I will admit only playing the game a short time. I got tired of the canned zombie outbreaks and the "we have to stick together or you're dead", but to each his own.
I think a lot of it will be dependent on how maps are made and not just the game design. I refer back to NS1 because i like it so much and it is a good point of reference for not only the sequel but for the NS forums. Squad combat was no more than a voice telling you "You're Squad 1" and the comm being able to tell squads what to do. In organized pub games where people actually listened (TG is a good example) you rarely saw the rambos unless it was intentional. During competitive games it was a good way to find yourself clanless if you did that in a match. Bad pub servers with bad games with everyone tagging up John Rambo sucked. But 2/3 of the situations is a favorable outcome. Have the comm i think is incentive enough to encourage team play. The "I wont med you unless..." seems to work well. It used to be even more drastic when the comm handed out weapons.
Point is i see where you are going with this but i really dont think it is needed. People play this game for very different reasons right now (bug test, test out new patches, check fps and settings, for fun, and for serious.) and grouping is a problem. But i think it comes more from a lack of experience and no one really knowing how to achieve their goal of winning. NS1 had clear strats and ways of doing things. Aliens had certain things that were called out and dropped or saved for (rt, rt/fade, chamber, lerk, and hive) and likewise with marines comms had a blue print of where they wanted to go and how to achieve it.
Things will mellow out and those people on these forums will be the vets when the game comes out and will help guide new players. My opinion is if your marines are dying and not grouping it is the comms fault. I have had a comm beacon us 3 times to get our attention lol. People listened then, but anyways that is how i stand and i apologize if i repeat myself through posts.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1871811:date=Aug 29 2011, 10:45 AM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Aug 29 2011, 10:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1871811"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Great, that means the people who want that kind of gameplay can go play L4D.
NS always had a good mixture of both. Especially on the marine side you needed to work together and stay in groups, but that was not set in stone. Excellent players could solo and wreak havoc, or sneak past the aliens to build a ninja PG.
<!--quoteo(post=1871839:date=Aug 29 2011, 07:39 AM:name=NurEinMensch)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NurEinMensch @ Aug 29 2011, 07:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1871839"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->... build a ninja PG.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> or a ninja radar .. it depends on com preferences :)
<!--quoteo(post=1871811:date=Aug 29 2011, 10:45 AM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Aug 29 2011, 10:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1871811"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A quick internet search on L4D and check out this article:
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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thing is, L4D essentially <i>does</i> just prevent you from walking more than 40 metres or so apart, because if you do it spawns an enemy which one shots you.
And it doesn't do anything different from any other game, in any other game you want people alive to protect you, l4d just emphasises it more, the 'teamplay' is no more coherent or 'real' than in any other game, you are just as self serving in that game as in any other, the difference of course being that L4D is basically unplayable publicly because you can't win on expert without an organised team, and you never have one of those.
The game is literally less playable with players than with bots most of the time. I've played it online, everyone sucks at it, playing it with friends is fun, as with any game, but general public play? Laughably bad, unless you play on an easy difficulty in which case why not just use bots?
I have to say I am very opinionated on this subject.
[opinion] Either side should be able to end the game at any tier...if they are good enough.
The biggest problem with the stalemates is that 1 final resource node ....still generates enough resources to keep it going.
The only solution I see to this is making the resource nodes expire. They can either not generate any resources ...or generate resources at such a slow rate that the end is inevitable. ...or just not generate resources for the commander...no new turrets, whips, robots, crags etc.
This would force the losing side to relocate if possible (this freshens the game) or die trying. Both much more nobler and entertaining than the current rage quits.
Someone will say this is not fair to marines, that they are designed to turtle. I will say marines are designed to defend not turtle.
The best games I have played on the marine side, we had 2 or MORE forward bases. The same for Aliens.
This to me is the RTS/strategy portion....you must spread out ...or fail. Having a forward base keeps the enemy wondering if that is your spring off point for attack. When you can actually attack from another point.
<!--quoteo(post=1871895:date=Aug 29 2011, 12:20 PM:name=kingmob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kingmob @ Aug 29 2011, 12:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1871895"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have to say I am very opinionated on this subject.
[opinion] Either side should be able to end the game at any tier...if they are good enough.
The biggest problem with the stalemates is that 1 final resource node ....still generates enough resources to keep it going.
The only solution I see to this is making the resource nodes expire. They can either not generate any resources ...or generate resources at such a slow rate that the end is inevitable. ...or just not generate resources for the commander...no new turrets, whips, robots, crags etc.
This would force the losing side to relocate if possible (this freshens the game) or die trying. Both much more nobler and entertaining than the current rage quits.
Someone will say this is not fair to marines, that they are designed to turtle. I will say marines are designed to defend not turtle.
The best games I have played on the marine side, we had 2 or MORE forward bases. The same for Aliens.
This to me is the RTS/strategy portion....you must spread out ...or fail. Having a forward base keeps the enemy wondering if that is your spring off point for attack. When you can actually attack from another point.
This is true in RTS's, Chess, and Risk [/opinion]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Res is out of whack and will be fixed. No need for anything other than a rework of res flow which will be addressed later on.
