726602:date=Sep 9 2009, 03:32 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Sep 9 2009, 03:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1726602"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's a little harsh generalization. For example I enjoy winning, but most of all I enjoy challenge, the people you get to know so much better, the extra options and the spirit of improvement and interest in the game. I just feel public NS misses so much of the potential NS has at its best. In competetive game there are no longer questions like "Why is nobody getting the hive?", but "Would it work if we switched our build into 1x Fade, 1x 2MC, 1x MC+RT, 1x RT, 1x Lerk and 1x RT+Hive". I guess it takes a little geeky person to be interested in things like that, but that's just me and my desire to understand and manipulate interesting systems like a game of NS :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I find those things fun too. Please understand I'm not saying all or even most competitive players do these things, these are just the areas of contention that competitive vs casual sometimes run into. Competitive players played on casual servers all of the time and it was only the few noticeable times where something goes wrong that they get noticed and thus, a reputation. Also as I said before these players are not always competitive players either, just perceived that way by the ways they try to justify their actions. <!--quoteo(post=1726602:date=Sep 9 2009, 03:32 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Sep 9 2009, 03:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1726602"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think most of the competetive scene is that much more frag oriented or elitist than the public gamers, they just get highlighted due to their superior skill and effect on the gameplay. For example, I've seen very nasty behavior towards newbies on Siege maps just because they don't know the specific siegemap starting build orders inside out. It's all about the anonymous internet and being in a position where you've got a change to complain and be bad mannered.
Btw, where do people get the idea that the pubbers are the only ones having fun? The competetive scene is mostly just people having fun in a little different way.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Please don't misquote me here. Playing with a skilled and knowledgeable group of people is very fun. I mean we're all playing a computer game, of course it's supposed to be fun. Competitive players just putting winning nearer the top of their goals to having fun than most casual players.
<!--quoteo(post=1726679:date=Sep 9 2009, 12:17 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Sep 9 2009, 12:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1726679"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Please don't misquote me here. Playing with a skilled and knowledgeable group of people is very fun. I mean we're all playing a computer game, of course it's supposed to be fun. Competitive players just putting winning nearer the top of their goals to having fun than most casual players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sorry, didn't mean to quote you in particular, just tried respond to the general attitude and expectations towards the competetive gamers. I'll separate it more clearly from the response to your post.
I'm also quite sure you're aware of the competetive players and their motivation, some people just seemed to interpret your post quite anti-competetive way. I probably should've directed my response directly to them.
To be honest I don't have anything against the general 'professional' players, but their ###### and their demands. If a game is balanced for competive it probably sucks for "casual" or "pub" servers, and thats one of the reasons the ns1 audience died.
Following this I have to say I can be mad if I lose as well, but only if the defeat feels shallow or if the fall was caused by totaly retarded play of the team. I'm a die hard puber if you don't have noticed by now.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1726688:date=Sep 9 2009, 09:54 AM:name=RobB)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RobB @ Sep 9 2009, 09:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1726688"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To be honest I don't have anything against the general 'professional' players, but their ###### and their demands. If a game is balanced for competive it probably sucks for "casual" or "pub" servers, and thats one of the reasons the ns1 audience died.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not inherently true, and I don't think this was even a contributing factor to the decline of NS. I there are things that I really enjoyed that I wish didn't have to be sacrificed for gameplay: Fog, rain, ambient noises, and other atmospheric(in both senses) effects, but these were, IMO, rightfully sacrificed to the gameplay due to technology limitations. In terms of gameplay the competitive scene really improved the quality of NS. Maybe not necessarily through their direct suggestions, but definitely by accurately pinpointing problem areas. I don't think the chambers would be as dynamic as they are today, nor the various minor buffs and nerfs would be so accurate without the strong competitive community NS had for a long time.
<!--quoteo(post=1726688:date=Sep 9 2009, 05:54 AM:name=RobB)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RobB @ Sep 9 2009, 05:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1726688"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To be honest I don't have anything against the general 'professional' players, but their ###### and their demands. If a game is balanced for competive it probably sucks for "casual" or "pub" servers, and thats one of the reasons the ns1 audience died.
Following this I have to say I can be mad if I lose as well, but only if the defeat feels shallow or if the fall was caused by totaly retarded play of the team. I'm a die hard puber if you don't have noticed by now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How does one decide to become a "die hard pubber?" Organized play is nothing more than pubbing with teammates that agree not to be "retarded". I find it overwhelmingly hypocritical to play a team based game like NS to only reject the idea of playing on an organized team.
I understand some players simply don't play the game enough to warrant investing the time to play organized games. However, organized play should be accepted as the standard for any long term players that invest considerable time into the game. Sorry, but I think the "die hard pubber" group should be last on the priority list. Experienced players should be encouraged/expected to match themselves vs comparable players.
I used to play on the competitive scene, and I dropped into this so-called "die hard pubber" category when I didn't allow myself to play a fixed amount of times per week for scrims. I play, a lot, but only if my schedule has enough blank spots to allow for it. And that could mean that I drop out of the scene for weeks at a time just like it could mean that I play daily.
