Immersion is only good for the first few hours until it becomes oh yea seen that....next game.
Gameplay is what keeps people coming back, and its what drives multi-player. I've seen plenty of nice looking games that flop, where as I still play NS as much as I play bfbc2
<!--quoteo(post=1838452:date=Mar 23 2011, 01:16 AM:name=Narcil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Narcil @ Mar 23 2011, 01:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838452"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Immersion is only good for the first few hours until it becomes oh yea seen that....next game.
Gameplay is what keeps people coming back, and its what drives multi-player. I've seen plenty of nice looking games that flop, where as I still play NS as much as I play bfbc2<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You make an excellent point here: immersion != gameplay. But, I ask, can we not have our cakes and eat them too?
<!--quoteo(post=1838446:date=Mar 23 2011, 04:35 AM:name=Clutch)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clutch @ Mar 23 2011, 04:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838446"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I just tested it. A running Marine is as fast as a Skulk is<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not true.
If you think about it, the marine sprinting is basically a different version of Bhopping. In NS1 Bhopping was used the most when you are: a) Rushing to the last base or b) running away from death. Sprinting does this anyway.
I wouldn't mind having Bhopping for the skulks as they could implement (If not already) so it looks fine if they Bhop. The speed of the skulks is too low at the moment anyway, skulks need an upgrade (Celerity).
And also, I can easily kill a marine that is sprinting away just by leaping at them and biting them in the back.
<!--quoteo(post=1838054:date=Mar 21 2011, 03:56 AM:name=KuBaN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KuBaN @ Mar 21 2011, 03:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838054"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In any successful competitive game, the determining factor is <b>skill</b>, however there are many kinds of skill. Ultimately the argument here is over the balance and importance of each skill. Just look at the range of competitive, skill-based games out there.
<b>First-person shooters</b> like Counter-Strike and Unreal Tournament emphasize <b>Technical Skill</b> above all else with their ultra-responsive movement and shooting mechanics and advanced techniques like bhopping. I like to call this Twitch-gaming, as the best players are determined by reaction time, reflexes, and coordination; they aren't required to be strategists.
<b>Turn-based</b> mind-games like Chess and Poker are at the other end of the spectrum, and emphasize <b>Intellectual Skill</b>. The most important skill you can possess is knowledge. Knowing your opponents moves before he does can effectively win you the game before the first move is ever made. The Japanese (apparently) call this <a href="http://"this%20<a%20href="http://www.sirlin.net/articles/yomi-layer-3-knowing-the-mind-of-the-opponent.html""%20target="_blank">http://www.sirlin.net/articles/yomi-layer-...nent.html"</a>" target="_blank">Yomi</a>. The best players do not require any physical/technical skill whatsoever; an amputee would best an octopus at Chess any day (get that picture in your head).
<b>Real-time strategy</b> games StarCraft and Street Fighter (yes, Street Fighter is technically an RTS) are highly competitive games with a mix of both technical skill and mental prowess. The best players benefit from having more information than their opponent (Valuation and Yomi), but also the technical wherewithal to execute their strategies effectively. You can know exactly what moves your opponent will attempt to make, but if you can't react fast enough to counter it, you're as good as dead. Inversely, landing the combination to fire a Hadouken every time is useless if you're opponent knows what you're doing and is smart enough to close the gap between you two.
These are all competitive games in their own right, and I wouldn't say that one has a vastly higher skill cap than the other, yet the type of skill required differs greatly. Clearly, <b>being a mix of FPS and RTS, a successful NS2 should aim for the middle</b>, providing a balance between the Technical skillset and Intellectual skillset lest they inhibit or fracture their player-base.
<b>Personally</b>, I prefer games that have an equal balance of Technical Skill and Intellectual Skill, ultimately because I do not believe in encouraging extremism. As someone's signature here posits, specialization (being the very best at only one aspect) hinders evolution/inhibits growth. Games that balance technical skill and intellectual skill bridge the gap between the two views and have the potential to attract a wider player base while weeding out the die-hardest of extremists/elitists that (regardless of their field of expertise) tend to be very arrogant, rigid, and close-minded, which is not what a community needs to grow.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Awesome post.
<!--quoteo(post=1838456:date=Mar 23 2011, 12:05 PM:name=Papayas)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Papayas @ Mar 23 2011, 12:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838456"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you think about it, the marine sprinting is basically a different version of Bhopping. In NS1 Bhopping was used the most when you are: a) Rushing to the last base or b) running away from death. Sprinting does this anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Please read the thread backwards, it is frankly annoying that not only you sproud nonsense but fail the context aswell. It hurts to see well thought-out arguments ignored.
If marine sprint would be viable option (in itself) nobody wouldnt even bother to complain.
If you want bunnyhopping, play a fast paced deathmatch game. That's where bunnyhopping should be.
NS is a blend of FPS and RTS, it's more about strategy, that's been emphasised with the new playmode of "tech points".