<!--quoteo(post=1871662:date=Aug 28 2011, 03:30 PM:name=Feivelz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Feivelz @ Aug 28 2011, 03:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1871662"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I hate that.. ever1 was screaming and whining.. for a good balance... "nerf fades blah blah whine... blah"
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<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1871887:date=Aug 29 2011, 06:55 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Aug 29 2011, 06:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1871887"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thing is, L4D essentially <i>does</i> just prevent you from walking more than 40 metres or so apart, because if you do it spawns an enemy which one shots you.
And it doesn't do anything different from any other game, in any other game you want people alive to protect you, l4d just emphasises it more, the 'teamplay' is no more coherent or 'real' than in any other game, you are just as self serving in that game as in any other, the difference of course being that L4D is basically unplayable publicly because you can't win on expert without an organised team, and you never have one of those.
The game is literally less playable with players than with bots most of the time. I've played it online, everyone sucks at it, playing it with friends is fun, as with any game, but general public play? Laughably bad, unless you play on an easy difficulty in which case why not just use bots?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Completely unfounded and untrue.
You can run the whole level, and maybe 1/6 times you can make it without being hit. One shot? There is no one shot in L4D unless you are insta killed by a charger, or a jockey lucky jumps you.
I don't know what you have been playing, but if you go on most publics people play much more effectively together than any fps out at the moment.
People always on comms, discussing tactics, setting up attacks, calling plays. Yes, occasionally you get a really bad team, and often you get teams who leave because sides or not balanced. But most of the time you get some imaginative and brilliant team play.
In fact, to prove this point. Watch any video of L4D2 on youtube. Always someone on comms.
hmmm. Well. Interesting post you got there. Anyone who played NS 1.04 would remember that time well...
Ohh wait you're talking about NS2. Ohh fo sheezy mofo, i dun goofed. The game is an incomplete state at the moment. Heavy weapons like the HMG arn't in the game yet. Siege breakers like the onos aint in the game yet. So relax.
But while im at it, i'd like to make a brief point. Why have all the balance lessons of NS1 seem to have been forgotten by the devs? Did everyone on the UWE design team get collective amnesia or something when they started using their ###### to draw up the NS2 design docs?
You can run the whole level, and maybe 1/6 times you can make it without being hit. One shot? There is no one shot in L4D unless you are insta killed by a charger, or a jockey lucky jumps you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you're with teammates, the special infected stun lock you until someone shoots them.
If you are away from team mates, they stun lock you until you die.
You would get the same effect if you just made them do a million points of damage if you haven't had line of sight to a team mate for 60 seconds. It's about as artificial as you can get short of a big circle around the team that just instakills you if you step outside of it.
Youtube videos are a stupid example, nobody is going to upload a video of an average game, that's like suggesting that youtube videos of NS2 reflect the average gameplay, and I don't think you're going to find 50%+ of the videos on youtube of NS2 are videos of marines turtling in base.
Playing NS1 since the beginning, i waited NS2 like "THE MOST WANTED GAMES" but now the game is not fun, abolutely inbalance on mid and end game. I know you make a great job but now i'm disapointed about the game.
MArine Spam turrets, GL, flame and ARC are too powerfull and nothing on aliens can resist it and push back. A marines team with 5 -6 GL and flame destroy everything and aliens can just die die and die again. I dont tell you to make a big nerf but if u could nerf marines power on end games it will be great... For example, decrease radius and power for the GL it will be great and why dont u introduce special damage against structure but against alien form GL makes lower damage...
If u could make the aliens upgrades more interesting, now we just spam the upgrade but we dont think it change something...There's no difference on armor lvl3 with armor lvl 1 against 1 GL. Like the alien structure, crag heals nothing... why dont u use the NS1 data... it was pretty fun and cool . I hope you make changement before introduce onos and HA. The solution is not an other end tier game but some changements now !!!!!!!
L4D focuses on single squad vs single squad. It pretty strictly says spawn here, focus here. NS2 hopefully has more ambition in creating map wide options and teamwork on the map instead of giving people such obvious single focus as the L4D survivior group is.
The thing is, most great games have strict rules on what you can and can't do. You are always limited by what you can do in a physical space as what is understandable to a player in a 3D world.
The problem for me is that game elements are not well defined enough. Turrets, as has been mentioned, don't have defining rules about how and when to use them and how it effects the gameplay. Take a phase gate for example. It not only tackles the issue of map coverage for the slower Marines, but also gives rise to flanking tactics. Effectively balanced in all kinds of play - clan or public.
Why should turrets be any different? They should have more fundamental strategic and tactical use. Rather than UWE shying away from seeing them that way, it is an opportunity to be embraced. That goes for every single weapon/structure/unit in this game.
Phase Gates and Turrets are essentially the same thing, allowing Marines to progress and stretch their lines. Except Phase Gates work well. I'd rather see less turrets, but more effective at supporting ground taken by Marines. Something that when placed has more meaning than turning the FPS aspect of the game in on it's self.
Because of this lack of definition, they are always stuck slap bang in the middle. Medium health, medium fire power, medium cost. Always leading to spam. Where as it could be something that is actually used to tactically block corridors and path ways for aliens, rather than jamming up rooms and fighting for part of the FPS aspect that Marine's enjoy.
