There is no End Game.
Runteh
Join Date: 2010-06-26 Member: 72163Members, Reinforced - Shadow
Join Date: 2010-06-26 Member: 72163Members, Reinforced - Shadow
I was playing 185 today and thinking, as many probably have, the Fade and general player vs player balance is a lot better. However, I also found myself in the realisation that balance means longer stalemates. Nothing has changed in 185 to this regard, and in fact it seems worse.
The server I played on today belonged to a well known clan. Clan members start telling their own comm to recycle the base, as players from each team fruitlessly throw themselves at one another in a completely unorganised and frustrated way.
If you play regularly on publics, you will notice the apathy and boredom (you know what i'm talking about) of an attacking team who is getting no where usually becomes a psychological negative. The team on the defensive then tends to gain back ground as they feel invigorated by their gains.
I know the typical response on here, I have been one of those as well.
"Not everything is in the game yet!"
But will better tech 'in balance' really bring and end to stalemates? Also, why should we require such late game tech to do so?
If we look at examples of clan play, we see much shorter games. In conclusion, an organised team that works together will win.
So one of the questions the devs need to be asking is 'how do we get players on public servers to work together more effectively'.
I think this is part of the solution, but there is no way it is achievable. On one hand you have a load of public players who have completely different motives to why they just joined the game. Maybe just for a 10 minutes game, maybe to play seriously, maybe they're just a really bad player. On the other, you have a group of focused individuals with the same plan and mindset.
The squad system obviously needs work. Players split from them too easily and they are virtually useless to the commander. Players need reasons for keeping together, or in two separate groups with particular players in that squad. So when they die and re-spawn, they actively search out their squad mates.
There have to be incentives or even better, disincentives are psychologically more powerful. So like L4D2, find a way to punish players that go it alone. Be it perhaps a morale drop that makes you more susceptible to health damage, perhaps audio cues make things subtly more creepy and perhaps you find it harder to locate noises.
Then counter this with a boost for every player you have within your squad.
The other half of this is how you go about destroying built up areas, most specifically the final stand off. Turrets are not implemented well for Marines, I think they need a hugely different approach. I still hold anxiety to why clan and public play can be so different in their regard.
I think everyone can agree though, that if you have built up all your defences to the oppositions last Tech Point, you should be a minute away from ending the game. This just is not happening. Only when they start running out of res gained from 40 minutes worth of play (or worse, longer) do you start to see a glimmer of the end.
I feel power nodes could take a more pivotal role here. Perhaps the game starts with 50% of nodes on towards MS and 50% off towards AS.
If the power nodes connected to AS are on, damage sustained by buildings is +50% and vice versa for Marines. This would certainly help to end games in a more strategic way.
I think the best part of NS2 at the moment is the FPS game, but the RTS seems to be dragging it's heals really badly in regards to how the game plays out as it becomes more dominant. I.e. More buildings, and the general tactic of winning, which is spam as much as possible.
Turret spam actually wins games btw, even though it kills them for most people playing.
Anyway, don't know if anyone bothered to read this all. I am enjoying the development, so thanks UWE.
The server I played on today belonged to a well known clan. Clan members start telling their own comm to recycle the base, as players from each team fruitlessly throw themselves at one another in a completely unorganised and frustrated way.
If you play regularly on publics, you will notice the apathy and boredom (you know what i'm talking about) of an attacking team who is getting no where usually becomes a psychological negative. The team on the defensive then tends to gain back ground as they feel invigorated by their gains.
I know the typical response on here, I have been one of those as well.
"Not everything is in the game yet!"
But will better tech 'in balance' really bring and end to stalemates? Also, why should we require such late game tech to do so?
If we look at examples of clan play, we see much shorter games. In conclusion, an organised team that works together will win.
So one of the questions the devs need to be asking is 'how do we get players on public servers to work together more effectively'.
I think this is part of the solution, but there is no way it is achievable. On one hand you have a load of public players who have completely different motives to why they just joined the game. Maybe just for a 10 minutes game, maybe to play seriously, maybe they're just a really bad player. On the other, you have a group of focused individuals with the same plan and mindset.
The squad system obviously needs work. Players split from them too easily and they are virtually useless to the commander. Players need reasons for keeping together, or in two separate groups with particular players in that squad. So when they die and re-spawn, they actively search out their squad mates.
There have to be incentives or even better, disincentives are psychologically more powerful. So like L4D2, find a way to punish players that go it alone. Be it perhaps a morale drop that makes you more susceptible to health damage, perhaps audio cues make things subtly more creepy and perhaps you find it harder to locate noises.
Then counter this with a boost for every player you have within your squad.
The other half of this is how you go about destroying built up areas, most specifically the final stand off. Turrets are not implemented well for Marines, I think they need a hugely different approach. I still hold anxiety to why clan and public play can be so different in their regard.
