Kinda going along with what has been posted in the later part of this thread:
UWE is now claiming that they are making more of an FPS game than an RTS game, but when we take a step back and look at NS1 vs NS2 in terms of RTS gameplay NS2 has everything NS1 had and more.
We have tons more abilities and now we even have AI units. That alone makes this game more of an RTS than NS1... when claims are that NS2 is less of an RTS than NS1. Why is UWE claiming this? Or are my eyes and ears failing me?
In older builds the commander had an important role, but it appeared to me that games were won by fades, and groups of marines.... not so much the commander and his strategy.
Since early builds the RTS aspect of NS2 has improved and expanded greatly. Now with drifters, and nano abilities the commander can effect the game dramatically. Also now that we have so much more choice in how the play as commander, the commanders choices have a dramatic effect as well.
The games RTS economy is staggered. Right now it feels like comm vs khamm and the khamm simply has more available to him in terms of everything. He is self sufficient and doesn't need his team to complete tasks where the marine commander does. The marine commander and marines are intimately connected (Or should be rather), but the way this game is designed is saying that individual players can play however they want and be their own comms. This is a conflict of interest.
I could write a whole book and rant about it all day, but it will be fruitless. The marines gameplay has always felt "ok" to me like it has already been streamlined in terms of concept. The problem is delivery and game balance keeping marines from doing what they are supposed to do. The aliens can counter any marine strategy with less coordination and means. I cannot stress enough how this "asymmetric" game element is not asymmetric at all, but rather an imbalance.
The alien commander is too powerful and exploitable... and with the basically FREE leap upgrade they get immediately it only adds to the problem. Theres no need to nerf or remove things... they just need to be rebalanced and <i>moved</i> to more appropriate times in game. Other things like starting res, and res inflow could be tweaked to ACTUALLY be asymmetric. If aliens can do more with less than why are they starting with the same amount of res? Just a thought.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited July 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1948691:date=Jul 3 2012, 09:05 PM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ Jul 3 2012, 09:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948691"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I still don't get it, I can't think of a simple example where the RTS aspects affect negatively the fps play, or the inverse, I even have difficulty to think about them as separated things.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Just about everything the comm does affects the FPS players, and the same is true the other way around. It should be obvious but I'll give you one of the most blatant examples and maybe you'll figure out the rest yourself: The comm can effectively make a marine invincible by giving him nano-shield and medpacks. In this situation, none of the FPS players have any agency -- the outcome of the battle is entirely decided by the commander.
<!--quoteo(post=1948691:date=Jul 3 2012, 09:05 PM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ Jul 3 2012, 09:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948691"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's... just not true. Single player k/d is very relevant (as an apropos though; most of my team also had positive scores, while the entire marine team had negative scores, similar to a pcw I played against your team a few weeks ago which had a similar outcome). In any case, it was just an example of FPS player impotence.
Another good way i think to illustrate the difference is in NS1 that score would have won your team the game (most likely), where NS2 it doesnt... Each FPS players influence in NS2 is much less than NS1, its more about the team and the commander. It mixed in my opinion as the focus of NS2 is much more about the team and less about the individual player, but not necessarily more of an RTS or FPS (however I do think it is more RTS focused)
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited July 2012
As I have already said, in that particular example, my team also outperformed the other team in terms of k/d. Unfortunately, our comm used a less-than-perfect build order and the marines were able gain a tech advantage. After that, it was just a matter of time. Didn't matter how many times we killed them, because the marine comm could just build more infantry portals, arcs and turrets. Didn't matter how many times we killed their harvesters, because the marine commander could just use nano-construct to instantly rebuild them.
In that situation, the FPS players feel completely powerless and the game ceases to be fun to play.
Yeah, I see more or less what you mean, but in my opinion rts elements contribute much more positively on the fps side than negatively. Nano-shield, arcs and static defense are just bad mechanics that need to be fixed.
AI units in general are a problem, it goes against the very basic of the game: "stracraft where units are real players". Making sure that everything is done, and goes through the players should limit theses kind of problems.
I am inclined to agree with Fana though I'm not as fatalistic about the 'inevitable' infringement on FPS that comes with RTS elements. Almost all the games i've played feel like player-skill is low down on the list of factors for determining game outcomes which I don't think is that desirable, personally.
This problem is probably compounded by the Tres/Pres distinction though because it's almost impossible to hurt an economy without attacking resource-towers. In NS1, killing lifeforms or players with weapons would have a direct affect but all it serves to do in NS2 is lower the lifeform/weapon count. For NS1, a dead fade could mean a slower hive, a dead gorge could mean fewer chambers, a dead lerk might mean a slower mid-game fade and so on.. it was all intrinsically linked. In NS2, dying has simply means you're a skulk for a while - the team strategy doesn't change at all, it is merely delayed. This one-dimensional outcome of killing lifeforms, or dying as one, is far less interesting. I digressed here a bit but one of the side-effects of this system is that a player can do very little with his skill to hurt an economy besides rushing resource towers. I'm not a fan of this, though I can see why many are.
Abilities like nano-construct and nano-shield are plainly broken because of how severely they detract from the emphasis on skill and planning. Medpacks are susceptible to the same criticism but to a far lesser extent because of the intensive resource expenditure, the fact that it requires 1-on-1 permanent attention from the commander etc.
As an aside, a similar reasoning can be used to show why ARC-deployment would be such a good idea; not because it fixes the ARC-train (which it does) but because player involvement becomes key, the commander-player interaction is heightened and the game doesn't get won by AI units.
Pretty much what Tweadle said... I will add that I think lessening the impact of dying as a lifeform/with a weapon somewhat from NS1 would help ease the game for new players, I think NS2 takes it too far.
Did you get lessons on speech from the Queen after you taught her NS1? You always find a way to be elegant in your explanations :P
<!--quoteo(post=1948705:date=Jul 3 2012, 11:02 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Jul 3 2012, 11:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948705"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As I have already said, in that particular example, my team also outperformed the other team in terms of k/d. Unfortunately, our comm used a less-than-perfect build order and the marines were able gain a tech advantage. After that, it was just a matter of time. Didn't matter how many times we killed them, because the marine comm could just build more infantry portals, arcs and turrets. Didn't matter how many times we killed their harvesters, because the marine commander could just use nano-construct to instantly rebuild them.
In that situation, the FPS players feel completely powerless and the game ceases to be fun to play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a matter of opinion. I <i>want</i> that sort of feedback. That's why I play a FPS/RTS hybrid.
<!--quoteo(post=1948713:date=Jul 3 2012, 10:37 PM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ Jul 3 2012, 10:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948713"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah, I see more or less what you mean, but in my opinion rts elements contribute much more positively on the fps side than negatively. Nano-shield, arcs and static defense are just bad mechanics that need to be fixed.
AI units in general are a problem, it goes against the very basic of the game: "stracraft where units are real players". Making sure that everything is done, and goes through the players should limit theses kind of problems.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The idea of an FPS/RTS game where players are starcraft units isn't a very good one though, you can't just jam players into the role of a zergling and expect them to enjoy it. In RTS games units are expected to do nothing except what you tell them to do, and most of the time you will be holding them back, waiting to attack, or guarding something, or moving them somewhere, not fun things in an FPS.