@Lazer specifically, I can bunny hop, I can "get it". I don't think you can "get" that some people may not want it. Like I said, I believe that style of movement and control is for fast paced action deathmatch games. It's where it originated from, unwanted movement code with a playerbase took a massive advantage from. It makes those sorts of games fun because everyone knows it's all about a -> b as soon as possible, kill, move as soon as, kill etc.
With the strategy base NS2 is taking, I don't see it being as fast paced as NS1 was, nor as fast paced as deathmatch games which well, that's where bunnyhopping certainly is best suited.
EDIT: I remember reading someone talking about clunk clunk clunk, yeah I agree, no one wants to hear that crap all through a game.
<!--quoteo(post=1838525:date=Mar 23 2011, 04:13 PM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Mar 23 2011, 04:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838525"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->With the strategy base NS2 is taking, I don't see it being as fast paced as NS1 was<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So when my structure is under attack, since it is ns2 I guess I won't try to get there as quickly as possible? I don't buy this one bit, with the addition of tech points and MORE for the other team to attack I don't see how it's going to slow down game play? You seem to want a slower game, not so much that it needs to be (other than the limits of the engine). And I still don't believe you get it. Majority of what I've been talking about is directly in regards to air control with bhop being mentioned since few people can seem to distinguish the two. Clunk clunk clunk is a bhop marine, have I said anywhere here I would like to see a bhop marine? No, I actually said the opposite.
And again, unwanted->unplanned. Unplanned is fact, unwanted is opinion, specifically yours and maybe shared with some, but definitely not everyone.
<!--quoteo(post=1838525:date=Mar 23 2011, 09:13 PM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Mar 23 2011, 09:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838525"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->strategy strategy strategy<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Remember, there's only 1 guy actually going full RTS during the game, the rest are all FPSing their way through.
<!--quoteo(post=1838540:date=Mar 23 2011, 02:37 PM:name=player)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (player @ Mar 23 2011, 02:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838540"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Remember, there's only 1 guy actually going full RTS during the game, the rest are all FPSing their way through.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bull.
I can name numerous examples where people won and lost games because the individuals were thinking strategically. Knowing the map, knowing where to hit and where to flee, spreading out versus concentrated force, and paying attention to your surroundings is what separates a "lol shooter" NS1 player from a "watch my team win" NS1 pro. NS2 is not deviating from that course.
I was talking in terms of movement-mechanics. High-speed FPS gameplay does not have to interfere at all with communicating with commanders\each other. This isn't team-deathmatch, and nobody is claiming it is.
<!--quoteo(post=1838054:date=Mar 20 2011, 02:56 PM:name=KuBaN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KuBaN @ Mar 20 2011, 02:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838054"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In any successful competitive game, the determining factor is <b>skill</b>, however there are many kinds of skill. Ultimately the argument here is over the balance and importance of each skill. Just look at the range of competitive, skill-based games out there.
<b>First-person shooters</b> like Counter-Strike and Unreal Tournament emphasize <b>Technical Skill</b> above all else with their ultra-responsive movement and shooting mechanics and advanced techniques like bhopping. I like to call this Twitch-gaming, as the best players are determined by reaction time, reflexes, and coordination; they aren't required to be strategists.
<b>Turn-based</b> mind-games like Chess and Poker are at the other end of the spectrum, and emphasize <b>Intellectual Skill</b>. The most important skill you can possess is knowledge. Knowing your opponents moves before he does can effectively win you the game before the first move is ever made. The Japanese (apparently) call this <a href="http://"this%20<a%20href="http://www.sirlin.net/articles/yomi-layer-3-knowing-the-mind-of-the-opponent.html""%20target="_blank">http://www.sirlin.net/articles/yomi-layer-...nent.html"</a>" target="_blank">Yomi</a>. The best players do not require any physical/technical skill whatsoever; an amputee would best an octopus at Chess any day (get that picture in your head).
<b>Real-time strategy</b> games StarCraft and Street Fighter (yes, Street Fighter is technically an RTS) are highly competitive games with a mix of both technical skill and mental prowess. The best players benefit from having more information than their opponent (Valuation and Yomi), but also the technical wherewithal to execute their strategies effectively. You can know exactly what moves your opponent will attempt to make, but if you can't react fast enough to counter it, you're as good as dead. Inversely, landing the combination to fire a Hadouken every time is useless if you're opponent knows what you're doing and is smart enough to close the gap between you two.
These are all competitive games in their own right, and I wouldn't say that one has a vastly higher skill cap than the other, yet the type of skill required differs greatly. Clearly, <b>being a mix of FPS and RTS, a successful NS2 should aim for the middle</b>, providing a balance between the Technical skillset and Intellectual skillset lest they inhibit or fracture their player-base.
