fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited December 2011
I can't help but think that a lot of this is due to low fps and server lag, which does actually make tracking things in close combat very difficult. Hell, it even makes tracking things at range difficult. This simply wasn't a problem in NS1 and I can't imagine it will be a problem when the "beta issues" are eventually worked out.
<!--quoteo(post=1890631:date=Dec 17 2011, 01:16 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Dec 17 2011, 01:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890631"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Please don't take offense at this, but it seems like, from what you're saying, that you'd just prefer "everyone else playing bad" than you actually "playing better".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I would prefer that every single game mechanic that requires practice to be good at isn't removed from the game. After the wholesale culling (compared to NS1) we've seen so far, the few remaining ones become even more important.
I have a three suggestions for you: 1. Don't say "please don't take offense" or similar disclaimers. If anything, it only makes the person you direct them towards more suspicious of your intentions. 2. Don't put words into other people's mouths. 3. You use a lot of words to say very little. Write concisely.
<!--quoteo(post=1890631:date=Dec 17 2011, 01:16 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Dec 17 2011, 01:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890631"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Currently, tracking a marine as a skulk doesn't <i>really</i> <b>scale</b> with skill (i.e. a smooth progression): because you see, currently, tracking a marine as a skulk is a rather binary affair: you are either competent<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->**<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> (or <i>lucky</i>, as the case may be) and the game is fun, or you are incompetent (or <i>unlucky</i>) and the game is a lot less fun.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Tracking a marine as a skulk scales beautifully. Not only do you gradually get better at it the more you play, but it also depends on the skill of your opponent. Pretty much everything you wrote in this parapraph is wrong, I don't really know what else to tell you.
A different matter is that it can be quite confusing and frustrating to learn at first -- something I attribute in large part to the fact that melee vs. ranged combat is uncommon in games. It isn't that the learning curve is very steep, it's just that you're starting at zero instead of the usual ranged vs. ranged combat that everybody has some experience with. There isn't a whole lot you can do to "fix" that in multiplayer mode. The addition of bots should alleviate the problem to some degree though.
<!--quoteo(post=1890631:date=Dec 17 2011, 01:16 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Dec 17 2011, 01:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890631"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If what I'm trying to say above by pasting that quote is not obvious enough, let's say it straight: In these cases, you are going to be visible anyway, so "sneaky" doesn't come into it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If it's only going to work when you have SOF or the marine is parasited, I have no issue with it. That said, it's not going to have much of an effect on the game if it's limited to those cases and probably isn't worth spending coding time on at the moment.
<!--quoteo(post=1890652:date=Dec 17 2011, 06:14 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Dec 17 2011, 06:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890652"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->rifle butt<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The rifle butt attack should be axed*.
<!--quoteo(post=1890610:date=Dec 17 2011, 08:59 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Dec 17 2011, 08:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890610"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You can't play sneaky as a marine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Funny you should mention it. UWE really should get around to fixing that.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The irony of people playing a game named "Natural Selection" demanding the game be made easier instead of adapting to the game is palpable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you want to go down that road, any type of assistance could be considered ironic and unneeded. Those who learn to compete will out survive those who don't. We don't need cross hairs, GUI indication, health bars, or any of the other small things which assist and allow a player to quickly become competent within the game.
You guys are committing so many logical fallacies it is hard to count.
I can agree that an auto lock system could and might level out any type of skill between regular and skilled players too much. However, I don't agree giving players as much non-obstructive feedback to assist them is a bad thing. Any game developer, who is worth his two cents, will straight out rail against this theory. The general consensus within game theory these days is the exact opposite.
What differentiates players skill isn't the amount of assisted feedback he receives from the game; If so, everyone would always be exactly the same skill level because everyone gets the exact same feedback, unless they've modded their game. Instead, what makes a player more skilled is their ability to take all the feedback, visual and auditory, process it, and act accordingly to achieve his current goal. This could be as simple as killing a marine or as complex as commanding a whole team to victory.
All we're asking for is more feedback and information; I think this is a legitimate request in general. Not only will it help current players, but it will help the game in general too by allowing more players to become competent at the game and enjoy it; it won't, all of a sudden, make all the players pro level, but it will allow players who would previously leave out of frustration to actually enjoy themselves more. Just because a player knows the general direction a marine is in doesn't mean he will have the skill to focus in on the marine, keep his vision on that marine, and land multiple bites.
So yes, I'm strongly in favor of some sort of peripheral vision/indication system as long as it is non-obstructive and intuitive.
To reiterate. The GUI is a set of gauges (like in a car or aircraft) that relays data. As the data changes, so do the gauges. The gauges don't inherently cause an operator to become more skilled. It is through the individual skill level of the operator of interpreting and in turn adjusting that data to reach a goal.
But, there is a limit. A poorly laid out GUI/cockpit can over emphasis a piece of data "stealing" the attention from other gauges and in turn other data.
The original suggestion was a lock-on ability. Though it may not be, by nature, a bad thing, but it may not be a good addition to this game. In this case, it is like cruise control. By locking in a speed/target/objective part of the operator interaction is taken over to relieve the operator to focus on other data and manipulate it.
A lock-on ability is not an answer to "how can we make player tracking easier?", but "how do we relieve the skulk player of this operation to allow focus on something else?".
The solution we are looking for is the answer to the question "how can we make player tracking easier?". This is why I believe that an additional gauge ie. a visual cue on the GUI makes data available to the operator without taking relinquishing control, for better or for worse.
<!--quoteo(post=1890793:date=Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890793"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would prefer that every single game mechanic that requires practice to be good at isn't removed from the game. After the wholesale culling (compared to NS1) we've seen so far, the few remaining ones become even more important.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> An exaggeration. The suggestion does not "remove" anything. More on this later.
<!--quoteo(post=1890793:date=Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890793"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->1. Don't say "please don't take offense" or similar disclaimers. If anything, it only makes the person you direct them towards more suspicious of your intentions.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not intending to offend, but the way it is phrased may cause some people to take offense anyway. As you've proven. That's why I add the disclaimer.