<!--quoteo(post=1948607:date=Jul 3 2012, 09:37 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Jul 3 2012, 09:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948607"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I sort of like that one team can have the distinct kill advantage and still loose because of macro reasons, really hammers home the rts aspect (which in my eyes is what differentiates this game from the many similar games). I always liked the feeling that you were playing as one of those insignificant marines I so often send to their deaths in RTS games. Still this was possibly a product of the games current lack of balance (like arc trains, marine turtle and a lack of energy for aliens which makes efficient jp killing a task only mad skillz can accomplish) rather than a fundamental problem with the rts/fps core.
<!--quoteo(post=1948743:date=Jul 3 2012, 07:57 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 3 2012, 07:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948743"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The idea of an FPS/RTS game where players are starcraft units isn't a very good one though, you can't just jam players into the role of a zergling and expect them to enjoy it. In RTS games units are expected to do nothing except what you tell them to do, and most of the time you will be holding them back, waiting to attack, or guarding something, or moving them somewhere, not fun things in an FPS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You really have to get engaged in the RTS aspect even as a marine, you have a world map for a reason. When you are defending you get the satisfaction of knowing that you are doing something crucial for your team, and the fact that you are not being attacked is if anything a relief since every tick of res brings you closer to victory (or at least that is how it is for me). Still to each his own.
On another note I loved how much of an upgrade the guns were in ns1 (ns2 feels somewhat lacking in my opinion, both because the guns are weaker and because there are more of them due to the nature of the player economy) sure you would not often get a shotgun or hmg, but when you did it felt absolutely amazing (much much better then it feels wielding one in NS2, in part because it is so common an occurance and in part because the guns are weaker) as you knew you were holding a beast of a weapon and that even fades could know fear when in your sights. Oh and it sounded a million times more badass then the NS2 shottie.
As for things like nano-shield, I like that a marine comm can make a marine very tough to kill (albeit temporarily) it is not difficult for an alien to retreat and come back when the shield is down nothing is compelling you to fight to the death. Although I do think that nano-shield is too common and too cheap, nano construct on the other hand I do not care for. Because of the simple reason that it takes away the tradeoff in committing to constructing a building(since in any threatening situation the comm will just NC you and the job will be done in 3 seconds).
It seems to me that making all the weapons of roughly equal power would be more akin to making vehicles of equal power to infantry rather than making some classes plain more powerful than others. Also, I for one like the risk and tension of knowing that you (not necessarily your team, although it is often the case) have something to loose by your death. The lmg is a worthwhile weapon and while not as good as some of the others is hardly something to get frustrated over being reduced too, especially if the process of that reduction was sufficiently epic and satisfying (like a nice big team battle).
Also, it saddens me that empire mod is near death :(
<!--quoteo(post=1948718:date=Jul 3 2012, 05:44 PM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Jul 3 2012, 05:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948718"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This problem is probably compounded by the Tres/Pres distinction though because it's almost impossible to hurt an economy without attacking resource-towers. In NS1, killing lifeforms or players with weapons would have a direct affect but all it serves to do in NS2 is lower the lifeform count. For NS1, a dead fade could mean a slower hive, a dead gorge could mean fewer chambers, a dead lerk might mean a slower mid-game fade and so on.. it was all intrinsically linked. In NS2, dying has simply means you're a skulk for a while - the team strategy doesn't change at all, it is merely delayed. This one-dimensional outcome of killing lifeforms, or dying as one, is far less interesting. I digressed here a bit but one of the side-effects of this system is that a player can do very little with his skill to hurt an economy besides rushing resource towers. I'm not a fan of this though I can see why many are.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is most sage, although you are harming the enemies military presence you are not harming their infrastructure and economy. Nevertheless a decreased enemy military force might very well give you opportunities to harm the economy that would not have been available otherwise.
<!--quoteo(post=1948705:date=Jul 3 2012, 05:02 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Jul 3 2012, 05:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948705"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As I have already said, in that particular example, my team also outperformed the other team in terms of k/d. Unfortunately, our comm used a less-than-perfect build order and the marines were able gain a tech advantage. After that, it was just a matter of time. Didn't matter how many times we killed them, because the marine comm could just build more infantry portals, arcs and turrets. Didn't matter how many times we killed their harvesters, because the marine commander could just use nano-construct to instantly rebuild them.
In that situation, the FPS players feel completely powerless and the game ceases to be fun to play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That kind of situation requires coordination (not that I am implying your and your team lacked it, it was a comp game and ns2 is far from balanced) and the destruction of the enemy bases (easier said than done I know) rather than kills. Wars are not won by mobs but by armies, and the thing that differentiates the latter from the former is coordination and adherence to some sort of greater macro scheme by all the members. In general once all the marine upgrades are up all you are costing the enemy team by damaging the economy is arcs and medpacks, the key is to destroy something more crucial to the enemy. After all, if you can slaughter them in the field surely you can slaughter them in their base and the base with them?
<!--quoteo(post=1948743:date=Jul 3 2012, 07:57 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 3 2012, 07:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948743"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The idea of an FPS/RTS game where players are starcraft units isn't a very good one though, you can't just jam players into the role of a zergling and expect them to enjoy it. In RTS games units are expected to do nothing except what you tell them to do, and most of the time you will be holding them back, waiting to attack, or guarding something, or moving them somewhere, not fun things in an FPS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Speak for yourself, I (and many others Im sure) enjoy being part of some greater plan and knowing that even though we play a small part it is still important. As long as I am aware of the purpose we are serving by doing these seemingly pointless things and how it all fits in the commanders plan I am perfectly content to stand guard or patrol the base. I find the RTS aspect as immersive (if not more immersive) than the fps aspect even if I am not commanding. An appreciation of the big picture is hardly limited to the commander, everyone can see the map and know what part they are playing.
This may seem somewhat counter-intuitive, but although the marine commander has a greater impact on the micro fights (also macro with the abundance of resources), I actually feel like I am doing less as a commander.
1) Less decision making - Not having the tres sink of dropping weapons makes for saving/planning resources absent. You just spend, spend, spend on tech with no real negative consequences in the current economy.
2) Less guiding/reacting - Only real objective marines have is to kill harvesters and keep extractors up. Tech points and scouting have limited impact. Marines do their own thing while you build a train of arcs safely at base. The maps are also fairly linear, you go from one point to the next. There is one door to every room leading to the next, map designers please give us a door number 2 and 3! (thinking of Mineshaft+summit)
3) Less microing - With nano shield and construct you need to keep less of an eye on those building and fighting.
<b>So although the RTS is having a bigger impact, it's actually not fun for the commander (and FPS players).</b>
What can be changed to give the marine commander less of an impact, but raise the skill cap?
1) Slower economy and more expensive structures/upgrades - less tech, slows the game, makes each upgrade choice more relevant. Game is also not decided in the first few minutes.
2) Very long cooldowns on nano shield/construct (1 minute). They are too powerful to be on short CDs, but they add an interesting element for the commander. It would create an additional element of strategy - do you want to get that extractor up quickly because you may be short on resources, or save it for a potential forward phase gate?