<b>Personally</b>, I prefer games that have an equal balance of Technical Skill and Intellectual Skill, ultimately because I do not believe in encouraging extremism. As someone's signature here posits, specialization (being the very best at only one aspect) hinders evolution/inhibits growth. Games that balance technical skill and intellectual skill bridge the gap between the two views and have the potential to attract a wider player base while weeding out the die-hardest of extremists/elitists that (regardless of their field of expertise) tend to be very arrogant, rigid, and close-minded, which is not what a community needs to grow.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, but what does that mean practically? At the moment marines are neither technically, nor intellectually, challenged a lot. The addition of the mac-bots didn't help either in this regard (building something and surviving while doing so was a minigame in and of itself). A whole different story with skulks. If they get a bit of a buff in their running-speed, they'll be well covered movement-wise and strategy-wise.
<!--quoteo(post=1838559:date=Mar 23 2011, 06:15 PM:name=player)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (player @ Mar 23 2011, 06:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838559"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Okay, but what does that mean practically? At the moment marines are neither technically, nor intellectually, challenged a lot. The addition of the mac-bots didn't help either in this regard (building something and surviving while doing so was a minigame in and of itself). A whole different story with skulks. If they get a bit of a buff in their running-speed, they'll be well covered movement-wise and strategy-wise.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i don't think we can force ns2 into a box yet, it's not feature complete.
i wouldn't be surprised to see a stamina bar, welders, mines, and maybe a hand grenade implemented.
aliens still have many buffs coming for tier 1 and 2 even before onos gameplay, so we can't really judge them either.
Yes, they are almost excactly the same speed. Go look up the lua code. Their speed is within 3% of each-other. For all intents and purposes, a Marine is as fast as a Skulk.
<!--quoteo(post=1838559:date=Mar 23 2011, 07:15 PM:name=player)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (player @ Mar 23 2011, 07:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838559"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Okay, but what does that mean practically? At the moment marines are neither technically, nor intellectually, challenged a lot. The addition of the mac-bots didn't help either in this regard (building something and surviving while doing so was a minigame in and of itself). A whole different story with skulks. If they get a bit of a buff in their running-speed, they'll be well covered movement-wise and strategy-wise.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Practically, I was hoping it would provide an objective foundation that most of us here can agree on so that we can all come at this problem from the same angle (is bhopping right for NS2 vs. does bhopping suck), regardless of our individual opinions on the matter.
But like Tig (and others) have said, this game isn't feature complete, and I think all of us (even me) overlook that far too often when we try to suggest what should or shouldn't be. We lack the foresight that the developers possess. We have no idea what else they're planning to include and/or tweak, which would undoubtedly affect anyone's (objective) opinion on the inclusion of bhopping. We're all making suggestions based off of little more than what we've seen in previous games and what we see in the current build. We're on the outside looking in, and we do not know what the dev's intend. I guess that was the indirect point of my post.
As impractical as my statement was, I think it's about as far as anyone can go without presuming to know more than we do.
I think SC2 pointed out some issues on how the reduced mechanical challenge leads into a new set of issues rather than a directly richer strategical gameplay.
Basically the problems are that <ul>* People aren't very strategically creative by average * With very small margins on mechanical execution, you haven't got much room to be creative against your uncreative opponent.</li></ul> In practise this means that your opponent is going 4 gate rush you a lot and you're going to spend a lot of time honing the same defence build over and over again until it's optimized enough to hold the 4 gate. You simply need X amounts of units at moment Y and the margin allowed in unit counts is very small.
There are a lot of small strategical details in the play and there's more than enough depth in SC2, but there's also a relatively long problematic period where you're not familiar enough with the game to feel you're having a rewarding strategical experience and yet the game is already pushing you to optimize your builds through repetition and small details.
I think it took me a couple of hundred games to get good enough grasp of the game to actually start feeling I'm having a strategical dialogue in the game instead of sort of gambling blind or simply trying to have a solid enough early game to have enough of unit X to survive in case the opponent maybe might be doing predefined opening Y.
tl;dr: Smaller margins in mechanical skill don't directly lead to a strategically richer game. Oftentimes there's just less room to play your own style and smaller hoops you have to go through before you can have your actually dynamic and interesting strategical play.
Edit: And I guess having smaller hoops to go through means that also the skill has less significance, but when the skill is roughly equal it also ends up setting quite a lot of limits to the strategy. Instead of designing a strategy that favours your strengths and preferrences you're just forced to go more along the general strategy line a lot of the time. Also, the lower skill significance is in no way replacement for poor strategical design, there are a lot of things that can overrule strategical awarness.
<!--quoteo(post=1838579:date=Mar 24 2011, 03:40 AM:name=KuBaN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KuBaN @ Mar 24 2011, 03:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838579"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But like Tig (and others) have said, this game isn't feature complete, and I think all of us (even me) overlook that far too often when we try to suggest what should or shouldn't be. We lack the foresight that the developers possess. We have no idea what else they're planning to include and/or tweak, which would undoubtedly affect anyone's (objective) opinion on the inclusion of bhopping. We're all making suggestions based off of little more than what we've seen in previous games and what we see in the current build. We're on the outside looking in, and we do not know what the dev's intend. I guess that was the indirect point of my post.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The question is do the devs themselfs know which direction they want to go, so far it's been pretty vague. Which is probably why people want to have their say now, rather then when the game is feature complete (and the likelyhood of fundamental changes decreases significantly).
