Game feels very mechanistic
Chris0132
Join Date: 2009-07-25 Member: 68262Members
Join Date: 2009-07-25 Member: 68262Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Less fun, more work</div>I should probably start by saying build 212 is very impressive looking, visually it's coming along really nicely, and is a big improvement over 5-10 builds previous, I like the new menu, I like the new marine hud, I like the new effects, both particle and material, and the graphics generally are just popping very nicely.
That said, I'm kind of finding the game a bit tedious to actually play of late. It's generally fine in the early game, before upgrades and money really come into play, the game is quite fun. Skulks and marines are interesting and mostly enjoyable to pit against each other. But, as the game progresses, I find that a lot of the time, I'm not doing anything enjoyable.
Partly this is because a lot of the time, I'm using equipment that doesn't work. Skulks and rifle marines are pretty rubbish after the first few minutes, and most of their utilty is found in their expendability, you can run around and attack outlying rooms without fear of loss, because you have nothing better to do and you don't lose anything if you do die. Trouble is, that isn't any fun, you're trying to avoid fighting things, if you do manage to succed at taking out an RT or two, it's generally because the enemy by chance, does not contest your attack, if you are attacked, you're probably at a major disadvantage. The reason I call it mechanistic in the title is because that best describes my feelings. I'm doing something productive, but there's no joy in it, and my input is largely irrelevant beyond performing the basic actions. I can't generally win fights in this state, and most of the fun stuff is not helpful, or downright impractical because of the aforementioned underpowering of rifles/skulks in mid-late game combat.
Consider a game I like a lot, like unreal tournament. In that game, you are given a selection of weapons, with relative ease, and the entire game is a vehicle to get players to fight each other with a variety of weapons in a variety of places, and the combat is fun, therefore the game is fun because it provides a variety of fun fights.
Compare that with NS2, all of the pickups are locked out by expensive prices, you are usually at a disadvantage, you have a very limited selection of weapons even if you DO have money, and if you die, it puts you out of the fight for a long time, because it takes you a very long time to get back the resources you need to fight effectively. The entire game is almost based around avoiding what is presumably (and certainly is for me) the fun part, the fighting.
You are heavily penalised for losing a fight, so your primary goal is to avoid losing, not to win. In unreal tournament, your best way to win is to attack all out, very rarely do you run away, because if you win, you get your enemy's gun, and a direct point towards victory, you also can't lose more than a minute or so of progress. In NS2, you WILL lose five to ten minutes of progress every time you die unless you're already at rock bottom, you get nothing for killing enemies personally, and doing so does not directly put you any closer to winning.
Essentially, the best way to win NS2 is to ignore the enemy and just chomp RTs all day. The RTS portion of the game almost completely obstructs the FPS portion by presenting conflicting goals. The RTS elements house all of the victory conditions, and the way to win the RTS section is to play it like an RTS, conserve money, build value, attack rarely and decisively at targets which pose no challenge, to achieve victory only once, at the end of the game. An FPS should encourage you to fight constantly and profitably, for personal gain, with lots of rewards for doing so, and which does not penalise you for slipping behind beyond requiring you to make up your score gap.
Compare again with a more similar game, the Empires mod for HL2. That game has a lot of flaws, but what it does very well is it keeps players engaged, you can pick any weapon you want from the start, and all money is team based and is usually spent on team assets. Players can and usually do buy APCs which allow other players to transport around the map quickly, and respawn closer to the fight. Infantry combat costs nothing except reinforcement tickets, and every kill helps slowly build a ticket lead, so players can feel as though they are doing something. Players also get points for kills which they can spend on permanent upgrades for their character (permanent per-round) so dying remains no major loss, beyond the aforementioned ticket mechanic, while winning provides a constant, positive reward for players.
Essentially, in that game, players always have something to do, even if they have no money, they can spawn in at the front line and fight meaningful battles against evenly-equipped opponents, which makes the game a lot of fun. NS2 doesn't have anything like that, when you're knocked out in NS2, you stay knocked out for a long time.