<!--quoteo(post=1948770:date=Jul 4 2012, 03:41 AM:name=1dominator1)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (1dominator1 @ Jul 4 2012, 03:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948770"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Speak for yourself, I (and many others Im sure) enjoy being part of some greater plan and knowing that even though we play a small part it is still important. As long as I am aware of the purpose we are serving by doing these seemingly pointless things and how it all fits in the commanders plan I am perfectly content to stand guard or patrol the base. I find the RTS aspect as immersive (if not more immersive) than the fps aspect even if I am not commanding. An appreciation of the big picture is hardly limited to the commander, everyone can see the map and know what part they are playing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can have the being part of a bigger picture thing without making players literally RTS units though, an RTS unit has an awful existence, it consists of 'run to target, hit target repeatedly with stick, run to next target'. A member of a small team of elite soldiers all performing a challenging and dynamic task where everyone needs to pull their weight, that's an FPS approach, and that still has you being an important part of a team, it's simply a more fun part. The reason I keep saying RTS units suck while FPS players are great is because the FPS genre has spent years trying to glorify and engage the player, make their individual experience enjoyable, because that's what makes a good FPS game. An FPSRTS game NEEDS to be a good fps AND a good rts, and that's very hard to do, and the way to do it is not to just build an RTS game and jam players into the role of the units, because the FPS enjoyment will come directly into conflict with the RTS part. FPS players pursue their own ideas, won't wait around indefinitely, will engage rather than retreating even if you tell them to, and have a sense of self preservation. They are intelligent, RTS units are not, therefore they will not obey orders well enough for an RTS player to enjoy commanding them. Equally true is that an FPS player will not enjoy performing all the menial, boring tasks expected of an RTS unit.
The sense of being part of a greater whole is good, and I have no desire to get rid of that, but that is a very small part of what you imply when you say 'starcraft where the players are units'. And I also don't think it's a very good way to achieve that sense of immersion and cooperation.
In an RTS, a unit is an expendable, weak, meaningless thing. They are ants in an ant farm for the commander to play with. In an FPS, units are made out to be the best of the best, the ultimate badass, where one man slaughters thousands of enemies in his quest for whatever he is questing for. An FPS where you are weak, meaningless, and only of any value as a mass of hitpoints and DPS, that's not a good FPS. I don't believe it's sensible to say 'welp it's worth it for the immersion and thus there's no reason to improve it'.
Most of the boring part of the life of RTS units has already been removed, that's why the resource towers mine automatically. I don't think we want to remove marine building, in fact a major request has been to get gorge building back.
The game is not designed around players staying in base to defend, that's why most resource are outside and not inside the start position like in starcraft, so that's not a problem.
Units are not expendable, weak and meaningless in RTS, it depends strongly on the army size. At the beginning of the game single units are very critical, and become less important in big army size. NS has small, fixed army size, so that's not a problem either. A good illustration of this:
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited July 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1948842:date=Jul 4 2012, 01:05 PM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ Jul 4 2012, 01:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948842"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I my opinion what you need for a good fps is good movement, good weapons/abilites design and good map interaction.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree with you that those features lie at the core of good FPS gameplay, but they are all pointless without <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(philosophy)#Human_agency" target="_blank">agency</a> (in this case; the ability to have a direct effect on the outcome of any given round).
To the people talking about NS2 being a team game: It isn't a team game if the two commanders are the overwhelmingly most important deciders of the outcome of any given round; that's called a duel.
<!--quoteo(post=1948842:date=Jul 4 2012, 01:05 PM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ Jul 4 2012, 01:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948842"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Units are not expendable, weak and meaningless in RTS, it depends strongly on the army size.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> By snipping this out of context and arguing against it, you're missing the point he's trying to make. I rarely agree with Chris0132's posts, but this time he's right on the money. I don't really understand how you can argue against what he's saying in that particular post, because what he writes about good FPS gameplay is pretty much universally true.
Saying that a single unit are weak and expendable in RTS is just wrong, single units wins and loose game more than often (reaver?), specially at low army count.
As for not following the commander orders, that sounds like a non-issue, if the commander is giving good orders and the marine have a brain, I guess they should be able to agree on something to do. If the commander is giving bad orders and or marines don't listen, then I wouldn't blame the game design for that.
For the agency problem, I've never seen a commander win to game alone, and I've lost many game because I couldn't aim, maybe there is a problem with aiming well doing nothing good for the team, but I can't really comment on that :)
i think this is just a result of the game's economy not being balanced yet. Once the economy is tuned such that the results of battles/map control actually matter, and you can't just tech up to infinite on 2 res nodes, i think the fps player influence will increase dramatically.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited July 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1948881:date=Jul 4 2012, 02:39 PM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ Jul 4 2012, 02:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948881"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Saying that a single unit are weak and expendable in RTS is just wrong<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, but that wasn't the point he was trying to make. You're latching on to a single phrase that can be interpreted into him saying what you just said, but that interpretation makes no sense when read together with the rest of his post.
<!--quoteo(post=1948881:date=Jul 4 2012, 02:39 PM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ Jul 4 2012, 02:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948881"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For the agency problem, I've never seen a commander win to game alone<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I see that almost every round I play on public. A few obvious examples of commanders entirely determining the outcome of a round: Marine comm spends res on spamming turrets instead of researching upgrades; marines lose. Marine comm doesn't drop meds and ammo; marines lose. Marine comm doesn't give orders; marines lose. Alien comm doesn't research leap until 8 minutes into the game; aliens lose. Alien comm spams whips early game; aliens lose.
Sometimes, the rest of the players on the team are so vastly superior to the other team that it is still possible to win, but most of the time, no matter what you do as an FPS player, in those situations where your commander makes bad choices; you will lose, regardless of your performance as an FPS player. Conversely, when your commander makes good choices; you will win.
To a large degree, the commander should determine the outcome of the round. He has to, otherwise the RTS portion of the game would be illusory. This is why I say "the pendulum has swung too far" and not "commanders ruin FPS gameplay!". I'm not saying that commander shouldn't heavily influence the outcome of any given round -- I'm saying that the performance of the commander in NS2 has too much influence, and the individual FPS player too little. As an FPS player, that makes for a frustrating experience.
<!--quoteo(post=1948881:date=Jul 4 2012, 02:39 PM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ Jul 4 2012, 02:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948881"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Saying that a single unit are weak and expendable in RTS is just wrong, single units wins and loose game more than often (reaver?), specially at low army count.
As for not following the commander orders, that sounds like a non-issue, if the commander is giving good orders and the marine have a brain, I guess they should be able to agree on something to do. If the commander is giving bad orders and or marines don't listen, then I wouldn't blame the game design for that.
For the agency problem, I've never seen a commander win to game alone, and I've lost many game because I couldn't aim, maybe there is a problem with aiming well doing nothing good for the team, but I can't really comment on that :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gah, it's less the idea that units are practically weak and expendable, obviously an RTS can have very expensive, powerful, and critical units in it. It's about how the units are <i>viewed</i>, I suppose you could say philosophically.
In an RTS, units are not individuals, they aren't held up and glorified, they are just collections of numbers. Some of them can be collections of very good numbers, but they're still just mobile blocks of HP and DPS, and they rarely do anything more than shoot DPS at other blocks of HP, and you can always make more of them.