It seems people on here want more than, for example, a game of chess. They want it to be chess, monopoly, hungry hippos and Battleships turned in one game.
People think this gives you freedom, but in reality it makes for games that have little direction for the players and often have gaping holes in their game play. A game with elements of indecision that don't feel like they have specific use, strategically or tactically.
The thing to do is influence people but in clever ways. L4D2 is a great example, because it isn't afraid to say 'this is how you are going to play'. Every player knows what to do, they know what the special infected do, and everyone has clear goals.
Think about it. If the pinnacle of a game was to be as realistic as life itself, how confusing does that game get? What do you do? Which is why games and the rule of games actually make them more exciting, not dull.
I'm not saying NS2 should be the L4D series, but it needs to take elements from games like this to make things work. Save it becoming a little too confusing, and far too open.
Check out my power node idea in the ideas and suggestions section. I'm sorry for not going into more detail... a bit tired. But it's a new feature that should solve the end game shenanigans.
<!--quoteo(post=1873034:date=Sep 4 2011, 01:46 PM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Sep 4 2011, 01:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1873034"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The thing is, most great games have strict rules on what you can and can't do. You are always limited by what you can do in a physical space as what is understandable to a player in a 3D world.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Most present mainstream games end up having strict rules. They provide a passable experience in general, which is good. However, they sacrifice huge parts of the most satisfying gameplay to make the average experience passable.
Think of how a musical album sacrifices a lot of possibilities to be catchy and fit radioplay so that everyone can listen to it a bit. It can still be good and listenable music, but very rarely such thing keeps you listening for more than a month and you will not even remember the whole thing a year later unless TF2 releases a hat collection inspired by the album.
In NS I can watch Saunamen and some other top teams play and be in total awe on how well they play together - not only as squads, but as a RTS team where every unit has a purpose around the map. Instead of just having that one focused group that does something, they play according to a RTS plan, which goes way beyond some single set to stone focuspoint or objective. Watching that kind of stuff happen kept me in NS for years even if I never reached such magnificent ability to play the game. It made me a huge fan of UWE.
---
As for turrets, I don't know. The game is not playable for me. I do agree that mediocore stuff is usually quite uninteresting, but I don't think it has got necessarily anything to do with L4D being good or bad influence. If anything, L4D itself aims for pretty passable but indifferent gameplay I talked about above.
---
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It seems people on here want more than, for example, a game of chess. They want it to be chess, monopoly, hungry hippos and Battleships turned in one game.
People think this gives you freedom, but in reality it makes for games that have little direction for the players and often have gaping holes in their game play. A game with elements of indecision that don't feel like they have specific use, strategically or tactically.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If anything I want NS2 to play out as RTS/FPS. I want is the RTS and FPS parts emphasized rather than being brought down by an attempt of creating a RTS/FPS that doesn't require you to think about the RTS.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The thing to do is influence people but in clever ways. L4D2 is a great example, because it isn't afraid to say 'this is how you are going to play'. Every player knows what to do, they know what the special infected do, and everyone has clear goals.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not denying Valve's design is good, but it's also that radioplay friendly stuff that everyone can play and forget as the new one comes. I hope UWE has some guts to be more challenging and demanding towards the players.
There's probably a lot of good stuff that can be picked from L4D. The squad information system seems to work well. However, I don't really like the design idea of sacrificing everything for the sake of teamwork. The teamwork can pull off in less enforced environment is triple the tasty for me.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Think about it. If the pinnacle of a game was to be as realistic as life itself, how confusing does that game get? What do you do? Which is why games and the rule of games actually make them more exciting, not dull.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exaggerating stuff isn't good. The other end is pressing single button and winning the game, that doesn't sound like a blast either. The key is finding a good system as a whole. NS1 did it, I'd really like to work it onward from there rather than sacrificing the very functional core to chase ideals that I can find in most mainstream games.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not saying NS2 should be the L4D series, but it needs to take elements from games like this to make things work. Save it becoming a little too confusing, and far too open.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> As a said, Valve isn't a bad designer at all. There are some brilliant ideas in their games. However, I'd like to see UWE picking a bit more ambitious attitude towards the gameplay design rather than sacrificing the higher challenges to make the game open up instantly for everyone.
This is how you make a game "accessible" while retaining the functionality you desire.
Make the visual and visible mechanical experience the players see "kickass". What I mean by this is, the player warps in and gets to experience an awesome visual warping effect, then they get a transmission, because it's their first time playing telling them to construct the armoury to help their allies get weapons.
Then they will sprint up out of the base and jump over a wall in a very awesome manor.
While I don't play it anymore, call of duty 4 had that aspect, and that's why I liked it, that's why I enjoyed it. Mind you, after the 5th copy of the same game, I'm not so interested anymore.
But my point is: the presentation of a game, the polish that it receives, rather than pure gameplay, will make the game accessible to others without having to sacrafice actual gameplay complexity. So I agree, the game needs to retain it's own level of complexity, rather than dumbing down mechanics to fit a whole, but at the same time, sparkling up the experience will make playing the game more enjoyable for everyone.