<!--quoteo(post=1726581:date=Sep 8 2009, 09:00 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Sep 8 2009, 09:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1726581"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NSlearn and NSDojo were relatively successful for simple word of mouth campaigns and I think did do a lot to generate good will. NS Guides was hopelessly understaffed and had the broad goal of teaching new players the game rather than focusing on the competitive scene like later programs. I never even heard of farm teams.
I've never seen friendly clan players routinely singled out for abuse. I've seen a lot of real ######s banned and kicked though. I've seen a few idiot admins ban for skill reasons, but those servers never lasted long. Usually what happened was everyone would be playing fine, then a casual or new player would do something wrong and the soon to be banned player would yell or berate the new player or grief because the game was over. Sometimes these players were competitive and sometimes they were not. Often they were perceived as competitive players though because they would try and spout some credentials for why there way was right before leaving or being kicked.
Casual players just want to have fun. They don't care about winning as much as the competitive player and that's where the disconnect that occurs. They don't care if there are players that dominate as long as the teams are even. If another player is yelling at them, or griefing, or using gamesmanship and stacking the teams they're not going to have fun and that's what they'll resent.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Farmteams was a program set up by the invite teams in CAL-NS to get pub players into the competitive scene. Most of the invite teams helped found at least 1 team(CO helped found 2 I think) by taking players that had ZERO experience in competitive play and mentoring them. The new team was composed of 6 pubbers and trained extensively in NS. This included 1 on 1 sessions and 6 on 6 tutoring sessions. While this effort did bring in a number of decent players into competitive play it was a short term benefit.
Severs that ban for skill reasons not lasting long?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA
G4B2S and <BAD> ring a bell?
Casuals just want to have fun? True, everyone playing a game wants to have fun. Casuals are playing the game, for the most part, at the best of their ability. When they drop OC forts round after round, it's because they think this is OPTIMAL STRATEGY. That's where conflict usually erupts. Competitive players see NS as a finely balanced game that requires teamwork and coordination. They are used to each person taking an important role to win the game. Casuals don't know the difference between 2MC and 3MC silence.
We have a big gap in knowledge here. And as usual, the person in a position of "lesser information" will show no humility.
As for the complaint about "stacking teams" I'll ALWAYS laugh. Complaints about stacking teams PROVE that casuals care about winning. They aren't having fun if they can't spend the game in their OC fort.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for the complaint about "stacking teams" I'll ALWAYS laugh. Complaints about stacking teams PROVE that casuals care about winning. They aren't having fun if they can't spend the game in their OC fort.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> now YOU're being hypocritical. you have to admit that not every puber is a jerk while I admit that not every competive player is a jerk, but we agree that those jerks ruin the game for everyone, right?
And as mentioned before, both are different sides of the same coin while the asses are the rim on that side.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How does one decide to become a "die hard pubber"?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> By not wanting to sacrifice everything for a fixed schedule. Wanting to change a Game once in a while and working rotating shifts isn't healthy, even while I was asked several times already to join a clan.
Once, it was my dream to obtain my share of fame and glory, but times change. And I still don't want to be a tool, hardened for a single game. that'd turn me crazy after a while.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited September 2009
<!--quoteo(post=1726713:date=Sep 9 2009, 03:49 PM:name=Opprobrious)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Opprobrious @ Sep 9 2009, 03:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1726713"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Casuals just want to have fun? True, everyone playing a game wants to have fun. Casuals are playing the game, for the most part, at the best of their ability. When they drop OC forts round after round, it's because they think this is OPTIMAL STRATEGY. That's where conflict usually erupts. Competitive players see NS as a finely balanced game that requires teamwork and coordination. They are used to each person taking an important role to win the game. Casuals don't know the difference between 2MC and 3MC silence.
We have a big gap in knowledge here. And as usual, the person in a position of "lesser information" will show no humility.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's silly that you make these strawman statements and act as if they are the absolute truth. A griefer making OC forts in the corner isn't any more representative of the casual community than a "competitive" player joins a server to "pwn noobs" and spout racist comments while doing it. <!--quoteo(post=1726713:date=Sep 9 2009, 03:49 PM:name=Opprobrious)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Opprobrious @ Sep 9 2009, 03:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1726713"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for the complaint about "stacking teams" I'll ALWAYS laugh. Complaints about stacking teams PROVE that casuals care about winning. They aren't having fun if they can't spend the game in their OC fort.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I didn't say casual players don't care about winning, just that it's lower in priority to most competitive players. Casual players might enjoy a "last stand", whereas a competitive player is more likely to recycle and move onto the next game. That's the kind of philosophy difference that causes problems. In a way it's tied to your "OC fort" analogy, but you're mistaken in calling it "optimal strategy", at least in the sense it's an optimal strategy not to win but for them to enjoy the game.