I'd enjoy NS2 a lot more if it let me do something other than perform menial tasks for some abstract and very disconnected sense of victory, which doesn't reflect my personal input very well at all.
That said, I'm kind of finding the game a bit tedious to actually play of late. It's generally fine in the early game, before upgrades and money really come into play, the game is quite fun. Skulks and marines are interesting and mostly enjoyable to pit against each other. But, as the game progresses, I find that a lot of the time, I'm not doing anything enjoyable.
Partly this is because a lot of the time, I'm using equipment that doesn't work. Skulks and rifle marines are pretty rubbish after the first few minutes, and most of their utilty is found in their expendability, you can run around and attack outlying rooms without fear of loss, because you have nothing better to do and you don't lose anything if you do die. Trouble is, that isn't any fun, you're trying to avoid fighting things, if you do manage to succed at taking out an RT or two, it's generally because the enemy by chance, does not contest your attack, if you are attacked, you're probably at a major disadvantage. The reason I call it mechanistic in the title is because that best describes my feelings. I'm doing something productive, but there's no joy in it, and my input is largely irrelevant beyond performing the basic actions. I can't generally win fights in this state, and most of the fun stuff is not helpful, or downright impractical because of the aforementioned underpowering of rifles/skulks in mid-late game combat.
Consider a game I like a lot, like unreal tournament. In that game, you are given a selection of weapons, with relative ease, and the entire game is a vehicle to get players to fight each other with a variety of weapons in a variety of places, and the combat is fun, therefore the game is fun because it provides a variety of fun fights.
Compare that with NS2, all of the pickups are locked out by expensive prices, you are usually at a disadvantage, you have a very limited selection of weapons even if you DO have money, and if you die, it puts you out of the fight for a long time, because it takes you a very long time to get back the resources you need to fight effectively. The entire game is almost based around avoiding what is presumably (and certainly is for me) the fun part, the fighting.
You are heavily penalised for losing a fight, so your primary goal is to avoid losing, not to win. In unreal tournament, your best way to win is to attack all out, very rarely do you run away, because if you win, you get your enemy's gun, and a direct point towards victory, you also can't lose more than a minute or so of progress. In NS2, you WILL lose five to ten minutes of progress every time you die unless you're already at rock bottom, you get nothing for killing enemies personally, and doing so does not directly put you any closer to winning.
Essentially, the best way to win NS2 is to ignore the enemy and just chomp RTs all day. The RTS portion of the game almost completely obstructs the FPS portion by presenting conflicting goals. The RTS elements house all of the victory conditions, and the way to win the RTS section is to play it like an RTS, conserve money, build value, attack rarely and decisively at targets which pose no challenge, to achieve victory only once, at the end of the game. An FPS should encourage you to fight constantly and profitably, for personal gain, with lots of rewards for doing so, and which does not penalise you for slipping behind beyond requiring you to make up your score gap.
Compare again with a more similar game, the Empires mod for HL2. That game has a lot of flaws, but what it does very well is it keeps players engaged, you can pick any weapon you want from the start, and all money is team based and is usually spent on team assets. Players can and usually do buy APCs which allow other players to transport around the map quickly, and respawn closer to the fight. Infantry combat costs nothing except reinforcement tickets, and every kill helps slowly build a ticket lead, so players can feel as though they are doing something. Players also get points for kills which they can spend on permanent upgrades for their character (permanent per-round) so dying remains no major loss, beyond the aforementioned ticket mechanic, while winning provides a constant, positive reward for players.
Essentially, in that game, players always have something to do, even if they have no money, they can spawn in at the front line and fight meaningful battles against evenly-equipped opponents, which makes the game a lot of fun. NS2 doesn't have anything like that, when you're knocked out in NS2, you stay knocked out for a long time.
I'd enjoy NS2 a lot more if it let me do something other than perform menial tasks for some abstract and very disconnected sense of victory, which doesn't reflect my personal input very well at all.