Hey, it's human nature to go for the cool looking thing rather than the "complicated looking" thing, whether that's the way they actually are functionally.
I am literally going to BURN down a house or something worse. I've played for like 10 - 12 hours this weekend and I think I've been in three matches.
I know the game isn't finished but CHRIST sake it cannot be a "no game ender" problem that the Marine team can hold off for three hours with nothing more than MS. The +personal res destroys any chance of starving the Marine team of advanced weapons and if they are confined to the MS, they don't need team resources and can go to town with sentries.
I don't know what the answer is and I'm so pissed right now that I can't think of anything but recycling every Marine game I get into. In fact, I'm going to go do that right now to blow off some steam.
<!--quoteo(post=1873173:date=Sep 5 2011, 02:41 AM:name=CIOnDIEu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CIOnDIEu @ Sep 5 2011, 02:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1873173"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No Full Game (onos , exo ) = No end Game :D<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The yet-to-be added Onos would help, but there is still a problem otherwise. They are kicking around ideas about limiting the sentries and I think that's the main issue; Onos or no Onos. In the meantime, we'll just have to deal with stalemates.
I hope it doesn't run too many players off because besides myself, I've witnessed a lot of rage this weekend. People want to play some strategy, building, etc but it ruins it for everyone when the same sh1t just continues over and over for hours. It's not like there are a lot of servers to choose from if you want to leave.
After I went ballistic last night/early this morning, I got into a fresh game and play Marine Comm. It was ridiculous that we were holding MS for an hour with four turrets, two ARC's and two MAC's.
matsoMaster of PatchesJoin Date: 2002-11-05Member: 7000Members, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, Squad Five Gold, Reinforced - Shadow, NS2 Community Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1873198:date=Sep 5 2011, 05:49 PM:name=Rigor)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rigor @ Sep 5 2011, 05:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1873198"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The yet-to-be added Onos would help, but there is still a problem otherwise. They are kicking around ideas about limiting the sentries and I think that's the main issue; Onos or no Onos. In the meantime, we'll just have to deal with stalemates.
I hope it doesn't run too many players off because besides myself, I've witnessed a lot of rage this weekend. People want to play some strategy, building, etc but it ruins it for everyone when the same sh1t just continues over and over for hours. It's not like there are a lot of servers to choose from if you want to leave.
After I went ballistic last night/early this morning, I got into a fresh game and play Marine Comm. It was ridiculous that we were holding MS for an hour with four turrets, two ARC's and two MAC's.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What else to expect? Stalemates was a problem in 184.
If you then boost damage by sentries 30%, cut 100 health off the fades and introduce resource-free use of distress beacon, you are not likely to see LESS of a problem.
Right now, the only only time the marines loose a stalemate is when they get bored and the commander recycles the base. Aliens CAN'T win it, because they have nothing that works against ARCs, sentries, flamers and GL spam.
The basic problem is that there is nothing useful aliens can spend resources on after all the upgrades are researched. So aliens can't really transform a strategic resource advantage into any significant tactical advantage.
<!--quoteo(post=1873203:date=Sep 5 2011, 11:11 AM:name=matso)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (matso @ Sep 5 2011, 11:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1873203"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The basic problem is that there is nothing useful aliens can spend resources on after all the upgrades are researched. So aliens can't really transform a strategic resource advantage into any significant tactical advantage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> QFT
<!--quoteo(post=1873203:date=Sep 5 2011, 04:11 PM:name=matso)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (matso @ Sep 5 2011, 04:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1873203"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The basic problem is that there is nothing useful aliens can spend resources on after all the upgrades are researched. So aliens can't really transform a strategic resource advantage into any significant tactical advantage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's probably the core issue, but I don't think adding some late game res sink is going to solve the issue as a whole. The aliens have to be able to finish games before the late game, otherwise we'll have every game getting dragged there regardless of when it was actually decisively won by aliens.
The useless gameplay after the winner has been decided was a relatively big issue in NS1, I'd hate to see it increased in NS2.
again, check out my powernode discussion. It offers a way for aliens to take down marine start by eating all the power nodes around marine start, so if marines refuse to push out, they lose.
At the same time, my power node idea doesn't punish people for the most part, it simply prevents long games and turret spam.