For the record team-stacking is pretty lame no matter who's doing it; it's not fun for the losing team and it's not a challenge for the winning team. I suspect this has more to do with casual players than competitive most of the time. I have seen it happen both ways though.
this is one of the most hugely offtrack threads in the history of the internet.
As for me I am pretty excited about the alien commander. I think it was inevitable.
playing NS1 with matched skills on both sides but a really solid commander ...usually ended up with the marines winning.
switch sides the commander stays put ....marines again.
The more impressive games would have a dedicated gorge who built up infrastructure and would make requests beyond 'help me'
I look forward to the tactical advantages of having an alien commander.
I also hope that the micromanagement part of commanding (handing weapons out) have disappeared fro both sides to make commanding more accessible and less daunting.
Tactics and squads that you all speak of may work in an ideal game but there's no such thing as an ideal game. Tactics and squads never have and never will work. No one wants to be bound to do a specific task otherwise the game would just become a chore instead of an actual game.
There is a difference between winning and dominating. I too am a "die-hard" pubber. I enjoyed the game, played it quite a bit, but lord knows I can't be arsed to set myself to any kind of pre-made fixed schedule. I play games to have fun, not to become another source of deadlines and stress in my life.
The whole thing about casuals not caring about winning is horse-######. Of course we do. But we care even more about having a good game, and if the teams are stacked, the game isn't good even if you're the one on the winning side. Hell, I'll admit to griefing my own team if I realize the teams have gotten stacked.
Moving on to topic, it sounds like some of the problems being voiced here aren't with an alien commander so much as <i>any</i> sort of commander -- and well.. welcome to Natural Selection. I don't think having some sort of overmind will hurt the difference of the alien team at all. We're still dealing with a primarily melee based team vs a primarily ranged based one, after all. While I'll admit I did like in NS1 how coherent strategies would just seem to evolve among the alien team drawn together by good parasiting and support, I'm not willing to say yet, especially from the notes we've seen of Flayra's ideas for the overmind, that we still won't have that ability.
Now, if the overmind starts giving waypoints... then I'll be somewhat disappointed. Hopefully they'll be contained to giving targets.. not arbitrary points, and certainly not to any specific life-form. (Although if orders could be given to certain classes of life-form.. that would be acceptable.. kind of a general "Fades needed here."
<!--quoteo(post=1726723:date=Sep 9 2009, 04:36 PM:name=xmaine)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xmaine @ Sep 9 2009, 04:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1726723"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Tactics and squads that you all speak of may work in an ideal game but there's no such thing as an ideal game. Tactics and squads never have and never will work. No one wants to be bound to do a specific task otherwise the game would just become a chore instead of an actual game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes, organization and teamwork NEVER WORK in games.
Did you ever play any sports?
<!--quoteo(post=1726726:date=Sep 9 2009, 04:48 PM:name=Kwil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kwil @ Sep 9 2009, 04:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1726726"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is a difference between winning and dominating. I too am a "die-hard" pubber. I enjoyed the game, played it quite a bit, but lord knows I can't be arsed to set myself to any kind of pre-made fixed schedule. I play games to have fun, not to become another source of deadlines and stress in my life.
The whole thing about casuals not caring about winning is horse-######. Of course we do. But we care even more about having a good game, and if the teams are stacked, the game isn't good even if you're the one on the winning side. Hell, I'll admit to griefing my own team if I realize the teams have gotten stacked.
Moving on to topic, it sounds like some of the problems being voiced here aren't with an alien commander so much as any sort of commander -- and well.. welcome to Natural Selection. I don't think having some sort of overmind will hurt the difference of the alien team at all. We're still dealing with a primarily melee based team vs a primarily ranged based one, after all. While I'll admit I did like in NS1 how coherent strategies would just seem to evolve among the alien team drawn together by good parasiting and support, I'm not willing to say yet, especially from the notes we've seen of Flayra's ideas for the overmind, that we still won't have that ability.
Now, if the overmind starts giving waypoints... then I'll be somewhat disappointed. Hopefully they'll be contained to giving targets.. not arbitrary points, and certainly not to any specific life-form. (Although if orders could be given to certain classes of life-form.. that would be acceptable.. kind of a general "Fades needed here."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Competitive play didn't have "fixed" schedules outside of a default match day and time(that could be easily changed upon the agreement of both teams). You played one or two matches a week(depending on the league). That's about an hour and a half of NS a week. It's true that most good teams practiced more than that(some to excess) but the time commitment of competitive play was no different than watching a couple of TV shows a week.
All of your arguments are faulty due to lack of experience.
As for the alien commander, it sounds about as interesting as commanding in empires. Not very.
Comments
I for one enjoy the occasional bit of casual domination.
Ithankyou. Be back in 2 more years.
If the gorge remains the mobile heal provider of aliens that is. The alien commander as currently described sounds like a part time job.
Of course I recognise that in some cases they may be neccesary due to technology limitations, and in very rare cases they can add something because a squad leader might want to micromanage a squad, but in most situations the commander doesn't have an overarching strategy, in most cases they're just some pubber like everyone else on the server who does the job because nobody else wants to and they can't play the game without a commander, or at least that's what they would be if NS2 becomes a popular game with lots of servers.