<!--quoteo(post=1890793:date=Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890793"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2. Don't put words into other people's mouths.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> "seems like". Inference. Perhaps when you speak and when you write, you should be more specific about your meaning and intentions.
<!--quoteo(post=1890793:date=Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890793"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->3. You use a lot of words to say very little.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It is called "explanation" and "elaboration". My hope is that if I say a lot now, I won't have to say as much later.
<!--quoteo(post=1890793:date=Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890793"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Write concisely.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You forgot to say "please".
<!--quoteo(post=1890793:date=Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890793"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Tracking a marine as a skulk scales beautifully. Not only do you gradually get better at it the more you play, but it also depends on the skill of your opponent.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Pretty much everything you wrote in these sentences is wrong, I don't really know what else to tell you. ;)
I'll try anyway, since you <b>seem to</b> have missed my point: Currently it is a rather binary affair - in that you can do it or you can't. If you can do it (competence), then of course people who have practiced can do it better, obviously. But if you can't do it (incompetence), then you are useless. This suggestion simply lowers the barrier to <b>competence</b>, without affecting the skill ceiling.
<!--quoteo(post=1890793:date=Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890793"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Pretty much everything you wrote in this parapraph is wrong, I don't really know what else to tell you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You could tell me... <b>how</b> I'm wrong? You know, "explain".
<!--quoteo(post=1890793:date=Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890793"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A different matter is that it can be quite confusing and frustrating to learn at first -- something I attribute in large part to the fact that melee vs. ranged combat is uncommon in games. It isn't that the learning curve is very steep, it's just that you're starting at zero instead of the usual ranged vs. ranged combat that everybody has some experience with. There isn't a whole lot you can do to "fix" that in multiplayer mode. The addition of bots should alleviate the problem to some degree though.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's a valid analysis, but I think you're missing the main issue. The key issue here is <b>awareness</b>. A game that was first-person ranged versus third-person melee would be just as you describe: much more balanced and accessible for the melee unit, even if the control scheme and everything else was exactly the same. But the issue here is that we've got first-person melee - that's a design decision, and I wouldn't want it any other way. However, with first-person in contrast to third-person, you lack peripheral vision and awareness - one of the most important assets in melee combat. The fact is, it is easier for a marine to track and hurt a skulk than a skulk to track and hurt a marine, <b>at close range</b>. This is probably part of the reason why a skulk has so much damage per hit - he has to be able to kill the marine so much quicker because he has such a high likelihood of losing his target. A reliance on being out of the opponent's view is akin to a reliance on cloaking - which is not exactly the most competition-friendly feature. This suggestion takes a lot of the guesswork and chance out of fighting a marine in close quarters, and makes it more about the actual motion, positioning and attacking.
Edit: Also, what l3lessed said.
<!--quoteo(post=1890793:date=Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890793"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If it's only going to work when you have SOF or the marine is parasited, I have no issue with it. That said, it's not going to have much of an effect on the game if it's limited to those cases<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, parasite is available very early, to the most common, starting lifeform - and parasiting before engaging is encouraged behaviour, so this wouldn't really be a limited case (in fact, it would encourage parasiting even more). But it's good to know you at least don't mind the suggestion in these terms.
<!--quoteo(post=1890793:date=Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890793"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->and probably isn't worth spending coding time on at the moment.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's not exactly something we get to dictate, or even suggest - so holding such an opinion (for or against) is somewhat pointless. If they want to code it in now or later, they will code it in now or later. I'm sure they have more important tasks that they're currently working on (major feature additions), but I would like to see it after those, in the near future.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited December 2011
<!--quoteo(post=1890847:date=Dec 19 2011, 11:40 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Dec 19 2011, 11:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890847"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You forgot to say "please".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Whether or not you take my suggestions to heart is your problem entirely. It's certainly not something I should have to tell you -- it's something most people learn in school or early in their professional life. As it is, your posts are frustrating to read and the point you are trying to get across is lost within the mass of unnecessary wordyness.
<!--quoteo(post=1890793:date=Dec 18 2011, 09:57 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Dec 18 2011, 09:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890793"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The rifle butt attack should be axed*.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If your only way to make the skulk competititve in melee is to entirely remove the ability of marines to perform melee attacks, that seems to support my point that skulk melee is pretty weak.
Personally, my solution to rifle butt (a somewhat difficult to aim, low rate of fire, ostensibly last ditch attack) being actually rather good is to make skulks less crap, Skulks should not be in competition with marines in close quarters, they should be in competition with marines at long range, the competition being 'can the marine kill the skulk before it gets close' versus 'can the skulk survive the marine long enough to get close'.
At the moment marines get what amounts to free hits on the skulk before they get into actual fighting range. A marine and a skulk in close quarters are fighting a fairly even matched battle with almost identical mechanics, or they would be if the skulk hadn't been shot a bunch before he got into close quarters.
Either you have to take away the marine's guns, or you need to make skulks better in melee somehow, I see only one of those as a desirable option. I'd much rather skulks be made better melee fighters than just giving them a straight up damage buff. Instakill attacks are dumb, better controls are cool.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited December 2011
<!--quoteo(post=1890880:date=Dec 19 2011, 04:26 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Dec 19 2011, 04:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890880"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->remove the ability of marines to perform melee attacks<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Right, because who cares about the switch-ax? I'm going to end up with RSI from the repeated facepalms I involuntarily do everytime you post something. Sorry man, but it's the truth. Your post are more often than not filled with stupid.
If you're consistently taking a lot of hits before getting within melee range, and not able to compete as a skulk vs. marine in a melee range fight, you're either doing it wrong or just incredibly bad. Regardless of which it is, it's still not a fault with the game that can be fixed. They can't very well balance the skulk around your ineptitude lest they turn everybody else into demigods.
Since they've removed bunnyhopping, and still haven't implemented this magical new movement system they're supposedly working on, rushing marines head on simply isn't an option. There isn't much to do about that really, unless you want to turn ambush situations into 100% kill situations for skulks.