Comments
The game is still 'young' in a few ways:
<ul><li>Majority of players are not aware of the mechanics, the state of the game's design, ongoing forums discussions (i.e. movement, ranged spores, tech/resources)</li><li>Many players do not experience the game with stable framerates or good network performance</li><li>The vast majority of the players are not both RTS and FPS players, do not understand the trends/overall styles of both genres, and of course cannot understand how to blend them (take a look at any discussion on the forums where people claim KDR isn't important, or in your case that the RTS side is irrelevant..)</li><li>Many people are not aware of NS1, or reject it for various reasons, so the community is pre-emptively split despite being a sequel</li></ul>
This game has a competitive community, but even though they're ostensibly the 'best' players, they're still playing an incomplete and rapidly-changing game.
Any time something in the metagame develops, there's a high chance it's simply an exploit or some really overpowered/underpowered part of the game that has been found (ARC trains, mass lerk, mass onos, etc etc). The game isn't yet able to develop the way a competitive RTS or FPS develops:
<ul><li>You can't create, practice and tighten standard build orders when the entire tech/resource model changes every 2 weeks</li><li>You can't practice combat when the role of every unit/weapon is still being tweaked, and performance isn't at an acceptable level</li></ul>
Some of these issues can be solved by the design of the game, but some can only be solved by the opposite. What needs to happen is for the game to reach a certain level of completeness/playability, and then to be <i>left alone</i>. Let people play it, figure it out, get good at it and compete. First, of course, the game needs to get to that point. I predict that when the game is officially released, we will see an explosion in the number of players, and the game will be 'figured out' much faster than people in the beta were able to. The game will still be supported after release, but there's no way they'll get away with changing the alien tech tree every 2 weeks, so the game will become stable in that sense and the quality of the gameplay will be able to show through.
Most of what I'm seeing you describe is just typical pub experience in ns2 atm. Things are better when you have experienced players rather than people that are still learning the game. I understand you might find it difficult to carry on when you've lost your jetpack/GL or whatever combo but if you stick with your teammates you'll find you still count for something.
There is incentive to stick it out and win rather than "don't lose" - you gain territory to increase your team's res. You seem to think of it like it's an FPS with little buildings to shoot at. You can't really compare this to Unreal because that is just your classic FPS. This game is an FPS too but also has a good amount of RTS elements, like resources and territory control/bases. So you have to factor in that you may fight and die in an area but it wasn't just for personal score gain etc, it was an attempt to hold that area/take back control of it. The game really revolves around teamwork, not a bunch of rambos running and gunning with their tricked out arsenal and super buffs. (jetpacks are a little bit like that now but that will hopefully get fixed when they put in a tiering/tech tree system)
I see your point, but the metagame will never stop evolving, whether or not the game design stays the same or changes. I've played DOTA for 9 years, and the changes and additions have never stopped. Strategy slowly evolves as players discover the best tactics and ways to use them.
Obviously, things won't be changing as drastically as they are now, but there's no need to lock a certain set of mechanics into stone.
Obviously, things won't be changing as drastically as they are now, but there's no need to lock a certain set of mechanics into stone.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, but when the game is actually <i>good</i>, 'the metagame developing' will mean people discovering balanced alternative choices, scouting options and so on.
It won't mean "joe random discovers that ARCs are good, begins using them in every match to get wins he doesn't deserve"
When there's more to the game than mass lifeforms and ARC trains, a whole world of obvious strategic ideas will actually become viable!
Most of what I'm seeing you describe is just typical pub experience in ns2 atm. Things are better when you have experienced players rather than people that are still learning the game. I understand you might find it difficult to carry on when you've lost your jetpack/GL or whatever combo but if you stick with your teammates you'll find you still count for something.
There is incentive to stick it out and win rather than "don't lose" - you gain territory to increase your team's res. You seem to think of it like it's an FPS with little buildings to shoot at. You can't really compare this to Unreal because that is just your classic FPS. This game is an FPS too but also has a good amount of RTS elements, like resources and territory control/bases. So you have to factor in that you may fight and die in an area but it wasn't just for personal score gain etc, it was an attempt to hold that area/take back control of it. The game really revolves around teamwork, not a bunch of rambos running and gunning with their tricked out arsenal and super buffs. (jetpacks are a little bit like that now but that will hopefully get fixed when they put in a tiering/tech tree system)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the game doesn't work without people carefully ensuring that it works, it's not a very good game. A game should be fun to pick up and play, I should be able to hop in, have everything I need to start playing, and play, and enjoy it. I shouldn't need a clan, or to play every game from the start, or to wait for everyone to get really good at the game, or for all the non-clan players to abandon it in frustration.