I think multiple commanders may relieve some of the issues of a single commander but the idea of the game being dependent on the commander to be playable is really dumb, it just means the commander is either going to do their job, in which case you don't notice them because they are essentially doing what the automatic objectives system in enemy territory quake wars does, combined with what the alien gorges used to do which is drop structures, or they just ###### up and the game sucks because now you can't capture areas and once you all die a few times and your intiial IP gets eaten the game is over.
I like the mechanics the commander oversees, like buildings which help make the game a bit different every time, but I don't like that it's a human doing it instead of the computer. It's like releasing counter strike except you need to have a dude in spectator who presses buttons to make rounds start and ensure the bomb goes off when it's supposed to. Buildings and research are just something that happens for 90% of the players on the server, and a lack of commander just means they stop happening.
Of course I recognise that in some cases they may be neccesary due to technology limitations, and in very rare cases they can add something because a squad leader might want to micromanage a squad, but in most situations the commander doesn't have an overarching strategy, in most cases they're just some pubber like everyone else on the server who does the job because nobody else wants to and they can't play the game without a commander, or at least that's what they would be if NS2 becomes a popular game with lots of servers.
I think multiple commanders may relieve some of the issues of a single commander but the idea of the game being dependent on the commander to be playable is really dumb, it just means the commander is either going to do their job, in which case you don't notice them because they are essentially doing what the automatic objectives system in enemy territory quake wars does, combined with what the alien gorges used to do which is drop structures, or they just ###### up and the game sucks because now you can't capture areas and once you all die a few times and your intiial IP gets eaten the game is over.
I like the mechanics the commander oversees, like buildings which help make the game a bit different every time, but I don't like that it's a human doing it instead of the computer. It's like releasing counter strike except you need to have a dude in spectator who presses buttons to make rounds start and ensure the bomb goes off when it's supposed to. Buildings and research are just something that happens for 90% of the players on the server, and a lack of commander just means they stop happening.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's all well and good if you don't want to be a commander yourself, but you seem to be missing the point of the game as a RTS/FPS hybrid...without a commander calling the shots and making strategic decisions, the game is just a pumped up FPS with a couple RTS/RPG elements tossed in there. Commanding wasn't added as a way to get around having the computer make decisions for your team.
It is true that relying on a commander adds an extra way for the marines to lose the round, but when done right a commander can really add to the marine experience
There is no average pub, there are all of 5 US classic pub servers now. I can talk about the average pub of two years ago when the scene was still relatively strong compared to now.
<!--quoteo(post=1726565:date=Sep 8 2009, 05:31 PM:name=Opprobrious)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Opprobrious @ Sep 8 2009, 05:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1726565"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Observe the upgrade order, the base build, the speed at which requests are answered. 99% of players that play in a competitive style were part of the competitive scene.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
DC first used to be all you saw in pubs(and competitive). Then it was all MC. Now usually MC with some SC thrown in and this has mirrored competitive scene. The building of pgs and ips away from walls and other buildings near them, forward obs and armories, the resurgence of mines, the earlier shotguns, and rt pushes from both teams. These are all things that were not known in pubs in the beginning but have become part of the pub scene as well. You're trying pretend the two have no influence on each other, but that's just sticking your fingers in your ears.
<!--quoteo(post=1726565:date=Sep 8 2009, 05:31 PM:name=Opprobrious)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Opprobrious @ Sep 8 2009, 05:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1726565"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The ONLY thing that the public servers have aped is the MC first standard. That generally started when aliens were able to use/spit hives with ff OFF. That change to the game was ADDED after observations of the competitive scene. The MC first started in the competitive scene, were aliens with ff on could attack building hives in order for aliens to movement over.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly, it was a balance change from competitive which improved the game for competitve and casual players by making SC first sometimes viable.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Opprobrious)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Opprobrious)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I guess I should spend more time pandering?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you seriously think not being completely dismissive and pretentious is "pandering" then I have to agree with <b>a_civilian</b>.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Opprobrious)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Opprobrious)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As you are well aware, the competitive scene tried extremely hard to improve it's image. #farmteams, NSlearn, NS guides, etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NSlearn and NSDojo were relatively successful for simple word of mouth campaigns and I think did do a lot to generate good will. NS Guides was hopelessly understaffed and had the broad goal of teaching new players the game rather than focusing on the competitive scene like later programs. I never even heard of farm teams.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Opprobrious)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Opprobrious)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The reality is that it isn't personality clashes that created the divide. It is a casual scene that blames it's inadequacies on "scripts and hacks" rather than trying to improve their own gameplay. Extremely friendly competitive players are routinely singled out for abuse on public servers, just due to their HUGE skill advantage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've never seen <i>friendly</i> clan players "routinely singled out for abuse". I've seen a lot of real ######s banned and kicked though. I've seen a few idiot admins ban for skill reasons, but those servers never lasted long. Usually what happened was everyone would be playing fine, then a casual or new player would do something "wrong" and the soon to be banned player would yell or berate the new player or grief because the game was "over". Sometimes these players were competitive and sometimes they were not. Often they were perceived as competitive players though because they would try and spout some credentials for why there way was "right" before leaving or being kicked.