Also, for the folks who posit that upgrades will alleviate this problem (things akin to stim-packs and celerity), I'd just like to repeat what I said elsewhere, namely that upgrade-paths should never be fixed or forced in any which direction. Right now leap is essentially a must for skulks to be useful against SGs. Now with skulks you could argue that it can be a choice in the future between leap and celerity, but the point stands. And I'd rather have skulks and marines be a little bit faster from the get-go, rather than having to upgrade my way to pleasant mechanical-gameplay first.
<!--quoteo(post=1838640:date=Mar 24 2011, 09:25 AM:name=player)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (player @ Mar 24 2011, 09:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838640"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The question is do the devs themselfs know which direction they want to go, so far it's been pretty vague. Which is probably why people want to have their say now, rather then when the game is feature complete (and the likelyhood of fundamental changes decreases significantly).
Also, for the folks who posit that upgrades will alleviate this problem (things akin to stim-packs and celerity), I'd just like to repeat what I said elsewhere, namely that upgrade-paths should never be fixed or forced in any which direction. Right now leap is essentially a must for skulks to be useful against SGs. Now with skulks you could argue that it can be a choice in the future between leap and celerity, but the point stands. And I'd rather have skulks and marines be a little bit faster from the get-go, rather than having to upgrade my way to pleasant mechanical-gameplay first.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
good point, but i equate skulk leap to shotgun. even look at it in ns1. you needed a second hive for leap and you needed to research shotguns, i'm looking at it from a purely cost standpoint.
alien comm has to choose to research leap after tier 2. marine comm has to choose shotguns. would the alien comm choose to upgrade leap if the rines didn't have shotties yet?
i agree with you the upgrade paths shouldn't be forced. but right now i view it as forced on the alien side: rines get shotties, i should get leap. i stand by my statement in another thread that leap should be a tier one upgrade that costs as much as the shotgun.
but still, we're not feature complete, so we don't know how shade cloaking will work out, and we don't know what the passive shift ability is (do we?) so who knows, maybe we will get options.
i think that diverse upgrade paths will return when aliens get more abilities. it seems that the marine upgrade paths are pretty similar to ns1 gameplay, however, aliens upgrade paths have been unhitched from hives and that's a huge gameplay change. will you still need to choose between shifts and shades and crags/whips, or will it be a forced: build whip, build crag, build shade, build shift.
too early to tell, maybe things are where they are now in the tier structure due to an attempt at balance before feature completion.
<!--quoteo(post=1838601:date=Mar 24 2011, 04:49 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Mar 24 2011, 04:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838601"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In practise this means that your opponent is going 4 gate rush you a lot and you're going to spend a lot of time honing the same defence build over and over again until it's optimized enough to hold the 4 gate. You simply need X amounts of units at moment Y and the margin allowed in unit counts is very small.
There are a lot of small strategical details in the play and there's more than enough depth in SC2, but there's also a relatively long problematic period where you're not familiar enough with the game to feel you're having a rewarding strategical experience and yet the game is already pushing you to optimize your builds through repetition and small details.
I think it took me a couple of hundred games to get good enough grasp of the game to actually start feeling I'm having a strategical dialogue in the game instead of sort of gambling blind or simply trying to have a solid enough early game to have enough of unit X to survive in case the opponent maybe might be doing predefined opening Y.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is due to a large difference in player skill. A new player coming in to the game is going to have a very difficult time holding his own against an experienced player, simply because player skill has such a large effect on the game, even if that "skill" is understanding the optimum path to a certain strategy. Just like a fighting game, when you just start, you spend most of the time learning your character and the controls. Once you get past that curve, the game becomes about Yomi, Technical Skill, and Strategy and is extremely enjoyable. Now you may say you don't want to have to work to have fun in a game, but you have to in any competitive game, because that's what competitive games are about.
<!--quoteo(post=1838607:date=Mar 24 2011, 07:57 PM:name=Papayas)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Papayas @ Mar 24 2011, 07:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838607"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you turn and sprint away from me then you are already going to die (If I am a skulk).
I will just leap at your back and bite it. Often a kill because people run away when they have low hp.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not always true... I have seen few marines squad manoeuvres more lethal than pushing into a room then leap-frog retreating. One marine turns and sprints, presenting an attractive target. The other marines mow down the bee-lining skulks.
Sure, if I'm alone and turn around, then yes, I deserve to die.
douchebagatronCustom member titleJoin Date: 2003-12-20Member: 24581Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
I think the big reason why it feels so wrong is that when you're pressing back your total speed is reduced, not your backwards speed, so if you're moving back and to the right, your total speed is reduced to 40%, where what should happen is your backwards vector is reduced to 40% and your total speed should be something like 70%
And bunnyhopping was a seperate aspect from the RTS aspects of the game. While it made more interesting strategy trees (you didn't have to balance early game with leap or something like that), the main impact was FPS because it made FPS much more fun and challenging.
