<!--quoteo(post=1838637:date=Mar 24 2011, 10:15 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Mar 24 2011, 10:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838637"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I didn't really understand this. I was saying that Jetpacks are a counter to Onos, and could be considered a hard counter because the Onos doesn't have any options against the jetpacker but to take damage or flee. And because I was advocating no-hard-counters, I was considering whether or not this was a problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Apologies. A "hard counter" in my mind is one where there is a clear winner and a clear loser of the battle. A Shotgun is currently a "hard counter" to a skulk in that it almost always KILLS the skulk, leaving the Shotgunner at an advantage, in that he's alive while the Skulk is dead.
In the case of the Onos vs. Jetpacker, the Onos has no way to get to the Jetpacker, but has the survivability to run away in most cases. Since this battle would essentially end in a stand-off or stalemate, I don't consider it a hard counter, since neither team takes a loss in that scenario. Therefore I consider it acceptable.
<!--quoteo(post=1838637:date=Mar 24 2011, 07:15 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Mar 24 2011, 07:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838637"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->spellman: Much of our argument is <b>against</b> these exact hard counters you've described, though. It isn't really fun where, if you're scissors and you run into a rock, your only real option is to flee or die... Also, the rifle is one of the very small assortment of weapons in the game, what else do you have? Flamethrower (useless) and shotgun. In fact, because it is so abundant, it should be possibly considered even more in the overall scheme of balancing. Taking traditional RTS approaches like greater cost, or higher technolgy means better killing ability; or rock-paper scissors mechanics, doesn't work well (read: isn't fun) for the players on the field. However, that's not to say remove them entirely; having those RTS-style mechanics apply only to the RTS aspect of the game (structures, AI units, expansion, harassment, conquest) can work.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, wasn't advocating that the LMG become redundant at tier3 or hard countered. Just that for a cost you can cover its role.
If your team is so res starved most of the team has LMGs while the enemy can afford Fade and Onos, you've lost and should lose. Or, you have to save and survive and suddenly the whole team can fight back with better weaponry. That's a moreorless natural thing of NS. So, it becomes a res+tech cost problem in my eyes. You need both the tech and the resources to pump out superior firepower. LMGs should and will scale slightly due to tech upgrades, but with investment there are better choices. Similarly, Skulks should scale in the same way. Sure they are the backbone of normalcy, but for more specific roles you have to invest in higher lifeforms. And with the right combination of higher lifeforms, you outclass the power of a squad of Skulks.
NS2 is doing a good job of keeping both the Skulk and LMG relevant later in the game by giving more add-ons for them to stay competitive. And this is good. Small investment to keep your basic unit not worthless. However, if you can afford it, a large investment should have a large return and a coordinated combination of investments should be greater than the sum of its parts, thereby "covering" the role of the original LMG.
@KuBaN: That's fine, I came to much the same conclusion. I called it a semi-hard counter, because although one side does not immediately destroy the other, there is still no real competition between either side so it isn't a soft counter.
@spellman23: The thing is, it's an issue about finding the right balance between an RTS and FPS. I'm advocating that the game should shift more towards the FPS side, because the majority of the game experience is an FPS. I say that competition between a group of players on the field in a confrontation should <b>primarily</b> depend on their FPS prowess, rather than which team has more resources, or better tech, or is simply in an imbalanced match-up (hard counters). Having said that, I do think tier upgrades should provide some combat benefit - as I've shown with my Tier 2 = Combat Effectiveness theory. However, that doesn't mean one player should be completely ineffectual against another, a la the current Rifle versus the current Fade. You instead support a more RTS-prominent game, by allowing the ideas that Greater Cost = Better, and Greater Tech = Better, and Rock = Better than Scissors: <b>against other players</b>, i.e. "unit" vs "unit". Basically, it is my opinion that player vs player competition, not team vs team competition, should be the primary balance in player vs player confrontations.