And yeah, it does have RTS elements in it, and right now they're making the bit I play, which is generally the FPS part, a lot less fun. I don't see the point in a game where the entire value is in the metagame, because the metagame is the same in any game. I can play any game for teamwork, what's the point in playing NS2? What makes it different if the actual game itself isn't much fun? The fun should be in the game first, and the metagame if you want to look for it.
The whole 'players pick up your dropped weapons' thing I don't really like either. It just means I don't get to play with the fun stuff, because it's all balanced with the idea of it being passed around a lot, which means it's really expensive. Same as having alien classes based around the idea of running away constantly, it is just more focussing the game around avoiding fighting, because fighting, especially fighting aggressively and getting stuck in, only hurts you.
Part of what makes NS2 rewarding is the fact that it IS tedious. You have to work to achieve. This also makes it endlessly frustrating when on the losing team (Usually decided within 5 mins or less).
I think what you are trying to say is that the game isn't unfun as it is imbalanced.
The game could be fun the entire way through if the devs made the combat balanced and perhaps less tedious (Relying more on reflex and skill than redundant upgrades).
The biggest problem with NS2, in my opinion, is the upgrade system and how reliant it is on an already unbalanced economy system.
So, basically one team will have an economic advantage early on which becomes exponentially more powerful as time goes on. Leaving any chance of a counter... obsolete.
In NS1 this wasn't really an issue due to players being able to drop phase gates anywhere... you could sneak into a hive and drop a pg and send your whole body in and kill the hive in seconds. Also there were less tech points in NS1 so stealth phase killing a hive was a big deal. Can't do this in NS2 due to cysts and powernodes.
You could keep both cysts and powernodes but give the marines an upgrade which lets them build on creep (Perhaps only 1 structure) also giving marines an ability to power structures for a short period of time without the need of a powernode or powerpack could be brilliant. I also don't think hivesight on creep is an intelligent measure because it keep marines from doing such tactics.
Overall this isn't my game and I see profound ways to fix aspects of the game. I have no charts... I have no numbers... and I have no proof other than my own experiences that I can share. That doesn't help though because most opinions lack proof of credibility. We can only post our thoughts an opinions in hope that they will be pondered by UWE.
Balance the economy... and balance the combat between marines and lifeforms by making upgrades and abilities more of perks than game enders.
Artificial skill is a terrible game mechanic. Make all abilities and upgrades balanced per actuality... not numbers. How people play the game is a thousand times more important than any chart or numbers you look at.
I did play NS1 combat and I didn't like it overmuch because if you didn't play right from the start, and get a lot of kills, you ended up being locked out of the competition. It was very easily dominated by anyone who gets a decent streak early on, and subsequently becomes far more powerful than any of the other players. As you may have guessed I don't really like games that put players on grossly uneven footings, doesn't make for compelling gameplay on either side for me. No fun stomping basic marines as an onos, no fun shooting skulks in a barrel with a grenade launcher. NS1 combat also tended to be a bit samey, with small maps and static starts. Not really that much different from playing counterstrike, although with more interesting weapons.
I would like to see a hybrid between combat and classic in NS2, sort of more like battlefield's conquest gamemode, you attack and capture bases and things to progress, but you have more free access to weapons and equipment, and more focus on direct combat to win, and less on building/destroying structures which I don't find particularly fun.
Alternatively, some changes like balancing weapons and classes more evenly, and having them be unlocked for selection with research but not costing any money to choose, that would be interesting. Anything to turn the game back towards fighting, which is clearly the core of the game yet is so heavily discouraged. I do like that the RTS element adds variety to the game in the form of a non-static battlefield, but I don't like that its mechanics are getting in the way of the FPS part, which is why I mentioned empires, it blends the two genres together a lot better than NS2 is doing.