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Opprobrious)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Opprobrious)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Casual players just want to win games. Anyone that can dominate them will be resented. That's it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Casual players just want to have fun. They don't care about winning as much as the competitive player and that's where the disconnect that occurs. They don't care if there are players that dominate as long as the teams are even. If another player is yelling at them, or griefing, or using gamesmanship and stacking the teams they're not going to have fun and that's what they'll resent.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That change to the game was ADDED after observations of the competitive scene.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thus proving his point. The casual side uses the strategies that the competitive side creates. Arguing against that is like arguing against the idea of gravity.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The reality is that it isn't personality clashes that created the divide. It is a casual scene that blames it's inadequacies on "scripts and hacks" rather than trying to improve their own gameplay. Extremely friendly competitive players are routinely singled out for abuse on public servers, just due to their HUGE skill advantage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On the other side, Opprobrious is correct here. While most casual players just ragequit, deal with the skill difference, or don't even care enough to think about it there are still a decent amount of casual players that create problems for the higher skilled players. A good example of this in NS would have been my e-buddies and myself. We never spoke ingame, so we couldn't have been considered unfriendly to the casuals in that server, and we always obeyed server rules where applicable but we were banned from some 100+ servers and have pages worth of screenshots of casual players insulting us and accusing us of cheating.
This is where Firewater's idea of a feature for server admins to self label their server (Casual, Competitive, Learning, etc) comes into play. If you have a competitive player owning a casual server and it's labeled as such, you know that guy is a ###### and not someone just trying to find a place to play. Most competitive players want to play with people in their own skill grade anyway, since that's the quickest way to improve.
The bottom line is that casual players need the competitive side, the competitive side needs the casual side, and you have die-hard morons on both sides whom hate the other just like anything else in life. Seeing how most of the people on these forums now are the NS1 diehards it's not surprising to see anti-casual or anti-competitive player comments.
im sure once we see it in action you won't know how you lived without it.
+1
I agree 100%. I'm a casual player, always have been even though I've been around long enough not to be a nub anymore. I never got competitive, and never understood the whole competitive scene. I always go gorge because I like being the backbone of the team, if no one is gorge everyone fails, no new hives, no res tower, no chambers. I can't tell you the number of times I've been ######ed at for calling a chamber vote and dropping it, then the guys in the minority whine, "the game is over." Or some "pro" rage quits because "SC first, is for nubs."
Most of the serious servers I played on, never kicked anyone for being too good, or hacking. If there was suspicion, someone would just go observe the guy, record a demo of his gameplay, and submit it to an admin if they found it suspicious. Only people who got banned were griefers, spammers, and people with bad manners.
Still the addition of the Alien commander worries me because the impact on the gorge class makes it seem less important. Who is going to care about the cute little gorgies anymore if they don't build hives, res towers, and upgrade chambers. Is a fade fleeing from shirt guns just going to leave the gorge to his fate now, instead of diverting their attention and healspray combo winning?
It is true that relying on a commander adds an extra way for the marines to lose the round, but when done right a commander can really add to the marine experience<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes I realise that there is a possibility that having a commander can lead to some amazing strategic tactical ghost recon ninja hardcore experience or something, but if NS2 is anything like NS1, it's a fast paced FPS, and pretty arcade styled.
I mean I don't think there are many people who like fast paced arcade shooters who also have a particular penchant for ninja strategy tactics stuff. And <i>most players</i> in any popular game will not be that sort of player, most of them will just be people who want to shoot baddies. Even games like armed assault which are almost unplayable as a simple shooter attract those sort of gamers (in armed assault the strategy buffs spend most of their time complaining about how there are too many people who like shooting things and the game should be more about strategy and less about shooting people) so I really don't think that making the playability of the game <i>contigent</i> on the commander is a good idea.
I don't have any objection at all to making it possible to command people, because if people want to do it that's fine, whatever makes you happy, but you can be quite certain that most of the time, people won't want to do that, and making it neccesary will just ruin the game for all those people who don't care about the commander/unit interaction, and just want a good shooter with a different experience each time.
All games have a huge capacity for close knit teamwork, NS has it intrinsically simply due to the combat style, you need to watch your back and stick in groups, as a marine, because you simply don't have the coverage to defend against aliens on your own, this is enhanced if the groups have good coordination as this will allow them to protect more space with fewer people, and this is accomplished entirely without the commander, a microphone and a bunch of people you know who like that sort of gaming are your best bet there, and hell I think you could make a really good cooperative game based around the same concept, having the computer control the aliens, sort of like left4dead except with much more of an aliens feel to it, less mindless shooting and more being scared silly by the dark corners and the possibility of encountering aliens. That's a fine thing for any game to have because if you do have the coordination, it helps you, but if you don't you can still play the game, you don't have to be an ace marine in NS1 (or at least you didn't in the years ago I played it last), you just stuck with a bunch of other dudes and you were bound to get a few kills. It expands the game by introducing two methods of play.