<!--quoteo(post=1838958:date=Mar 27 2011, 09:09 AM:name=twiliteblue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (twiliteblue @ Mar 27 2011, 09:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838958"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the Rifle's usefulness lategame can be improved by adding an <b>upgrade that increases its clip size or its reload speed</b>. The Rifle deals respectable DPS, but empties clips too quickly while shooting air, against fast moving targets.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It should become easier to hit fast-moving targets as game performance increases, making your bullets more useful, and likely emptying less quickly. Also, I'm sure the rifles lategame usefulness will be improved once Jetpacks and Exosuits are implemented. <!--quoteo(post=1838958:date=Mar 27 2011, 09:09 AM:name=twiliteblue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (twiliteblue @ Mar 27 2011, 09:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838958"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->While on the topic of unit usefulness at different stages of the game, the Skulk is almost useless in direct confrontations late game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Skulk has only 1 of 3 upgrades implemented (with Carapace, Feed, and Bloodthirst on the way), so this should be expected.
That doesn't change the fact that it takes 50 rifle bullets to down a non-regenerating* fade. At best, the average player might expect to have half of their shots hit. That's at least two magazines. Also I was under the impression that exos have their own arsenal, an independent set of weaponry.
<!--quoteo(post=1839032:date=Mar 28 2011, 04:24 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Mar 28 2011, 04:24 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1839032"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That doesn't change the fact that it takes 50 rifle bullets to down a non-regenerating* fade. At best, the average player might expect to have half of their shots hit. That's at least two magazines.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Isn't that the way it should be though? Should it not take at least 2 tier 1 units to kill a tier 2 unit? If I'm going to so easily die to someone who spent no resources on his equipment, I'd find little incentive in spending those resources.
<!--quoteo(post=1839032:date=Mar 28 2011, 04:24 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Mar 28 2011, 04:24 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1839032"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also I was under the impression that exos have their own arsenal, an independent set of weaponry.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You know more than I do then :)
I don't think it should be the case. Especially when you consider that the only thing you are spending is personal resources. Personal resources are a lot less valuable (precious) than team resources. And a fade can take out a marine in what, 2 or 3 hits? At any time, he could take out one marine in a pair immediately, and the second marine is effectively helpless to do anything. Depending on how much damage the fade has taken, he could choose to stay and take out the second marine, or simply flee and the marine not be able to do anything. Should marines thus travel in groups of 3? But what happens if there are 3 fades on the alien team (and this is very easily attainable with the personal resource model)? That means you've got 9 marines on fade duty. In a 10v10 game, the aliens would still have 6 spare players. I'm simplifying things and skewing the personal resource situation against the marines, but I hope you see where I'm coming from. I don't think fades should be able to tank so much damage, be able to take out a couple marines at a time, and still escape; i.e. I don't think fades should be an RTS super-unit just because they spent a few measly personal resources which come to them freely, at no opportunity cost to the team. Positioning, movement, tactical consideration and simple twitch skill should primarily determine the results of each encounter.
Regarding the exo: It seems to have swappable arms (and each arm can be used independently). Each arm has the choice of a claw (default on one arm), a minigun (default on one arm - dual can be purchased), and a purchasable railgun(s).
<!--quoteo(post=1839107:date=Mar 28 2011, 11:12 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Mar 28 2011, 11:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1839107"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And a fade can take out a marine in what, 2 or 3 hits? At any time, he could take out one marine in a pair immediately, and the second marine is effectively helpless to do anything. Depending on how much damage the fade has taken, he could choose to stay and take out the second marine, or simply flee and the marine not be able to do anything. Should marines thus travel in groups of 3? But what happens if there are 3 fades on the alien team (and this is very easily attainable with the personal resource model)? That means you've got 9 marines on fade duty. In a 10v10 game, the aliens would still have 6 spare players. I'm simplifying things and skewing the personal resource situation against the marines, but I hope you see where I'm coming from.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I do, but it seems like you're ignoring a lot of other vital elements, such as the fact that both teams have comparable Tier upgrades. If the Alien team has reached Tier 2 and can afford 3 Fades, the Marine team should be penalized for this if they aren't smart or equipped enough to respond with 3 player equipment upgrades of their own that would make them formidable against 3 Fades. If higher-tiered life-forms provide no advantage over lower-tiered life-forms, there's not really any advantage or purpose to the tiers, is there?