The complaint has nothing to do with getting into melee range. The problem players are discussing here revolves around skulk melee combat. Once in melee range, it is difficult to keep track of your opponent. Again, giving feedback to help ease what can be a frustrating situation for a large number of players, especially new players, doesn't innately increase a players skill. It only makes their experience less frustrating. If they suck at aiming their bite, they will still won't be able to hit a marine. It would be like saying a crosshair will make all players able to hit their target every time; it is just a visual feedback mechanism to make aiming less frustrating for players, nothing more.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited December 2011
<!--quoteo(post=1890961:date=Dec 20 2011, 07:43 AM:name=l3lessed)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (l3lessed @ Dec 20 2011, 07:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890961"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The complaint has nothing to do with getting into melee range. The problem players are discussing here revolves around skulk melee combat.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I suggest you buy a pair of reading glasses. There are roughly three discussions going on in this thread.
1. The original suggestion by the OP (which is correctly criticized for removing the element of skill). 2. The subsequent suggestion of adding indicators (which is criticized for not really making much of a difference, but is otherwise a decent idea provided it only applies to SOF upgraded aliens or parasited marines). 3. The complaint that skulks are too weak in melee partially because they take a lot of damage while getting inside melee range (I think I've said enough about that one).
I'm going to take a break from this forum now to avoid going postal because of all the stupid.
Harimau, I don't quite follow your idea that the ability to track marines in melee is binary. I'd say it seems like you're just drawing a threshold on the "skill gradient" (I hate making up dumb terms to describe videogames) equivalent to saying people can either aim or not aim.
I accept that bitegun as a weapon has much less granularity than the LMG, for example, and so inherently has a larger "skill/effectiveness coefficient" (more made up terms!!) and so it's easier to cross the invisible threshold of bad skulk to good skulk. It's very similar to the shotgun in this regard, but nobody is calling for the shotgun to be auto-aimed.
Is it possible that you're taking the effectiveness of bite WRT aiming skill in isolation from all other factors and extrapolating its supposed binary nature from there?
If the scenario were "accurately hit an opponent once" then your assumptions are correct. However, in regular gameplay you have to hit each opponent multiple times while they actively try and dodge you, while a large proportion of the screen is obscured (skulk teeth, explosions, darkness, spore, flashbang etc). I half read-half skimmed the thread, but I didn't see any mention of the use of sound as a mental positioning tool and the role it also plays in tracking the opponent (this is <i>another</i> degraded skill-curve from NS1 to NS2 that is receiving a little attention over in gen. disc. forum at the moment). All these factors combine to create the skill gradient of tracking the marine.
Sorry if this feels like a nitpick, but it seems to me that this is the issue at the heart of the debate regarding lock-on melee.
My kneejerk reaction to the proposed idea was GOOD GOD THATS A BAD IDEA. After thinking it over and weighing up the arguments in this thread, I stand by my initial reaction. The real issue comes down to the subjective values of each individual player with how large a difference in effort/reward between them and their opponent they're willing to accept and <i>that</i> can only come down from on-high and is a central design decision. Everyone accepts a personal level of "fighting the controls": SC:BW players are up in arms over things I perceive as silly like multiple-building selections on hotkeys and AI movement being too effective in SC2. In SC2, Zerg and Protoss pros hated how easy the ghost's EMP was to use compared to their own race's caster units. In NS1, I rage against cloak focus as both a marine and alien.
Melee auto-aim isn't necessarily a game balance decision as it is about casting an equilibrium between reaching the level of "fighting the controls" that the most players will accept and the naturally conflicting factors of skill-cap and matched effort/reward.
<!--QuoteBegin-David Sirlin+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (David Sirlin)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am primarily known for my obsession with doing the same move over and over again.<b> I try to find moves that are 100 times harder to stop than they are for me to do. </b>If I can find something I can do over and over and over without fear of retaliation, then I am at my happiest. When I do discover such things, it doesn’t say much for the game’s design, but that isn’t my problem as a player, and I have no obligation to anyone to play a game “as it was intended†or <b>in an “exciting†way.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Emphasis added.
Melee auto-aim falls into the above category. By definition it is removing enjoyment and excitement from the game unless you want to significantly neuter the skill-curve of marines to match, but doing that will shorten the lifespan of your game. Do you want 400,000 people playing your game for a week or 50,000 people playing your game for 3 years? Silly made-up numbers, I know, but the choice is breadth vs depth? I know what I'd choose as an indie dev.
Edit: Follow up quote, more on why these types of things are bad: <!--QuoteBegin-David Sirlin+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (David Sirlin)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The theory is that if an opponent can’t stop a certain move, then I don’t have to bother with the sticky business of predicting what they will do next. I also don’t have to worry about them predicting what I’ll do: we all know what I’ll be doing! As long as whatever I am doing isn’t making me lose, I’m content to continue doing it and make the opponent prove that he can beat it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My kneejerk reaction to the proposed idea was GOOD GOD THATS A BAD IDEA. After thinking it over and weighing up the arguments in this thread, I stand by my initial reaction.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly how I feel. I can understand that it's frustrating being a skulk and getting blasted by the same marine over and over, but I got over that in NS1. I really think it just takes time to get used to it.
When I first played Left 4 Dead...wow...my skulk training (and AvP 1 & 2) came in super handy. The game was a breeze as a hunter. It does just take time. Having a nice, smooth-running and lag free game will certainly help.
Keeping movement control as loose as possible is a good thing I think. Look what happened to AvP3 D: and its melee system. Not fun at all! By the way, I'm -- STILL -- all for upside down skulk view/wall climing -- darn you, you nauseous fools. I haven't had a butterfly in my stomach since I first got my Playstation and played the WipEout demo. Man..that first dip...everyone was like "whhooooaaaa". There was also the Jumping Flash demo with the rainbow coasters...us jaded gamers need that feeling again. Good story, I know...
