<!--quoteo(post=1805907:date=Nov 16 2010, 07:08 PM:name=yourbonesakin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yourbonesakin @ Nov 16 2010, 07:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1805907"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You didn't actually say anything was good or bad. You just repeated some facts. Which this community has known about (For many months, even years?) and discussed many times. So tell us your opinion. Is this one instance of increased symmetry good or bad? Otherwise you're obviously trolling by posting a controversial topic and leaving the community to discuss it (again).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said anything I have seen so far is better or worse because we are still in very early alpha and not all the game play elements are in yet and I upmost faith in UWE to release a fun game that also isn't just a next gen regurge of NS1 (re reading my original post it doesn't come across very well but if you hunt for my other posts it will) I was just stating that is does seem they are heading towards a more symmetrical approach to game mechanics with just differing game classes such as flayers own example of starcraft or the game which now appears to be resemble where NS2 is going which is Savage, both sides have a commander, the same res system with just different buildings and tech trees which is the direction where NS2 appears to be going right now.
I do agree that going for a more symmetrical approach does make it easier for balancing (and can actually be a really good thing, one of the games I am currently clocking the most hours up on is TF2 which can be as symmetrical as it gets.) also having asymmetrical sides where a dominant tactic can emerge where has no natural counter move or at least a something that is extremely hard to counter leads to cheap games or just very repetitive tactics, think start shotty rushes in NS1, flux rushes in Savage (which got so bad that commanders were 95% certain to get evicted were they to even try anything different) or OMGWTFZERGRUSH in starcraft, it's also worth noting here just how dependent late NS revisions became on the focus fade.
But that doesn't alter the fact that one of the gems that made NS so fantastic was just how different the sides were, they had different outlooks in terms of team organisation where the marines were completely dependent on the actions of one player their commander while the aliens were completely free to do what they wanted but had to work together as a hive mind. Now we have marines who can do what they like to completely ignore the commander just benefiting from the team upgrades while purchasing their own equipment from their personal res pool while the aliens (and so far esp the gorgs) are tied into and have to work closely with their commander to ensure they have effective facilities in place. I'm also interested in knowing how multiple commanders and griefing is going to be handled, someone ninjaing the 2nd comm chair and recycling the world. (this has also probably been discussed here at some point)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Here's a response liking the increased symmetry.
Reasons:
1: Less alien players have to sacrifice their FPS game so everyone else can have a chance at winning. In NS1, three players must go alien builder or aliens lose. Full stop, nobody disagrees here. In NS2, 1 player must go alien builder. On this one instance, I am heavily in favor of NS2's single alien builder (because I think underproviding mandatory roles is safer than providing too many. 1 is too little, 3 is too much.).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I take it you play NS with the view that being a gorg is a chore not a tactical asset. I have to disagree and I am sure I am not the only NS player who actually enjoys going gorg wouldn't even go as far as saying it's a sacrifice to their FPS game and certainly not nearly as tied down as being a comm is! I also disagree that it takes 3 players to succeed but that's entirely down to the map and how well the team is doing, again in most games you use tools to get a job done, in NS you BECOME the tool.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2: I'm going to say it bluntly. NS1 has three castrated alien builders per game (a gorge can do ONE of the following: craft 1 chamber / 3 minutes, OR build 1 RT / 4 minutes, OR 1 hive / 4-6 minutes.). NS2 has one much more flexible, versatile, and powerful alien builder (They're building everything not a Hydra, every tech expansion, and researching every upgrade). There's more options more often and all the fun is condensed for one player. I know people are going to get burned because there's only alien builder per NS2 game. I know the one player who gets to be the alien builder will have more fun. On this one instance, I am barely in favor of NS2's single alien builder.