In an FPS, every player is their own man, their own collection of thoughts and ideas, their own playstyle, their own preferences, their own skills, their own everything. You might have a favorite weapon, favorite level, favorite way of playing, your own cool tactic that you thought up, the game is very much your own because you control your own character and play your own way.
That is fundamentally incompatible with the idea of an RTS where units are players, because in an RTS, the units are the commander's bullets, his weapon, his WASD, his line of sight. The <i>army</i> is the avatar of the single commanding player, individual units in that army are just not that important, not that venerated, they are your ammunition, your medkits, your stats. You think about them in the way you think about things like ammo and health in an FPS, it's not a good idea to waste them, but you can get more later, you don't think 'oh no I lost those hitpoints, those were very precious hitpoints and the ones I get back later won't be the same'. Equally, you don't view the loss of units in an RTS any differently.
This means that either the FPSRTS players will feel very meaningless, because they are effectively the commander's stats, or the commander will feel powerless because his units are clearly not under his control, it'd be like if your gun decided it didn't want to shoot that enemy, or if it felt insecure because it doesn't like being low on ammo, or it got surprised when you pulled the trigger and decided to fire very inaccurately. Comical perhaps, but not really very fun in a competitive multiplayer game.
It therefore stands to reason that a different approach is required to mesh RTS and FPS gameplay so that both sides can enjoy it. It is not as simple as 'replace AI units with player controlled units'.
<!--quoteo(post=1948887:date=Jul 4 2012, 09:54 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Jul 4 2012, 09:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948887"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, but that wasn't the point he was trying to make. You're latching on to a single phrase that can be interpreted into him saying what you just said, but that interpretation makes no sense when read together with the rest of his post.
I see that almost every round I play on public. A few obvious examples of commanders entirely determining the outcome of a round: Marine comm spends res on spamming turrets instead of researching upgrades; marines lose. Marine comm doesn't drop meds and ammo; marines lose. Marine comm doesn't give orders; marines lose. Alien comm doesn't research leap until 8 minutes into the game; aliens lose. Alien comm spams whips early game; aliens lose.
Sometimes, the rest of the players on the team are so vastly superior to the other team that it is still possible to win, but most of the time, no matter what you do as an FPS player, in those situations where your commander makes bad choices; you will lose, regardless of your performance as an FPS player. Conversely, when your commander makes good choices; you will win.
To a large degree, the commander should determine the outcome of the round. He has to, otherwise the RTS portion of the game would be illusory. This is why I say "the pendulum has swung too far" and not "commanders ruin FPS gameplay!". I'm not saying that commander shouldn't heavily influence the outcome of any given round -- I'm saying that the performance of the commander in NS2 has too much influence, and the individual FPS player too little. As an FPS player, that makes for a frustrating experience.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Commanders don't win the game. All they can do is lose it for their team. Assuming at least basic level of competence, this game still revolves around the shooters on the ground. The comm is just an enabler.
<!--quoteo(post=1948824:date=Jul 4 2012, 06:42 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 4 2012, 06:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948824"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You can have the being part of a bigger picture thing without making players literally RTS units though, an RTS unit has an awful existence, it consists of 'run to target, hit target repeatedly with stick, run to next target'. A member of a small team of elite soldiers all performing a challenging and dynamic task where everyone needs to pull their weight, that's an FPS approach, and that still has you being an important part of a team, it's simply a more fun part. The reason I keep saying RTS units suck while FPS players are great is because the FPS genre has spent years trying to glorify and engage the player, make their individual experience enjoyable, because that's what makes a good FPS game. An FPSRTS game NEEDS to be a good fps AND a good rts, and that's very hard to do, and the way to do it is not to just build an RTS game and jam players into the role of the units, because the FPS enjoyment will come directly into conflict with the RTS part. FPS players pursue their own ideas, won't wait around indefinitely, will engage rather than retreating even if you tell them to, and have a sense of self preservation. They are intelligent, RTS units are not, therefore they will not obey orders well enough for an RTS player to enjoy commanding them. Equally true is that an FPS player will not enjoy performing all the menial, boring tasks expected of an RTS unit.
The sense of being part of a greater whole is good, and I have no desire to get rid of that, but that is a very small part of what you imply when you say 'starcraft where the players are units'. And I also don't think it's a very good way to achieve that sense of immersion and cooperation.
In an RTS, a unit is an expendable, weak, meaningless thing. They are ants in an ant farm for the commander to play with. In an FPS, units are made out to be the best of the best, the ultimate badass, where one man slaughters thousands of enemies in his quest for whatever he is questing for. An FPS where you are weak, meaningless, and only of any value as a mass of hitpoints and DPS, that's not a good FPS. I don't believe it's sensible to say 'welp it's worth it for the immersion and thus there's no reason to improve it'.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please do not exxagerate. While there are some menial tasks that have to be done in NS2 the game is still filled with exciting fps moments. Frankly I no longer ever understand what your concern is. Your complaints are so abstract as to be practically meaningless, seeming to deal more with the 'feel' of the game which is something that is nearly completely subjective and only really felt by you. All I can say is that I share neither your displeasure with the gameplay or the 'feel' nor your desire to make NS2 more combat like and if I had any say in the development process would oppose such a motion with all my might. Still, to each his own.
EDIT: Also I never said the game should be like starcraft with players for units, that would be moronic (as most people who have played SC should realise).
<!--quoteo(post=1948987:date=Jul 4 2012, 04:51 PM:name=1dominator1)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (1dominator1 @ Jul 4 2012, 04:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948987"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Please do not exxagerate. While there are some menial tasks that have to be done in NS2 the game is still filled with exciting fps moments. Frankly I no longer ever understand what your concern is, your complaints are so abstract as to be practically meaningless, seeming to deal more with the 'feel' of the game which is only accessible to you. All I can say is that I share neither your displeasure with the gameplay or the 'feel' nor your desire to make NS2 more combat like and if I had any say in the development process would oppose such a motion with all my might. Still, to each his own.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, I've been reading through most of these books and I'm in agreement with dominator here. I want the co-dependence between commander and shooter or skulk. While this may be frustrating in games with crappy pub commanders, it is also the driving force behind the entire game.
I think some of Fana's problem is stemmed from performance problems. Fana seems to want really good players to be able to crush lower level players. I think that's fine, but impossible with current levels of performance. If hitreg, latency, and server problems are ever fixed then good marines will be killing 2-3 skulks per lmg clip. Right now you typically use 1 lmg clip per cara skulk even on a decent track. Increased performance will result in one really good player having much more of an impact on the game.
<!--quoteo(post=1948995:date=Jul 4 2012, 05:02 PM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Jul 4 2012, 05:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948995"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think some of Fana's problem is stemmed from performance problems. Fana seems to want really good players to be able to crush lower level players. I think that's fine, but impossible with current levels of performance. If hitreg, latency, and server problems are ever fixed then good marines will be killing 2-3 skulks per lmg clip. Right now you typically use 1 lmg clip per cara skulk even on a decent track. Increased performance will result in one really good player having much more of an impact on the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited July 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1948986:date=Jul 4 2012, 09:51 PM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Jul 4 2012, 09:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948986"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Commanders don't win the game. All they can do is lose it for their team. Assuming at least basic level of competence, this game still revolves around the shooters on the ground. The comm is just an enabler.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No. The difference between a commander with a "basic level of competence" and an expert is enormous. It has nothing to do with "(losing) it for their team" -- I only used those examples because it was the easiest way to make my point clear.
