<!--quoteo(post=1965341:date=Aug 20 2012, 04:46 PM:name=Admiral0)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Admiral0 @ Aug 20 2012, 04:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1965341"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If skulk wall-jumping was intended to match the skulk skill curve with the marine skill curve, it's a pretty terrible implementation.
Rather than trying to steepen the skulk skill curve, the marine skill curve should just be flattened.
In original NS 1.0, skulks were absolutely enormous, but became smaller with 2.0, and smaller still with 3.0.
Skulks should go back to a 1.0-2.0 size and just have more health to compensate. This will narrow the skill gap between the novice and expert marine players, since arguably aiming is the most difficult part of being a marine player.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your suggestions would make novice skulks vs novice marines a walk in the park for the aliens.
Any 'flat rate / baseline' changes are going to have this effect. the solution <b>NEEDS</b> to scale with player skill, or you just make the game crappy for one set of players or an other.
also:
"This will narrow the skill gap between the novice and expert marine players"
doesn't that statement seem like a contradiction!?
Why do we want to make the skill game between good players and bad ones smaller? Shouldn't the better player win?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your suggestions would make novice skulks vs novice marines a walk in the park for the aliens.
Any 'flat rate / baseline' changes are going to have this effect. the solution NEEDS to scale with player skill, or you just make the game crappy for one set of players or an other.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know how you can draw this conclusion without having specifics about how a skulk's hitbox size and base HP would change in my suggestion.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"This will narrow the skill gap between the novice and expert marine players"
doesn't that statement seem like a contradiction!?
Why do we want to make the skill game between good players and bad ones smaller? Shouldn't the better player win?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, every game should have a skill curve. There is, however, a balance between having a curve that's too flat or too steep. Too steep turns players off, too flat bores players too quickly (see: vanilla NS vs combat NS).
The issue that is being discussed is whether base LMG marines scale better with player skill than base skulks. I'm agreeing with this, and suggesting that rather than trying to steepen the skulk skill curve, it would be easier and better for game balance to just flatten the marine skill curve. The game is already very deep and intimidating for newer players. This doesn't need to be compounded by having unintuitive gimmicks tacked on to lifeforms to widen the gap between expert and novice players.
<!--quoteo(post=1965355:date=Aug 20 2012, 05:42 PM:name=Admiral0)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Admiral0 @ Aug 20 2012, 05:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1965355"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know how you can draw this conclusion without having specifics about how a skulk's hitbox size and base HP would change in my suggestion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you make the skulk hit box larger, it will be easier to track, this means all players will track better -> more dead newbie skulks
you are right you've lowered the skill ceiling for marines, but that just means more people are 'pro level' marines. You've made it easier for a new player to track a skulk, but you haven't made a corresponding change to the speed / unpredictability of a skulk's movement at the low end of the skill scale, as a result the new player vs new player gameplay is stacked in the marine's favor. The magnitude of this is arguable based on the size of the changes, of course, but a change that affects all skill levels equally just moves when the cross over point between stacked for new players, or stacked for skilled players occurs.
Same argument is true of HP increase.
if you are implying there is some magic number of hit box increase / HP increase were the affect is going to be larger at high levels than low levels of play, I am doubtful, but I suppose it is not impossible. Good luck finding it.
Also we should distinguish between learning curve slope and height (skill ceiling). We all agree there is a perfect slope for the learning curve. The real question is how high should the skill ceiling be.
A competitive player will tell you it should be infinite. A more casual player will want a fixed value, that he/she feels he/she can achieve in the amount of time they want to invest.
for NS2 to be an 'esport' the skill ceiling should tend toward being infinite.
@Katana Hm I think you went off on a tangent. In that paragraph I wasn't talking about game balance at all. My point was that a game's skill cap is somewhere on a spectrum. Let's say a game like Farmville is at the low end and game like DOTA is at the high end. A game can only be at one point on that spectrum and there are advantages and disadvantages to moving in either direction, specifically about which players will be interested in playing that game. Starcraft has a high skill cap but accommodates lesser skilled players through the matchmaking service.
