<!--quoteo(post=1886965:date=Nov 25 2011, 06:22 PM:name=Zeikko)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zeikko @ Nov 25 2011, 06:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1886965"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Arga is in Duplex btw ;)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> /egg on face
Arga! Yeah, brain fart there, I've been out of NS2 commission for too long, my memory is waning.
<!--quoteo(post=1886988:date=Nov 25 2011, 09:03 PM:name=ogz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ogz @ Nov 25 2011, 09:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1886988"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->are you perhaps talking about the cloaked lerk rush?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> In organized play, any sort of cloaked rush isn't exactly considered a build, it's cheap and OP. lol.
<!--quoteo(post=1886992:date=Nov 25 2011, 08:42 PM:name=Kalabalana)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kalabalana @ Nov 25 2011, 08:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1886992"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In organized play, any sort of cloaked rush isn't exactly considered a build, it's cheap and OP. lol.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Since there isn't a game defense invented that can stop a blinking Fade, I feel compelled to ask: is there really a big difference between a cloaked Fade rush and an un-cloaked Fade rush? Either way, you suddenly have 5+ fades in your base swinging at the observatory.
Some good points on this thread about the strategic level of the game. However, also I think it's worth it to focus on the fps side of things too. In fact, I would argue that the game is more on the fps side than the rts side. After all, all but one player is playing an fps game. The FPS part has to be great, if the whole game comes down to team strategy that's not all that great either. I think the battle should still be won or lost based on the combat, with the strategic level playing a supporting role to give some advantages.
This could be another way to introduce differences in how games play out. If the strategic level is tied into the combat, then depending on what happens in combat a different strategic option might become desirable. A possible example currently in the game is if the marine team gets an early wipe out, and the aliens get a chance to chew the CC down to like 20% or something, then the marines might think about going into Robo bay first even though normally they like to go armory, arms lab, or com sat. To make the most of this choice, it might end up with a slightly different game flow, based on events that occurred in combat.
We have to be careful how much we pull from Starcraft... there are a lot of things different about NS2 that might make some of the conclusions valid, but still not necessarily best for the NS2 game. Starcraft comes down to strategy, but I think NS2 has more in common with a game like Hockey for example. In Hockey, you have formations and some team strategy to it, but at the end of the day the game comes down to how fast they can skate, how hard they can hit, and how quick and accurate they can shoot etc.
<!--quoteo(post=1887188:date=Nov 27 2011, 08:42 PM:name=Luxon5)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Luxon5 @ Nov 27 2011, 08:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1887188"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Some good points on this thread about the strategic level of the game. However, also I think it's worth it to focus on the fps side of things too. In fact, I would argue that the game is more on the fps side than the rts side. After all, all but one player is playing an fps game. The FPS part has to be great, if the whole game comes down to team strategy that's not all that great either. I think the battle should still be won or lost based on the combat, with the strategic level playing a supporting role to give some advantages.
This could be another way to introduce differences in how games play out. If the strategic level is tied into the combat, then depending on what happens in combat a different strategic option might become desirable. A possible example currently in the game is if the marine team gets an early wipe out, and the aliens get a chance to chew the CC down to like 20% or something, then the marines might think about going into Robo bay first even though normally they like to go armory, arms lab, or com sat. To make the most of this choice, it might end up with a slightly different game flow, based on events that occurred in combat.
We have to be careful how much we pull from Starcraft... there are a lot of things different about NS2 that might make some of the conclusions valid, but still not necessarily best for the NS2 game. Starcraft comes down to strategy, but I think NS2 has more in common with a game like Hockey for example. In Hockey, you have formations and some team strategy to it, but at the end of the day the game comes down to how fast they can skate, how hard they can hit, and how quick and accurate they can shoot etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That isn't completely fair to say, starcraft is largely based on mechanical skill. Its just that in some bizarre crossover analogy the units in Starcraft would be individual bullets in NS. And youre playing a huge teamgame. Check the 'invincible power nodes' thread for me whinging about this very topic!
swalkSay hello to my little friend.Join Date: 2011-01-20Member: 78384Members, Squad Five Blue
edited November 2011
<!--quoteo(post=1886960:date=Nov 25 2011, 11:59 PM:name=Kalabalana)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kalabalana @ Nov 25 2011, 11:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1886960"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I've won several organized matches this way, and yes, you do understand it pushes for an early win.
I don't recognize your name, so it's understandable to second guess me I guess as we don't know each other.
If you have a clan, hit me up, we'll play.
I've won games against GP, Duplex, and PubEU in this manner.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Tbh, I can't remember you guys winning early on, against us? :) I only remember you winning after getting the 2nd hive up, but could be my memory?
<!--quoteo(post=1887250:date=Nov 28 2011, 01:59 AM:name=swalk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (swalk @ Nov 28 2011, 01:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1887250"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Tbh, I can't remember you guys winning early on, against us? :) I only remember you winning after getting the 2nd hive up, but could be my memory?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the biggest problem with hive 2 is map control.