<!--quoteo(post=1948493:date=Jul 2 2012, 11:50 PM:name=.ADHd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (.ADHd @ Jul 2 2012, 11:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948493"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->While I agree with many parts of your post I want to bring up the obvious... unreal tournament is nothing like NS2. I would hope it stays that way as well.
Part of what makes NS2 rewarding is the fact that it IS tedious. You have to work to achieve. This also makes it endlessly frustrating when on the losing team (Usually decided within 5 mins or less).
I think what you are trying to say is that the game isn't unfun as it is imbalanced.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The game is quite balanced overall though, my point is more that balance does not equal fun. I had more fun with the game in the very early builds when the res rate was incredibly high, because then it was just using whatever gun and lifeform you liked and having fun with it. Now it's more like 'oh if I wait another five minutes maybe I can afford a lerk!' then you play the lerk for two minutes, die, and have to wait five minutes again. Or alternatively you play really conservatively and get really bored because 1. you're stuck as a lerk because you invested in it and you can't throw that away, and 2. you're not able to actually engage in any fights because if you take more than a few bullets you're dead, and you REALLY don't want to be stuck playing a crappy skulk again.
It's not even as if the lerk is actually significantly better than the skulk, it's just different, you're probably more effective playing a dozen skulks than keeping one lerk alive, but you're just so sick of being stuck as a boring lifeform, or a boring rifleman, that you will play worse in order to try and squeeze out some bit of fun from the game. I don't think that is a good system, or balance related.
We need res for kill back. Waiting for res is boring, killing for res is fun.
I don't think that would help much, if you're waiting for res you may as well kill stuff anyway out of boredom, RFK just shortens the time you are bored, but a flat out cost reduction or res boost would do the same more reliably, and doesn't carry the problem of people winning the entire game because they got the lead early. RFK does help, but it causes other problems.
A complete removal of the player economy would probably solve the problem even better.
If you want a derp-easy game that requires no teamwork to have fun then go play Rambo of Duty 3.
Also: Wait for combat, I think you will enjoy it more then classic.
I like the fact, that you can help out in theis game, even if you aren't the best frontline fighter. Adding support like the gorge or maybe building up structures while others look out for the enemy is rewarding for me as well, because it feels like a team effort, and I know what difference an Onos makes with 1-2 gorges healing him, or maybe a lerk adding Umbra.
It could be interesting if the weapons cost less for the players to buy, and that they were balanced, so you picked up a weapon based on which aliens you want to counter, or if you needed to clear buildings. Right now they seem to be part of both worlds, some are balanced around a purpose, but the cost often makes the LMG a better choice.
Defending and attacking RTs are what drives the gameplay and forces player into conflict with each other. If the other team ignores you while
you take down an RT, they will loose (unless they are actually doing something even more important, of course).
So yea, if the enemy allows you to chomp RTs all day, you will indeed belong to the winning team.
The RTS/FPS mix does indeed mean that its no longer important to live and kill for the standard FPS reason - ie, getting to the top of the kill
list. A team can take a beating on the FPS level, and still win the game (granted, its quite unlikely - the personal skills of players matters a LOT).
This is not a case of unintended design. Its a fundamental part of NS2, and what makes some people love the game. Other people can't see the point of working for a team rather than for themselves.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd enjoy NS2 a lot more if it let me do something other than perform menial tasks for some abstract and very disconnected sense of victory, which doesn't reflect my personal input very well at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NS2 does have the problem of forcing players to fight too much against structures rather than players. But that's a balancing issue - the health of Harvesters and RTs have been adjusted back and forth to keep it under control. You can't avoid SOME "menial tasks", such as axing a Harvester. I don't find the current level to be much of a bother.
That's part of why I don't entirely get the cost. The weapons do seem to be very situational, the flamethrower and grenade launcher are support weapons only, and the shotgun does piddly damage against anything armored. It'd be very easy to entirely remove the need for a price on these weapons with a little balance work, and you would pick them like you pick your class in other games, rather than the current approach.