Incidentally... <!--quoteo(post=1965336:date=Aug 21 2012, 09:33 AM:name=Katana-)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Katana- @ Aug 21 2012, 09:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1965336"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't agree with this completely. It is possible to balance games at all skill levels. It is not possible <b>ACROSS</b> skill levels. If we are talking about good players vs bad, all bets are off.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not possible? Golf has handicaps. So does the boardgame Go. In a multiplayer game of Civ you can set the difficulty for each player. <i>Many</i> games come with a difficutly setting. Remember that the rules of a game are arbitrary and absolute.
<!--quoteo(post=1965336:date=Aug 21 2012, 09:33 AM:name=Katana-)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Katana- @ Aug 21 2012, 09:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1965336"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So what you are suggesting is true if you are trying to balance across skill levels, but I believe this is an exercise in futility, and will only result in a shallow game, or an inaccessible one.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Now it's possible but shallow or inaccessible? What about Pacman, Tetris or Mario Brothers?
<!--quoteo(post=1965367:date=Aug 20 2012, 06:46 PM:name=Khyron)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Khyron @ Aug 20 2012, 06:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1965367"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Not possible? Golf has handicaps. So does the boardgame Go. In a multiplayer game of Civ you can set the difficulty for each player. <i>Many</i> games come with a difficutly setting. Remember that the rules of a game are arbitrary and absolute.
Now it's possible but shallow or inaccessible? What about Pacman, Tetris or Mario Brothers?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good point on, go / golf / handy caps in general. Over sight on my part. It would be interesting to implement something like that in a multiply player FPS. I wonder how well it would work?
Pacman / Mario brother's arn't know for their multiply player modes :) Tetris and other Teris like games are pretty good competitive games, but avoid the problem by having a symmetric, or nearly symmetric rule set for all players.
<!--quoteo(post=1965329:date=Aug 21 2012, 01:18 AM:name=hakenspit)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hakenspit @ Aug 21 2012, 01:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1965329"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sorry but the reason matso is changing it is because of the reason I outlined before and the illogical shape causing hit reg issues. It is easier in current model to bite a marine 0.4m in front of his jaw than 0.1 due to the shape of the bite cone tailing in at the jaw. Stop using 1st person views for this discussion as its not relevant as it does not show the issue which is illustrated in top down views. We are not talking about the hit zone on the screen but in the actual world how the bite zone is shaped and whether or not its easier or harder to bite a marine up close.
Now once we see how the bite shape change plays out further discussion on whether or not they need more speed or easier to get speed up. I think that now skulks are no longer punished for getting too close it may not be needed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*sigh* Obviously I can't explain it good enough or you haven't read my text. It is NOT more difficult to bite a marine 0.1m away than 0.4. Because it is always the same amount of pixels, from the center of your screen, that he needs to be in to count as hit. No matter if he is 0.1 or 0.4 away. (Estimating, that the origin of the cone is slightly behind the camera.) 1st person view is essential, because you aim in 1st person on a computer screen monitoring a virtual world in another perspective. Not in a top down view. Because you don't try to see it in 1st person you forget that the perspective change and that makes the cone practically to a cuboid or square on your screen. The screen is what you use to aim. This is what counts not some theoretical top down view. And if it is always the same amount of pixels on your screen, that count as hit, than it is NOT more difficult to hit marines who are nearer.
<!--quoteo(post=1965428:date=Aug 21 2012, 04:50 PM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Aug 21 2012, 04:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1965428"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It is NOT more difficult to bite a marine 0.1m away than 0.4.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually it is, from practical experience as well as in theory by looking at it as a geometry problem.