The commander/player interaction however isn't like that, the game simply does not work if the commander isn't up to snuff, and that's not good, imagine if NS became unplayable whenever any member of your squad wasn't sticking precisely to his assigned fire zone or something, the game would be horrible, because you cannot guarantee that sort of discipline in a public game, and a popular game is primarily a public game. Making it a requirement damages the game, it doesn't add a mode of play because it makes the other method unplayable, and as the other method is the one you sort of default to in any game, it makes the game less playable as a result.
Fortunately the touted moddabiliy of NS means someone will likely find ways to make gamemodes which keep the NS appeal but don't involve a commander which you need in order for the game to work, so I'm not too worried about it, but I do wonder whether you'll see the same sort of drama the bohemia interactive forums have about ArmA modes like evolution, which as they don't involve four hours of following a squad leader through a forest and have such heinous features as respawns (even if they involve a lives system it's still terrible!) are obviously too unstrategic for a game like armed assault and the immense popularity of them is an affront to the glorious strategic gaming elite, and that they're killing the game with all their hundreds of full servers etc etc.
I have not seen this either. It is true that a skilled player who is always silent may find himself such a target, but that is not friendly behavior (and it's easy to perceive such a player as unfriendly even if that's not the intent). I've certainly been a target of such abuse in my time, but virtually none of it occurred when I was actually putting some small amount of effort into acting human.
That's a little harsh generalization. For example I enjoy winning, but most of all I enjoy challenge, the people you get to know so much better, the extra options and the spirit of improvement and interest in the game. I just feel public NS misses so much of the potential NS has at its best. In competetive game there are no longer questions like "Why is nobody getting the hive?", but "Would it work if we switched our build into 1x Fade, 1x 2MC, 1x MC+RT, 1x RT, 1x Lerk and 1x RT+Hive". I guess it takes a little geeky person to be interested in things like that, but that's just me and my desire to understand and manipulate interesting systems like a game of NS :)
---
As in general:
I don't think most of the competetive scene is that much more frag oriented or elitist than the public gamers, they just get highlighted due to their superior skill and effect on the gameplay. For example, I've seen very nasty behavior towards newbies on Siege maps just because they don't know the specific siegemap starting build orders inside out. It's all about the anonymous internet and being in a position where you've got a change to complain and be bad mannered.
Btw, where do people get the idea that the pubbers are the only ones having fun? The competetive scene is mostly just people having fun in a little different way.
Yes.
I still stand by my first post of this thread.
Currently, the imbalance caused by reducing team sizes counteracts the imbalance caused by increasing player skill levels (12v12 is balanced in a pub while 6v6 is balanced in a match).
I foresee that their goal of a truly balanced game regardless of team size will be hindered by many mechanics other than the asymmetric command structure and resource systems. I would rather not see the great gameplay associated with vastly asymmetric teams destroyed to peruse a nearly impossible goal.
Currently, the imbalance caused by reducing team sizes counteracts the imbalance caused by increasing player skill levels (12v12 is balanced in a pub while 6v6 is balanced in a match).
I foresee that their goal of a truly balanced game regardless of team size will be hindered by many mechanics other than the asymmetric command structure and resource systems. I would rather not see the great gameplay associated with vastly asymmetric teams destroyed to peruse a nearly impossible goal.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the kharaa commander gives a decent option to affect the skulk vs LMG scalability and most balance issues. For example the commander can maybe adjust the stats, cast spells and coordinate the alien to adjust the otherwise inflexible alien play into various situations and play styles.
As for the strategical side, I think something had to be done. Every game went the same on the big strategical scale. For example as a commander I'd always check the nodes, estimate the hive/fade timing and adjust the timing to it, there wasn't much else the aliens were going to do. In 6vs6 I basically knew there were going to be 3 alien nodes in specific locations with maybe a few variations. Anything else was a little unexpected, but most of the time counterable by a relatively simple adaptation.
So far we don't know if the alien commander has any similarity to the marine commander apart from the comm status. The res models can still differ from each other.
I find those things fun too. Please understand I'm not saying all or even most competitive players do these things, these are just the areas of contention that competitive vs casual sometimes run into. Competitive players played on casual servers all of the time and it was only the few noticeable times where something goes wrong that they get noticed and thus, a reputation. Also as I said before these players are not always competitive players either, just perceived that way by the ways they try to justify their actions.
<!--quoteo(post=1726602:date=Sep 9 2009, 03:32 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Sep 9 2009, 03:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1726602"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think most of the competetive scene is that much more frag oriented or elitist than the public gamers, they just get highlighted due to their superior skill and effect on the gameplay. For example, I've seen very nasty behavior towards newbies on Siege maps just because they don't know the specific siegemap starting build orders inside out. It's all about the anonymous internet and being in a position where you've got a change to complain and be bad mannered.