In NS1 it made sense because 1. the comm usually dropped a heap of guns at spawn so they were effectively free anyway as far as players were concerned, and 2. the HMG was universally better than everything else, so it made sense for it to cost resources. NS2 doesn't have either of those, so it mostly removes any element of player choice that being able to buy your own stuff would introduce, by making everything you can buy prohibitively expensive.
<!--quoteo(post=1948572:date=Jul 3 2012, 12:25 PM:name=matso)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (matso @ Jul 3 2012, 12:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948572"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Defending and attacking RTs are what drives the gameplay and forces player into conflict with each other. If the other team ignores you while
you take down an RT, they will loose (unless they are actually doing something even more important, of course).
So yea, if the enemy allows you to chomp RTs all day, you will indeed belong to the winning team.
NS2 does have the problem of forcing players to fight too much against structures rather than players. But that's a balancing issue - the health of Harvesters and RTs have been adjusted back and forth to keep it under control. You can't avoid SOME "menial tasks", such as axing a Harvester. I don't find the current level to be much of a bother.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except you spend most of your time either running to RTs to defend/build/destroy them, hitting RTs with your melee weapon to destroy them, or actually building them yourself.
There is very little fighting involved, most of it is walking around and holding E/mouse1. The RTs don't drive player conflict, they drive players AWAY from conflict because they encourage people to split into tiny groups of one or two people, and run to the far ends of the map. This generally means that players are so spread out that they don't see each other very much, it is far more likely that players will just miss each other most of the time and knock out lots of RTs on both sides, while building more of their own, which in turn get knocked out again shortly afterwards.
What you should be doing is focussing players together in groups, getting them all to contest a hive or base, that's actually kinda fun in the early game where you have groups of aliens and marines fighting each other for control of a key area. But that isn't a good way to win, and usually means the first team to think 'hey, let's go back to the running around killing RTs' is the one that wins.
If anything theres usually too much action because of the small maps, leading to less meaningfull battles. Its just a constant rush usually.
This is all correct, but I think the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of the RTS part of the game in NS2. I've played competitive matches where I've gone 30-1 and still lost the round.
<!--quoteo(post=1948584:date=Jul 3 2012, 01:20 PM:name=elmo9000)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (elmo9000 @ Jul 3 2012, 01:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948584"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If anything theres usually too much action because of the small maps, leading to less meaningfull battles. Its just a constant rush usually.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is one of the biggest problems with NS2 gameplay right now. It's all about rushing.
I don't really understand this idea that RTS and FPS aspects of NS should be mutually exclusive, where does that comes from ?
Let's say next build is awesome on the RTS side, that is deep, balanced tech trees on both sides (and by balanced I mean that most tech paths are viable). How does that affects negatively the players fps experience ?
If anything theres usually too much action because of the small maps, leading to less meaningfull battles. Its just a constant rush usually.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But there are so many RTs that there is no reason to attack a fortified one.
If the enemy is defending it, go to one of the others, or cap some free ones, there is never any profit to be had in attacking a heavily fortified room with only a res tower in it.
Hives and bases are different because they contain many valuable support structures and losing one is a major loss of resources and time that the enemy can't get back, whereas an RT can be built in a minute or two and costs very little, the only thing you can do by attacking a fortified RT is maybe cost the enemy the materials used in the defence of the RT, which you could also do by attacking a hive/base and you would stand more chance of doing further damage.
Either RT defences are very easy to destroy, or you don't want to attack that RT.
Like I keep saying, the game is entirely based around avoiding any sort of real fight, because any loss of material sets you back both strategically and personally. Compare this to, as I said earlier, Empires mod, which gives you the ticket resource which only sets you back when it hits zero (and it only does that after about half an hour of intense fighting) and you get a much more engaging game, you are given the tools you need to fight and encouraged to do so, because spending a third of your tickets to destroy an enemy base is still worth it, because if you win before you spend the other two thirds, the first third doesn't matter.