<!--quoteo(post=1965428:date=Aug 21 2012, 04:50 PM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Aug 21 2012, 04:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1965428"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because it is always the same amount of pixels, from the center of your screen, that he needs to be in to count as hit. No matter if he is 0.1 or 0.4 away.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, we understand that objects appear to get larger as the viewpoing moves closer to them. However the square in Arkanti's skulk bite picture actually shrinks as you get closer to the target. So while the target gets larger, the hitzone gets smaller. This isn't a zero sum game, it has an effect on the tollerance. As the bitezone gets smaller it becomes more important that part of the marine is directly in front of the camera. To make a clear example, it would be a problem when the square is small enough that it fits between a marine's legs. The close you get to a marine, both the smaller the square and the larger the gap. I hope that makes sense.
<!--quoteo(post=1965428:date=Aug 21 2012, 04:50 PM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Aug 21 2012, 04:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1965428"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->(Estimating, that the origin of the cone is slightly behind the camera.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The origin of the cone is the camera's viewpoint.
<!--quoteo(post=1965436:date=Aug 21 2012, 09:37 AM:name=Khyron)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Khyron @ Aug 21 2012, 09:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1965436"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actually it is, from practical experience as well as in theory by looking at it as a geometry problem.
Yes, we understand that objects appear to get larger as the viewpoing moves closer to them. However the square in Arkanti's skulk bite picture actually shrinks as you get closer to the target. So while the target gets larger, the hitzone gets smaller. This isn't a zero sum game, it has an effect on the tollerance. As the bitezone gets smaller it becomes more important that part of the marine is directly in front of the camera. To make a clear example, it would be a problem when the square is small enough that it fits between a marine's legs. The close you get to a marine, both the smaller the square and the larger the gap. I hope that makes sense.
The origin of the cone is the camera's viewpoint.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Than the only problem is, that it isn't a zero sum at the end. And this can simply be fixed by changing the degrees of the cone and/or place the origin slightly behind the camera. The square that you have on your screen should take the same amount of pixels on your screen in every distance. This is not possible with a cuboid. If you replace the cone with a cuboid, it will have the effect, that "the origin" square of this cuboid covers the whole screen, while 0.4 away it only covers maybe 100x100 pixels. You wont need to aim at close distances anymore.
<!--quoteo(post=1965428:date=Aug 21 2012, 05:50 PM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Aug 21 2012, 05:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1965428"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->*sigh* Obviously I can't explain it good enough or you haven't read my text. It is NOT more difficult to bite a marine 0.1m away than 0.4. Because it is always the same amount of pixels, from the center of your screen, that he needs to be in to count as hit. No matter if he is 0.1 or 0.4 away. (Estimating, that the origin of the cone is slightly behind the camera.) 1st person view is essential, because you aim in 1st person on a computer screen monitoring a virtual world in another perspective. Not in a top down view. Because you don't try to see it in 1st person you forget that the perspective change and that makes the cone practically to a cuboid or square on your screen. The screen is what you use to aim. This is what counts not some theoretical top down view. And if it is always the same amount of pixels on your screen, that count as hit, than it is NOT more difficult to hit marines who are nearer.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> OK I shall try one last time to show you what the problem is as you obviously have not seen the pictures in the previous posts. In the below image I have taken the current hitcones and flipped, this shows by the misalignment that the hitzone is smaller <img src="http://ih0.redbubble.net/image.12417281.8602/flat,550x550,075,f.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /> Matso, one of the dev team earlier in teh post said they where changing from the cones we see to more "long rectangles" (in other words no tapering in at the mouth as is the current issue).
I hope you can understand that this is not talking about 1st person view but actual hitbox issues (I have been playing fps games long enough to be able to shoot form the 1st person...) that means bites that land at a distance dont land up close the proof to this is not only in the above picture but also this post which I quoted the relevant point <!--quoteo(post=1964888:date=Aug 19 2012, 09:07 PM:name=matso)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (matso @ Aug 19 2012, 09:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1964888"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The narrow-at-the-mouth will go away in the next patch - it will be reverted to the same width at base and at end.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So clearly they agree that the narrowing doesn't play right and whilst it might look right from 1st person is actually broken and needed to be changed.