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Which has so far reduced the gorg to being a walking medpack. (I say so far as there's probably a master plan for them, at least I hope so) Also makes setting up forward bases and healing stations very awkward unless gorg is working well with the commander, as mentioned above I disagree that gorgs are castrated players, but lets agree that they are not exactly combat players, well now you have to contend with gorges + commanders... I wouldn't say that's a plus for the equation with the evidence so far (but again we don't know how this is going to pan out when all the elements are in place)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->3: Better balanced. In NS1, the alien resource model is horribly inefficient. The NS1 marines are able to keep their cached resources below 100 (and are probably losing if they let the resources climb over 100 consistently). Load up NS1. Join the average 24 person server. Join Aliens. After five minutes, look at everyone's resources. Total them. Almost certainly over 100 resources not spent, very likely 200, probably 300-350, unlikely 400+. Because you can spend resources to get more resources later, continuously having 400 resources in the bank when the biggest possible expenditure is 75 is <i>terrrrrrribad</i>. On this one instance I am incredibly favoring NS2's single alien builder.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is apples and oranges down to what it costs to research and purchase the different things, they spent a long long time making sure the costs on both sides evened out, I've seen the marines win by getting a decent foothold, ecoing and then blowing 200res+ on HA+HMG+welders for all, likewise alien team with lots of fades who still had a good res reserve.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->4: More capable of being balanced. We've discussed this, we know it's true.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Agreed, when you have identical statistics on both sides, any changes will of course be mirrored.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Asymmetry definitely has its perks. If there's none, the game really only has one team to experience. If we had two teams before, that's at least half the content completely cut out of the game. This is something the community should definitely be worried about, and worried about a lot.
I think 3-4 pros balances out the 1-2 cons (I think there's 3 pros + 1 con + 1 neutral change, but that's my opinion). A little bit of symmetry is alright if it provides a lot of benefits. And too much asymmetry can exist, though I think NS1 had a good amount of asymmetry or even not enough! :D<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So yes, for practical reasons they have made it more symmetrical then NS1, parallel resource, tech trees and commanders, the liberation of marines and the encumberment of the arliens but until it's more fully formed and people are play testing a workable game I won't put an option forward as to if it's an improvement I am also still in two minds over if tying down marine bases to set locations with tech points is a good thing or not, there has been some very interesting relocation spots over the years (but also some deeply annoying ones, red room comes to mind :D
and yes, I do have a few concerns, I was concerned a long time ago that the engine change wouldn't be an easy thing and would probably delay matters, given the fall 09 thing it would be fair to say that has borne out. *HOWEVER* I never said it wasn't the best approach and having an engine that is specifically tailored to requirements is finally working out.
Currently I am concerned that the role of Gorge has been depreciated but there might be plans in place to reposition it a support class to assist the in the fight more and worry about laming up less.
and while I do have every faith in the guys to make a truly epic game I for one will lament the dropping idea of two entirely different hierarchies and I really hope that the game doesn't just drop into a handful of set tactics that work which is the fate that befell savage.
Something I'd like to try is to keep the resource system but remove the alien commander (and the gorge gets to build everything instead); anything that would directly benefit the entire team costs carbon (that's the team resource, right?), so hives, RTs, and the 4 Chamber structures.
PlasmaJoin Date: 2003-04-26Member: 15855Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
I'd prefer just a single resource system ('res'), I'm not much of an RTS player and I think overcomplicating the resource system will distract from the FPS/actual gameplay and instead rely more on a single person managing resources better.
<!--quoteo(post=1806200:date=Nov 18 2010, 08:58 AM:name=Plasma)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Plasma @ Nov 18 2010, 08:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1806200"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd prefer just a single resource system ('res'), I'm not much of an RTS player and I think overcomplicating the resource system will distract from the FPS/actual gameplay and instead rely more on a single person managing resources better.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wish my name was Carbon so I would have a great rebuttal to this.
If you think about the importance of a good early Fade in NS1 to the alien team, it really isn't that different to having an alien comm. The early fade has to save up resources, use proper tactics and be at the right place on the map. They also have to scout the marines' tech choices and counter any rushes or expansion pushes. It's really asking too much of one player to be able to 'command' the MVP of the alien teams success/failure while paying attention to all the strategy of the match at the same time.
