<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ie, this unit does 10 damage to armored targets, but only 10 damage to everything else.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Skulks and vanilla 'rines useful in end game? You've made me a happy person. If you were to say stealth (not invisibility) were to play a role in end game too, I'd have to drive to your offices and hug you.
I like to hear that you guys are adding some strategy to the game through damage types. It should add more tactics instead of the generic run and guns fps.
<!--quoteo(post=1773604:date=Jun 6 2010, 04:59 PM:name=TravCarp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TravCarp @ Jun 6 2010, 04:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1773604"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's called a mistake, get over it. Just be glad they are telling us more on what is going on. Looks good guys!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes ... because as everyone knows, I always rail against the devs for all the mistakes they make on this game.
Wouldn't be to let him know that, hey .. there is a typo.
Glad to see this in there. It will be interesting to see how intuitive the system is and if it's explained in game or if it's more background calculations. If it's explained I could see newer players deciding how to spend their money based on what's out in the field rather than always wanting the shotgun b/c it's better than the LMG. If it's not explained you could have people frustrated and wondering why they seem to die so fast but 'all the other players' take so many more hits.
Maybe because I completely agree with the design behind this being someone who really enjoys RTS, but it's really great to continue to see NS2 become more and more of a RTS/FPS hybrid. Commanders both alien and marine really seem to be bringing a ton to the game on a constant level and I love where this is going.
Really, NS2 seems complex as hell, and its starting to get me to realize just why there's so much delay. You guys are really creating a deep experience and I am extremely excited to play it.
Wow, very interesting upgrade. This is something I dislike about many games - most FPS do it like this: -> Weapons firing bullets don't do damage to tanks.* -> Rockets and grenades do splash damage -> Players have less, players with "heavy armor" (if available) simply have some more but are still vulnerable to the smallest pistol -> Sometimes there's also a "damge over time when in area" weapon (gas, acid...) -> Tanks have A LOT of HP, so they can take more rockets than a player - that's about it.
But what if there is an "unarmored" car in the game? Should it be vulnerable to bullets at all? Only parts of it? 30 Bullets would do as much damage as 1 rocket does but that should not blow up a car, right? This makes the game more intuitive. There are games where you can blow up the biggest tank with your pistol if you have enough ammo, it just doesn't happen because noone tries (..to blow up a tank that is heavily damaged by firing at it with your 9mm).
This blog post also shows that there is much more going on "behind the scenes" than what we know ;)
It looks like a lot of damage types (confusing) but when you read them, they seem basically in-line with NS1 and commonsense. And: <ul><li>Technology shouldn't obsolete other technology. Ie, skulks will be seen throughout the game and not just because they're cheap!</li></ul>I always liked how in SC zerglings can be made into tier 3 units with a tier 3 upgrade. Hope this means something similar for skulks.
Great to see parasite will still make it into the game, will it still be the skulks ability or will it be up to the kharaa commander to infect marines that venture into infested areas?
Whip bombard sounds awsome, will that be the Kharaa's equivalent of the MASC eg. being able to smash marines structures from another room etc. perhaps in the similar manor of the Zerg offensive structure in StarCraft (can't remember the name) can plunge itself through the floor and up at the enemy structure's position to do damage to it.
It's a really important thing nowadays for higher ranked strategy games... well, it always has been. I play Settlers 7 and they made good efforts in using this balancement of power, not only in the aspect of war, but also in tech, points or structure building.
I'm really happy that you guys are putting significative efforts and seeing you conceving and building the gameplay very carefully and thoughtfully.
That update kinda confuses me. Something that doesn't happen too often :P Maybe its just the (ambigious) wording? The list and some feedback:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Take that list: * Normal - Regular damage (Rifle, Bite) * Puncture - Extra damage vs. armor (Fade swipe, Pistol, Shotgun) * Piercing - Increased vs. players (Minigun, Lerk spikes) * Light - Half vs. armor (Sentries, Hydras) * Structural - Double against structures (Onos gore, SwitchAxe, Rifle grenades) * Gas - Breathing targets only (Spores, Rifle nerve gas grenades) * Biological - Living/organic targets only (Parasite, Flamethrower) * StructuresOnly - Doesn't damage players or AI units (MASC, Whip Bombard)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<ul><li>Extra damage / Increased damage: is there a difference? Coherence</li><li>What is meant with players?!? Is it all player classes without regard to the current lifeform? If so, how would that make sense?</li><li>As a non-native speaker of english I was kinda stumped about the words piercing and puncture. Seems very similar to me.</li><li>And I wouldn't call "Gas/Biological/Structures only" a damage type in that regard, its more a question of what an attack works on fundamentally -> More of a matrix/table then another entry in the damage type list imho.</li></ul>
Your design goals make it very clear what you want to achieve, and that gives me hope that not too many of "Oh ######, I can't do anything because I have the wrong damage type" moments occur. That would suck hard for a FPS.