<!--quoteo(post=1948995:date=Jul 4 2012, 10:02 PM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Jul 4 2012, 10:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948995"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think some of Fana's problem is stemmed from performance problems. Fana seems to want really good players to be able to crush lower level players. I think that's fine, but impossible with current levels of performance. If hitreg, latency, and server problems are ever fixed then good marines will be killing 2-3 skulks per lmg clip. Right now you typically use 1 lmg clip per cara skulk even on a decent track. Increased performance will result in one really good player having much more of an impact on the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't even understand what you're trying to say here. If I had better performance, I'd go 174-5 instead of 87-5, and that would be enough to have "much more of an impact on the game"?
Who said anything about crushing lower level players? That's easy enough as it is. I would happily take a lower k/d if it meant my fragging actually had an impact on the outcome of the round.
I should also add, in case anyone is confused; I don't agree or disagree with the OP. My comments in this thread are about a separate, but related, issue.
<!--quoteo(post=1948987:date=Jul 4 2012, 08:51 PM:name=1dominator1)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (1dominator1 @ Jul 4 2012, 08:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948987"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also I never said the game should be like starcraft with players for units, that would be moronic (as most people who have played SC should realise).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think NS2HD said something like that in an interview, it's a very condensed way of explaining the game to someone who doesn't know anything about it.
You could also say "an asymmetrical resources based strategic fps with a top view commander and buildings" but that's about the same.
<!--quoteo(post=1949011:date=Jul 4 2012, 05:37 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Jul 4 2012, 05:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949011"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No. The difference between a commander with a "basic level of competence" and an expert is enormous. It has nothing to do with "(losing) it for their team" -- I only used those examples because it was the easiest way to make my point clear.
I don't even understand what you're trying to say here. If I had better performance, I'd go 174-5 instead of 87-5, and that would be enough to have "much more of an impact on the game"?
Who said anything about crushing lower level players? That's easy enough as it is. I would happily take a lower k/d if it meant my fragging actually had an impact on the outcome of the round.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, the difference between a commander with a basic level of competence and an expert is not enormous for a team that is winning the fps game. If the shooters are winning, then all the comm has to do is research the right stuff (aka not turrets) and the shooters will win the game. The good shooters can even tell their mediocre commander what to research. In your previous post, you listed an example of the commander losing a game for their team. That's all he does. He still relies on the shooters to win and the shooters rely on him. That's the whole point of NS2.
You keep listing your high KDR and subsequent loss as if it proves that there is a problem with a shooter's dependence on the commander. There are many parts to the game considering this is a team based game. I don't see anything wrong with bad commanders losing the game for good marines. Get a better commander.
Fragging does have an impact on the game and I'm not sure how you can honestly say it doesn't. Just because you lost with a high KDR (because your comm sucked) does not equate to your fragging not having an impact on the game. All it means is that there is more than just fragging to win in NS2.
He's not saying that fragging doesn't have an impact on the game, he's saying that fragging has too little an impact on the game. He's listing his high KDR just to illustrate how futile it can be as an fps-player to eke out an advantage even when there is a huge difference in skill-level.
<!--quoteo(post=1949036:date=Jul 4 2012, 03:30 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Jul 4 2012, 03:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949036"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Though i get the point of not having enough impact, I do wonder: who is more frustrated, the one doing the stomping or the ones being stomped?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The one doing the stomping who ultimately loses. Being completely thrashed and still winning gives you a sense of overcoming obstacles to achieve victory. Completely dominating the other team by yourself and still losing is pretty stupid. Happens often enough(and for quite some time) that I've pretty much given up on aliens and almost exclusively gorge when I play them.
Comments
UWE is now claiming that they are making more of an FPS game than an RTS game, but when we take a step back and look at NS1 vs NS2 in terms of RTS gameplay NS2 has everything NS1 had and more.
We have tons more abilities and now we even have AI units. That alone makes this game more of an RTS than NS1... when claims are that NS2 is less of an RTS than NS1. Why is UWE claiming this? Or are my eyes and ears failing me?
In older builds the commander had an important role, but it appeared to me that games were won by fades, and groups of marines.... not so much the commander and his strategy.
Since early builds the RTS aspect of NS2 has improved and expanded greatly. Now with drifters, and nano abilities the commander can effect the game dramatically. Also now that we have so much more choice in how the play as commander, the commanders choices have a dramatic effect as well.
The games RTS economy is staggered. Right now it feels like comm vs khamm and the khamm simply has more available to him in terms of everything. He is self sufficient and doesn't need his team to complete tasks where the marine commander does. The marine commander and marines are intimately connected (Or should be rather), but the way this game is designed is saying that individual players can play however they want and be their own comms. This is a conflict of interest.
I could write a whole book and rant about it all day, but it will be fruitless. The marines gameplay has always felt "ok" to me like it has already been streamlined in terms of concept. The problem is delivery and game balance keeping marines from doing what they are supposed to do. The aliens can counter any marine strategy with less coordination and means. I cannot stress enough how this "asymmetric" game element is not asymmetric at all, but rather an imbalance.
The alien commander is too powerful and exploitable... and with the basically FREE leap upgrade they get immediately it only adds to the problem. Theres no need to nerf or remove things... they just need to be rebalanced and <i>moved</i> to more appropriate times in game. Other things like starting res, and res inflow could be tweaked to ACTUALLY be asymmetric. If aliens can do more with less than why are they starting with the same amount of res? Just a thought.
Just about everything the comm does affects the FPS players, and the same is true the other way around. It should be obvious but I'll give you one of the most blatant examples and maybe you'll figure out the rest yourself: The comm can effectively make a marine invincible by giving him nano-shield and medpacks. In this situation, none of the FPS players have any agency -- the outcome of the battle is entirely decided by the commander.
<!--quoteo(post=1948691:date=Jul 3 2012, 09:05 PM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ Jul 3 2012, 09:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948691"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's... just not true. Single player k/d is very relevant (as an apropos though; most of my team also had positive scores, while the entire marine team had negative scores, similar to a pcw I played against your team a few weeks ago which had a similar outcome). In any case, it was just an example of FPS player impotence.
In that situation, the FPS players feel completely powerless and the game ceases to be fun to play.
AI units in general are a problem, it goes against the very basic of the game: "stracraft where units are real players". Making sure that everything is done, and goes through the players should limit theses kind of problems.
This problem is probably compounded by the Tres/Pres distinction though because it's almost impossible to hurt an economy without attacking resource-towers. In NS1, killing lifeforms or players with weapons would have a direct affect but all it serves to do in NS2 is lower the lifeform/weapon count. For NS1, a dead fade could mean a slower hive, a dead gorge could mean fewer chambers, a dead lerk might mean a slower mid-game fade and so on.. it was all intrinsically linked. In NS2, dying has simply means you're a skulk for a while - the team strategy doesn't change at all, it is merely delayed. This one-dimensional outcome of killing lifeforms, or dying as one, is far less interesting. I digressed here a bit but one of the side-effects of this system is that a player can do very little with his skill to hurt an economy besides rushing resource towers. I'm not a fan of this, though I can see why many are.