I think you guys are getting too caught-up in your perception of what the final product is set to look like at this point. The fact of the matter is we can't know right now, because the devs have kept many of the elements out of the game so far and details about them have not been revealed. For example, everyone is arguing that the Onos will/won't have a gamebreaking effect. The only things we really KNOW about the onos is that it is big and can crash through locked doors. I would assume it can still eat marines, but in all reality we know nothing else for sure about what abilities and stats the onos will have. The same goes for the exosuit. Also remember, DI is going to eventually allow the alien comm to unlock doors. All of the sudden the door to Crossroads that the comm locked at the beginning of the game and has remain largely ignored opens up and aliens pour through, with much more direct acces to MS (probably behind a marine team trying to assault Data Core). Even if this feature doesn't affect gameplay on Summit too much, remember that Summit is the only map being played right now. Rockdown is far too biased to be considered, and Tram is simply too buggy. We don't even know how 185 plays on Tram in terms of balance because it is still unplayable. Surely the devs are not going to release the final game with only 2 of their own maps and 1-2 of someone else's, right? Different map designs will lead to the requirement of different RTS tactics, and then the game may in fact turn out to be more playable than most think. Some levels might utilize doors more, providing for an early defense by marines but a later-game strategic key to MS for the aliens. Hell, we might even start to see alien "door rushes" where DI is quickly pushed out to a door to prevent marines from blocking it early game. And that is only talking about one small feature that has yet to be added. Just imagine the possibilities once the mapping community begins to boom with new, creative designs. Right now the game isn't finished enough for there to be a whole lot of tinkering with clever map design, because we just don't know how gameplay is going to turn out yet. This game isn't going to come out in a few weeks or anything, so don't get your panties in a bunch if stalemating and spamming are too much of an issue. Remember that Summit is a map with many large, open spaces, and the only alien that has ever had an advantage over marines in open spaces is the Lerk. Most maps will probably be more confined to smaller hallways and such, whatever ends up working out for good gameplay.
Yoda says, "The boy has no patience." This is to be expected because in today's world, NOBODY seems to have much patience anymore. Everything is targeted at speed over quality. Why not let UWE have the chance at releasing a new, quality product rather than joining the rest of the industry who would rather pump out an uninspired, identical sequel to their hit game every year just because people will buy it?
<!--quoteo(post=1873467:date=Sep 7 2011, 11:04 AM:name=Steinhauer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steinhauer @ Sep 7 2011, 11:04 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1873467"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think you guys are getting too caught-up in your perception of what the final product is set to look like at this point. The fact of the matter is we can't know right now, because the devs have kept many of the elements out of the game so far and details about them have not been revealed. For example, everyone is arguing that the Onos will/won't have a gamebreaking effect. The only things we really KNOW about the onos is that it is big and can crash through locked doors. I would assume it can still eat marines, but in all reality we know nothing else for sure about what abilities and stats the onos will have. The same goes for the exosuit. Also remember, DI is going to eventually allow the alien comm to unlock doors. All of the sudden the door to Crossroads that the comm locked at the beginning of the game and has remain largely ignored opens up and aliens pour through, with much more direct acces to MS (probably behind a marine team trying to assault Data Core). Even if this feature doesn't affect gameplay on Summit too much, remember that Summit is the only map being played right now. Rockdown is far too biased to be considered, and Tram is simply too buggy. We don't even know how 185 plays on Tram in terms of balance because it is still unplayable. Surely the devs are not going to release the final game with only 2 of their own maps and 1-2 of someone else's, right? Different map designs will lead to the requirement of different RTS tactics, and then the game may in fact turn out to be more playable than most think. Some levels might utilize doors more, providing for an early defense by marines but a later-game strategic key to MS for the aliens. Hell, we might even start to see alien "door rushes" where DI is quickly pushed out to a door to prevent marines from blocking it early game. And that is only talking about one small feature that has yet to be added. Just imagine the possibilities once the mapping community begins to boom with new, creative designs. Right now the game isn't finished enough for there to be a whole lot of tinkering with clever map design, because we just don't know how gameplay is going to turn out yet. This game isn't going to come out in a few weeks or anything, so don't get your panties in a bunch if stalemating and spamming are too much of an issue. Remember that Summit is a map with many large, open spaces, and the only alien that has ever had an advantage over marines in open spaces is the Lerk. Most maps will probably be more confined to smaller hallways and such, whatever ends up working out for good gameplay.
Yoda says, "The boy has no patience." This is to be expected because in today's world, NOBODY seems to have much patience anymore. Everything is targeted at speed over quality. Why not let UWE have the chance at releasing a new, quality product rather than joining the rest of the industry who would rather pump out an uninspired, identical sequel to their hit game every year just because people will buy it?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1871895:date=Aug 29 2011, 02:20 PM:name=kingmob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kingmob @ Aug 29 2011, 02:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1871895"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The biggest problem with the stalemates is that 1 final resource node ....still generates enough resources to keep it going.
The only solution I see to this is making the resource nodes expire.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yeah ...i just quoted myself. I don't get why this isn't considered.
Comments
I think a lot of it will be dependent on how maps are made and not just the game design. I refer back to NS1 because i like it so much and it is a good point of reference for not only the sequel but for the NS forums. Squad combat was no more than a voice telling you "You're Squad 1" and the comm being able to tell squads what to do. In organized pub games where people actually listened (TG is a good example) you rarely saw the rambos unless it was intentional. During competitive games it was a good way to find yourself clanless if you did that in a match. Bad pub servers with bad games with everyone tagging up John Rambo sucked. But 2/3 of the situations is a favorable outcome. Have the comm i think is incentive enough to encourage team play. The "I wont med you unless..." seems to work well. It used to be even more drastic when the comm handed out weapons.
Point is i see where you are going with this but i really dont think it is needed. People play this game for very different reasons right now (bug test, test out new patches, check fps and settings, for fun, and for serious.) and grouping is a problem. But i think it comes more from a lack of experience and no one really knowing how to achieve their goal of winning. NS1 had clear strats and ways of doing things. Aliens had certain things that were called out and dropped or saved for (rt, rt/fade, chamber, lerk, and hive) and likewise with marines comms had a blue print of where they wanted to go and how to achieve it.