The shotgun-leap problems etc. are just fallout from breaking a working formula.
Also regarding skill. A good game scales with skill, indeed this is why Starcraft is such a great game, the skill difference between a newcomer and a pro is just massive. A game that does not scale with skill is skill-limited. NS1 also scaled a lot with skill, it took a lot of practice to be able to match the best players.
<!--quoteo(post=1838452:date=Mar 23 2011, 10:16 AM:name=Narcil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Narcil @ Mar 23 2011, 10:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838452"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Immersion is only good for the first few hours until it becomes oh yea seen that....next game.
Gameplay is what keeps people coming back, and its what drives multi-player. I've seen plenty of nice looking games that flop, where as I still play NS as much as I play bfbc2<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly. So many of these games. Recent alien vs predator 2010 had all the immersion (motion blur ooh yeaah) but the gameplay was just plain horrible. These people who are suggesting same ideas would end up the game in the same "flop of the year" category as AVP2010 did.
<!--QuoteBegin-Whoever+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Whoever)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I can name numerous examples where people won and lost games because the individuals were thinking strategically. Knowing the map, knowing where to hit and where to flee, spreading out versus concentrated force, and paying attention to your surroundings is what separates a "lol shooter" NS1 player from a "watch my team win" NS1 pro. NS2 is not deviating from that course.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm sorry but while RTS element make the FPS game much more interesting, its not enough by itself. In mathematical terms, RTS aspect is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Marine game mechanics, bhop, responsiveness, weapon spread, hitreg affect the FPS enjoyability equally.
And unlike Thaldarin is saying, RTS and FPS aspects, while they are sometimes mutually exclusive, they can both get much faster and better without crippling each other. This was the case in NS1.
<!--quoteo(post=1857007:date=Jun 28 2011, 08:34 PM:name=Jiriki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jiriki @ Jun 28 2011, 08:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857007"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This thread is full of bad analysis and ideas.
These people who are suggesting same ideas would end up the game in the same "flop of the year" category as AVP2010 did.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This thread is full of unsubstantiated claims, and yours is no better just because it's stated matter-of-factly.
Also, attacking the individuals making the claims instead of invalidating the claims themselves does not make you look intelligent. In fact...
My thread just doesn't want to die... every few months it comes back to page one - with some random guy posting how false everyone else is. :)
PS: To post something on topic. Backwards slow feels wrong, because there was no other FPS game in <b>ages</b> that did it like this* - ppl get used to stuff. Ppl complain if this stuff gets limited, removed or changed in an uncommon way.
Whatever, you can get used to it(ppl can get used to everything, no matter if its good or bad) but it definitely feels strange at first.
* edit: or at least ns2 is the only game i felt this more.
Come on, it is a game feature, like full 3d was in Doom. Not directly comparable, but still. It's a feature. Adadpt, overcome, don't be a whiner. Sheesh.
Comments
Gameplay is what keeps people coming back, and its what drives multi-player. I've seen plenty of nice looking games that flop, where as I still play NS as much as I play bfbc2
Gameplay is what keeps people coming back, and its what drives multi-player. I've seen plenty of nice looking games that flop, where as I still play NS as much as I play bfbc2<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You make an excellent point here: immersion != gameplay. But, I ask, can we not have our cakes and eat them too?
Not true.
If you think about it, the marine sprinting is basically a different version of Bhopping. In NS1 Bhopping was used the most when you are: a) Rushing to the last base or b) running away from death. Sprinting does this anyway.
I wouldn't mind having Bhopping for the skulks as they could implement (If not already) so it looks fine if they Bhop. The speed of the skulks is too low at the moment anyway, skulks need an upgrade (Celerity).
And also, I can easily kill a marine that is sprinting away just by leaping at them and biting them in the back.
<b>First-person shooters</b> like Counter-Strike and Unreal Tournament emphasize <b>Technical Skill</b> above all else with their ultra-responsive movement and shooting mechanics and advanced techniques like bhopping. I like to call this Twitch-gaming, as the best players are determined by reaction time, reflexes, and coordination; they aren't required to be strategists.
<b>Turn-based</b> mind-games like Chess and Poker are at the other end of the spectrum, and emphasize <b>Intellectual Skill</b>. The most important skill you can possess is knowledge. Knowing your opponents moves before he does can effectively win you the game before the first move is ever made. The Japanese (apparently) call this <a href="http://"this%20<a%20href="http://www.sirlin.net/articles/yomi-layer-3-knowing-the-mind-of-the-opponent.html""%20target="_blank">http://www.sirlin.net/articles/yomi-layer-...nent.html"</a>" target="_blank">Yomi</a>. The best players do not require any physical/technical skill whatsoever; an amputee would best an octopus at Chess any day (get that picture in your head).