<!--quoteo(post=1839107:date=Mar 28 2011, 11:12 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Mar 28 2011, 11:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1839107"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think fades should be able to tank so much damage, be able to take out a couple marines at a time, and still escape; i.e. I don't think fades should be an RTS super-unit just because they spent a few measly personal resources which come to them freely, at no opportunity cost to the team. Positioning, movement, tactical consideration and simple twitch skill should primarily determine the results of each encounter.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Again, while tactical and mechanical skill should play a role in determining the outcome of encounters, if there's no incentive to spending resources, what's the point in acquiring them? The strategic decisions a Commander makes in regards to resources and upgrades (which are dependent on the Res Nodes and Tech Points you control) should have at least a comparable role in enabling the success of encounters if not an equal one. If you fracture the FPS/RTS elements this much, there is absolutely no cohesion between the two, and each role (commanders and ground units) will function entirely independent of one another. And then we're playing Battlefield while the Comm is playing... The Lost MAC?
<b>Also</b>, in regards to the root of this post, we can bring emphasis/importance to HOLDING Tech Points (rather than abandoning them once Tier research is complete) by further tying structure abilities to their structures, ugprading the abilities along with the structures. For example: <ul><li> Limit 2 IPs and 1 MAC per Command Center (T1)</li><li> Limit 3 IPs and 2 MACs per Command Station (T2)</li><li> Limit 4 IPs and 3 MACs per Command Facility (T3)</li><li> Limit 1 Single-Ammopack drop every 8 seconds per Commander per Command Center (T1)</li><li> Limit 1 Double-Ammopack drop every 8 seconds per Commander per Command Station (T2)</li><li> Limit 1 Triple-Ammopack drop every 8 seconds per Commander per Command Facility (T3)</li><li> Limit 1 Medpack drop every 6 seconds per Commander per Armory (T1)</li><li> Limit 1 Medpack drop every 4 seconds per Commander per Advanced Armory (T2)</li><li> Limit 1 Medpack drop every 2 seconds per Commander per Advanced Armory with Prototype Lab or Weapons Module (T3)</li></ul>
This seems to have the potential to add a lot of strategic depth. The time management element provides strategy to med/ammo spamming, while also providing incentive for having additional structures (Armories for more ammospam, CCs for multiple commanders and more medspam). The loss of any of these structures has more affect. This could be further facilitated by replacing Energy costs with Personal Res costs. Aliens seem to have this system in place, since each of their structures offensive and defensive capabilities, and have unique abilities.
<!--quoteo(post=1839601:date=Apr 1 2011, 10:55 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ Apr 1 2011, 10:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1839601"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->heh, plugging for the cooldown-based med/ammo pack I see. =]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh I really hope that regardless of how nostalgic it would be, any of us who think about it objectively agree there are much more elegant ways to implement this that would ultimately add more fun and depth. And I look forward to them, so yes, plugging :P
Comments
Apologies. A "hard counter" in my mind is one where there is a clear winner and a clear loser of the battle. A Shotgun is currently a "hard counter" to a skulk in that it almost always KILLS the skulk, leaving the Shotgunner at an advantage, in that he's alive while the Skulk is dead.
In the case of the Onos vs. Jetpacker, the Onos has no way to get to the Jetpacker, but has the survivability to run away in most cases. Since this battle would essentially end in a stand-off or stalemate, I don't consider it a hard counter, since neither team takes a loss in that scenario. Therefore I consider it acceptable.
Also, the rifle is one of the very small assortment of weapons in the game, what else do you have? Flamethrower (useless) and shotgun. In fact, because it is so abundant, it should be possibly considered even more in the overall scheme of balancing.