Things will mellow out and those people on these forums will be the vets when the game comes out and will help guide new players. My opinion is if your marines are dying and not grouping it is the comms fault. I have had a comm beacon us 3 times to get our attention lol. People listened then, but anyways that is how i stand and i apologize if i repeat myself through posts.
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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Great, that means the people who want that kind of gameplay can go play L4D.
or a ninja radar .. it depends on com preferences :)
<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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thing is, L4D essentially <i>does</i> just prevent you from walking more than 40 metres or so apart, because if you do it spawns an enemy which one shots you.
And it doesn't do anything different from any other game, in any other game you want people alive to protect you, l4d just emphasises it more, the 'teamplay' is no more coherent or 'real' than in any other game, you are just as self serving in that game as in any other, the difference of course being that L4D is basically unplayable publicly because you can't win on expert without an organised team, and you never have one of those.
The game is literally less playable with players than with bots most of the time. I've played it online, everyone sucks at it, playing it with friends is fun, as with any game, but general public play? Laughably bad, unless you play on an easy difficulty in which case why not just use bots?
[opinion]
Either side should be able to end the game at any tier...if they are good enough.
The biggest problem with the stalemates is that 1 final resource node
....still generates enough resources to keep it going.
The only solution I see to this is making the resource nodes expire.
They can either not generate any resources
...or generate resources at such a slow rate that the end is inevitable.
...or just not generate resources for the commander...no new turrets, whips, robots, crags etc.
This would force the losing side to relocate if possible (this freshens the game) or die trying.
Both much more nobler and entertaining than the current rage quits.
Someone will say this is not fair to marines, that they are designed to turtle.
I will say marines are designed to defend not turtle.
The best games I have played on the marine side, we had 2 or MORE forward bases.
The same for Aliens.
This to me is the RTS/strategy portion....you must spread out ...or fail.
Having a forward base keeps the enemy wondering if that is your spring off point for attack.
When you can actually attack from another point.
This is true in RTS's, Chess, and Risk
[/opinion]
like someone was saying this exact same thing 5 patches ago. ah well.
[opinion]
Either side should be able to end the game at any tier...if they are good enough.
The biggest problem with the stalemates is that 1 final resource node
....still generates enough resources to keep it going.
The only solution I see to this is making the resource nodes expire.
They can either not generate any resources
...or generate resources at such a slow rate that the end is inevitable.
...or just not generate resources for the commander...no new turrets, whips, robots, crags etc.
This would force the losing side to relocate if possible (this freshens the game) or die trying.
Both much more nobler and entertaining than the current rage quits.
Someone will say this is not fair to marines, that they are designed to turtle.
I will say marines are designed to defend not turtle.
The best games I have played on the marine side, we had 2 or MORE forward bases.
The same for Aliens.
This to me is the RTS/strategy portion....you must spread out ...or fail.
Having a forward base keeps the enemy wondering if that is your spring off point for attack.
When you can actually attack from another point.
This is true in RTS's, Chess, and Risk
[/opinion]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Res is out of whack and will be fixed. No need for anything other than a rework of res flow which will be addressed later on.
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<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This!
And it doesn't do anything different from any other game, in any other game you want people alive to protect you, l4d just emphasises it more, the 'teamplay' is no more coherent or 'real' than in any other game, you are just as self serving in that game as in any other, the difference of course being that L4D is basically unplayable publicly because you can't win on expert without an organised team, and you never have one of those.
The game is literally less playable with players than with bots most of the time. I've played it online, everyone sucks at it, playing it with friends is fun, as with any game, but general public play? Laughably bad, unless you play on an easy difficulty in which case why not just use bots?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Completely unfounded and untrue.
You can run the whole level, and maybe 1/6 times you can make it without being hit. One shot? There is no one shot in L4D unless you are insta killed by a charger, or a jockey lucky jumps you.
I don't know what you have been playing, but if you go on most publics people play much more effectively together than any fps out at the moment.
People always on comms, discussing tactics, setting up attacks, calling plays. Yes, occasionally you get a really bad team, and often you get teams who leave because sides or not balanced. But most of the time you get some imaginative and brilliant team play.
In fact, to prove this point. Watch any video of L4D2 on youtube. Always someone on comms.
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/q99MX1LNWrA"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/q99MX1LNWrA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
Ohh wait you're talking about NS2. Ohh fo sheezy mofo, i dun goofed.
The game is an incomplete state at the moment. Heavy weapons like the HMG arn't in the game yet. Siege breakers like the onos aint in the game yet. So relax.
But while im at it, i'd like to make a brief point. Why have all the balance lessons of NS1 seem to have been forgotten by the devs? Did everyone on the UWE design team get collective amnesia or something when they started using their ###### to draw up the NS2 design docs?
Also, where's my ###### hovering scorpion?
You can run the whole level, and maybe 1/6 times you can make it without being hit. One shot? There is no one shot in L4D unless you are insta killed by a charger, or a jockey lucky jumps you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you're with teammates, the special infected stun lock you until someone shoots them.