<b>Real-time strategy</b> games StarCraft and Street Fighter (yes, Street Fighter is technically an RTS) are highly competitive games with a mix of both technical skill and mental prowess. The best players benefit from having more information than their opponent (Valuation and Yomi), but also the technical wherewithal to execute their strategies effectively. You can know exactly what moves your opponent will attempt to make, but if you can't react fast enough to counter it, you're as good as dead. Inversely, landing the combination to fire a Hadouken every time is useless if you're opponent knows what you're doing and is smart enough to close the gap between you two.
These are all competitive games in their own right, and I wouldn't say that one has a vastly higher skill cap than the other, yet the type of skill required differs greatly. Clearly, <b>being a mix of FPS and RTS, a successful NS2 should aim for the middle</b>, providing a balance between the Technical skillset and Intellectual skillset lest they inhibit or fracture their player-base.
<b>Personally</b>, I prefer games that have an equal balance of Technical Skill and Intellectual Skill, ultimately because I do not believe in encouraging extremism. As someone's signature here posits, specialization (being the very best at only one aspect) hinders evolution/inhibits growth. Games that balance technical skill and intellectual skill bridge the gap between the two views and have the potential to attract a wider player base while weeding out the die-hardest of extremists/elitists that (regardless of their field of expertise) tend to be very arrogant, rigid, and close-minded, which is not what a community needs to grow.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Awesome post.
Also, <b>by-product</b>.
Please read the thread backwards, it is frankly annoying that not only you sproud nonsense but fail the context aswell. It hurts to see well thought-out arguments ignored.
If marine sprint would be viable option (in itself) nobody wouldnt even bother to complain.
NS is a blend of FPS and RTS, it's more about strategy, that's been emphasised with the new playmode of "tech points".
@Lazer specifically, I can bunny hop, I can "get it". I don't think you can "get" that some people may not want it. Like I said, I believe that style of movement and control is for fast paced action deathmatch games. It's where it originated from, unwanted movement code with a playerbase took a massive advantage from. It makes those sorts of games fun because everyone knows it's all about a -> b as soon as possible, kill, move as soon as, kill etc.
With the strategy base NS2 is taking, I don't see it being as fast paced as NS1 was, nor as fast paced as deathmatch games which well, that's where bunnyhopping certainly is best suited.
EDIT: I remember reading someone talking about clunk clunk clunk, yeah I agree, no one wants to hear that crap all through a game.
So when my structure is under attack, since it is ns2 I guess I won't try to get there as quickly as possible? I don't buy this one bit, with the addition of tech points and MORE for the other team to attack I don't see how it's going to slow down game play? You seem to want a slower game, not so much that it needs to be (other than the limits of the engine). And I still don't believe you get it. Majority of what I've been talking about is directly in regards to air control with bhop being mentioned since few people can seem to distinguish the two. Clunk clunk clunk is a bhop marine, have I said anywhere here I would like to see a bhop marine? No, I actually said the opposite.
And again, unwanted->unplanned. Unplanned is fact, unwanted is opinion, specifically yours and maybe shared with some, but definitely not everyone.
Remember, there's only 1 guy actually going full RTS during the game, the rest are all FPSing their way through.
Bull.
I can name numerous examples where people won and lost games because the individuals were thinking strategically. Knowing the map, knowing where to hit and where to flee, spreading out versus concentrated force, and paying attention to your surroundings is what separates a "lol shooter" NS1 player from a "watch my team win" NS1 pro. NS2 is not deviating from that course.
<b>First-person shooters</b> like Counter-Strike and Unreal Tournament emphasize <b>Technical Skill</b> above all else with their ultra-responsive movement and shooting mechanics and advanced techniques like bhopping. I like to call this Twitch-gaming, as the best players are determined by reaction time, reflexes, and coordination; they aren't required to be strategists.
<b>Turn-based</b> mind-games like Chess and Poker are at the other end of the spectrum, and emphasize <b>Intellectual Skill</b>. The most important skill you can possess is knowledge. Knowing your opponents moves before he does can effectively win you the game before the first move is ever made. The Japanese (apparently) call this <a href="http://"this%20<a%20href="http://www.sirlin.net/articles/yomi-layer-3-knowing-the-mind-of-the-opponent.html""%20target="_blank">http://www.sirlin.net/articles/yomi-layer-...nent.html"</a>" target="_blank">Yomi</a>. The best players do not require any physical/technical skill whatsoever; an amputee would best an octopus at Chess any day (get that picture in your head).
<b>Real-time strategy</b> games StarCraft and Street Fighter (yes, Street Fighter is technically an RTS) are highly competitive games with a mix of both technical skill and mental prowess. The best players benefit from having more information than their opponent (Valuation and Yomi), but also the technical wherewithal to execute their strategies effectively. You can know exactly what moves your opponent will attempt to make, but if you can't react fast enough to counter it, you're as good as dead. Inversely, landing the combination to fire a Hadouken every time is useless if you're opponent knows what you're doing and is smart enough to close the gap between you two.
These are all competitive games in their own right, and I wouldn't say that one has a vastly higher skill cap than the other, yet the type of skill required differs greatly. Clearly, <b>being a mix of FPS and RTS, a successful NS2 should aim for the middle</b>, providing a balance between the Technical skillset and Intellectual skillset lest they inhibit or fracture their player-base.