Taking traditional RTS approaches like greater cost, or higher technolgy means better killing ability; or rock-paper scissors mechanics, doesn't work well (read: isn't fun) for the players on the field. However, that's not to say remove them entirely; having those RTS-style mechanics apply only to the RTS aspect of the game (structures, AI units, expansion, harassment, conquest) can work.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, wasn't advocating that the LMG become redundant at tier3 or hard countered. Just that for a cost you can cover its role.
If your team is so res starved most of the team has LMGs while the enemy can afford Fade and Onos, you've lost and should lose. Or, you have to save and survive and suddenly the whole team can fight back with better weaponry. That's a moreorless natural thing of NS. So, it becomes a res+tech cost problem in my eyes. You need both the tech and the resources to pump out superior firepower. LMGs should and will scale slightly due to tech upgrades, but with investment there are better choices. Similarly, Skulks should scale in the same way. Sure they are the backbone of normalcy, but for more specific roles you have to invest in higher lifeforms. And with the right combination of higher lifeforms, you outclass the power of a squad of Skulks.
NS2 is doing a good job of keeping both the Skulk and LMG relevant later in the game by giving more add-ons for them to stay competitive. And this is good. Small investment to keep your basic unit not worthless. However, if you can afford it, a large investment should have a large return and a coordinated combination of investments should be greater than the sum of its parts, thereby "covering" the role of the original LMG.
@spellman23: The thing is, it's an issue about finding the right balance between an RTS and FPS.
I'm advocating that the game should shift more towards the FPS side, because the majority of the game experience is an FPS. I say that competition between a group of players on the field in a confrontation should <b>primarily</b> depend on their FPS prowess, rather than which team has more resources, or better tech, or is simply in an imbalanced match-up (hard counters). Having said that, I do think tier upgrades should provide some combat benefit - as I've shown with my Tier 2 = Combat Effectiveness theory. However, that doesn't mean one player should be completely ineffectual against another, a la the current Rifle versus the current Fade.
You instead support a more RTS-prominent game, by allowing the ideas that Greater Cost = Better, and Greater Tech = Better, and Rock = Better than Scissors: <b>against other players</b>, i.e. "unit" vs "unit".
Basically, it is my opinion that player vs player competition, not team vs team competition, should be the primary balance in player vs player confrontations.
The Rifle deals respectable DPS, but empties clips too quickly while shooting air, against fast moving targets.
While on the topic of unit usefulness at different stages of the game, the Skulk is almost useless in direct confrontations late game.
NS lmg was the same way. Burst fire for the win, or if they're at a distance, pistol instead of lmg.
The Rifle deals respectable DPS, but empties clips too quickly while shooting air, against fast moving targets.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It should become easier to hit fast-moving targets as game performance increases, making your bullets more useful, and likely emptying less quickly.
Also, I'm sure the rifles lategame usefulness will be improved once Jetpacks and Exosuits are implemented.
<!--quoteo(post=1838958:date=Mar 27 2011, 09:09 AM:name=twiliteblue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (twiliteblue @ Mar 27 2011, 09:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838958"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->While on the topic of unit usefulness at different stages of the game, the Skulk is almost useless in direct confrontations late game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Skulk has only 1 of 3 upgrades implemented (with Carapace, Feed, and Bloodthirst on the way), so this should be expected.
At best, the average player might expect to have half of their shots hit. That's at least two magazines.
Also I was under the impression that exos have their own arsenal, an independent set of weaponry.
At best, the average player might expect to have half of their shots hit. That's at least two magazines.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Isn't that the way it should be though? Should it not take at least 2 tier 1 units to kill a tier 2 unit? If I'm going to so easily die to someone who spent no resources on his equipment, I'd find little incentive in spending those resources.
<!--quoteo(post=1839032:date=Mar 28 2011, 04:24 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Mar 28 2011, 04:24 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1839032"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also I was under the impression that exos have their own arsenal, an independent set of weaponry.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know more than I do then :)
And a fade can take out a marine in what, 2 or 3 hits? At any time, he could take out one marine in a pair immediately, and the second marine is effectively helpless to do anything. Depending on how much damage the fade has taken, he could choose to stay and take out the second marine, or simply flee and the marine not be able to do anything. Should marines thus travel in groups of 3? But what happens if there are 3 fades on the alien team (and this is very easily attainable with the personal resource model)? That means you've got 9 marines on fade duty. In a 10v10 game, the aliens would still have 6 spare players. I'm simplifying things and skewing the personal resource situation against the marines, but I hope you see where I'm coming from.