If you are away from team mates, they stun lock you until you die.
You would get the same effect if you just made them do a million points of damage if you haven't had line of sight to a team mate for 60 seconds. It's about as artificial as you can get short of a big circle around the team that just instakills you if you step outside of it.
Youtube videos are a stupid example, nobody is going to upload a video of an average game, that's like suggesting that youtube videos of NS2 reflect the average gameplay, and I don't think you're going to find 50%+ of the videos on youtube of NS2 are videos of marines turtling in base.
MArine Spam turrets, GL, flame and ARC are too powerfull and nothing on aliens can resist it and push back. A marines team with 5 -6 GL and flame destroy everything and aliens can just die die and die again. I dont tell you to make a big nerf but if u could nerf marines power on end games it will be great... For example, decrease radius and power for the GL it will be great and why dont u introduce special damage against structure but against alien form GL makes lower damage...
If u could make the aliens upgrades more interesting, now we just spam the upgrade but we dont think it change something...There's no difference on armor lvl3 with armor lvl 1 against 1 GL. Like the alien structure, crag heals nothing... why dont u use the NS1 data... it was pretty fun and cool . I hope you make changement before introduce onos and HA. The solution is not an other end tier game but some changements now !!!!!!!
Thx and have a good day !!! ;)
The problem for me is that game elements are not well defined enough. Turrets, as has been mentioned, don't have defining rules about how and when to use them and how it effects the gameplay. Take a phase gate for example. It not only tackles the issue of map coverage for the slower Marines, but also gives rise to flanking tactics. Effectively balanced in all kinds of play - clan or public.
Why should turrets be any different? They should have more fundamental strategic and tactical use. Rather than UWE shying away from seeing them that way, it is an opportunity to be embraced. That goes for every single weapon/structure/unit in this game.
Phase Gates and Turrets are essentially the same thing, allowing Marines to progress and stretch their lines. Except Phase Gates work well. I'd rather see less turrets, but more effective at supporting ground taken by Marines. Something that when placed has more meaning than turning the FPS aspect of the game in on it's self.
Because of this lack of definition, they are always stuck slap bang in the middle. Medium health, medium fire power, medium cost. Always leading to spam. Where as it could be something that is actually used to tactically block corridors and path ways for aliens, rather than jamming up rooms and fighting for part of the FPS aspect that Marine's enjoy.
It seems people on here want more than, for example, a game of chess. They want it to be chess, monopoly, hungry hippos and Battleships turned in one game.
People think this gives you freedom, but in reality it makes for games that have little direction for the players and often have gaping holes in their game play. A game with elements of indecision that don't feel like they have specific use, strategically or tactically.
The thing to do is influence people but in clever ways. L4D2 is a great example, because it isn't afraid to say 'this is how you are going to play'. Every player knows what to do, they know what the special infected do, and everyone has clear goals.
Think about it. If the pinnacle of a game was to be as realistic as life itself, how confusing does that game get? What do you do? Which is why games and the rule of games actually make them more exciting, not dull.
I'm not saying NS2 should be the L4D series, but it needs to take elements from games like this to make things work. Save it becoming a little too confusing, and far too open.
Most present mainstream games end up having strict rules. They provide a passable experience in general, which is good. However, they sacrifice huge parts of the most satisfying gameplay to make the average experience passable.
Think of how a musical album sacrifices a lot of possibilities to be catchy and fit radioplay so that everyone can listen to it a bit. It can still be good and listenable music, but very rarely such thing keeps you listening for more than a month and you will not even remember the whole thing a year later unless TF2 releases a hat collection inspired by the album.
In NS I can watch Saunamen and some other top teams play and be in total awe on how well they play together - not only as squads, but as a RTS team where every unit has a purpose around the map. Instead of just having that one focused group that does something, they play according to a RTS plan, which goes way beyond some single set to stone focuspoint or objective. Watching that kind of stuff happen kept me in NS for years even if I never reached such magnificent ability to play the game. It made me a huge fan of UWE.
---
As for turrets, I don't know. The game is not playable for me. I do agree that mediocore stuff is usually quite uninteresting, but I don't think it has got necessarily anything to do with L4D being good or bad influence. If anything, L4D itself aims for pretty passable but indifferent gameplay I talked about above.
---
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It seems people on here want more than, for example, a game of chess. They want it to be chess, monopoly, hungry hippos and Battleships turned in one game.
People think this gives you freedom, but in reality it makes for games that have little direction for the players and often have gaping holes in their game play. A game with elements of indecision that don't feel like they have specific use, strategically or tactically.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If anything I want NS2 to play out as RTS/FPS. I want is the RTS and FPS parts emphasized rather than being brought down by an attempt of creating a RTS/FPS that doesn't require you to think about the RTS.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The thing to do is influence people but in clever ways. L4D2 is a great example, because it isn't afraid to say 'this is how you are going to play'. Every player knows what to do, they know what the special infected do, and everyone has clear goals.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not denying Valve's design is good, but it's also that radioplay friendly stuff that everyone can play and forget as the new one comes. I hope UWE has some guts to be more challenging and demanding towards the players.