If you could upgrade hives to a level 2/3 hive without having to aquire another tech point. I think most of the problems in this thread would disapear.
Putting all your eggs in one basket would be a gamble. But it would be viable strategy if aquiring a 2nd tech point is unviable for any number of reasons.
Let alone maps that don't have lots of tech points.
A few people have mentioned map design, i think the problem is that taking a hive always means getting a free res node. If you had to choose between going for a res node and a hive the com would have a more strategic choice and fades would be hard to replace all of a sudden. So a couple of hive rooms without res would be more interesting propositions as might double res points etc.
You could try only allowing 2nd hive to give life forms when its linked to the main hive by infestation. Aliens wouldnt be able to get their higher tiers up without some map control and marines could temporarally cut out fades with a good rush (definitely has some drawbacks though),
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes you're right. StarCraft can provide some insight into the phenomenon (as usual): Protoss and Terran expansions only increase economy, Zerg expansions increase production and economy (so you see zerg fast expand in nearly every game) while NS2 Kharaa expansions increase tech, production and economy.
Perhaps an equilibrium can be found between the number of bonuses an expansion confers and team balance. SC2 manages to balance the teams with only 1 extra bonus from expanding, so maybe balance could be found by increasing the Marine team's dependence on expansion by 1 factor or decreasing the Kharaa dependence on expansion by 1.
This would still limit strategical play compared to having both teams only rely on expansion for one thing, but perhaps it would be below a threshold of limitation where you can work around it while allowing the "feel" of the teams and their asymmetry to be preserved.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This analogy is not correct. I've played a lot of SC in my day and I played a lot of zerg during that time and there is a huge difference between the way the zerg colonies work and the kharaa hives are working. The main reason the zerg fast expand in early game has barely anything to do with economy and everything to do with unit production. Zerg are heavily gimped when it comes to unit production until they get a second hive. It is impossible past very early game to keep up with protoss and terran on unit production off one hive. As a result, zerg put up a second hive faster than the other races in order to keep up. The economy portion is merely a side note. Technically zerg can build their second hive anywhere, unlike in NS2. But since the maps are always designed with a close expansion that is easy to defend, it only is natural for zerg to put their second hive there. They don't have too, but not doing so would be plain dumb. Also zerg tech aren't limited by any sort of hive expansion; they could technically stay with one hive the whole game and get the full tech tree. As a result, if zerg don't expand or loose their expansion, they can still come back because they're not tech blocked. I've seen in multiple times.
In NS2, the only reason kharaa expands is for tech. The second hive doesn't give any other real advantage. Sure you get extra production, but usually it doesn't matter unless you're other hive is going down. As a result, the whole alien game does depend on the acquisition of a second hive; it is the exact same mechanic from NS1 with the exact same problems. Games inevitably play out as a fight to put up or take down the second hive. There is never a medium to long game which this doesn't play out. Once that fight is decided it is GG for aliens or they get to continue to push. UWE added more hive locations which does help mitigate the slippery slope a little, but it doesn't really solve the problem. It just becomes a little less noticeable.
Tech should never be tied to territory control in any strategy game, be it a dedicated RTS or a hybrid like NS2. There is to many slippery slope problems that arise from it. It is merely a gimmick to cover up the fact that they haven't figured out any better solutions on the role and purpose of multiple hives and command chairs.
I personally say they should tie it directly to economy. The more tech points you control, the more resources your harvesters collect. Think of the tech nodes as a mineral field. The bump in the economy would help you get closer to winning, but it would still allow the other team a chance to respond with their own tactics; they could hunker down, spend their saved res to upgrade tech, and then push out with their fancy new weapons or they could try to expand themselves while the other team is busy locking down their expansion or they can do a combination. The point being is they have full control over the strategy and aren't ham stringed by some gimmicky game mechanic.
Comments
/egg on face
Arga! Yeah, brain fart there, I've been out of NS2 commission for too long, my memory is waning.
In organized play, any sort of cloaked rush isn't exactly considered a build, it's cheap and OP. lol.
Since there isn't a game defense invented that can stop a blinking Fade, I feel compelled to ask: is there really a big difference between a cloaked Fade rush and an un-cloaked Fade rush? Either way, you suddenly have 5+ fades in your base swinging at the observatory.
This could be another way to introduce differences in how games play out. If the strategic level is tied into the combat, then depending on what happens in combat a different strategic option might become desirable. A possible example currently in the game is if the marine team gets an early wipe out, and the aliens get a chance to chew the CC down to like 20% or something, then the marines might think about going into Robo bay first even though normally they like to go armory, arms lab, or com sat. To make the most of this choice, it might end up with a slightly different game flow, based on events that occurred in combat.
We have to be careful how much we pull from Starcraft... there are a lot of things different about NS2 that might make some of the conclusions valid, but still not necessarily best for the NS2 game. Starcraft comes down to strategy, but I think NS2 has more in common with a game like Hockey for example. In Hockey, you have formations and some team strategy to it, but at the end of the day the game comes down to how fast they can skate, how hard they can hit, and how quick and accurate they can shoot etc.