<b>Personally</b>, I prefer games that have an equal balance of Technical Skill and Intellectual Skill, ultimately because I do not believe in encouraging extremism. As someone's signature here posits, specialization (being the very best at only one aspect) hinders evolution/inhibits growth. Games that balance technical skill and intellectual skill bridge the gap between the two views and have the potential to attract a wider player base while weeding out the die-hardest of extremists/elitists that (regardless of their field of expertise) tend to be very arrogant, rigid, and close-minded, which is not what a community needs to grow.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
like
i don't think we can force ns2 into a box yet, it's not feature complete.
i wouldn't be surprised to see a stamina bar, welders, mines, and maybe a hand grenade implemented.
aliens still have many buffs coming for tier 1 and 2 even before onos gameplay, so we can't really judge them either.
Yes, they are almost excactly the same speed. Go look up the lua code. Their speed is within 3% of each-other. For all intents and purposes, a Marine is as fast as a Skulk.
Practically, I was hoping it would provide an objective foundation that most of us here can agree on so that we can all come at this problem from the same angle (is bhopping right for NS2 vs. does bhopping suck), regardless of our individual opinions on the matter.
But like Tig (and others) have said, this game isn't feature complete, and I think all of us (even me) overlook that far too often when we try to suggest what should or shouldn't be. We lack the foresight that the developers possess. We have no idea what else they're planning to include and/or tweak, which would undoubtedly affect anyone's (objective) opinion on the inclusion of bhopping. We're all making suggestions based off of little more than what we've seen in previous games and what we see in the current build. We're on the outside looking in, and we do not know what the dev's intend. I guess that was the indirect point of my post.
As impractical as my statement was, I think it's about as far as anyone can go without presuming to know more than we do.
Basically the problems are that
<ul>* People aren't very strategically creative by average
* With very small margins on mechanical execution, you haven't got much room to be creative against your uncreative opponent.</li></ul>
In practise this means that your opponent is going 4 gate rush you a lot and you're going to spend a lot of time honing the same defence build over and over again until it's optimized enough to hold the 4 gate. You simply need X amounts of units at moment Y and the margin allowed in unit counts is very small.
There are a lot of small strategical details in the play and there's more than enough depth in SC2, but there's also a relatively long problematic period where you're not familiar enough with the game to feel you're having a rewarding strategical experience and yet the game is already pushing you to optimize your builds through repetition and small details.
I think it took me a couple of hundred games to get good enough grasp of the game to actually start feeling I'm having a strategical dialogue in the game instead of sort of gambling blind or simply trying to have a solid enough early game to have enough of unit X to survive in case the opponent maybe might be doing predefined opening Y.
tl;dr: Smaller margins in mechanical skill don't directly lead to a strategically richer game. Oftentimes there's just less room to play your own style and smaller hoops you have to go through before you can have your actually dynamic and interesting strategical play.
Edit: And I guess having smaller hoops to go through means that also the skill has less significance, but when the skill is roughly equal it also ends up setting quite a lot of limits to the strategy. Instead of designing a strategy that favours your strengths and preferrences you're just forced to go more along the general strategy line a lot of the time. Also, the lower skill significance is in no way replacement for poor strategical design, there are a lot of things that can overrule strategical awarness.
I will just leap at your back and bite it. Often a kill because people run away when they have low hp.
60% might be a good idea.
The question is do the devs themselfs know which direction they want to go, so far it's been pretty vague. Which is probably why people want to have their say now, rather then when the game is feature complete (and the likelyhood of fundamental changes decreases significantly).
Also, for the folks who posit that upgrades will alleviate this problem (things akin to stim-packs and celerity), I'd just like to repeat what I said elsewhere, namely that upgrade-paths should never be fixed or forced in any which direction. Right now leap is essentially a must for skulks to be useful against SGs. Now with skulks you could argue that it can be a choice in the future between leap and celerity, but the point stands. And I'd rather have skulks and marines be a little bit faster from the get-go, rather than having to upgrade my way to pleasant mechanical-gameplay first.
Also, for the folks who posit that upgrades will alleviate this problem (things akin to stim-packs and celerity), I'd just like to repeat what I said elsewhere, namely that upgrade-paths should never be fixed or forced in any which direction. Right now leap is essentially a must for skulks to be useful against SGs. Now with skulks you could argue that it can be a choice in the future between leap and celerity, but the point stands. And I'd rather have skulks and marines be a little bit faster from the get-go, rather than having to upgrade my way to pleasant mechanical-gameplay first.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
good point, but i equate skulk leap to shotgun. even look at it in ns1. you needed a second hive for leap and you needed to research shotguns, i'm looking at it from a purely cost standpoint.
alien comm has to choose to research leap after tier 2. marine comm has to choose shotguns. would the alien comm choose to upgrade leap if the rines didn't have shotties yet?