In NS2 however, losing a major chunk of your team's resources to attack a base means you won't be able to mount another attack for a while, and you'll be really open to counterattacks, so the emphasis is on <i>not fighting</i> unless, as pointed out, you're rushing a defenceless area and won't lose anything if it goes well.
If the game is too built around rushing, it's probably because no other form of fighting is worth doing.
<!--quoteo(post=1948621:date=Jul 3 2012, 03:27 PM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ Jul 3 2012, 03:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948621"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't really understand this idea that RTS and FPS aspects of NS should be mutually exclusive, where does that comes from ?
Let's say next build is awesome on the RTS side, that is deep, balanced tech trees on both sides (and by balanced I mean that most tech paths are viable). How does that affects negatively the players fps experience ?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is not that they must be mutually exclusive, but that they <i>are</i> mutually exclusive at the moment, and the game has been moving steadily more towards them being separate over time.
Ideally they would both be fun, but that isn't really the way the game seems to be going.
NS2 is already designed around combat ideas, its actually IS a hynrid. Charlie said it himself he wanted to combine classic mode and combat mode into single mod, and NS2 is just that or his attempt at that. The current version of the game is far from the one I remember enjoying, the classic version, so all these combat ideas ruin it for me big time.
you're comparing different sort of game to what NS is really is about, I would as far to say you may have been spoiled by bad games or just different games. Although its not completely the players fault, charlie should of designed two different modes to appeal to larger crowd, but he did not what to do this. Many told him to do this, but the idea was shut down long ago, so now you have the current mixed version. it feels like big mess to me, I can't understand it.
while I personally do not agree with everything you said you have some good points.
you're comparing different sort of game to what NS is really is about, I would as far to say you may have been spoiled by bad games or just different games. Although its not completely the players fault, charlie should of designed two different modes to appeal to larger crowd, but he did not what to do this. Many told him to do this, but the idea was shut down long ago, so now you have the current mixed version. it feels like big mess to me, I can't understand it.
while I personally do not agree with everything you said you have some good points.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't say I really see much resembling combat in NS2, it's more like a different approach on NS1 classic, combat was very.. well.. combat oriented, NS2 is if anything, less combat oriented than NS1. It's incredibly hard to get any sort of resource surplus in NS2, whereas most of the games I played in NS1 were quite resource rich. Also players have to manage their own resource pools which they didn't have to do in NS1. If anything I'd say NS2 is more strategy oriented because players have to do more strategic stuff than they did in NS1.
Flamethrower - Infestation, cysts, fade/onos energy.
GL - Structures
Shotty - well, it's just a shotgun, so it should be a cheap slightly-better than LMG all around weapon, EXCEPT it shouldnt work well against armor. The current shotgun power against onoses is just dumb.
It's boring enough to play a marine with the lack of variety, and waiting 5min to be able to get a gun and then getting killed the next second is just pssssht.
But I may be biased. Somehow. I just think marines are defo the most boring thing to play atm.
Flamethrower - Infestation, cysts, fade/onos energy.
GL - Structures
Shotty - well, it's just a shotgun, so it should be a cheap slightly-better than LMG all around weapon, EXCEPT it shouldnt work well against armor. The current shotgun power against onoses is just dumb.
It's boring enough to play a marine with the lack of variety, and waiting 5min to be able to get a gun and then getting killed the next second is just pssssht.
But I may be biased. Somehow. I just think marines are defo the most boring thing to play atm.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would say though, don't go <i>too</i> overboard with that approach. All guns should be good at killing aliens, your choice should mostly be about what sort of secondary things it can do. Otherwise you have the TF2 problem where your class choice determines whether you win or lose a fight because you ran into the enemy that counters your class. Your asessment is pretty good I'd say, all of them kill aliens, but you can also kill structures better, or kill things round corners, or slow down fast aliens/make them easy to see.
I think you could do the same thing fairly easily with aliens, you could make fades a lot weaker but free, and make them rely completely on their blink, lerks could be more or less as they are now with maybe a slight damage nerf to make the skulk more appealing, and onoses could be made much less agile, but keep their hitpoints high and give them a cool charge attack like a L4D2 charger or something. There's a lot of room for experimentation if you remove the price of weapons and classes, because you don't have to worry about people getting a really expensive class early on which therefore dominates the game, or worry about making the power match the price point. You could just focus more on making classes fun.