I think everyone can agree though, that if you have built up all your defences to the oppositions last Tech Point, you should be a minute away from ending the game. This just is not happening. Only when they start running out of res gained from 40 minutes worth of play (or worse, longer) do you start to see a glimmer of the end.
I feel power nodes could take a more pivotal role here. Perhaps the game starts with 50% of nodes on towards MS and 50% off towards AS.
If the power nodes connected to AS are on, damage sustained by buildings is +50% and vice versa for Marines. This would certainly help to end games in a more strategic way.
I think the best part of NS2 at the moment is the FPS game, but the RTS seems to be dragging it's heals really badly in regards to how the game plays out as it becomes more dominant. I.e. More buildings, and the general tactic of winning, which is spam as much as possible.
Turret spam actually wins games btw, even though it kills them for most people playing.
Anyway, don't know if anyone bothered to read this all. I am enjoying the development, so thanks UWE.
Comments
I myself am waiting for all tech to be introduced OR skilled movement to be implemented for the skulk (drifting gorges sounds awesome, mini game ftw). Not to mention hit reg and fps lag. It has made me jump back in to NS1 but i miss the old TG server. All in all NS2 is shaping up to be a great game but it was the community that created the memories, yes even that asshat Mustang and friends. :P
Then counter this with a boost for every player you have within your squad.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This
There needs to be strong incentives (health, ammo, speed, damage, etc.) for sticking together and strong disincentives (dying very quickly, losing speed, health, ammo, etc) for not doing so. Also, these incentives/disincentives have to be very clear so there is no confusion among pub players.
Quite simply, right now sticking together doesn't guarantee you'll live very long and going solo is still very productive.
In ns1 lerks and fades "sieged" the marine base and quickly enough all marines were dead.
the problem in ns2 is that:
1. lerkspore is useless
2. fades dont do any damage against structures
3. high latency , low fps
when these points get fixed everything is gonna be fine
... and game ends by khaa / marine win (or server die) :D
Unless the game removes things like these (which, obviously, you can't) you aren't going to get people sticking together constantly.
And for that matter, why would you want them to? If the only way I can accomplish anything is by surgically grafting myself to someone else, that isn't going to be a very fun game. If working together is advantageous and easy to do, people will do it, it will be advantageous sometimes, so people will do it sometimes, exactly as in NS1. NS1 had lots of individual skirmishing at the start, as well as small groups of people or single players responding to problems around the map, and every now and then you send a big group to get a new room or something. You also see lots of use of groups when sieging a hive, because people naturally cluster up when they are waiting for a siege to progress.
Honestly this is exactly how NS1 public play went, I really don't get why everyone seems to think NS1 was some magical everybody always works together perfectly all the time game. I dunno if it's because I quit NS1 when it was still popular or what, but NS2 is pretty similar to it in terms of teamwork, probably because it's pretty similar in gameplay so if you make the same game and put the same players in it, you'll get the same sort of stuff happening.
i know it sucks to be out of the game when dead, but its what made counterstrike and other competitive fps's a little more team oriented.
IMO Grenades damage needs to be lowered slightly, and limits on Sentry (as well as Hydra) count per room need to be reduced (to around 10).
IMO Grenades damage needs to be lowered slightly, and limits on Sentry (as well as Hydra) count per room need to be reduced (to around 10).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Heh, ive seen marine teams actually come back an win by doing that tactic.
The fade nerf was required for the game to not constantly be about 3 fades ruining a team, but I'm losing all desire to test thing game without an actual end game.
On a side note, I sort of wish the tech tree was spread more laterally and that it took longer to get between tech levels. Games still devolve into upgrade, upgrade, upgrade, and I frankly find the rush between tiers to irritating because you can't take the time to really enjoy things and really play around with tactics. It's great playing a skulk and preparing an ambush over the enemy base, but when everyone on your team is already rushing to get hive 2 and fades out, well you're either defending or you're wasting the teams resources. I'm really kind of sick of the modern games over-emphasis on fast gameplay. I don't want natural selection 2 to be another variation of the "fast food" video games that are coming out in droves, careful, engaging, and ultimately deep game play requires you to not constantly be rushing at break neck pace. If you want people to play the alien like aliens, you can't play the game at a mile a minute, if areas are constantly changing in seconds, or even a minute, you're stalking and ambushing is totally useless. There's a reason why the movie Alien and Aliens spent some 40 minutes before getting to any action at all, because tension is part of entertainment, and while there obviously has to be less build up in a multiplayer game, defending a point should be an serious and desperate affair. Not one marine axing a cyst or one skulk eating a resource tower.
The fade nerf was required for the game to not constantly be about 3 fades ruining a team, but I'm losing all desire to test thing game without an actual end game.