i agree with you the upgrade paths shouldn't be forced. but right now i view it as forced on the alien side: rines get shotties, i should get leap. i stand by my statement in another thread that leap should be a tier one upgrade that costs as much as the shotgun.
but still, we're not feature complete, so we don't know how shade cloaking will work out, and we don't know what the passive shift ability is (do we?) so who knows, maybe we will get options.
i think that diverse upgrade paths will return when aliens get more abilities. it seems that the marine upgrade paths are pretty similar to ns1 gameplay, however, aliens upgrade paths have been unhitched from hives and that's a huge gameplay change. will you still need to choose between shifts and shades and crags/whips, or will it be a forced: build whip, build crag, build shade, build shift.
too early to tell, maybe things are where they are now in the tier structure due to an attempt at balance before feature completion.
There are a lot of small strategical details in the play and there's more than enough depth in SC2, but there's also a relatively long problematic period where you're not familiar enough with the game to feel you're having a rewarding strategical experience and yet the game is already pushing you to optimize your builds through repetition and small details.
I think it took me a couple of hundred games to get good enough grasp of the game to actually start feeling I'm having a strategical dialogue in the game instead of sort of gambling blind or simply trying to have a solid enough early game to have enough of unit X to survive in case the opponent maybe might be doing predefined opening Y.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is due to a large difference in player skill. A new player coming in to the game is going to have a very difficult time holding his own against an experienced player, simply because player skill has such a large effect on the game, even if that "skill" is understanding the optimum path to a certain strategy. Just like a fighting game, when you just start, you spend most of the time learning your character and the controls. Once you get past that curve, the game becomes about Yomi, Technical Skill, and Strategy and is extremely enjoyable. Now you may say you don't want to have to work to have fun in a game, but you have to in any competitive game, because that's what competitive games are about.
I will just leap at your back and bite it. Often a kill because people run away when they have low hp.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not always true... I have seen few marines squad manoeuvres more lethal than pushing into a room then leap-frog retreating. One marine turns and sprints, presenting an attractive target. The other marines mow down the bee-lining skulks.
Sure, if I'm alone and turn around, then yes, I deserve to die.
And bunnyhopping was a seperate aspect from the RTS aspects of the game. While it made more interesting strategy trees (you didn't have to balance early game with leap or something like that), the main impact was FPS because it made FPS much more fun and challenging.
The shotgun-leap problems etc. are just fallout from breaking a working formula.
Also regarding skill. A good game scales with skill, indeed this is why Starcraft is such a great game, the skill difference between a newcomer and a pro is just massive. A game that does not scale with skill is skill-limited. NS1 also scaled a lot with skill, it took a lot of practice to be able to match the best players.
<!--quoteo(post=1838452:date=Mar 23 2011, 10:16 AM:name=Narcil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Narcil @ Mar 23 2011, 10:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838452"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Immersion is only good for the first few hours until it becomes oh yea seen that....next game.
Gameplay is what keeps people coming back, and its what drives multi-player. I've seen plenty of nice looking games that flop, where as I still play NS as much as I play bfbc2<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly. So many of these games. Recent alien vs predator 2010 had all the immersion (motion blur ooh yeaah) but the gameplay was just plain horrible. These people who are suggesting same ideas would end up the game in the same "flop of the year" category as AVP2010 did.
<!--QuoteBegin-Whoever+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Whoever)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I can name numerous examples where people won and lost games because the individuals were thinking strategically. Knowing the map, knowing where to hit and where to flee, spreading out versus concentrated force, and paying attention to your surroundings is what separates a "lol shooter" NS1 player from a "watch my team win" NS1 pro. NS2 is not deviating from that course.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry but while RTS element make the FPS game much more interesting, its not enough by itself. In mathematical terms, RTS aspect is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Marine game mechanics, bhop, responsiveness, weapon spread, hitreg affect the FPS enjoyability equally.
And unlike Thaldarin is saying, RTS and FPS aspects, while they are sometimes mutually exclusive, they can both get much faster and better without crippling each other. This was the case in NS1.
These people who are suggesting same ideas would end up the game in the same "flop of the year" category as AVP2010 did.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This thread is full of unsubstantiated claims, and yours is no better just because it's stated matter-of-factly.
Also, attacking the individuals making the claims instead of invalidating the claims themselves does not make you look intelligent. In fact...
PS: To post something on topic. Backwards slow feels wrong, because there was no other FPS game in <b>ages</b> that did it like this* - ppl get used to stuff. Ppl complain if this stuff gets limited, removed or changed in an uncommon way.
Whatever, you can get used to it(ppl can get used to everything, no matter if its good or bad) but it definitely feels strange at first.
* edit: or at least ns2 is the only game i felt this more.
I want all gorges to be able to bunnyhop.
and everyone else can't jump at all.
well turrets sometimes.
and a scorpion that hovars...
Come on, it is a game feature, like full 3d was in Doom. Not directly comparable, but still. It's a feature. Adadpt, overcome, don't be a whiner. Sheesh.