<!--quoteo(post=1891031:date=Dec 20 2011, 11:35 PM:name=MuYeah)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MuYeah @ Dec 20 2011, 11:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1891031"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Harimau, I don't quite follow your idea that the ability to track marines in melee is binary. I'd say it seems like you're just drawing a threshold on the "skill gradient" (I hate making up dumb terms to describe videogames) equivalent to saying people can either aim or not aim.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Apparently I'm too wordy, so let's illustrate what I'm talking about when I say "binary" (I make up dumb terms too :), with a picture. <img src="http://i.imgur.com/Oo6oK.png" border="0" class="linked-image" /> Above, is a player's effectiveness (tracking ability) vs their skill/experience/whatever with the current low-information implementation. Below, is a player's effectiveness (tracking ability) vs their skill/experience/whatever with <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro--><b>peripheral vision/proximate awareness indicators</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->.
<b><u>Please note</u>:</b> I think <!--coloro:red--><span style="color:red"><!--/coloro-->"Melee Lock-on" is a <b>very bad idea</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, and <i>I have argued against it from the start</i>. <u>This thread has moved on since then</u>, and because of your response, now I'm thinking I should create a new thread for this new, different suggestion.
<!--quoteo(post=1891034:date=Dec 20 2011, 04:53 PM:name=Josh86)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Josh86 @ Dec 20 2011, 04:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1891034"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->By the way, I'm -- STILL -- all for upside down skulk view/wall climing -- darn you, you nauseous fools.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Been trying to create just such a mod together with Yuuki. It has proven extremely hard and difficult so far. Every approach we've had has proven to have flaws to big to be acceptable. If you would solve it, I would gladly use it.
Harimu, using ad hominen attacks and being generally condescending towards those who don't agree with your position isn't a rhetorically affective strategy to convince them otherwise. Of course there are multiple threads running through this discussion. I was merely referring to the most current discussion which revolved around giving aliens feedback on enemy positions once within melee range.
I still stand by my original assertion that providing players with as much non-intrusive feedback as you can on what is happening around them is beneficial to a players experience.
Also, depth and breadth aren't mutually exclusive or negatively correlated. You can achieve both together.
I see no problem with periphial vision indicators in the style of NS1 flashlight. Literally pointing to where an opponent with an arrow would be a bit much.
Harimau, your graphs make sense and I agree with them in general terms but you're assuming the point of competence is a set point. It's actually dynamic and defined by the opposing player's ability. The only useful metric I can see in balancing this sort of thing is effort/reward and matching it for any given point on the skill curve.
<!--quoteo(post=1891108:date=Dec 21 2011, 06:35 AM:name=l3lessed)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (l3lessed @ Dec 21 2011, 06:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1891108"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Harimu, using ad hominen attacks and being generally condescending towards those who don't agree with your position isn't a rhetorically affective strategy to convince them otherwise. Of course there are multiple threads running through this discussion. I was merely referring to the most current discussion which revolved around giving aliens feedback on enemy positions once within melee range.
I still stand by my original assertion that providing players with as much non-intrusive feedback as you can on what is happening around them is beneficial to a players experience.
Also, depth and breadth aren't mutually exclusive or negatively correlated. You can achieve both together.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> ? I am confused. What are you referring to? I don't think I have addressed you once in this thread, and certainly not recently.
<!--quoteo(post=1891115:date=Dec 21 2011, 07:58 AM:name=MuYeah)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MuYeah @ Dec 21 2011, 07:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1891115"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I see no problem with periphial vision indicators in the style of NS1 flashlight. Literally pointing to where an opponent with an arrow would be a bit much.
Harimau, your graphs make sense and I agree with them in general terms but you're assuming the point of competence is a set point. It's actually dynamic and defined by the opposing player's ability. The only useful metric I can see in balancing this sort of thing is effort/reward and matching it for any given point on the skill curve.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't agree that it would be too much, considering that it is tied to an ability (parasite) and upgrade (scent of fear). Possibly hive sight. On the other hand, if your concern is <b>thematic</b> (i.e. arrows do not make sense for an organic, alien team) then I agree, it needs a suitably Kharaa implementation.
Of course the graphs are a generalisation, but the graphs automatically assume "<u>all other things being equal</u>". How would you even quantify "skill"? Maybe "effectiveness" could be measured in tracking ability, or number of bites you can get in before you are killed, but these aren't the most exact measurements nor do they fully describe the concept accurately. Creating a graph is an impossible feat. The idea was simply to illustrate the "binary" nature of melee combat: there is a large region where you are simply, utterly ineffective (incompetent; unable to track a marine at all, let alone land bites); and then there is a region of increasing effectiveness proportional to experience/skill (competence; able to track a marine, able to land bites, able to move effectively, able to survive, able to react prudently, able to make tactical decisions, able to coordinate with team members, and so on). I believe we should do without the former region.
Well, how about if the Skulk easily loses this "lock on" on Marine if he can't see him anymore, or if marine is too far away, or if Skulk gets punched, shoot at.
Maybe the "lock on" is an ability that only holds for a few seconds and has got a cooldown time?
<!--quoteo(post=1891631:date=Dec 25 2011, 01:11 PM:name=Wolpertinger)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wolpertinger @ Dec 25 2011, 01:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1891631"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well, how about if the Skulk easily loses this "lock on" on Marine if he can't see him anymore, or if marine is too far away, or if Skulk gets punched, shoot at.
Maybe the "lock on" is an ability that only holds for a few seconds and has got a cooldown time?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Or, how about we don't add auto-aim into our competitive multiplayer fps/rts hybrid?
Peripheral vision indicators may or may not work as a balance issue, but I can't see anything that affects camera movement or allows players to track specific targets working out.
<!--quoteo(post=1891660:date=Dec 26 2011, 01:41 AM:name=Techercizer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Techercizer @ Dec 26 2011, 01:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1891660"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Or, how about we don't add auto-aim into our competitive multiplayer fps/rts hybrid?
Peripheral vision indicators may or may not work as a balance issue, but I can't see anything that affects camera movement or allows players to track specific targets working out.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would not call it auto-aim when it is only applied to Skulks. They can not shoot at Marines. Maybe someone could create a mod for this idea, and tweak it, find out what might work. Like some people did with the Fade-mod. That is essentially the ultimate-test for any gameplay-element. It is hard to argue about it if you could see it fail.