Abilities like nano-construct and nano-shield are plainly broken because of how severely they detract from the emphasis on skill and planning. Medpacks are susceptible to the same criticism but to a far lesser extent because of the intensive resource expenditure, the fact that it requires 1-on-1 permanent attention from the commander etc.
As an aside, a similar reasoning can be used to show why ARC-deployment would be such a good idea; not because it fixes the ARC-train (which it does) but because player involvement becomes key, the commander-player interaction is heightened and the game doesn't get won by AI units.
Did you get lessons on speech from the Queen after you taught her NS1? You always find a way to be elegant in your explanations :P
In that situation, the FPS players feel completely powerless and the game ceases to be fun to play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a matter of opinion. I <i>want</i> that sort of feedback. That's why I play a FPS/RTS hybrid.
AI units in general are a problem, it goes against the very basic of the game: "stracraft where units are real players". Making sure that everything is done, and goes through the players should limit theses kind of problems.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The idea of an FPS/RTS game where players are starcraft units isn't a very good one though, you can't just jam players into the role of a zergling and expect them to enjoy it. In RTS games units are expected to do nothing except what you tell them to do, and most of the time you will be holding them back, waiting to attack, or guarding something, or moving them somewhere, not fun things in an FPS.
I sort of like that one team can have the distinct kill advantage and still loose because of macro reasons, really hammers home the rts aspect (which in my eyes is what differentiates this game from the many similar games). I always liked the feeling that you were playing as one of those insignificant marines I so often send to their deaths in RTS games. Still this was possibly a product of the games current lack of balance (like arc trains, marine turtle and a lack of energy for aliens which makes efficient jp killing a task only mad skillz can accomplish) rather than a fundamental problem with the rts/fps core.
<!--quoteo(post=1948743:date=Jul 3 2012, 07:57 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 3 2012, 07:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948743"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The idea of an FPS/RTS game where players are starcraft units isn't a very good one though, you can't just jam players into the role of a zergling and expect them to enjoy it. In RTS games units are expected to do nothing except what you tell them to do, and most of the time you will be holding them back, waiting to attack, or guarding something, or moving them somewhere, not fun things in an FPS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You really have to get engaged in the RTS aspect even as a marine, you have a world map for a reason. When you are defending you get the satisfaction of knowing that you are doing something crucial for your team, and the fact that you are not being attacked is if anything a relief since every tick of res brings you closer to victory (or at least that is how it is for me). Still to each his own.
On another note I loved how much of an upgrade the guns were in ns1 (ns2 feels somewhat lacking in my opinion, both because the guns are weaker and because there are more of them due to the nature of the player economy) sure you would not often get a shotgun or hmg, but when you did it felt absolutely amazing (much much better then it feels wielding one in NS2, in part because it is so common an occurance and in part because the guns are weaker) as you knew you were holding a beast of a weapon and that even fades could know fear when in your sights. Oh and it sounded a million times more badass then the NS2 shottie.
As for things like nano-shield, I like that a marine comm can make a marine very tough to kill (albeit temporarily) it is not difficult for an alien to retreat and come back when the shield is down nothing is compelling you to fight to the death. Although I do think that nano-shield is too common and too cheap, nano construct on the other hand I do not care for. Because of the simple reason that it takes away the tradeoff in committing to constructing a building(since in any threatening situation the comm will just NC you and the job will be done in 3 seconds).
<!--quoteo(post=1948645:date=Jul 3 2012, 12:19 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 3 2012, 12:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948645"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->POST ABOUT EMPIRES<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It seems to me that making all the weapons of roughly equal power would be more akin to making vehicles of equal power to infantry rather than making some classes plain more powerful than others. Also, I for one like the risk and tension of knowing that you (not necessarily your team, although it is often the case) have something to loose by your death. The lmg is a worthwhile weapon and while not as good as some of the others is hardly something to get frustrated over being reduced too, especially if the process of that reduction was sufficiently epic and satisfying (like a nice big team battle).
Also, it saddens me that empire mod is near death :(
<!--quoteo(post=1948718:date=Jul 3 2012, 05:44 PM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Jul 3 2012, 05:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948718"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This problem is probably compounded by the Tres/Pres distinction though because it's almost impossible to hurt an economy without attacking resource-towers. In NS1, killing lifeforms or players with weapons would have a direct affect but all it serves to do in NS2 is lower the lifeform count. For NS1, a dead fade could mean a slower hive, a dead gorge could mean fewer chambers, a dead lerk might mean a slower mid-game fade and so on.. it was all intrinsically linked. In NS2, dying has simply means you're a skulk for a while - the team strategy doesn't change at all, it is merely delayed. This one-dimensional outcome of killing lifeforms, or dying as one, is far less interesting. I digressed here a bit but one of the side-effects of this system is that a player can do very little with his skill to hurt an economy besides rushing resource towers. I'm not a fan of this though I can see why many are.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is most sage, although you are harming the enemies military presence you are not harming their infrastructure and economy. Nevertheless a decreased enemy military force might very well give you opportunities to harm the economy that would not have been available otherwise.
<!--quoteo(post=1948705:date=Jul 3 2012, 05:02 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Jul 3 2012, 05:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948705"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As I have already said, in that particular example, my team also outperformed the other team in terms of k/d. Unfortunately, our comm used a less-than-perfect build order and the marines were able gain a tech advantage. After that, it was just a matter of time. Didn't matter how many times we killed them, because the marine comm could just build more infantry portals, arcs and turrets. Didn't matter how many times we killed their harvesters, because the marine commander could just use nano-construct to instantly rebuild them.
In that situation, the FPS players feel completely powerless and the game ceases to be fun to play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That kind of situation requires coordination (not that I am implying your and your team lacked it, it was a comp game and ns2 is far from balanced) and the destruction of the enemy bases (easier said than done I know) rather than kills. Wars are not won by mobs but by armies, and the thing that differentiates the latter from the former is coordination and adherence to some sort of greater macro scheme by all the members. In general once all the marine upgrades are up all you are costing the enemy team by damaging the economy is arcs and medpacks, the key is to destroy something more crucial to the enemy. After all, if you can slaughter them in the field surely you can slaughter them in their base and the base with them?
<!--quoteo(post=1948743:date=Jul 3 2012, 07:57 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 3 2012, 07:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948743"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The idea of an FPS/RTS game where players are starcraft units isn't a very good one though, you can't just jam players into the role of a zergling and expect them to enjoy it. In RTS games units are expected to do nothing except what you tell them to do, and most of the time you will be holding them back, waiting to attack, or guarding something, or moving them somewhere, not fun things in an FPS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Speak for yourself, I (and many others Im sure) enjoy being part of some greater plan and knowing that even though we play a small part it is still important. As long as I am aware of the purpose we are serving by doing these seemingly pointless things and how it all fits in the commanders plan I am perfectly content to stand guard or patrol the base. I find the RTS aspect as immersive (if not more immersive) than the fps aspect even if I am not commanding. An appreciation of the big picture is hardly limited to the commander, everyone can see the map and know what part they are playing.