Btw, where do people get the idea that the pubbers are the only ones having fun? The competetive scene is mostly just people having fun in a little different way.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please don't misquote me here. Playing with a skilled and knowledgeable group of people is very fun. I mean we're all playing a computer game, of course it's supposed to be fun. Competitive players just putting winning nearer the top of their goals to having fun than most casual players.
Sorry, didn't mean to quote you in particular, just tried respond to the general attitude and expectations towards the competetive gamers. I'll separate it more clearly from the response to your post.
I'm also quite sure you're aware of the competetive players and their motivation, some people just seemed to interpret your post quite anti-competetive way. I probably should've directed my response directly to them.
If a game is balanced for competive it probably sucks for "casual" or "pub" servers, and thats one of the reasons the ns1 audience died.
Following this I have to say I can be mad if I lose as well, but only if the defeat feels shallow or if the fall was caused by totaly retarded play of the team.
I'm a die hard puber if you don't have noticed by now.
If a game is balanced for competive it probably sucks for "casual" or "pub" servers, and thats one of the reasons the ns1 audience died.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not inherently true, and I don't think this was even a contributing factor to the decline of NS. I there are things that I really enjoyed that I wish didn't have to be sacrificed for gameplay: Fog, rain, ambient noises, and other atmospheric(in both senses) effects, but these were, IMO, rightfully sacrificed to the gameplay due to technology limitations. In terms of gameplay the competitive scene really improved the quality of NS. Maybe not necessarily through their direct suggestions, but definitely by accurately pinpointing problem areas. I don't think the chambers would be as dynamic as they are today, nor the various minor buffs and nerfs would be so accurate without the strong competitive community NS had for a long time.
If a game is balanced for competive it probably sucks for "casual" or "pub" servers, and thats one of the reasons the ns1 audience died.
Following this I have to say I can be mad if I lose as well, but only if the defeat feels shallow or if the fall was caused by totaly retarded play of the team.
I'm a die hard puber if you don't have noticed by now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How does one decide to become a "die hard pubber?" Organized play is nothing more than pubbing with teammates that agree not to be "retarded". I find it overwhelmingly hypocritical to play a team based game like NS to only reject the idea of playing on an organized team.
I understand some players simply don't play the game enough to warrant investing the time to play organized games. However, organized play should be accepted as the standard for any long term players that invest considerable time into the game. Sorry, but I think the "die hard pubber" group should be last on the priority list. Experienced players should be encouraged/expected to match themselves vs comparable players.
I've never seen friendly clan players routinely singled out for abuse. I've seen a lot of real ######s banned and kicked though. I've seen a few idiot admins ban for skill reasons, but those servers never lasted long. Usually what happened was everyone would be playing fine, then a casual or new player would do something wrong and the soon to be banned player would yell or berate the new player or grief because the game was over. Sometimes these players were competitive and sometimes they were not. Often they were perceived as competitive players though because they would try and spout some credentials for why there way was right before leaving or being kicked.
Casual players just want to have fun. They don't care about winning as much as the competitive player and that's where the disconnect that occurs. They don't care if there are players that dominate as long as the teams are even. If another player is yelling at them, or griefing, or using gamesmanship and stacking the teams they're not going to have fun and that's what they'll resent.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Farmteams was a program set up by the invite teams in CAL-NS to get pub players into the competitive scene. Most of the invite teams helped found at least 1 team(CO helped found 2 I think) by taking players that had ZERO experience in competitive play and mentoring them. The new team was composed of 6 pubbers and trained extensively in NS. This included 1 on 1 sessions and 6 on 6 tutoring sessions. While this effort did bring in a number of decent players into competitive play it was a short term benefit.
Severs that ban for skill reasons not lasting long?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA
G4B2S and <BAD> ring a bell?
Casuals just want to have fun? True, everyone playing a game wants to have fun. Casuals are playing the game, for the most part, at the best of their ability. When they drop OC forts round after round, it's because they think this is OPTIMAL STRATEGY. That's where conflict usually erupts. Competitive players see NS as a finely balanced game that requires teamwork and coordination. They are used to each person taking an important role to win the game. Casuals don't know the difference between 2MC and 3MC silence.
We have a big gap in knowledge here. And as usual, the person in a position of "lesser information" will show no humility.
As for the complaint about "stacking teams" I'll ALWAYS laugh. Complaints about stacking teams PROVE that casuals care about winning. They aren't having fun if they can't spend the game in their OC fort.
now YOU're being hypocritical. you have to admit that not every puber is a jerk while I admit that not every competive player is a jerk, but we agree that those jerks ruin the game for everyone, right?
And as mentioned before, both are different sides of the same coin while the asses are the rim on that side.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How does one decide to become a "die hard pubber"?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By not wanting to sacrifice everything for a fixed schedule. Wanting to change a Game once in a while and working rotating shifts isn't healthy, even while I was asked several times already to join a clan.