Are you saying a lock-on (your view is locked to a target, and you move in a circle around that target; see the first person brawler Zeno Clash) is <b>not</b> auto-aim? :|
I love Zeno Clash. Waiting for the sequel. (Nice to see other people know about it.)
Yes, that is what I am thinking about.
Auto-<b>Aim</b>, in my head, has to do with shooting. - And even if it is considered auto-aim... At least for me skulking is very, very hard, to the point where it is luck whether I hit a Marine in a frantic battle (with several other Marines).
Might also be the terrible framerates (got average 20 fps).
Again, this debate will only then die if it has been tested. (The developers might just ignore this, anyway.)
Whether the debate dies or not, anyone who can objectively compare the impacts of adding such a feature to the general intended final state of this game can see that the idea is dead and buried.
Maybe we should make a new thread for peripheral vision indicators so that we don't keep running into people who prefer automatic combat mechanics over player-based skill.
Zeno Clash was Zeno Clash, this is Natural Selection. We cannot have a view lock-on because: - it betrays expectations - it is clunky - it is inflexible - it removes much of the skill and challenge - it actually obscures peripheral awareness* - it basically is auto-<b>aim</b> (you aim where your view is with the mouse - with lock-on, you lose mouse control) -> auto-aim is a bad idea in a competitive game -> losing control is a bad idea in almost any game -> the game should not play the game for you
I did enjoy Zeno Clash, and was quite disappointed to hear ACE Team are branching off into other IPs before they return to make Zeno Clash 2 (Zeno Clash was also a bit short, and I wasn't exactly satisfied with the ending) - but it's a very different sort of game to NS, and although it brought something new to fighters and first-person games (along with a wonderful setting), it was still nowhere near the ideal implementation of a first-person brawler, there was definitely room for improvement.
*contrast this with the current suggestion: A purely-visual peripheral vision / proximate awareness indicator, tied to parasite (a basic skulk ability), scent of fear (a research that highlights wounded enemies) and possibly hive sight. It is visible only when targets are within a reasonable range, and it is dynamic to allow a player to easily make judgments on the polar angle between their current view and the location of targets (essentially how far they have to rotate their view to (re-)capture targets on screen). The key thing here is that it is purely informational, and does not play the game for them.
Okay, okay, if people look see it as "the game plays the game for you"...
At least give us the ability (upgrade...) to see a health indicator so we know who to focus on when attacking, instead of randomly choosing one without knowing whether we have a chance before getting slaughtered ourselves.
Comments
<!--quoteo(post=1890631:date=Dec 17 2011, 01:16 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Dec 17 2011, 01:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890631"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Please don't take offense at this, but it seems like, from what you're saying, that you'd just prefer "everyone else playing bad" than you actually "playing better".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would prefer that every single game mechanic that requires practice to be good at isn't removed from the game. After the wholesale culling (compared to NS1) we've seen so far, the few remaining ones become even more important.
I have a three suggestions for you:
1. Don't say "please don't take offense" or similar disclaimers. If anything, it only makes the person you direct them towards more suspicious of your intentions.
2. Don't put words into other people's mouths.
3. You use a lot of words to say very little. Write concisely.
<!--quoteo(post=1890631:date=Dec 17 2011, 01:16 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Dec 17 2011, 01:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890631"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Currently, tracking a marine as a skulk doesn't <i>really</i> <b>scale</b> with skill (i.e. a smooth progression): because you see, currently, tracking a marine as a skulk is a rather binary affair: you are either competent<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->**<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> (or <i>lucky</i>, as the case may be) and the game is fun, or you are incompetent (or <i>unlucky</i>) and the game is a lot less fun.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tracking a marine as a skulk scales beautifully. Not only do you gradually get better at it the more you play, but it also depends on the skill of your opponent. Pretty much everything you wrote in this parapraph is wrong, I don't really know what else to tell you.
A different matter is that it can be quite confusing and frustrating to learn at first -- something I attribute in large part to the fact that melee vs. ranged combat is uncommon in games. It isn't that the learning curve is very steep, it's just that you're starting at zero instead of the usual ranged vs. ranged combat that everybody has some experience with. There isn't a whole lot you can do to "fix" that in multiplayer mode. The addition of bots should alleviate the problem to some degree though.
<!--quoteo(post=1890631:date=Dec 17 2011, 01:16 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Dec 17 2011, 01:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890631"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If what I'm trying to say above by pasting that quote is not obvious enough, let's say it straight: In these cases, you are going to be visible anyway, so "sneaky" doesn't come into it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If it's only going to work when you have SOF or the marine is parasited, I have no issue with it. That said, it's not going to have much of an effect on the game if it's limited to those cases and probably isn't worth spending coding time on at the moment.
<!--quoteo(post=1890652:date=Dec 17 2011, 06:14 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Dec 17 2011, 06:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890652"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->rifle butt<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The rifle butt attack should be axed*.
<!--quoteo(post=1890610:date=Dec 17 2011, 08:59 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Dec 17 2011, 08:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890610"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You can't play sneaky as a marine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny you should mention it. UWE really should get around to fixing that.
The irony of people playing a game named "Natural Selection" demanding the game be made easier instead of adapting to the game is palpable.
If you want to go down that road, any type of assistance could be considered ironic and unneeded. Those who learn to compete will out survive those who don't. We don't need cross hairs, GUI indication, health bars, or any of the other small things which assist and allow a player to quickly become competent within the game.
You guys are committing so many logical fallacies it is hard to count.
I can agree that an auto lock system could and might level out any type of skill between regular and skilled players too much. However, I don't agree giving players as much non-obstructive feedback to assist them is a bad thing. Any game developer, who is worth his two cents, will straight out rail against this theory. The general consensus within game theory these days is the exact opposite.
What differentiates players skill isn't the amount of assisted feedback he receives from the game; If so, everyone would always be exactly the same skill level because everyone gets the exact same feedback, unless they've modded their game. Instead, what makes a player more skilled is their ability to take all the feedback, visual and auditory, process it, and act accordingly to achieve his current goal. This could be as simple as killing a marine or as complex as commanding a whole team to victory.