1) Less decision making - Not having the tres sink of dropping weapons makes for saving/planning resources absent. You just spend, spend, spend on tech with no real negative consequences in the current economy.
2) Less guiding/reacting - Only real objective marines have is to kill harvesters and keep extractors up. Tech points and scouting have limited impact. Marines do their own thing while you build a train of arcs safely at base. The maps are also fairly linear, you go from one point to the next. There is one door to every room leading to the next, map designers please give us a door number 2 and 3! (thinking of Mineshaft+summit)
3) Less microing - With nano shield and construct you need to keep less of an eye on those building and fighting.
<b>So although the RTS is having a bigger impact, it's actually not fun for the commander (and FPS players).</b>
What can be changed to give the marine commander less of an impact, but raise the skill cap?
1) Slower economy and more expensive structures/upgrades - less tech, slows the game, makes each upgrade choice more relevant. Game is also not decided in the first few minutes.
2) Very long cooldowns on nano shield/construct (1 minute). They are too powerful to be on short CDs, but they add an interesting element for the commander. It would create an additional element of strategy - do you want to get that extractor up quickly because you may be short on resources, or save it for a potential forward phase gate?
You can have the being part of a bigger picture thing without making players literally RTS units though, an RTS unit has an awful existence, it consists of 'run to target, hit target repeatedly with stick, run to next target'. A member of a small team of elite soldiers all performing a challenging and dynamic task where everyone needs to pull their weight, that's an FPS approach, and that still has you being an important part of a team, it's simply a more fun part. The reason I keep saying RTS units suck while FPS players are great is because the FPS genre has spent years trying to glorify and engage the player, make their individual experience enjoyable, because that's what makes a good FPS game. An FPSRTS game NEEDS to be a good fps AND a good rts, and that's very hard to do, and the way to do it is not to just build an RTS game and jam players into the role of the units, because the FPS enjoyment will come directly into conflict with the RTS part. FPS players pursue their own ideas, won't wait around indefinitely, will engage rather than retreating even if you tell them to, and have a sense of self preservation. They are intelligent, RTS units are not, therefore they will not obey orders well enough for an RTS player to enjoy commanding them. Equally true is that an FPS player will not enjoy performing all the menial, boring tasks expected of an RTS unit.
The sense of being part of a greater whole is good, and I have no desire to get rid of that, but that is a very small part of what you imply when you say 'starcraft where the players are units'. And I also don't think it's a very good way to achieve that sense of immersion and cooperation.
In an RTS, a unit is an expendable, weak, meaningless thing. They are ants in an ant farm for the commander to play with. In an FPS, units are made out to be the best of the best, the ultimate badass, where one man slaughters thousands of enemies in his quest for whatever he is questing for. An FPS where you are weak, meaningless, and only of any value as a mass of hitpoints and DPS, that's not a good FPS. I don't believe it's sensible to say 'welp it's worth it for the immersion and thus there's no reason to improve it'.
The game is not designed around players staying in base to defend, that's why most resource are outside and not inside the start position like in starcraft, so that's not a problem.
Units are not expendable, weak and meaningless in RTS, it depends strongly on the army size. At the beginning of the game single units are very critical, and become less important in big army size. NS has small, fixed army size, so that's not a problem either. A good illustration of this:
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zzPiDOh9430"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zzPiDOh9430" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
I my opinion what you need for a good fps is good movement, good weapons/abilites design and good map interaction.
I agree with you that those features lie at the core of good FPS gameplay, but they are all pointless without <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(philosophy)#Human_agency" target="_blank">agency</a> (in this case; the ability to have a direct effect on the outcome of any given round).
To the people talking about NS2 being a team game: It isn't a team game if the two commanders are the overwhelmingly most important deciders of the outcome of any given round; that's called a duel.
<!--quoteo(post=1948842:date=Jul 4 2012, 01:05 PM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ Jul 4 2012, 01:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948842"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Units are not expendable, weak and meaningless in RTS, it depends strongly on the army size.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By snipping this out of context and arguing against it, you're missing the point he's trying to make. I rarely agree with Chris0132's posts, but this time he's right on the money. I don't really understand how you can argue against what he's saying in that particular post, because what he writes about good FPS gameplay is pretty much universally true.
As for not following the commander orders, that sounds like a non-issue, if the commander is giving good orders and the marine have a brain, I guess they should be able to agree on something to do. If the commander is giving bad orders and or marines don't listen, then I wouldn't blame the game design for that.
For the agency problem, I've never seen a commander win to game alone, and I've lost many game because I couldn't aim, maybe there is a problem with aiming well doing nothing good for the team, but I can't really comment on that :)
Yes, but that wasn't the point he was trying to make. You're latching on to a single phrase that can be interpreted into him saying what you just said, but that interpretation makes no sense when read together with the rest of his post.
<!--quoteo(post=1948881:date=Jul 4 2012, 02:39 PM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ Jul 4 2012, 02:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948881"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For the agency problem, I've never seen a commander win to game alone<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I see that almost every round I play on public. A few obvious examples of commanders entirely determining the outcome of a round: Marine comm spends res on spamming turrets instead of researching upgrades; marines lose. Marine comm doesn't drop meds and ammo; marines lose. Marine comm doesn't give orders; marines lose. Alien comm doesn't research leap until 8 minutes into the game; aliens lose. Alien comm spams whips early game; aliens lose.
Sometimes, the rest of the players on the team are so vastly superior to the other team that it is still possible to win, but most of the time, no matter what you do as an FPS player, in those situations where your commander makes bad choices; you will lose, regardless of your performance as an FPS player. Conversely, when your commander makes good choices; you will win.
To a large degree, the commander should determine the outcome of the round. He has to, otherwise the RTS portion of the game would be illusory. This is why I say "the pendulum has swung too far" and not "commanders ruin FPS gameplay!". I'm not saying that commander shouldn't heavily influence the outcome of any given round -- I'm saying that the performance of the commander in NS2 has too much influence, and the individual FPS player too little. As an FPS player, that makes for a frustrating experience.
As for not following the commander orders, that sounds like a non-issue, if the commander is giving good orders and the marine have a brain, I guess they should be able to agree on something to do. If the commander is giving bad orders and or marines don't listen, then I wouldn't blame the game design for that.
For the agency problem, I've never seen a commander win to game alone, and I've lost many game because I couldn't aim, maybe there is a problem with aiming well doing nothing good for the team, but I can't really comment on that :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gah, it's less the idea that units are practically weak and expendable, obviously an RTS can have very expensive, powerful, and critical units in it. It's about how the units are <i>viewed</i>, I suppose you could say philosophically.
In an RTS, units are not individuals, they aren't held up and glorified, they are just collections of numbers. Some of them can be collections of very good numbers, but they're still just mobile blocks of HP and DPS, and they rarely do anything more than shoot DPS at other blocks of HP, and you can always make more of them.