When you look at it this way, the move to an alien comm isn't that drastic. NS2 is aspiring to have considerably more strategic depth than NS1. This alone really requires a dedicated comm player for both sides (and multiple comms in some situations). If you would rather have a strategically shallow game with mostly map-based tactics, there are lots of games that cater to this (including NS1 most of the time).
To create a more balanced hybrid of RTS/FPS there simply has to be a RTS player for each team. This is less asymmetrical than NS1, but that one change is unavoidable if you want more robust (and asymmetrical) tech trees for both teams.
<!--quoteo(post=1806222:date=Nov 18 2010, 05:46 PM:name=culprit)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (culprit @ Nov 18 2010, 05:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1806222"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS2 is aspiring to have considerably more strategic depth than NS1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I haven't seen any information about NS 2 that supports this claim.
More strategic options does not mean more strategic depth. In NS1 there were tons of "strategic options" (turrets, electrified res nodes, cat packs, redemption upgrade) which added almost nothing to the strategic depth of the game.
I only said "considerably more strategic depth than NS1". If you can't see how something like a power-grid or multiple comms in different areas of the map would lend more strategic depth, then I would question your ability to imagine a game of NS2 from what features we have seen.
If you want to define it as yomi or counter of counters layered on top of each other, it is difficult to know how that will play out in the end since so much balance is still in progress. These features have been revealed and will allow for many different strategies to unfold once fully implemented.
Maybe the idea that more RTS gameplay depth is pretty similar to "considerably more strategic depth than NS1" is just too crazy.
<!--quoteo(post=1806516:date=Nov 19 2010, 03:36 AM:name=culprit)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (culprit @ Nov 19 2010, 03:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1806516"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you want to define it as yomi or counter of counters layered on top of each other, it is difficult to know how that will play out in the end since so much balance is still in progress. These features have been revealed and will allow for many different strategies to unfold once fully implemented.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You start out by agreeing with me regarding the lack of premises to make your original conclusion. Then you end the paragraph by saying the opposite!
Pretty much the main reason I loved NS1 so much was how radically different each team was, how you could choose your upgrades as an alien every time you ressed, how everything seems dumbed down and streamlined, and it kind of destroys the entire purpose.
NS1 was only good because of how different each team operated, without that its just another shootan.
It's <b>hive mind</b> vs <b>hierarchy</b>. This played a huge role in distinguishing the two races. It gave the game broader appeal by allowing fans of either style to have their favorite race. As someone who fit in with the Kharaa better in NS1, I'd like to say to all the marines out there: hive mind matters to me. I'm not afraid of change, but I think the choice to introduce an alien commander was made out of the perception that the new resource model necessitated it. The Gorges can take all responsibilities of the commander. In fact, I imagine the same players that play Gorges will more often be commanders.
I loved my role within the hive mind. I don't want hierarchy there.
So, I'd like to agree with Align:<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Something I'd like to try is to keep the resource system but remove the alien commander (and the gorge gets to build everything instead); anything that would directly benefit the entire team costs carbon (that's the team resource, right?), so hives, RTs, and the 4 Chamber structures.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If someone else doesn't, I'll be making that into a server mod.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1807199:date=Nov 20 2010, 01:31 AM:name=NurEinMensch)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NurEinMensch @ Nov 20 2010, 01:31 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1807199"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What's so hive mind about some gorge dropping DCs when everyone was shouting MC!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> A clear example of ignoring that little voice inside your head
Just to rebut the "2 commanders gives the game more strategic depth" argument ... most competent comms in NS1 spent about 10% AT MOST of their time with mechanics such as dropping structures/weapons/upgrades. Maybe another 10% of the time was spent listening for alien RT noises in the fog of war. The remaining 80% of the commanders time was spent watching their marines and hovering the cursor over them with medpack selected.
I seriously doubt that there are enough actions required by a commander in NS2 that it cannot be done by 1 person.
That said I'm a relatively skilled SC2 player who averages around 150-200apm so probably take my argument with a pinch of salt.
I dont wanna say you are a bad player in sc2, but...
APM doesnt messure skill. All it says is, that u can spam some buttons, usually way more than u would have to...