<!--quoteo(post=1965445:date=Aug 21 2012, 06:38 PM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Aug 21 2012, 06:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1965445"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Than the only problem is, that it isn't a zero sum at the end. And this can simply be fixed by changing the degrees of the cone and/or place the origin slightly behind the camera. The square that you have on your screen should take the same amount of pixels on your screen in every distance. This is not possible with a cuboid. If you replace the cone with a cuboid, it will have the effect, that "the origin" square of this cuboid covers the whole screen, while 0.4 away it only covers maybe 100x100 pixels. You wont need to aim at close distances anymore.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I see your point. At zero distance, any bite shape that's greather than zero dimensions will instantly occupy the whole screen. That's definately something to pay attention to, but... I think the clipping box surrounding the skulk will keep him at some distance from any target. I'm fairly sure this is the case (without having tested it) because otherwise if you walked up againt a wall, you would see a texture keep zooming in until you just saw one pixel of the texture filling the whole screen.
You could also test it by getting a skulk as close to a wall as possible and then getting him to spin around the z axis. You should be able to observe some distance between the wall and the apparent axis of rotation.
<!--quoteo(post=1965428:date=Aug 21 2012, 02:50 AM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Aug 21 2012, 02:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1965428"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->*sigh* Obviously I can't explain it good enough or you haven't read my text. It is NOT more difficult to bite a marine 0.1m away than 0.4.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
it is more difficult because the angular velocities of the objects that you have to track at close range are much higher.
Yeah ok. This is right. But I see the danger, that it will require no more skill to hit something as skulk, when it is enough that the marine is on your screen to count a hit. At least when he is very near.
<!--quoteo(post=1965476:date=Aug 21 2012, 03:08 PM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Aug 21 2012, 03:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1965476"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah ok. This is right. But I see the danger, that it will require no more skill to hit something as skulk, when it is enough that the marine is on your screen to count a hit. At least when he is very near.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is where marine movement comes in. I think dodging the skulk/tracking the marine is more interesting than hoping that the bite just finally would register correctly on the almost stationary target.
<!--quoteo(post=1965802:date=Aug 22 2012, 09:12 PM:name=elmo9000)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (elmo9000 @ Aug 22 2012, 09:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1965802"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is where marine movement comes in. I think dodging the skulk/tracking the marine is more interesting than hoping that the bite just finally would register correctly on the almost stationary target.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> OMHO the skill should be in getting close to the marine. Once you've managed that, you should be almost assured of victory. At least, I think that's what I liked about NS1...
<!--quoteo(post=1965819:date=Aug 22 2012, 10:10 PM:name=Khyron)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Khyron @ Aug 22 2012, 10:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1965819"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->OMHO the skill should be in getting close to the marine. Once you've managed that, you should be almost assured of victory. At least, I think that's what I liked about NS1...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong lol. Was not like that at all in NS1, marines had alot they could do to escape skulks... bhop up ramps, wiggle walk, timing the jump with the bite to be pushed far away. In fact that is a large complaint alot of my old ns clan buddies don't like about marines, they feel so heavy and its hard to dodge skulk bites compared to NS1.
Being able to aim your skulk bite was just as important as being able to out-think/out-luck your opponent marine.
DghelneshiAims to surpass Fana in post edits.Join Date: 2011-11-01Member: 130634Members, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow
edited August 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1965886:date=Aug 22 2012, 06:18 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ Aug 22 2012, 06:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1965886"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My Favorite Marine Tactic would be to run into the Skulk then jump away so they mistime their bite. =p
Also, ducking to evade Fades.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The best tactic imo is to jump on top of their head and then jump off of it. It confuses the hell out of skulks because they expect you to land a lot sooner. It's pretty hard though.
<!--quoteo(post=1965947:date=Aug 22 2012, 04:21 PM:name=Katana-)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Katana- @ Aug 22 2012, 04:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1965947"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have to say, ducking under a fade swipe was one of the most satisfying things in ns1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Amen to that. Add mixing up the left/right movement and nailing them at point blank with a shotgun after each dodge.... ah, the memories.