That depends on what you consider to be 'natural selection'
Personally it'd having games on the same map be different from each other due to random starts and expansion paths, interesting levels, asymmetric sides, working with other players, and the ability to change the environment to benefit your side.
I don't see why you'd lose any of that?
And, again to use empires mod as an example, you can achieve that with other things. For example building a base in, and holding a major choke point against attack is generally a good enough reason to expand in that game, and it can be so in NS2 as well. Building more bases, and unlocking more abilities and upgrades for your team, and increasing your mobility with said bases, those are good reasons to expand. If they are the only way you can gain power as a team, they become more worthwhile.
Expanding, building bases, unlocking tech, having more spawns and transport options around the map, controlling enemy egress routes, affording more support options like ARCs and forward alien structures, drifters, MACs, whips, things like that are ways you can make map control important without restricting the variety of choice and complex interactions between different weapons and alien classes.
Some of the most fun I have in empires is working in a small squad of varied classes, with maybe an APC in support, the engineers keep the APC alive so we can respawn and revive us when we die, the grenadiers destroy enemy structures and vehicles, riflemen kill enemy infantry, scouts... don't do very much because they've never been a very good class, and the APC provides fire support and cover with its bulk. You have that interplay and cooperation between different classes with different roles, but it doesn't cost you anything except for a small investment of team cash to build the APC. It works BETTER because people aren't terrified of dying all the time because they'll be back at square one, if you die you either get picked back up by an engineer, or respawn at the APC. The goal is to make progress as efficiently and steadily as possible, to secure territory and make more forward bases for repair and vehicle reinforcement, to secure more money to get better tanks for the team and to afford more bases, you think a lot less about your own wellbeing and more about achieving your objectives, because you don't personally lose the ability to have fun when you die.
It's just a bunch of guns. Can't really be compared to lifeforms. You can do your balance math with exo suits and jetpacks, the REAL equipment. No, I'm not saying guns should be trivial, I'm saying they shouldn't cost 30 friggin res you saved 10min for. A little less cost, a little more specialization, that's all.
<!--quoteo(post=1948621:date=Jul 3 2012, 03:27 PM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ Jul 3 2012, 03:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948621"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't really understand this idea that RTS and FPS aspects of NS should be mutually exclusive, where does that comes from ?
Let's say next build is awesome on the RTS side, that is deep, balanced tech trees on both sides (and by balanced I mean that most tech paths are viable). How does that affects negatively the players fps experience ?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They aren't mutually exclusive, but they tend to affect each other in a negative way.
The more emphasis is put in the RTS part, the less effect on gameplay the FPS part has. Currently, the number one "decider" of who wins any given round of NS2, is who the commander is. A lot of the time, it barely feels like my actions as an FPS player are having any effect on which team is winning the game. For example; in a game I just played as alien, I killed 87 marines and died 5 times, while the entire marine team had negative k/d -- and my team still lost. So why am I even playing? May as well just replace me with an AI unit.
When the overwhelming majority of the players on any server are playing the FPS part (for example in a 6v6, 10 would be playing FPS and 2 would be playing RTS), you have to place the emphasis on giving the majority of the players a feeling that they're having an impact on gameplay. Since RTS features tend to have the opposite effect, they therefore have to be limited in scope.
<!--quoteo(post=1948623:date=Jul 3 2012, 03:30 PM:name=luns)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (luns @ Jul 3 2012, 03:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948623"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS2 is already designed around combat ideas, its actually IS a hynrid. Charlie said it himself he wanted to combine classic mode and combat mode into single mod, and NS2 is just that or his attempt at that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If that's true, he has failed miserably. The NS2 commanders have a much greater impact on the game than the marine commader ever did in NS1.
Single player kd is not very relevant in a team based strategy game. I don't know what happened in this game, but maybe your team made some mistakes to loose it?