In an FPS, every player is their own man, their own collection of thoughts and ideas, their own playstyle, their own preferences, their own skills, their own everything. You might have a favorite weapon, favorite level, favorite way of playing, your own cool tactic that you thought up, the game is very much your own because you control your own character and play your own way.
That is fundamentally incompatible with the idea of an RTS where units are players, because in an RTS, the units are the commander's bullets, his weapon, his WASD, his line of sight. The <i>army</i> is the avatar of the single commanding player, individual units in that army are just not that important, not that venerated, they are your ammunition, your medkits, your stats. You think about them in the way you think about things like ammo and health in an FPS, it's not a good idea to waste them, but you can get more later, you don't think 'oh no I lost those hitpoints, those were very precious hitpoints and the ones I get back later won't be the same'. Equally, you don't view the loss of units in an RTS any differently.
This means that either the FPSRTS players will feel very meaningless, because they are effectively the commander's stats, or the commander will feel powerless because his units are clearly not under his control, it'd be like if your gun decided it didn't want to shoot that enemy, or if it felt insecure because it doesn't like being low on ammo, or it got surprised when you pulled the trigger and decided to fire very inaccurately. Comical perhaps, but not really very fun in a competitive multiplayer game.
It therefore stands to reason that a different approach is required to mesh RTS and FPS gameplay so that both sides can enjoy it. It is not as simple as 'replace AI units with player controlled units'.
I see that almost every round I play on public. A few obvious examples of commanders entirely determining the outcome of a round: Marine comm spends res on spamming turrets instead of researching upgrades; marines lose. Marine comm doesn't drop meds and ammo; marines lose. Marine comm doesn't give orders; marines lose. Alien comm doesn't research leap until 8 minutes into the game; aliens lose. Alien comm spams whips early game; aliens lose.
Sometimes, the rest of the players on the team are so vastly superior to the other team that it is still possible to win, but most of the time, no matter what you do as an FPS player, in those situations where your commander makes bad choices; you will lose, regardless of your performance as an FPS player. Conversely, when your commander makes good choices; you will win.
To a large degree, the commander should determine the outcome of the round. He has to, otherwise the RTS portion of the game would be illusory. This is why I say "the pendulum has swung too far" and not "commanders ruin FPS gameplay!". I'm not saying that commander shouldn't heavily influence the outcome of any given round -- I'm saying that the performance of the commander in NS2 has too much influence, and the individual FPS player too little. As an FPS player, that makes for a frustrating experience.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Commanders don't win the game. All they can do is lose it for their team. Assuming at least basic level of competence, this game still revolves around the shooters on the ground. The comm is just an enabler.
The sense of being part of a greater whole is good, and I have no desire to get rid of that, but that is a very small part of what you imply when you say 'starcraft where the players are units'. And I also don't think it's a very good way to achieve that sense of immersion and cooperation.
In an RTS, a unit is an expendable, weak, meaningless thing. They are ants in an ant farm for the commander to play with. In an FPS, units are made out to be the best of the best, the ultimate badass, where one man slaughters thousands of enemies in his quest for whatever he is questing for. An FPS where you are weak, meaningless, and only of any value as a mass of hitpoints and DPS, that's not a good FPS. I don't believe it's sensible to say 'welp it's worth it for the immersion and thus there's no reason to improve it'.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please do not exxagerate. While there are some menial tasks that have to be done in NS2 the game is still filled with exciting fps moments. Frankly I no longer ever understand what your concern is. Your complaints are so abstract as to be practically meaningless, seeming to deal more with the 'feel' of the game which is something that is nearly completely subjective and only really felt by you. All I can say is that I share neither your displeasure with the gameplay or the 'feel' nor your desire to make NS2 more combat like and if I had any say in the development process would oppose such a motion with all my might. Still, to each his own.
EDIT: Also I never said the game should be like starcraft with players for units, that would be moronic (as most people who have played SC should realise).
Yeah, I've been reading through most of these books and I'm in agreement with dominator here. I want the co-dependence between commander and shooter or skulk. While this may be frustrating in games with crappy pub commanders, it is also the driving force behind the entire game.
I think some of Fana's problem is stemmed from performance problems. Fana seems to want really good players to be able to crush lower level players. I think that's fine, but impossible with current levels of performance. If hitreg, latency, and server problems are ever fixed then good marines will be killing 2-3 skulks per lmg clip. Right now you typically use 1 lmg clip per cara skulk even on a decent track. Increased performance will result in one really good player having much more of an impact on the game.
Tell that to Rantology.
No. The difference between a commander with a "basic level of competence" and an expert is enormous. It has nothing to do with "(losing) it for their team" -- I only used those examples because it was the easiest way to make my point clear.
<!--quoteo(post=1948995:date=Jul 4 2012, 10:02 PM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Jul 4 2012, 10:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948995"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think some of Fana's problem is stemmed from performance problems. Fana seems to want really good players to be able to crush lower level players. I think that's fine, but impossible with current levels of performance. If hitreg, latency, and server problems are ever fixed then good marines will be killing 2-3 skulks per lmg clip. Right now you typically use 1 lmg clip per cara skulk even on a decent track. Increased performance will result in one really good player having much more of an impact on the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't even understand what you're trying to say here. If I had better performance, I'd go 174-5 instead of 87-5, and that would be enough to have "much more of an impact on the game"?
Who said anything about crushing lower level players? That's easy enough as it is. I would happily take a lower k/d if it meant my fragging actually had an impact on the outcome of the round.
I should also add, in case anyone is confused; I don't agree or disagree with the OP. My comments in this thread are about a separate, but related, issue.
I think NS2HD said something like that in an interview, it's a very condensed way of explaining the game to someone who doesn't know anything about it.
You could also say "an asymmetrical resources based strategic fps with a top view commander and buildings" but that's about the same.
I don't even understand what you're trying to say here. If I had better performance, I'd go 174-5 instead of 87-5, and that would be enough to have "much more of an impact on the game"?
Who said anything about crushing lower level players? That's easy enough as it is. I would happily take a lower k/d if it meant my fragging actually had an impact on the outcome of the round.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, the difference between a commander with a basic level of competence and an expert is not enormous for a team that is winning the fps game. If the shooters are winning, then all the comm has to do is research the right stuff (aka not turrets) and the shooters will win the game. The good shooters can even tell their mediocre commander what to research. In your previous post, you listed an example of the commander losing a game for their team. That's all he does. He still relies on the shooters to win and the shooters rely on him. That's the whole point of NS2.
You keep listing your high KDR and subsequent loss as if it proves that there is a problem with a shooter's dependence on the commander. There are many parts to the game considering this is a team based game. I don't see anything wrong with bad commanders losing the game for good marines. Get a better commander.
Fragging does have an impact on the game and I'm not sure how you can honestly say it doesn't. Just because you lost with a high KDR (because your comm sucked) does not equate to your fragging not having an impact on the game. All it means is that there is more than just fragging to win in NS2.
The one doing the stomping who ultimately loses. Being completely thrashed and still winning gives you a sense of overcoming obstacles to achieve victory. Completely dominating the other team by yourself and still losing is pretty stupid. Happens often enough(and for quite some time) that I've pretty much given up on aliens and almost exclusively gorge when I play them.