IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
ive thought of that, harimau, but the problem becomes the lack of significance <u>will </u>lead to boring gameplay quickly, with only fine, sometimes indistinguishable advantages. the solution is the rock, paper, shotgun approach to counter the higher tier.
Thats exactly what I predicted. Now give the game more FPS and aliens wont be playable without bunnyhop and the lerk will enable sniper mode and sit back in vents forever
<!--quoteo(post=1895066:date=Jan 17 2012, 03:25 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Jan 17 2012, 03:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1895066"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->ive thought of that, harimau, but the problem becomes the lack of significance <u>will </u>lead to boring gameplay quickly, with only fine, sometimes indistinguishable advantages. the solution is the rock, paper, shotgun approach to counter the higher tier.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Rock, paper, shotgun? The PC gaming website? What?
Is that the same as rock, paper scissors? For the rest of this post I'm going to assume that it is. I think that hard counters are a terrible balance mechanic for the FPS game - especially for this game, considering the broken resource system. It would mean that the result of an encounter between equally skilled players would essentially depend on what hand you happen to show.
Now, the idea could be workable if you had a different sort of counter - that is, <b>scissors</b> (a middle tier unit) <u>doesn't beat</u> <b>paper</b> (a high tier unit), it <u>only nullifies the advantage</u> that <b>paper</b> has over <b>rock</b> (a low tier unit) Tier in this case refers to both power and cost, and rock, paper and scissors exist on different tiers, rather than on an equal footing. I only used "rock", "paper" and "scissors" for illustration. Call it anything else. <i>The idea is that between a lower tier and a higher tier, there is a middle tier that nullifies the higher tier's advantage.</i> ***
The mere act of "saving up" (an act that requires absolutely no risk) shouldn't confer a significant advantage over any player, especially when "spending" is such an inferior choice. <i>I think that spending should instead be encouraged, with many low-cost significant-power <b>consumables</b>: small, <b>temporary</b> advantages that you can build up - such that saving up becomes a genuine opportunity cost.</i> ***
Regardless, even a unit that you saved for shouldn't confer too significant an advantage. <i>I think that the power-to-cost <b>ratio</b> of units should decrease with respect to cost.</i> *** (kind of like this:) <img src="http://i.imgur.com/U4XJ6.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
*** And so, these are the three suggestions I would make to better balance this game and make it more fun, for more players, all the time: <u>assuming that</u> <b>the current resource system is preserved</b>.
Comments
the solution is the rock, paper, shotgun approach to counter the higher tier.
the solution is the rock, paper, shotgun approach to counter the higher tier.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rock, paper, shotgun? The PC gaming website? What?
Is that the same as rock, paper scissors? For the rest of this post I'm going to assume that it is.
I think that hard counters are a terrible balance mechanic for the FPS game - especially for this game, considering the broken resource system. It would mean that the result of an encounter between equally skilled players would essentially depend on what hand you happen to show.
Now, the idea could be workable if you had a different sort of counter - that is,
<b>scissors</b> (a middle tier unit) <u>doesn't beat</u> <b>paper</b> (a high tier unit), it <u>only nullifies the advantage</u> that <b>paper</b> has over <b>rock</b> (a low tier unit)
Tier in this case refers to both power and cost, and rock, paper and scissors exist on different tiers, rather than on an equal footing. I only used "rock", "paper" and "scissors" for illustration. Call it anything else. <i>The idea is that between a lower tier and a higher tier, there is a middle tier that nullifies the higher tier's advantage.</i> ***
The mere act of "saving up" (an act that requires absolutely no risk) shouldn't confer a significant advantage over any player, especially when "spending" is such an inferior choice. <i>I think that spending should instead be encouraged, with many low-cost significant-power <b>consumables</b>: small, <b>temporary</b> advantages that you can build up - such that saving up becomes a genuine opportunity cost.</i> ***
Regardless, even a unit that you saved for shouldn't confer too significant an advantage. <i>I think that the power-to-cost <b>ratio</b> of units should decrease with respect to cost.</i> ***
(kind of like this:)
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/U4XJ6.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
*** And so, these are the three suggestions I would make to better balance this game and make it more fun, for more players, all the time: <u>assuming that</u> <b>the current resource system is preserved</b>.