Once, it was my dream to obtain my share of fame and glory, but times change. And I still don't want to be a tool, hardened for a single game. that'd turn me crazy after a while.
We have a big gap in knowledge here. And as usual, the person in a position of "lesser information" will show no humility.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's silly that you make these strawman statements and act as if they are the absolute truth. A griefer making OC forts in the corner isn't any more representative of the casual community than a "competitive" player joins a server to "pwn noobs" and spout racist comments while doing it.
<!--quoteo(post=1726713:date=Sep 9 2009, 03:49 PM:name=Opprobrious)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Opprobrious @ Sep 9 2009, 03:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1726713"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for the complaint about "stacking teams" I'll ALWAYS laugh. Complaints about stacking teams PROVE that casuals care about winning. They aren't having fun if they can't spend the game in their OC fort.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say casual players don't care about winning, just that it's lower in priority to most competitive players. Casual players might enjoy a "last stand", whereas a competitive player is more likely to recycle and move onto the next game. That's the kind of philosophy difference that causes problems. In a way it's tied to your "OC fort" analogy, but you're mistaken in calling it "optimal strategy", at least in the sense it's an optimal strategy not to win but for them to enjoy the game.
For the record team-stacking is pretty lame no matter who's doing it; it's not fun for the losing team and it's not a challenge for the winning team. I suspect this has more to do with casual players than competitive most of the time. I have seen it happen both ways though.
this is one of the most hugely offtrack threads in the history of the internet.
As for me I am pretty excited about the alien commander.
I think it was inevitable.
playing NS1
with matched skills on both sides
but a really solid commander ...usually ended up with the marines winning.
switch sides the commander stays put ....marines again.
The more impressive games would have a dedicated gorge who built up infrastructure
and would make requests beyond 'help me'
I look forward to the tactical advantages of having an alien commander.
I also hope that the micromanagement part of commanding (handing weapons out)
have disappeared fro both sides to make commanding more accessible and less daunting.
END OF LINE
The whole thing about casuals not caring about winning is horse-######. Of course we do. But we care even more about having a good game, and if the teams are stacked, the game isn't good even if you're the one on the winning side. Hell, I'll admit to griefing my own team if I realize the teams have gotten stacked.
Moving on to topic, it sounds like some of the problems being voiced here aren't with an alien commander so much as <i>any</i> sort of commander -- and well.. welcome to Natural Selection. I don't think having some sort of overmind will hurt the difference of the alien team at all. We're still dealing with a primarily melee based team vs a primarily ranged based one, after all. While I'll admit I did like in NS1 how coherent strategies would just seem to evolve among the alien team drawn together by good parasiting and support, I'm not willing to say yet, especially from the notes we've seen of Flayra's ideas for the overmind, that we still won't have that ability.
Now, if the overmind starts giving waypoints... then I'll be somewhat disappointed. Hopefully they'll be contained to giving targets.. not arbitrary points, and certainly not to any specific life-form. (Although if orders could be given to certain classes of life-form.. that would be acceptable.. kind of a general "Fades needed here."
Did you ever play any sports?
<!--quoteo(post=1726726:date=Sep 9 2009, 04:48 PM:name=Kwil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kwil @ Sep 9 2009, 04:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1726726"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is a difference between winning and dominating. I too am a "die-hard" pubber. I enjoyed the game, played it quite a bit, but lord knows I can't be arsed to set myself to any kind of pre-made fixed schedule. I play games to have fun, not to become another source of deadlines and stress in my life.
The whole thing about casuals not caring about winning is horse-######. Of course we do. But we care even more about having a good game, and if the teams are stacked, the game isn't good even if you're the one on the winning side. Hell, I'll admit to griefing my own team if I realize the teams have gotten stacked.
Moving on to topic, it sounds like some of the problems being voiced here aren't with an alien commander so much as any sort of commander -- and well.. welcome to Natural Selection. I don't think having some sort of overmind will hurt the difference of the alien team at all. We're still dealing with a primarily melee based team vs a primarily ranged based one, after all. While I'll admit I did like in NS1 how coherent strategies would just seem to evolve among the alien team drawn together by good parasiting and support, I'm not willing to say yet, especially from the notes we've seen of Flayra's ideas for the overmind, that we still won't have that ability.
Now, if the overmind starts giving waypoints... then I'll be somewhat disappointed. Hopefully they'll be contained to giving targets.. not arbitrary points, and certainly not to any specific life-form. (Although if orders could be given to certain classes of life-form.. that would be acceptable.. kind of a general "Fades needed here."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Competitive play didn't have "fixed" schedules outside of a default match day and time(that could be easily changed upon the agreement of both teams). You played one or two matches a week(depending on the league). That's about an hour and a half of NS a week. It's true that most good teams practiced more than that(some to excess) but the time commitment of competitive play was no different than watching a couple of TV shows a week.
All of your arguments are faulty due to lack of experience.
As for the alien commander, it sounds about as interesting as commanding in empires. Not very.