I don't think fades should be able to tank so much damage, be able to take out a couple marines at a time, and still escape; i.e. I don't think fades should be an RTS super-unit just because they spent a few measly personal resources which come to them freely, at no opportunity cost to the team. Positioning, movement, tactical consideration and simple twitch skill should primarily determine the results of each encounter.
Regarding the exo: It seems to have swappable arms (and each arm can be used independently). Each arm has the choice of a claw (default on one arm), a minigun (default on one arm - dual can be purchased), and a purchasable railgun(s).
I do, but it seems like you're ignoring a lot of other vital elements, such as the fact that both teams have comparable Tier upgrades. If the Alien team has reached Tier 2 and can afford 3 Fades, the Marine team should be penalized for this if they aren't smart or equipped enough to respond with 3 player equipment upgrades of their own that would make them formidable against 3 Fades. If higher-tiered life-forms provide no advantage over lower-tiered life-forms, there's not really any advantage or purpose to the tiers, is there?
<!--quoteo(post=1839107:date=Mar 28 2011, 11:12 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Mar 28 2011, 11:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1839107"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think fades should be able to tank so much damage, be able to take out a couple marines at a time, and still escape; i.e. I don't think fades should be an RTS super-unit just because they spent a few measly personal resources which come to them freely, at no opportunity cost to the team. Positioning, movement, tactical consideration and simple twitch skill should primarily determine the results of each encounter.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, while tactical and mechanical skill should play a role in determining the outcome of encounters, if there's no incentive to spending resources, what's the point in acquiring them? The strategic decisions a Commander makes in regards to resources and upgrades (which are dependent on the Res Nodes and Tech Points you control) should have at least a comparable role in enabling the success of encounters if not an equal one. If you fracture the FPS/RTS elements this much, there is absolutely no cohesion between the two, and each role (commanders and ground units) will function entirely independent of one another. And then we're playing Battlefield while the Comm is playing... The Lost MAC?
<b>Also</b>, in regards to the root of this post, we can bring emphasis/importance to HOLDING Tech Points (rather than abandoning them once Tier research is complete) by further tying structure abilities to their structures, ugprading the abilities along with the structures. For example:
<ul><li> Limit 2 IPs and 1 MAC per Command Center (T1)</li><li> Limit 3 IPs and 2 MACs per Command Station (T2)</li><li> Limit 4 IPs and 3 MACs per Command Facility (T3)</li><li> Limit 1 Single-Ammopack drop every 8 seconds per Commander per Command Center (T1)</li><li> Limit 1 Double-Ammopack drop every 8 seconds per Commander per Command Station (T2)</li><li> Limit 1 Triple-Ammopack drop every 8 seconds per Commander per Command Facility (T3)</li><li> Limit 1 Medpack drop every 6 seconds per Commander per Armory (T1)</li><li> Limit 1 Medpack drop every 4 seconds per Commander per Advanced Armory (T2)</li><li> Limit 1 Medpack drop every 2 seconds per Commander per Advanced Armory with Prototype Lab or Weapons Module (T3)</li></ul>
This seems to have the potential to add a lot of strategic depth. The time management element provides strategy to med/ammo spamming, while also providing incentive for having additional structures (Armories for more ammospam, CCs for multiple commanders and more medspam). The loss of any of these structures has more affect. This could be further facilitated by replacing Energy costs with Personal Res costs. Aliens seem to have this system in place, since each of their structures offensive and defensive capabilities, and have unique abilities.
Oh I really hope that regardless of how nostalgic it would be, any of us who think about it objectively agree there are much more elegant ways to implement this that would ultimately add more fun and depth. And I look forward to them, so yes, plugging :P