There's probably a lot of good stuff that can be picked from L4D. The squad information system seems to work well. However, I don't really like the design idea of sacrificing everything for the sake of teamwork. The teamwork can pull off in less enforced environment is triple the tasty for me.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Think about it. If the pinnacle of a game was to be as realistic as life itself, how confusing does that game get? What do you do? Which is why games and the rule of games actually make them more exciting, not dull.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exaggerating stuff isn't good. The other end is pressing single button and winning the game, that doesn't sound like a blast either. The key is finding a good system as a whole. NS1 did it, I'd really like to work it onward from there rather than sacrificing the very functional core to chase ideals that I can find in most mainstream games.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not saying NS2 should be the L4D series, but it needs to take elements from games like this to make things work. Save it becoming a little too confusing, and far too open.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As a said, Valve isn't a bad designer at all. There are some brilliant ideas in their games. However, I'd like to see UWE picking a bit more ambitious attitude towards the gameplay design rather than sacrificing the higher challenges to make the game open up instantly for everyone.
Make the visual and visible mechanical experience the players see "kickass". What I mean by this is, the player warps in and gets to experience an awesome visual warping effect, then they get a transmission, because it's their first time playing telling them to construct the armoury to help their allies get weapons.
Then they will sprint up out of the base and jump over a wall in a very awesome manor.
While I don't play it anymore, call of duty 4 had that aspect, and that's why I liked it, that's why I enjoyed it. Mind you, after the 5th copy of the same game, I'm not so interested anymore.
But my point is: the presentation of a game, the polish that it receives, rather than pure gameplay, will make the game accessible to others without having to sacrafice actual gameplay complexity. So I agree, the game needs to retain it's own level of complexity, rather than dumbing down mechanics to fit a whole, but at the same time, sparkling up the experience will make playing the game more enjoyable for everyone.
Hey, it's human nature to go for the cool looking thing rather than the "complicated looking" thing, whether that's the way they actually are functionally.
I know the game isn't finished but CHRIST sake it cannot be a "no game ender" problem that the Marine team can hold off for three hours with nothing more than MS. The +personal res destroys any chance of starving the Marine team of advanced weapons and if they are confined to the MS, they don't need team resources and can go to town with sentries.
I don't know what the answer is and I'm so pissed right now that I can't think of anything but recycling every Marine game I get into. In fact, I'm going to go do that right now to blow off some steam.
The yet-to-be added Onos would help, but there is still a problem otherwise. They are kicking around ideas about limiting the sentries and I think that's the main issue; Onos or no Onos. In the meantime, we'll just have to deal with stalemates.
I hope it doesn't run too many players off because besides myself, I've witnessed a lot of rage this weekend. People want to play some strategy, building, etc but it ruins it for everyone when the same sh1t just continues over and over for hours. It's not like there are a lot of servers to choose from if you want to leave.
After I went ballistic last night/early this morning, I got into a fresh game and play Marine Comm. It was ridiculous that we were holding MS for an hour with four turrets, two ARC's and two MAC's.
I hope it doesn't run too many players off because besides myself, I've witnessed a lot of rage this weekend. People want to play some strategy, building, etc but it ruins it for everyone when the same sh1t just continues over and over for hours. It's not like there are a lot of servers to choose from if you want to leave.
After I went ballistic last night/early this morning, I got into a fresh game and play Marine Comm. It was ridiculous that we were holding MS for an hour with four turrets, two ARC's and two MAC's.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What else to expect? Stalemates was a problem in 184.
If you then boost damage by sentries 30%, cut 100 health off the fades and introduce resource-free use of distress beacon, you are not likely to see LESS of a problem.
Right now, the only only time the marines loose a stalemate is when they get bored and the commander recycles the base. Aliens CAN'T win it, because they have nothing that works against ARCs, sentries, flamers and GL spam.
The basic problem is that there is nothing useful aliens can spend resources on after all the upgrades are researched. So aliens can't really transform a strategic resource advantage into any significant tactical advantage.
QFT
That's probably the core issue, but I don't think adding some late game res sink is going to solve the issue as a whole. The aliens have to be able to finish games before the late game, otherwise we'll have every game getting dragged there regardless of when it was actually decisively won by aliens.
The useless gameplay after the winner has been decided was a relatively big issue in NS1, I'd hate to see it increased in NS2.
At the same time, my power node idea doesn't punish people for the most part, it simply prevents long games and turret spam.
Yoda says, "The boy has no patience." This is to be expected because in today's world, NOBODY seems to have much patience anymore. Everything is targeted at speed over quality. Why not let UWE have the chance at releasing a new, quality product rather than joining the rest of the industry who would rather pump out an uninspired, identical sequel to their hit game every year just because people will buy it?
Yoda says, "The boy has no patience." This is to be expected because in today's world, NOBODY seems to have much patience anymore. Everything is targeted at speed over quality. Why not let UWE have the chance at releasing a new, quality product rather than joining the rest of the industry who would rather pump out an uninspired, identical sequel to their hit game every year just because people will buy it?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This man, he speaks the truth.
....still generates enough resources to keep it going.
The only solution I see to this is making the resource nodes expire.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yeah ...i just quoted myself.
I don't get why this isn't considered.
Works great in Starcraft.