<!--quoteo(post=1966037:date=Aug 23 2012, 05:54 PM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ Aug 23 2012, 05:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1966037"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2244/2319217700_0b8169b13b_o.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> looks too unrealistic and thus can't be in NS2. Must be photoshopped for sure.
Comments
Rather than trying to steepen the skulk skill curve, the marine skill curve should just be flattened.
In original NS 1.0, skulks were absolutely enormous, but became smaller with 2.0, and smaller still with 3.0.
Skulks should go back to a 1.0-2.0 size and just have more health to compensate. This will narrow the skill gap between the novice and expert marine players, since arguably aiming is the most difficult part of being a marine player.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your suggestions would make novice skulks vs novice marines a walk in the park for the aliens.
Any 'flat rate / baseline' changes are going to have this effect. the solution <b>NEEDS</b> to scale with player skill, or you just make the game crappy for one set of players or an other.
also:
"This will narrow the skill gap between the novice and expert marine players"
doesn't that statement seem like a contradiction!?
Why do we want to make the skill game between good players and bad ones smaller? Shouldn't the better player win?
Any 'flat rate / baseline' changes are going to have this effect. the solution NEEDS to scale with player skill, or you just make the game crappy for one set of players or an other.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know how you can draw this conclusion without having specifics about how a skulk's hitbox size and base HP would change in my suggestion.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"This will narrow the skill gap between the novice and expert marine players"
doesn't that statement seem like a contradiction!?
Why do we want to make the skill game between good players and bad ones smaller? Shouldn't the better player win?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, every game should have a skill curve. There is, however, a balance between having a curve that's too flat or too steep. Too steep turns players off, too flat bores players too quickly (see: vanilla NS vs combat NS).
The issue that is being discussed is whether base LMG marines scale better with player skill than base skulks. I'm agreeing with this, and suggesting that rather than trying to steepen the skulk skill curve, it would be easier and better for game balance to just flatten the marine skill curve. The game is already very deep and intimidating for newer players. This doesn't need to be compounded by having unintuitive gimmicks tacked on to lifeforms to widen the gap between expert and novice players.
If you make the skulk hit box larger, it will be easier to track, this means all players will track better -> more dead newbie skulks
you are right you've lowered the skill ceiling for marines, but that just means more people are 'pro level' marines. You've made it easier for a new player to track a skulk, but you haven't made a corresponding change to the speed / unpredictability of a skulk's movement at the low end of the skill scale, as a result the new player vs new player gameplay is stacked in the marine's favor. The magnitude of this is arguable based on the size of the changes, of course, but a change that affects all skill levels equally just moves when the cross over point between stacked for new players, or stacked for skilled players occurs.
Same argument is true of HP increase.
if you are implying there is some magic number of hit box increase / HP increase were the affect is going to be larger at high levels than low levels of play, I am doubtful, but I suppose it is not impossible. Good luck finding it.
Also we should distinguish between learning curve slope and height (skill ceiling).
We all agree there is a perfect slope for the learning curve. The real question is how high should the skill ceiling be.
A competitive player will tell you it should be infinite. A more casual player will want a fixed value, that he/she feels he/she can achieve in the amount of time they want to invest.
for NS2 to be an 'esport' the skill ceiling should tend toward being infinite.
Incidentally...
<!--quoteo(post=1965336:date=Aug 21 2012, 09:33 AM:name=Katana-)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Katana- @ Aug 21 2012, 09:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1965336"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't agree with this completely. It is possible to balance games at all skill levels. It is not possible <b>ACROSS</b> skill levels. If we are talking about good players vs bad, all bets are off.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not possible? Golf has handicaps. So does the boardgame Go. In a multiplayer game of Civ you can set the difficulty for each player. <i>Many</i> games come with a difficutly setting. Remember that the rules of a game are arbitrary and absolute.