"Puncture" and "Piercing" seem a little misleading. Those are synonyms. I can see that being confusing for people. And shotguns "puncturing" armor? Are they firing slugs in this game? Cause buckshot should be like a confetti launcher against armored targets. Otherwise, this all sounds great. =)
<!--quoteo(post=1773598:date=Jun 6 2010, 07:07 PM:name=Flayra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Flayra @ Jun 6 2010, 07:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1773598"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Please post comments on the topic Development Blog Update - Damage Types in NS2 here<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some really interesting information in the blog post this time and I certianly agree with much of what is said about different damage types as an added strategy element (just look at practically any RTS game and you'll see something like "Strong vs. X, Weak vs Y").
I also saw that some of Sirlin's work was mentioned in the More Reading section; his book (free to read on this website) has some really interesting views and analyses on (competitive) gaming. He labels this superceeding of strategies "Yomi Layers" and writes more about them on this page: <a href="http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/7-yomi-spies-of-the-mind.html" target="_blank">http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/7-yomi-spies-of-the-mind.html</a>. Anyone who cares enough to play alot of games (just about most people here I would guess) should really give his book a read.
My only suggestion about naming the damage types is to rename "Puncture" to "Heavy". It would avoid confusion with "Piercing" and also fits the naming scheme of "Light". That way damage is also labelled according to what armour if affects as opposed to the source of the damage; the former being like alot of the other current damage types, ie. "Light", "Structural", "Biological", "StructuresOnly".
Sounds good, i hope you end up adding appropriate feedback sounds/graphics to tell the players how effective their weapon is being. Would be nice if an experienced player could tell what type of armour upgrade the kharra has simply by the sound his bullets make against their flesh!
On a related note, a big problem i see with many strategy games are upgrades which are "invisble" to the opponent. Blizzard recently changed the Helion in SC2 so that the colour of its flame attack turned from orange to blue once the damage upgrade has been researched . This makes its clear to the opponent the precise level of threat they are dealing with. I can imagine an NS2 equivilant could be a laser scope attachment to the rifle that would stand out enough for an observant kharaa to know what they are up against upgraded weapons.
<!--quoteo(post=1773622:date=Jun 6 2010, 10:34 PM:name=UKchaos)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (UKchaos @ Jun 6 2010, 10:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1773622"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sounds good, i hope you end up adding appropriate feedback sounds/graphics to tell the players how effective their weapon is being. Would be nice if an experienced player could tell what type of armour upgrade the kharra has simply by the sound his bullets make against their flesh!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, like ricochet sparks off of Onos armor for small arms :D
Piercing/puncture is going to be a problem. I understand what is intended but you're going to need a new word. Can't think of any good ones offhand though. Perhaps puncture could be 'impact' instead?
Good stuff otherwise. Seeing you explain the thoughts behind the game helps me appreciate the effort that went into it all the more.
Edit: I like arual's Heavy suggestion, it fits nicely although I take some exception to calling a pistol 'heavy' vs a minigun being piercing. Also, in response to Gork, 00 buckshot is fairly effective against armored targets. Nothing like a slug, granted, but not a confetti launcher. Not unless against severe levels of armor plating, the kind unlikely to be found on lifeforms such as the kharaa. Download some mythbusters/check YouTube for examples.
Not a huge fan. NS2 had very limited special damage and instead focused on weapon behavior instead of trying to emulate it with damage types. I much prefer an RTS like Total Annihilation to one like Star Craft 2 (which has a LOT of special damages).
"Madballs in Babo: Invasion" is a game with a really good example of damage types. Every character has a resistance and a weakness, and every weapon has 2 opposite attack types. I found that after a few matches I got a real hang of the damage system, even though I only play FPS games. So I don't think getting used to damage types will be too much of a problem for FPS only players.
Brilliant post there Charlie, don't think you could have announced much else (beyond a release date) that could have made me look even <b>more</b> forward to NS2 than what I already am! I'm a big fan of Starcraft 2 and it's heavy damage type-focused combat; and this announcement means that strategic layer will permeate every action of a competent commander. Such a big step forward for NS!
I particularly love that you can do a lot with a little, so long as your strategy is sound and counters your opponents. It's an opposing position to the brain-dead strategic advantage in numbers as so many games promote, and SC has shown just how effective it can be.
No point sending tanks into a densely populated urban environment, after all! Same should go with the marines/alien encounters.
<!--quoteo(post=1773618:date=Jun 7 2010, 07:03 AM:name=Gork)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gork @ Jun 7 2010, 07:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1773618"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Puncture" and "Piercing" seem a little misleading. Those are synonyms. I can see that being confusing for people. And shotguns "puncturing" armor? Are they firing slugs in this game? Cause buckshot should be like a confetti launcher against armored targets. Otherwise, this all sounds great. =)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I concur. The two damage types seem very similar, and making shotguns good against armoured targets makes no sense whatsoever from a thematic standing point. Why not add a mid-game upgrade that gives skulks armour, and thus resistance to shotguns?