IT doesnt mean your micro/macro, strategy, your ability to see enemy tactics and counter them, scouting, skill of the enemys you beated, or the timing order or right place you spamm click those buttons etc. is good.
All it say is that u trained yourself clicking more often on buttons than the average player. (And only that tells me that you care about this game and you try to improve and win... so you might be a good sc player because you try to improve and not because you can click buttons fast - you cant tell me that all 3 actions per sec of your are efficient, i can do it too...)
Back to topic, multible commanders wont be used often but i see that it can be efficient sometimes, but more strategic depth? i doubt it.
<!--quoteo(post=1807232:date=Nov 19 2010, 10:23 PM:name=marks)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (marks @ Nov 19 2010, 10:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1807232"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just to rebut the "2 commanders gives the game more strategic depth" argument ... most competent comms in NS1 spent about 10% AT MOST of their time with mechanics such as dropping structures/weapons/upgrades. Maybe another 10% of the time was spent listening for alien RT noises in the fog of war. The remaining 80% of the commanders time was spent watching their marines and hovering the cursor over them with medpack selected.
I seriously doubt that there are enough actions required by a commander in NS2 that it cannot be done by 1 person.
That said I'm a relatively skilled SC2 player who averages around 150-200apm so probably take my argument with a pinch of salt.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You only need 60-100 APM. Remember Blizzard is retarded and hasn't fixed their UI. The numbers are 40% lower than reality when playing on quickest mode (which everyone anywhere always plays... rage).
You certainly have an omega huge correct point. The APM required will depend on A) how good the minimap is, B) how many individual structures must get built, C) how many individual units must get built, D) how much units must be micromanaged, and E) how easy all of this is simplified via hotkey capability.
Hopefully NS2 won't be like SC1 and require APM for stupid things like selecting each barracks at a time or using 5 control groups of zerglings (gag me). And hopefully UWE will listen if more hotkeys are needed or if hotkeys need more selecting power (like selecting every observatory, every command center, every MASC siege vehicle, et cetera with just one hotkey).
Also, SC2 is way, way, way more complicated than NS1 or NS2. So just being okay or relatively good means you know a lot about necessary APM.
Comments
I never said anything I have seen so far is better or worse because we are still in very early alpha and not all the game play elements are in yet and I upmost faith in UWE to release a fun game that also isn't just a next gen regurge of NS1 (re reading my original post it doesn't come across very well but if you hunt for my other posts it will) I was just stating that is does seem they are heading towards a more symmetrical approach to game mechanics with just differing game classes such as flayers own example of starcraft or the game which now appears to be resemble where NS2 is going which is Savage, both sides have a commander, the same res system with just different buildings and tech trees which is the direction where NS2 appears to be going right now.
I do agree that going for a more symmetrical approach does make it easier for balancing (and can actually be a really good thing, one of the games I am currently clocking the most hours up on is TF2 which can be as symmetrical as it gets.) also having asymmetrical sides where a dominant tactic can emerge where has no natural counter move or at least a something that is extremely hard to counter leads to cheap games or just very repetitive tactics, think start shotty rushes in NS1, flux rushes in Savage (which got so bad that commanders were 95% certain to get evicted were they to even try anything different) or OMGWTFZERGRUSH in starcraft, it's also worth noting here just how dependent late NS revisions became on the focus fade.
But that doesn't alter the fact that one of the gems that made NS so fantastic was just how different the sides were, they had different outlooks in terms of team organisation where the marines were completely dependent on the actions of one player their commander while the aliens were completely free to do what they wanted but had to work together as a hive mind.
Now we have marines who can do what they like to completely ignore the commander just benefiting from the team upgrades while purchasing their own equipment from their personal res pool while the aliens (and so far esp the gorgs) are tied into and have to work closely with their commander to ensure they have effective facilities in place.
I'm also interested in knowing how multiple commanders and griefing is going to be handled, someone ninjaing the 2nd comm chair and recycling the world. (this has also probably been discussed here at some point)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Here's a response liking the increased symmetry.