<!--quoteo(post=1965336:date=Aug 21 2012, 09:33 AM:name=Katana-)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Katana- @ Aug 21 2012, 09:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1965336"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So what you are suggesting is true if you are trying to balance across skill levels, but I believe this is an exercise in futility, and will only result in a shallow game, or an inaccessible one.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now it's possible but shallow or inaccessible? What about Pacman, Tetris or Mario Brothers?
Now it's possible but shallow or inaccessible? What about Pacman, Tetris or Mario Brothers?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good point on, go / golf / handy caps in general. Over sight on my part. It would be interesting to implement something like that in a multiply player FPS. I wonder how well it would work?
Pacman / Mario brother's arn't know for their multiply player modes :)
Tetris and other Teris like games are pretty good competitive games, but avoid the problem by having a symmetric, or nearly symmetric rule set for all players.
It is easier in current model to bite a marine 0.4m in front of his jaw than 0.1 due to the shape of the bite cone tailing in at the jaw.
Stop using 1st person views for this discussion as its not relevant as it does not show the issue which is illustrated in top down views.
We are not talking about the hit zone on the screen but in the actual world how the bite zone is shaped and whether or not its easier or harder to bite a marine up close.
Now once we see how the bite shape change plays out further discussion on whether or not they need more speed or easier to get speed up.
I think that now skulks are no longer punished for getting too close it may not be needed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*sigh* Obviously I can't explain it good enough or you haven't read my text.
It is NOT more difficult to bite a marine 0.1m away than 0.4. Because it is always the same amount of pixels, from the center of your screen, that he needs to be in to count as hit. No matter if he is 0.1 or 0.4 away. (Estimating, that the origin of the cone is slightly behind the camera.)
1st person view is essential, because you aim in 1st person on a computer screen monitoring a virtual world in another perspective. Not in a top down view. Because you don't try to see it in 1st person you forget that the perspective change and that makes the cone practically to a cuboid or square on your screen. The screen is what you use to aim. This is what counts not some theoretical top down view. And if it is always the same amount of pixels on your screen, that count as hit, than it is NOT more difficult to hit marines who are nearer.
Actually it is, from practical experience as well as in theory by looking at it as a geometry problem.
<!--quoteo(post=1965428:date=Aug 21 2012, 04:50 PM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Aug 21 2012, 04:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1965428"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because it is always the same amount of pixels, from the center of your screen, that he needs to be in to count as hit. No matter if he is 0.1 or 0.4 away.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, we understand that objects appear to get larger as the viewpoing moves closer to them. However the square in Arkanti's skulk bite picture actually shrinks as you get closer to the target. So while the target gets larger, the hitzone gets smaller. This isn't a zero sum game, it has an effect on the tollerance. As the bitezone gets smaller it becomes more important that part of the marine is directly in front of the camera. To make a clear example, it would be a problem when the square is small enough that it fits between a marine's legs. The close you get to a marine, both the smaller the square and the larger the gap. I hope that makes sense.
<!--quoteo(post=1965428:date=Aug 21 2012, 04:50 PM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Aug 21 2012, 04:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1965428"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->(Estimating, that the origin of the cone is slightly behind the camera.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The origin of the cone is the camera's viewpoint.
Yes, we understand that objects appear to get larger as the viewpoing moves closer to them. However the square in Arkanti's skulk bite picture actually shrinks as you get closer to the target. So while the target gets larger, the hitzone gets smaller. This isn't a zero sum game, it has an effect on the tollerance. As the bitezone gets smaller it becomes more important that part of the marine is directly in front of the camera. To make a clear example, it would be a problem when the square is small enough that it fits between a marine's legs. The close you get to a marine, both the smaller the square and the larger the gap. I hope that makes sense.
The origin of the cone is the camera's viewpoint.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Than the only problem is, that it isn't a zero sum at the end. And this can simply be fixed by changing the degrees of the cone and/or place the origin slightly behind the camera.
The square that you have on your screen should take the same amount of pixels on your screen in every distance. This is not possible with a cuboid.