On a side note, I sort of wish the tech tree was spread more laterally and that it took longer to get between tech levels. Games still devolve into upgrade, upgrade, upgrade, and I frankly find the rush between tiers to irritating because you can't take the time to really enjoy things and really play around with tactics. It's great playing a skulk and preparing an ambush over the enemy base, but when everyone on your team is already rushing to get hive 2 and fades out, well you're either defending or you're wasting the teams resources. I'm really kind of sick of the modern games over-emphasis on fast gameplay. I don't want natural selection 2 to be another variation of the "fast food" video games that are coming out in droves, careful, engaging, and ultimately deep game play requires you to not constantly be rushing at break neck pace. If you want people to play the alien like aliens, you can't play the game at a mile a minute, if areas are constantly changing in seconds, or even a minute, you're stalking and ambushing is totally useless. There's a reason why the movie Alien and Aliens spent some 40 minutes before getting to any action at all, because tension is part of entertainment, and while there obviously has to be less build up in a multiplayer game, defending a point should be an serious and desperate affair. Not one marine axing a cyst or one skulk eating a resource tower.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Totally agree. Hopefully res flow will be altered closer to release and RTs will again be important (losing one really hurting the team).
i know it sucks to be out of the game when dead, but its what made counterstrike and other competitive fps's a little more team oriented.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Counterstrike isn't team oriented, have you played it? People don't work together.
they did when i played it.
I think the game is now very good balanced!
There is just currently no "Endgame Content".. So, the Aliens just need Onos or the Marines JP and Heavy... and then it will be a fast game. Its a great patch... it opens the way for Onos/Jetpacks/Heavys/Miniguns
Right now the matches become stalemates for several hours most of the time, but when T3 tech is introduced, the team who reaches it first will have a much easier time finishing the other team, which would lead into more intense, quicker and more strategic matches.
Can't wait for Onos, exosuit.. will be awesome^^
As both teams become more established in this game, a win takes longer to transpire.
If aliens can get an Onos, and Marines have the Mech... why will it be easier for one team to win? You are constantly countering one another with better tech, and if you can't organise your teams well enough to attack or defend together, it will not change the game.
For me, the RTS element needs a lot of work.
There have to be alternatives to achieving a win than a 12 round punching match, and it needs to be 'A LOT' easier to be able to organise squads, players and have them work together effectively.
As both teams become more established in this game, a win takes longer to transpire.
If aliens can get an Onos, and Marines have the Mech... why will it be easier for one team to win? You are constantly countering one another with better tech, and if you can't organise your teams well enough to attack or defend together, it will not change the game.
For me, the RTS element needs a lot of work.
There have to be alternatives to achieving a win than a 12 round punching match, and it needs to be 'A LOT' easier to be able to organise squads, players and have them work together effectively.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NS2 will never rival any good RTS when the human element is involved. Forcing people to follow the comms orders or forcing them into selected groups would only ruin the game for all the non-comms. For the RTS element you can influence the game just enough and be effective enough to pull out a win for your team but you are not "God" in the game. You more or less fill the intel roll for the ground marines not so much the leader. NS1 comm had all the power and marines just built and killed. Now marines dont have to build, can buy their own weapons, and as long as they get their upgrades and tech dont need a comm. Might be a better direction since in NS1 having a bad comm = instant failure.
There are ways you can influence people in games to do things without bringing down the hammer.
Valve are successful on their games because they have all sorts of people working there, even a psychologist. Why do you think L4D2 works so well? In terms of team play it is probably the best example of a game to date.
There is not one server where you do not hear voice chatter, and the tactical plays are fantastic.
I know UWE don't have their budget or psychologists, but you can incorporate these ideas.
Squads are appalling at the moment, but they could work a lot better simply by:
- The commander can select the number of auto-squads there are possible.
- You are automatically put into a squad from the start.
- If you hang around with someone out of that squad, after a cool off period you join that squad.
- The longer you spend with your squad, the longer the cool off period. So if you die, you have time to return to your squad.
- There are actually buttons that allow you to select squads and send them to a target.
That is a compromise. Allowing players to choose who they hang around with whilst at the same time generating squads that last and that the commander can make use of.
Implement some clever negatives and positives for not being/being in a squad, and you are good to go.
There should be a way to group people up by squads that have nothing more than a visual impact and be ordered to specific places. That way when people are actually listening to the comm AND the comm has a clear goal in mind it can help him/her carry it out.
Another problem is if you give it to the marines, aliens now have a comm too, so you must give them a squad or "pack" bonus which negates the marines. Why not just leave it out. Squad play was always slightly encouraged in NS1 (game mechanic wise) and on good servers squad play was a must to win. No reason to add more to it.
Then you can hang around with other players, and you'll then join their squad.
Why do aliens have to have the same - no one plays them with the same fear factor that you do when you play as Marines, and they can negate the level with more speed.