All we're asking for is more feedback and information; I think this is a legitimate request in general. Not only will it help current players, but it will help the game in general too by allowing more players to become competent at the game and enjoy it; it won't, all of a sudden, make all the players pro level, but it will allow players who would previously leave out of frustration to actually enjoy themselves more. Just because a player knows the general direction a marine is in doesn't mean he will have the skill to focus in on the marine, keep his vision on that marine, and land multiple bites.
So yes, I'm strongly in favor of some sort of peripheral vision/indication system as long as it is non-obstructive and intuitive.
To reiterate. The GUI is a set of gauges (like in a car or aircraft) that relays data. As the data changes, so do the gauges. The gauges don't inherently cause an operator to become more skilled. It is through the individual skill level of the operator of interpreting and in turn adjusting that data to reach a goal.
But, there is a limit. A poorly laid out GUI/cockpit can over emphasis a piece of data "stealing" the attention from other gauges and in turn other data.
The original suggestion was a lock-on ability. Though it may not be, by nature, a bad thing, but it may not be a good addition to this game. In this case, it is like cruise control. By locking in a speed/target/objective part of the operator interaction is taken over to relieve the operator to focus on other data and manipulate it.
A lock-on ability is not an answer to "how can we make player tracking easier?", but "how do we relieve the skulk player of this operation to allow focus on something else?".
The solution we are looking for is the answer to the question "how can we make player tracking easier?". This is why I believe that an additional gauge ie. a visual cue on the GUI makes data available to the operator without taking relinquishing control, for better or for worse.
Happened when the new flashlight was optimized for seeing in dark rooms rather than for tracking targets.
An exaggeration. The suggestion does not "remove" anything. More on this later.
<!--quoteo(post=1890793:date=Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890793"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->1. Don't say "please don't take offense" or similar disclaimers. If anything, it only makes the person you direct them towards more suspicious of your intentions.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not intending to offend, but the way it is phrased may cause some people to take offense anyway. As you've proven. That's why I add the disclaimer.
<!--quoteo(post=1890793:date=Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890793"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2. Don't put words into other people's mouths.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"seems like". Inference. Perhaps when you speak and when you write, you should be more specific about your meaning and intentions.
<!--quoteo(post=1890793:date=Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890793"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->3. You use a lot of words to say very little.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is called "explanation" and "elaboration". My hope is that if I say a lot now, I won't have to say as much later.
<!--quoteo(post=1890793:date=Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890793"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Write concisely.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You forgot to say "please".
<!--quoteo(post=1890793:date=Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890793"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Tracking a marine as a skulk scales beautifully. Not only do you gradually get better at it the more you play, but it also depends on the skill of your opponent.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty much everything you wrote in these sentences is wrong, I don't really know what else to tell you. ;)
I'll try anyway, since you <b>seem to</b> have missed my point:
Currently it is a rather binary affair - in that you can do it or you can't. If you can do it (competence), then of course people who have practiced can do it better, obviously. But if you can't do it (incompetence), then you are useless. This suggestion simply lowers the barrier to <b>competence</b>, without affecting the skill ceiling.
<!--quoteo(post=1890793:date=Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890793"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Pretty much everything you wrote in this parapraph is wrong, I don't really know what else to tell you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You could tell me... <b>how</b> I'm wrong? You know, "explain".
<!--quoteo(post=1890793:date=Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890793"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A different matter is that it can be quite confusing and frustrating to learn at first -- something I attribute in large part to the fact that melee vs. ranged combat is uncommon in games. It isn't that the learning curve is very steep, it's just that you're starting at zero instead of the usual ranged vs. ranged combat that everybody has some experience with. There isn't a whole lot you can do to "fix" that in multiplayer mode. The addition of bots should alleviate the problem to some degree though.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a valid analysis, but I think you're missing the main issue. The key issue here is <b>awareness</b>.
A game that was first-person ranged versus third-person melee would be just as you describe: much more balanced and accessible for the melee unit, even if the control scheme and everything else was exactly the same.
But the issue here is that we've got first-person melee - that's a design decision, and I wouldn't want it any other way. However, with first-person in contrast to third-person, you lack peripheral vision and awareness - one of the most important assets in melee combat.
The fact is, it is easier for a marine to track and hurt a skulk than a skulk to track and hurt a marine, <b>at close range</b>. This is probably part of the reason why a skulk has so much damage per hit - he has to be able to kill the marine so much quicker because he has such a high likelihood of losing his target.
A reliance on being out of the opponent's view is akin to a reliance on cloaking - which is not exactly the most competition-friendly feature.
This suggestion takes a lot of the guesswork and chance out of fighting a marine in close quarters, and makes it more about the actual motion, positioning and attacking.
Edit: Also, what l3lessed said.
<!--quoteo(post=1890793:date=Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890793"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If it's only going to work when you have SOF or the marine is parasited, I have no issue with it. That said, it's not going to have much of an effect on the game if it's limited to those cases<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, parasite is available very early, to the most common, starting lifeform - and parasiting before engaging is encouraged behaviour, so this wouldn't really be a limited case (in fact, it would encourage parasiting even more).
But it's good to know you at least don't mind the suggestion in these terms.
<!--quoteo(post=1890793:date=Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Dec 19 2011, 05:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1890793"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->and probably isn't worth spending coding time on at the moment.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not exactly something we get to dictate, or even suggest - so holding such an opinion (for or against) is somewhat pointless. If they want to code it in now or later, they will code it in now or later. I'm sure they have more important tasks that they're currently working on (major feature additions), but I would like to see it after those, in the near future.
Whether or not you take my suggestions to heart is your problem entirely. It's certainly not something I should have to tell you -- it's something most people learn in school or early in their professional life. As it is, your posts are frustrating to read and the point you are trying to get across is lost within the mass of unnecessary wordyness.
If your only way to make the skulk competititve in melee is to entirely remove the ability of marines to perform melee attacks, that seems to support my point that skulk melee is pretty weak.
Personally, my solution to rifle butt (a somewhat difficult to aim, low rate of fire, ostensibly last ditch attack) being actually rather good is to make skulks less crap, Skulks should not be in competition with marines in close quarters, they should be in competition with marines at long range, the competition being 'can the marine kill the skulk before it gets close' versus 'can the skulk survive the marine long enough to get close'.