If you replace the cone with a cuboid, it will have the effect, that "the origin" square of this cuboid covers the whole screen, while 0.4 away it only covers maybe 100x100 pixels. You wont need to aim at close distances anymore.
It is NOT more difficult to bite a marine 0.1m away than 0.4. Because it is always the same amount of pixels, from the center of your screen, that he needs to be in to count as hit. No matter if he is 0.1 or 0.4 away. (Estimating, that the origin of the cone is slightly behind the camera.)
1st person view is essential, because you aim in 1st person on a computer screen monitoring a virtual world in another perspective. Not in a top down view. Because you don't try to see it in 1st person you forget that the perspective change and that makes the cone practically to a cuboid or square on your screen. The screen is what you use to aim. This is what counts not some theoretical top down view. And if it is always the same amount of pixels on your screen, that count as hit, than it is NOT more difficult to hit marines who are nearer.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK I shall try one last time to show you what the problem is as you obviously have not seen the pictures in the previous posts.
In the below image I have taken the current hitcones and flipped, this shows by the misalignment that the hitzone is smaller
<img src="http://ih0.redbubble.net/image.12417281.8602/flat,550x550,075,f.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Matso, one of the dev team earlier in teh post said they where changing from the cones we see to more "long rectangles" (in other words no tapering in at the mouth as is the current issue).
I hope you can understand that this is not talking about 1st person view but actual hitbox issues (I have been playing fps games long enough to be able to shoot form the 1st person...) that means bites that land at a distance dont land up close the proof to this is not only in the above picture but also this post which I quoted the relevant point
<!--quoteo(post=1964888:date=Aug 19 2012, 09:07 PM:name=matso)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (matso @ Aug 19 2012, 09:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1964888"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The narrow-at-the-mouth will go away in the next patch - it will be reverted to the same width at base and at end.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So clearly they agree that the narrowing doesn't play right and whilst it might look right from 1st person is actually broken and needed to be changed.
The square that you have on your screen should take the same amount of pixels on your screen in every distance. This is not possible with a cuboid.
If you replace the cone with a cuboid, it will have the effect, that "the origin" square of this cuboid covers the whole screen, while 0.4 away it only covers maybe 100x100 pixels. You wont need to aim at close distances anymore.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I see your point. At zero distance, any bite shape that's greather than zero dimensions will instantly occupy the whole screen. That's definately something to pay attention to, but... I think the clipping box surrounding the skulk will keep him at some distance from any target. I'm fairly sure this is the case (without having tested it) because otherwise if you walked up againt a wall, you would see a texture keep zooming in until you just saw one pixel of the texture filling the whole screen.
You could also test it by getting a skulk as close to a wall as possible and then getting him to spin around the z axis. You should be able to observe some distance between the wall and the apparent axis of rotation.
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/AZsPh.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/wne5J.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
It is NOT more difficult to bite a marine 0.1m away than 0.4.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
it is more difficult because the angular velocities of the objects that you have to track at close range are much higher.
This is where marine movement comes in. I think dodging the skulk/tracking the marine is more interesting than hoping that the bite just finally would register correctly on the almost stationary target.
OMHO the skill should be in getting close to the marine. Once you've managed that, you should be almost assured of victory. At least, I think that's what I liked about NS1...
Wrong lol. Was not like that at all in NS1, marines had alot they could do to escape skulks... bhop up ramps, wiggle walk, timing the jump with the bite to be pushed far away. In fact that is a large complaint alot of my old ns clan buddies don't like about marines, they feel so heavy and its hard to dodge skulk bites compared to NS1.
Being able to aim your skulk bite was just as important as being able to out-think/out-luck your opponent marine.
Also, ducking to evade Fades.
Also, ducking to evade Fades.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The best tactic imo is to jump on top of their head and then jump off of it. It confuses the hell out of skulks because they expect you to land a lot sooner. It's pretty hard though.
Amen to that. Add mixing up the left/right movement and nailing them at point blank with a shotgun after each dodge.... ah, the memories.
looks too unrealistic and thus can't be in NS2. Must be photoshopped for sure.