Reasons:
1:
Less alien players have to sacrifice their FPS game so everyone else can have a chance at winning. In NS1, three players must go alien builder or aliens lose. Full stop, nobody disagrees here. In NS2, 1 player must go alien builder. On this one instance, I am heavily in favor of NS2's single alien builder (because I think underproviding mandatory roles is safer than providing too many. 1 is too little, 3 is too much.).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I take it you play NS with the view that being a gorg is a chore not a tactical asset. I have to disagree and I am sure I am not the only NS player who actually enjoys going gorg wouldn't even go as far as saying it's a sacrifice to their FPS game and certainly not nearly as tied down as being a comm is!
I also disagree that it takes 3 players to succeed but that's entirely down to the map and how well the team is doing, again in most games you use tools to get a job done, in NS you BECOME the tool.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2:
I'm going to say it bluntly. NS1 has three castrated alien builders per game (a gorge can do ONE of the following: craft 1 chamber / 3 minutes, OR build 1 RT / 4 minutes, OR 1 hive / 4-6 minutes.). NS2 has one much more flexible, versatile, and powerful alien builder (They're building everything not a Hydra, every tech expansion, and researching every upgrade). There's more options more often and all the fun is condensed for one player. I know people are going to get burned because there's only alien builder per NS2 game. I know the one player who gets to be the alien builder will have more fun. On this one instance, I am barely in favor of NS2's single alien builder.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which has so far reduced the gorg to being a walking medpack. (I say so far as there's probably a master plan for them, at least I hope so)
Also makes setting up forward bases and healing stations very awkward unless gorg is working well with the commander, as mentioned above I disagree that gorgs are castrated players, but lets agree that they are not exactly combat players, well now you have to contend with gorges + commanders... I wouldn't say that's a plus for the equation with the evidence so far (but again we don't know how this is going to pan out when all the elements are in place)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->3:
Better balanced.
In NS1, the alien resource model is horribly inefficient. The NS1 marines are able to keep their cached resources below 100 (and are probably losing if they let the resources climb over 100 consistently). Load up NS1. Join the average 24 person server. Join Aliens. After five minutes, look at everyone's resources. Total them. Almost certainly over 100 resources not spent, very likely 200, probably 300-350, unlikely 400+. Because you can spend resources to get more resources later, continuously having 400 resources in the bank when the biggest possible expenditure is 75 is <i>terrrrrrribad</i>. On this one instance I am incredibly favoring NS2's single alien builder.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is apples and oranges down to what it costs to research and purchase the different things, they spent a long long time making sure the costs on both sides evened out, I've seen the marines win by getting a decent foothold, ecoing and then blowing 200res+ on HA+HMG+welders for all, likewise alien team with lots of fades who still had a good res reserve.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->4:
More capable of being balanced. We've discussed this, we know it's true.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed, when you have identical statistics on both sides, any changes will of course be mirrored.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Asymmetry definitely has its perks. If there's none, the game really only has one team to experience. If we had two teams before, that's at least half the content completely cut out of the game. This is something the community should definitely be worried about, and worried about a lot.
I think 3-4 pros balances out the 1-2 cons (I think there's 3 pros + 1 con + 1 neutral change, but that's my opinion). A little bit of symmetry is alright if it provides a lot of benefits. And too much asymmetry can exist, though I think NS1 had a good amount of asymmetry or even not enough! :D<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So yes, for practical reasons they have made it more symmetrical then NS1, parallel resource, tech trees and commanders, the liberation of marines and the encumberment of the arliens but until it's more fully formed and people are play testing a workable game I won't put an option forward as to if it's an improvement I am also still in two minds over if tying down marine bases to set locations with tech points is a good thing or not, there has been some very interesting relocation spots over the years (but also some deeply annoying ones, red room comes to mind :D
and yes, I do have a few concerns, I was concerned a long time ago that the engine change wouldn't be an easy thing and would probably delay matters, given the fall 09 thing it would be fair to say that has borne out. *HOWEVER* I never said it wasn't the best approach and having an engine that is specifically tailored to requirements is finally working out.