At the moment marines get what amounts to free hits on the skulk before they get into actual fighting range. A marine and a skulk in close quarters are fighting a fairly even matched battle with almost identical mechanics, or they would be if the skulk hadn't been shot a bunch before he got into close quarters.
Either you have to take away the marine's guns, or you need to make skulks better in melee somehow, I see only one of those as a desirable option. I'd much rather skulks be made better melee fighters than just giving them a straight up damage buff. Instakill attacks are dumb, better controls are cool.
Right, because who cares about the switch-ax? I'm going to end up with RSI from the repeated facepalms I involuntarily do everytime you post something. Sorry man, but it's the truth. Your post are more often than not filled with stupid.
If you're consistently taking a lot of hits before getting within melee range, and not able to compete as a skulk vs. marine in a melee range fight, you're either doing it wrong or just incredibly bad. Regardless of which it is, it's still not a fault with the game that can be fixed. They can't very well balance the skulk around your ineptitude lest they turn everybody else into demigods.
Since they've removed bunnyhopping, and still haven't implemented this magical new movement system they're supposedly working on, rushing marines head on simply isn't an option. There isn't much to do about that really, unless you want to turn ambush situations into 100% kill situations for skulks.
I suggest you buy a pair of reading glasses. There are roughly three discussions going on in this thread.
1. The original suggestion by the OP (which is correctly criticized for removing the element of skill).
2. The subsequent suggestion of adding indicators (which is criticized for not really making much of a difference, but is otherwise a decent idea provided it only applies to SOF upgraded aliens or parasited marines).
3. The complaint that skulks are too weak in melee partially because they take a lot of damage while getting inside melee range (I think I've said enough about that one).
I'm going to take a break from this forum now to avoid going postal because of all the stupid.
I accept that bitegun as a weapon has much less granularity than the LMG, for example, and so inherently has a larger "skill/effectiveness coefficient" (more made up terms!!) and so it's easier to cross the invisible threshold of bad skulk to good skulk. It's very similar to the shotgun in this regard, but nobody is calling for the shotgun to be auto-aimed.
Is it possible that you're taking the effectiveness of bite WRT aiming skill in isolation from all other factors and extrapolating its supposed binary nature from there?
If the scenario were "accurately hit an opponent once" then your assumptions are correct. However, in regular gameplay you have to hit each opponent multiple times while they actively try and dodge you, while a large proportion of the screen is obscured (skulk teeth, explosions, darkness, spore, flashbang etc). I half read-half skimmed the thread, but I didn't see any mention of the use of sound as a mental positioning tool and the role it also plays in tracking the opponent (this is <i>another</i> degraded skill-curve from NS1 to NS2 that is receiving a little attention over in gen. disc. forum at the moment). All these factors combine to create the skill gradient of tracking the marine.
Sorry if this feels like a nitpick, but it seems to me that this is the issue at the heart of the debate regarding lock-on melee.
My kneejerk reaction to the proposed idea was GOOD GOD THATS A BAD IDEA. After thinking it over and weighing up the arguments in this thread, I stand by my initial reaction. The real issue comes down to the subjective values of each individual player with how large a difference in effort/reward between them and their opponent they're willing to accept and <i>that</i> can only come down from on-high and is a central design decision. Everyone accepts a personal level of "fighting the controls": SC:BW players are up in arms over things I perceive as silly like multiple-building selections on hotkeys and AI movement being too effective in SC2. In SC2, Zerg and Protoss pros hated how easy the ghost's EMP was to use compared to their own race's caster units. In NS1, I rage against cloak focus as both a marine and alien.
Melee auto-aim isn't necessarily a game balance decision as it is about casting an equilibrium between reaching the level of "fighting the controls" that the most players will accept and the naturally conflicting factors of skill-cap and matched effort/reward.
<!--QuoteBegin-David Sirlin+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (David Sirlin)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am primarily known for my obsession with doing the same move over and over again.<b> I try to find moves that are 100 times harder to stop than they are for me to do. </b>If I can find something I can do over and over and over without fear of retaliation, then I am at my happiest. When I do discover such things, it doesn’t say much for the game’s design, but that isn’t my problem as a player, and I have no obligation to anyone to play a game “as it was intended†or <b>in an “exciting†way.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Emphasis added.
Melee auto-aim falls into the above category. By definition it is removing enjoyment and excitement from the game unless you want to significantly neuter the skill-curve of marines to match, but doing that will shorten the lifespan of your game. Do you want 400,000 people playing your game for a week or 50,000 people playing your game for 3 years? Silly made-up numbers, I know, but the choice is breadth vs depth? I know what I'd choose as an indie dev.
Edit: Follow up quote, more on why these types of things are bad:
<!--QuoteBegin-David Sirlin+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (David Sirlin)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The theory is that if an opponent can’t stop a certain move, then I don’t have to bother with the sticky business of predicting what they will do next. I also don’t have to worry about them predicting what I’ll do: we all know what I’ll be doing! As long as whatever I am doing isn’t making me lose, I’m content to continue doing it and make the opponent prove that he can beat it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly how I feel. I can understand that it's frustrating being a skulk and getting blasted by the same marine over and over, but I got over that in NS1. I really think it just takes time to get used to it.
When I first played Left 4 Dead...wow...my skulk training (and AvP 1 & 2) came in super handy. The game was a breeze as a hunter. It does just take time. Having a nice, smooth-running and lag free game will certainly help.
Keeping movement control as loose as possible is a good thing I think. Look what happened to AvP3 D: and its melee system. Not fun at all! By the way, I'm -- STILL -- all for upside down skulk view/wall climing -- darn you, you nauseous fools. I haven't had a butterfly in my stomach since I first got my Playstation and played the WipEout demo. Man..that first dip...everyone was like "whhooooaaaa". There was also the Jumping Flash demo with the rainbow coasters...us jaded gamers need that feeling again. Good story, I know...
Apparently I'm too wordy, so let's illustrate what I'm talking about when I say "binary" (I make up dumb terms too :), with a picture.