<!--quoteo(post=1773618:date=Jun 6 2010, 04:03 PM:name=Gork)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gork @ Jun 6 2010, 04:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1773618"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Puncture" and "Piercing" seem a little misleading. Those are synonyms. I can see that being confusing for people. And shotguns "puncturing" armor? Are they firing slugs in this game? Cause buckshot should be like a confetti launcher against armored targets. Otherwise, this all sounds great. =)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly what I was thinking.
Also, keep in mind that RTS games do have hard and soft counters. I don't see why shotguns shouldn't destroy skulks. Why not just force aliens to either tech up and get an armor upgrade, or evolve to an armored life form which would be extremely effective versus shotguns.
<!--QuoteBegin-"Starcraft Liquipedia+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ("Starcraft Liquipedia)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A hard counter is something that beats its counterpart even with inferior investment.
A soft counter usually beats its counterpart, but may lose with inferior investment.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1773626:date=Jun 6 2010, 02:56 PM:name=Ahnteis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ahnteis @ Jun 6 2010, 02:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1773626"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Not a huge fan. NS2 had very limited special damage and instead focused on weapon behavior instead of trying to emulate it with damage types. I much prefer an RTS like Total Annihilation to one like Star Craft 2 (which has a LOT of special damages).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, NS1 has quite a few damage types as well. 6 or 7 if I remember correctly?
Good points everyone the Puncture vs. Piercing terminology. I also like your thoughts on the shottie vs. skulk idea and I think you might be right on that one.
aeroripperJoin Date: 2005-02-25Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sounds good, i hope you end up adding appropriate feedback sounds/graphics to tell the players how effective their weapon is being. Would be nice if an experienced player could tell what type of armour upgrade the kharra has simply by the sound his bullets make against their flesh!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would be nice. Rounds from certain weapons like the standard rifle and turrets would mostly bounce off the onos armor (along with cool ricochet sounds and sparks). Hoping to see effects like that in NS2.
Comments
I see RTS is playing a bigger role now.
And i see many tweaks along the road.
besides that, interesting update :D
*cough*
Can't wait to see this in the alpha.
It's called a mistake, get over it. Just be glad they are telling us more on what is going on. Looks good guys!
Yes ... because as everyone knows, I always rail against the devs for all the mistakes they make on this game.
Wouldn't be to let him know that, hey .. there is a typo.
No ... nothing like that.
Maybe because I completely agree with the design behind this being someone who really enjoys RTS, but it's really great to continue to see NS2 become more and more of a RTS/FPS hybrid. Commanders both alien and marine really seem to be bringing a ton to the game on a constant level and I love where this is going.
Really, NS2 seems complex as hell, and its starting to get me to realize just why there's so much delay. You guys are really creating a deep experience and I am extremely excited to play it.
-> Weapons firing bullets don't do damage to tanks.*
-> Rockets and grenades do splash damage
-> Players have less, players with "heavy armor" (if available) simply have some more but are still vulnerable to the smallest pistol
-> Sometimes there's also a "damge over time when in area" weapon (gas, acid...)
-> Tanks have A LOT of HP, so they can take more rockets than a player - that's about it.
But what if there is an "unarmored" car in the game? Should it be vulnerable to bullets at all? Only parts of it? 30 Bullets would do as much damage as 1 rocket does but that should not blow up a car, right?
This makes the game more intuitive. There are games where you can blow up the biggest tank with your pistol if you have enough ammo, it just doesn't happen because noone tries (..to blow up a tank that is heavily damaged by firing at it with your 9mm).
This blog post also shows that there is much more going on "behind the scenes" than what we know ;)
<ul><li>Technology shouldn't obsolete other technology. Ie, skulks will be seen throughout the game and not just because they're cheap!</li></ul>I always liked how in SC zerglings can be made into tier 3 units with a tier 3 upgrade. Hope this means something similar for skulks.
Whip bombard sounds awsome, will that be the Kharaa's equivalent of the MASC eg. being able to smash marines structures from another room etc. perhaps in the similar manor of the Zerg offensive structure in StarCraft (can't remember the name) can plunge itself through the floor and up at the enemy structure's position to do damage to it.
It's a really important thing nowadays for higher ranked strategy games... well, it always has been.
I play Settlers 7 and they made good efforts in using this balancement of power, not only in the aspect of war, but also in tech, points or structure building.
I'm really happy that you guys are putting significative efforts and seeing you conceving and building the gameplay very carefully and thoughtfully.
Maybe its just the (ambigious) wording?