Also, if Marines are supposed to stick together because of the threat of aliens, why do I only see it 25% of the time on publics - if that.
You should play this game from the perspective that this is a squad and I am a player, not I am a player and you can run around with people if you like.
There need to be clear goals, directions and they all need to feed down from commander to player, on minimap or otherwise.
"Take this room red squad" on Minimap - gives everyone in that squad a goal.
As both teams become more established in this game, a win takes longer to transpire.
If aliens can get an Onos, and Marines have the Mech... why will it be easier for one team to win? You are constantly countering one another with better tech, and if you can't organise your teams well enough to attack or defend together, it will not change the game.
For me, the RTS element needs a lot of work.
There have to be alternatives to achieving a win than a 12 round punching match, and it needs to be 'A LOT' easier to be able to organise squads, players and have them work together effectively.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you're thinking too complicated :-)
Problem is for example on Summit, that most time the Marines just have 1-2 RES Tower and 1 Com Station. And the Aliens cant finish them off..
If Aliens have 2 Hives, they can build up a thrid, too, everytime.. (Seen it on HBZ)
With 3 Hives and many Pers. Res and Onos it will be easy to crush the marines.
Cuz most time the game is CURRENTLY draw when the Marines just have 1-2 Res Tower but in the Endgame Content there are not enough RES to get a JP/Heavy/Minigun to counter a Onos
So its essential that the Marines have there first priority.. to Kill the 2nd or 3rd Hive.. its the game man :-)
The players should be able to decide when the game ends.
Ask Obama for it :-) I think the players are intelligent enough to decide it..
when the aliens are losing (not the alien have 4 Hives and the marine Com Turret spam Tactic) its most time a fast game, so its no problem to tell the commander he should sell the ip's.
As both teams become more established in this game, a win takes longer to transpire.
If aliens can get an Onos, and Marines have the Mech... why will it be easier for one team to win? You are constantly countering one another with better tech<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe the idea is that if one team is pinned in their base, the other will have an enormous res advantage and be able to bring much more firepower to bear. Res flow might be a bit high right now?
Why do aliens have to have the same - no one plays them with the same fear factor that you do when you play as Marines, and they can negate the level with more speed.
Also, if Marines are supposed to stick together because of the threat of aliens, why do I only see it 25% of the time on publics - if that.
You should play this game from the perspective that this is a squad and I am a player, not I am a player and you can run around with people if you like.
There need to be clear goals, directions and they all need to feed down from commander to player, on minimap or otherwise.
"Take this room red squad" on Minimap - gives everyone in that squad a goal.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Single player sounds better for you imo =) You will rarely get people thinking of the squad first :P
It is probably the closest you'll get to NS2 in terms of the FPS aspect. Think how similar the games are minus the RTS aspect.
It is probably the closest you'll get to NS2 in terms of the FPS aspect. Think how similar the games are minus the RTS aspect.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, but i hated Left4Dead. Force me and i wont. Inspire me, i will do it, and pass it along.
Just let the game develop more without penalties. Unless you can think of bonus that doesn't add armor, damage, or regen. Something not crucial but nice to have. Maybe a LoS feature much like Motion Tracking where the people in your squad see blips in their visor of aliens you visually acquire.
Games and 'the rule of games' have always been closely associated.
BF1942 was a game like you speak of, but on some maps you ejected from a plane in the middle of the desert. Chose a tank out of about 34 vehicles, 4 of which anyone who played the game actually ever use in a professional tourney. Then it took 5 minutes before you got anywhere near the action again, before dying and having to respawn again.
All good games have fundamental rules about how they work, whether you like it or not.
Valve games I have great respect for, and the L4D series has had game of the year and has been incredibly successful.
I did a degree in design, and in part of that degree I studied psychology. I only studied it very briefly, but it made me realise why games like L4D are so successful.
A quick internet search on L4D and check out this article:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Co-operative play was a requirement. This might seem like a bit of a no-brainer,bBut they didn't want to create a game where "co-op" meant you were just playing it together. Left 4 Dead was structured from the ground up so that players wanted to play together, using a series of carefully-considered and well-integrated design elements to make sure proper co-operative play was the only winning strategy.
Of course, it's possible to artificially force co-operative play through a series of simple in-game mechanics. For example, you could force players to stay in a close group through a system that simply stops them walking too far apart. But clearly, if you can encourage people to do it properly by rewarding them (ie, with survival) when they do it right, and punishing them when they do it wrong (for example, wandering away from the group), then that's better all-round.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.ausgamers.com/features/read/2724930" target="_blank">L4D Article</a>
The fact is, people have tastes. Perhaps yours is not L4D.
But you just can't argue with how successful it is, and that if you go on any server the 'team play' aspect of the game is superior to anything out there currently. With people always on mic, and always planning and working together.