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/Oo6oK.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Above, is a player's effectiveness (tracking ability) vs their skill/experience/whatever with the current low-information implementation.
Below, is a player's effectiveness (tracking ability) vs their skill/experience/whatever with <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro--><b>peripheral vision/proximate awareness indicators</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->.
<b><u>Please note</u>:</b> I think <!--coloro:red--><span style="color:red"><!--/coloro-->"Melee Lock-on" is a <b>very bad idea</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, and <i>I have argued against it from the start</i>. <u>This thread has moved on since then</u>, and because of your response, now I'm thinking I should create a new thread for this new, different suggestion.
Been trying to create just such a mod together with Yuuki. It has proven extremely hard and difficult so far. Every approach we've had has proven to have flaws to big to be acceptable. If you would solve it, I would gladly use it.
I still stand by my original assertion that providing players with as much non-intrusive feedback as you can on what is happening around them is beneficial to a players experience.
Also, depth and breadth aren't mutually exclusive or negatively correlated. You can achieve both together.
Harimau, your graphs make sense and I agree with them in general terms but you're assuming the point of competence is a set point. It's actually dynamic and defined by the opposing player's ability. The only useful metric I can see in balancing this sort of thing is effort/reward and matching it for any given point on the skill curve.
I still stand by my original assertion that providing players with as much non-intrusive feedback as you can on what is happening around them is beneficial to a players experience.
Also, depth and breadth aren't mutually exclusive or negatively correlated. You can achieve both together.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
?
I am confused. What are you referring to? I don't think I have addressed you once in this thread, and certainly not recently.
<!--quoteo(post=1891115:date=Dec 21 2011, 07:58 AM:name=MuYeah)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MuYeah @ Dec 21 2011, 07:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1891115"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I see no problem with periphial vision indicators in the style of NS1 flashlight. Literally pointing to where an opponent with an arrow would be a bit much.
Harimau, your graphs make sense and I agree with them in general terms but you're assuming the point of competence is a set point. It's actually dynamic and defined by the opposing player's ability. The only useful metric I can see in balancing this sort of thing is effort/reward and matching it for any given point on the skill curve.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't agree that it would be too much, considering that it is tied to an ability (parasite) and upgrade (scent of fear). Possibly hive sight.
On the other hand, if your concern is <b>thematic</b> (i.e. arrows do not make sense for an organic, alien team) then I agree, it needs a suitably Kharaa implementation.
Of course the graphs are a generalisation, but the graphs automatically assume "<u>all other things being equal</u>". How would you even quantify "skill"? Maybe "effectiveness" could be measured in tracking ability, or number of bites you can get in before you are killed, but these aren't the most exact measurements nor do they fully describe the concept accurately. Creating a graph is an impossible feat.
The idea was simply to illustrate the "binary" nature of melee combat: there is a large region where you are simply, utterly ineffective (incompetent; unable to track a marine at all, let alone land bites); and then there is a region of increasing effectiveness proportional to experience/skill (competence; able to track a marine, able to land bites, able to move effectively, able to survive, able to react prudently, able to make tactical decisions, able to coordinate with team members, and so on). I believe we should do without the former region.
Maybe the "lock on" is an ability that only holds for a few seconds and has got a cooldown time?
Maybe the "lock on" is an ability that only holds for a few seconds and has got a cooldown time?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or, how about we don't add auto-aim into our competitive multiplayer fps/rts hybrid?
Peripheral vision indicators may or may not work as a balance issue, but I can't see anything that affects camera movement or allows players to track specific targets working out.
TROLOLOLOLOLOL
Peripheral vision indicators may or may not work as a balance issue, but I can't see anything that affects camera movement or allows players to track specific targets working out.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would not call it auto-aim when it is only applied to Skulks. They can not shoot at Marines.
Maybe someone could create a mod for this idea, and tweak it, find out what might work. Like some people did with the Fade-mod.
That is essentially the ultimate-test for any gameplay-element. It is hard to argue about it if you could see it fail.
Unfortunately I have no clue about programming.
Are you saying a lock-on (your view is locked to a target, and you move in a circle around that target; see the first person brawler Zeno Clash) is <b>not</b> auto-aim? :|
Yes, that is what I am thinking about.
Auto-<b>Aim</b>, in my head, has to do with shooting. - And even if it is considered auto-aim... At least for me skulking is very, very hard, to the point where it is luck whether I hit a Marine in a frantic battle (with several other Marines).
Might also be the terrible framerates (got average 20 fps).
Again, this debate will only then die if it has been tested. (The developers might just ignore this, anyway.)
Maybe we should make a new thread for peripheral vision indicators so that we don't keep running into people who prefer automatic combat mechanics over player-based skill.
- it betrays expectations
- it is clunky
- it is inflexible
- it removes much of the skill and challenge
- it actually obscures peripheral awareness*
- it basically is auto-<b>aim</b> (you aim where your view is with the mouse - with lock-on, you lose mouse control)
-> auto-aim is a bad idea in a competitive game
-> losing control is a bad idea in almost any game
-> the game should not play the game for you
I did enjoy Zeno Clash, and was quite disappointed to hear ACE Team are branching off into other IPs before they return to make Zeno Clash 2 (Zeno Clash was also a bit short, and I wasn't exactly satisfied with the ending) - but it's a very different sort of game to NS, and although it brought something new to fighters and first-person games (along with a wonderful setting), it was still nowhere near the ideal implementation of a first-person brawler, there was definitely room for improvement.
*contrast this with the current suggestion:
A purely-visual peripheral vision / proximate awareness indicator, tied to parasite (a basic skulk ability), scent of fear (a research that highlights wounded enemies) and possibly hive sight. It is visible only when targets are within a reasonable range, and it is dynamic to allow a player to easily make judgments on the polar angle between their current view and the location of targets (essentially how far they have to rotate their view to (re-)capture targets on screen). The key thing here is that it is purely informational, and does not play the game for them.
At least give us the ability (upgrade...) to see a health indicator so we know who to focus on when attacking, instead of randomly choosing one without knowing whether we have a chance before getting slaughtered ourselves.