The list and some feedback:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Take that list:
* Normal - Regular damage (Rifle, Bite)
* Puncture - Extra damage vs. armor (Fade swipe, Pistol, Shotgun)
* Piercing - Increased vs. players (Minigun, Lerk spikes)
* Light - Half vs. armor (Sentries, Hydras)
* Structural - Double against structures (Onos gore, SwitchAxe, Rifle grenades)
* Gas - Breathing targets only (Spores, Rifle nerve gas grenades)
* Biological - Living/organic targets only (Parasite, Flamethrower)
* StructuresOnly - Doesn't damage players or AI units (MASC, Whip Bombard)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<ul><li>Extra damage / Increased damage: is there a difference? Coherence</li><li>What is meant with players?!? Is it all player classes without regard to the current lifeform? If so, how would that make sense?</li><li>As a non-native speaker of english I was kinda stumped about the words piercing and puncture. Seems very similar to me.</li><li>And I wouldn't call "Gas/Biological/Structures only" a damage type in that regard, its more a question of what an attack works on fundamentally -> More of a matrix/table then another entry in the damage type list imho.</li></ul>
Your design goals make it very clear what you want to achieve, and that gives me hope that not too many of "Oh ######, I can't do anything because I have the wrong damage type" moments occur. That would suck hard for a FPS.
Well, keep doing great work!! :)
Some really interesting information in the blog post this time and I certianly agree with much of what is said about different damage types as an added strategy element (just look at practically any RTS game and you'll see something like "Strong vs. X, Weak vs Y").
I also saw that some of Sirlin's work was mentioned in the More Reading section; his book (free to read on this website) has some really interesting views and analyses on (competitive) gaming. He labels this superceeding of strategies "Yomi Layers" and writes more about them on this page: <a href="http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/7-yomi-spies-of-the-mind.html" target="_blank">http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/7-yomi-spies-of-the-mind.html</a>. Anyone who cares enough to play alot of games (just about most people here I would guess) should really give his book a read.
My only suggestion about naming the damage types is to rename "Puncture" to "Heavy". It would avoid confusion with "Piercing" and also fits the naming scheme of "Light". That way damage is also labelled according to what armour if affects as opposed to the source of the damage; the former being like alot of the other current damage types, ie. "Light", "Structural", "Biological", "StructuresOnly".
On a related note, a big problem i see with many strategy games are upgrades which are "invisble" to the opponent. Blizzard recently changed the Helion in SC2 so that the colour of its flame attack turned from orange to blue once the damage upgrade has been researched . This makes its clear to the opponent the precise level of threat they are dealing with. I can imagine an NS2 equivilant could be a laser scope attachment to the rifle that would stand out enough for an observant kharaa to know what they are up against upgraded weapons.
Yeah, like ricochet sparks off of Onos armor for small arms :D
Good stuff otherwise. Seeing you explain the thoughts behind the game helps me appreciate the effort that went into it all the more.
Edit: I like arual's Heavy suggestion, it fits nicely although I take some exception to calling a pistol 'heavy' vs a minigun being piercing. Also, in response to Gork, 00 buckshot is fairly effective against armored targets. Nothing like a slug, granted, but not a confetti launcher. Not unless against severe levels of armor plating, the kind unlikely to be found on lifeforms such as the kharaa. Download some mythbusters/check YouTube for examples.
I particularly love that you can do a lot with a little, so long as your strategy is sound and counters your opponents. It's an opposing position to the brain-dead strategic advantage in numbers as so many games promote, and SC has shown just how effective it can be.
No point sending tanks into a densely populated urban environment, after all! Same should go with the marines/alien encounters.
I concur. The two damage types seem very similar, and making shotguns good against armoured targets makes no sense whatsoever from a thematic standing point. Why not add a mid-game upgrade that gives skulks armour, and thus resistance to shotguns?
--Scythe--
Exactly what I was thinking.
Also, keep in mind that RTS games do have hard and soft counters. I don't see why shotguns shouldn't destroy skulks. Why not just force aliens to either tech up and get an armor upgrade, or evolve to an armored life form which would be extremely effective versus shotguns.
<!--QuoteBegin-"Starcraft Liquipedia+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ("Starcraft Liquipedia)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A hard counter is something that beats its counterpart even with inferior investment.
A soft counter usually beats its counterpart, but may lose with inferior investment.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
viva la damage types!
*builds more stalkers*
Actually, NS1 has quite a few damage types as well. 6 or 7 if I remember correctly?
Good points everyone the Puncture vs. Piercing terminology. I also like your thoughts on the shottie vs. skulk idea and I think you might be right on that one.
That would be nice. Rounds from certain weapons like the standard rifle and turrets would mostly bounce off the onos armor (along with cool ricochet sounds and sparks). Hoping to see effects like that in NS2.