Currently I am concerned that the role of Gorge has been depreciated but there might be plans in place to reposition it a support class to assist the in the fight more and worry about laming up less.
and while I do have every faith in the guys to make a truly epic game I for one will lament the dropping idea of two entirely different hierarchies and I really hope that the game doesn't just drop into a handful of set tactics that work which is the fate that befell savage.
I wish my name was Carbon so I would have a great rebuttal to this.
When you look at it this way, the move to an alien comm isn't that drastic. NS2 is aspiring to have considerably more strategic depth than NS1. This alone really requires a dedicated comm player for both sides (and multiple comms in some situations). If you would rather have a strategically shallow game with mostly map-based tactics, there are lots of games that cater to this (including NS1 most of the time).
To create a more balanced hybrid of RTS/FPS there simply has to be a RTS player for each team. This is less asymmetrical than NS1, but that one change is unavoidable if you want more robust (and asymmetrical) tech trees for both teams.
I haven't seen any information about NS 2 that supports this claim.
Ya, nothing there seems to add to strategy options one iota.
Ya, nothing there seems to add to strategy options one iota.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure how you deducted increased strategic depth from that. Please guide me through your thought process.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_depth" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_depth</a>
If you want to define it as yomi or counter of counters layered on top of each other, it is difficult to know how that will play out in the end since so much balance is still in progress. These features have been revealed and will allow for many different strategies to unfold once fully implemented.
Maybe the idea that more RTS gameplay depth is pretty similar to "considerably more strategic depth than NS1" is just too crazy.
You start out by agreeing with me regarding the lack of premises to make your original conclusion. Then you end the paragraph by saying the opposite!
My work here is done, troll mobile away.
NS1 was only good because of how different each team operated, without that its just another shootan.
I loved my role within the hive mind. I don't want hierarchy there.
So, I'd like to agree with Align:<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Something I'd like to try is to keep the resource system but remove the alien commander (and the gorge gets to build everything instead); anything that would directly benefit the entire team costs carbon (that's the team resource, right?), so hives, RTs, and the 4 Chamber structures.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If someone else doesn't, I'll be making that into a server mod.
A clear example of ignoring that little voice inside your head
I seriously doubt that there are enough actions required by a commander in NS2 that it cannot be done by 1 person.
That said I'm a relatively skilled SC2 player who averages around 150-200apm so probably take my argument with a pinch of salt.
APM doesnt messure skill. All it says is, that u can spam some buttons, usually way more than u would have to...
IT doesnt mean your micro/macro, strategy, your ability to see enemy tactics and counter them, scouting, skill of the enemys you beated, or the timing order or right place you spamm click those buttons etc. is good.
All it say is that u trained yourself clicking more often on buttons than the average player. (And only that tells me that you care about this game and you try to improve and win... so you might be a good sc player because you try to improve and not because you can click buttons fast - you cant tell me that all 3 actions per sec of your are efficient, i can do it too...)
Back to topic, multible commanders wont be used often but i see that it can be efficient sometimes, but more strategic depth? i doubt it.
I seriously doubt that there are enough actions required by a commander in NS2 that it cannot be done by 1 person.
That said I'm a relatively skilled SC2 player who averages around 150-200apm so probably take my argument with a pinch of salt.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You only need 60-100 APM. Remember Blizzard is retarded and hasn't fixed their UI. The numbers are 40% lower than reality when playing on quickest mode (which everyone anywhere always plays... rage).
You certainly have an omega huge correct point. The APM required will depend on A) how good the minimap is, B) how many individual structures must get built, C) how many individual units must get built, D) how much units must be micromanaged, and E) how easy all of this is simplified via hotkey capability.
Hopefully NS2 won't be like SC1 and require APM for stupid things like selecting each barracks at a time or using 5 control groups of zerglings (gag me). And hopefully UWE will listen if more hotkeys are needed or if hotkeys need more selecting power (like selecting every observatory, every command center, every MASC siege vehicle, et cetera with just one hotkey).
Also, SC2 is way, way, way more complicated than NS1 or NS2. So just being okay or relatively good means you know a lot about necessary APM.