Advanced Armory > 20 Tres research > 30 Pres to buy
Range: Close to Medium
ROF : High
Mag : 80 rounds
Reload Time: Long
Weight Penalty: High
This could be another way to introduce differences in how games play out. If the strategic level is tied into the combat, then depending on what happens in combat a different strategic option might become desirable. A possible example currently in the game is if the marine team gets an early wipe out, and the aliens get a chance to chew the CC down to like 20% or something, then the marines might think about going into Robo bay first even though normally they like to go armory, arms lab, or com sat. To make the most of this choice, it might end up with a slightly different game flow, based on events that occurred in combat.
We have to be careful how much we pull from Starcraft... there are a lot of things different about NS2 that might make some of the conclusions valid, but still not necessarily best for the NS2 game. Starcraft comes down to strategy, but I think NS2 has more in common with a game like Hockey for example. In Hockey, you have formations and some team strategy to it, but at the end of the day the game comes down to how fast they can skate, how hard they can hit, and how quick and accurate they can shoot etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That isn't completely fair to say, starcraft is largely based on mechanical skill. Its just that in some bizarre crossover analogy the units in Starcraft would be individual bullets in NS. And youre playing a huge teamgame. Check the 'invincible power nodes' thread for me whinging about this very topic!
I don't recognize your name, so it's understandable to second guess me I guess as we don't know each other.
If you have a clan, hit me up, we'll play.
I've won games against GP, Duplex, and PubEU in this manner.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tbh, I can't remember you guys winning early on, against us? :)
I only remember you winning after getting the 2nd hive up, but could be my memory?
I only remember you winning after getting the 2nd hive up, but could be my memory?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe he is making up stuff for the hell of it?
If you could upgrade hives to a level 2/3 hive without having to aquire another tech point. I think most of the problems in this thread would disapear.
Putting all your eggs in one basket would be a gamble. But it would be viable strategy if aquiring a 2nd tech point is unviable for any number of reasons.
Let alone maps that don't have lots of tech points.
You could try only allowing 2nd hive to give life forms when its linked to the main hive by infestation. Aliens wouldnt be able to get their higher tiers up without some map control and marines could temporarally cut out fades with a good rush (definitely has some drawbacks though),
Perhaps an equilibrium can be found between the number of bonuses an expansion confers and team balance. SC2 manages to balance the teams with only 1 extra bonus from expanding, so maybe balance could be found by increasing the Marine team's dependence on expansion by 1 factor or decreasing the Kharaa dependence on expansion by 1.
This would still limit strategical play compared to having both teams only rely on expansion for one thing, but perhaps it would be below a threshold of limitation where you can work around it while allowing the "feel" of the teams and their asymmetry to be preserved.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This analogy is not correct. I've played a lot of SC in my day and I played a lot of zerg during that time and there is a huge difference between the way the zerg colonies work and the kharaa hives are working. The main reason the zerg fast expand in early game has barely anything to do with economy and everything to do with unit production. Zerg are heavily gimped when it comes to unit production until they get a second hive. It is impossible past very early game to keep up with protoss and terran on unit production off one hive. As a result, zerg put up a second hive faster than the other races in order to keep up. The economy portion is merely a side note. Technically zerg can build their second hive anywhere, unlike in NS2. But since the maps are always designed with a close expansion that is easy to defend, it only is natural for zerg to put their second hive there. They don't have too, but not doing so would be plain dumb. Also zerg tech aren't limited by any sort of hive expansion; they could technically stay with one hive the whole game and get the full tech tree. As a result, if zerg don't expand or loose their expansion, they can still come back because they're not tech blocked. I've seen in multiple times.
In NS2, the only reason kharaa expands is for tech. The second hive doesn't give any other real advantage. Sure you get extra production, but usually it doesn't matter unless you're other hive is going down. As a result, the whole alien game does depend on the acquisition of a second hive; it is the exact same mechanic from NS1 with the exact same problems. Games inevitably play out as a fight to put up or take down the second hive. There is never a medium to long game which this doesn't play out. Once that fight is decided it is GG for aliens or they get to continue to push. UWE added more hive locations which does help mitigate the slippery slope a little, but it doesn't really solve the problem. It just becomes a little less noticeable.
Tech should never be tied to territory control in any strategy game, be it a dedicated RTS or a hybrid like NS2. There is to many slippery slope problems that arise from it. It is merely a gimmick to cover up the fact that they haven't figured out any better solutions on the role and purpose of multiple hives and command chairs.
I personally say they should tie it directly to economy. The more tech points you control, the more resources your harvesters collect. Think of the tech nodes as a mineral field. The bump in the economy would help you get closer to winning, but it would still allow the other team a chance to respond with their own tactics; they could hunker down, spend their saved res to upgrade tech, and then push out with their fancy new weapons or they could try to expand themselves while the other team is busy locking down their expansion or they can do a combination. The point being is they have full control over the strategy and aren't ham stringed by some gimmicky game mechanic.