<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yup. This is what happens when you dumb down game mechanics and lower the skill ceiling for aliens (compared to NS1).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
??
NS was marine marine ties all day until ns 2.0, and even in 2.0 high-level play tended towards marine ties.
Oof. Game 1 was like watching those old 1.03/1.04 games from syndicate and hams. Playing skulk against marines with really great aim is so brutally difficult. It seemed like the arc players felt like they could handle any 3-4 skulks with 2 marines, so they just traveled in pairs and split the map in two. Really brutal.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited September 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1973745:date=Sep 7 2012, 11:38 PM:name=paella)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (paella @ Sep 7 2012, 11:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1973745"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS was marine marine ties all day until ns 2.0, and even in 2.0 high-level play tended towards marine ties.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> 1.04 and 2.0 had significant problems with, amongst other things, lerk movement, fade movement, jetpack fuel and hmg damage to structures. Subsequent versions fixed these and more. While the same could happen with NS2; why not fix it right away instead of having everyone wait over a year for a balanced version (3.0b)?
I should also add that 1.x and 2.x was only played for a little over a year, whereas 3.x was played for roughly seven years (competitively, pubs are stilling playing it), so you're not exactly giving an accurate description of NS gameplay by using them as a measure.
One the key reason why aliens can't keep more that few rts at start lies in map design. Veil wasn't the best map for mass rt tactics in NS1 either, unlike Tanith and Origin. Especially in Origin aliens could defend five rts from two tactical area, obviously those were Cargo and Ore. I hope we can see Origin like maps in NS2, so that we get more variation to tactics. Of course I miss Origin also because it guaranteed insta win for every Finnish clan :)
<!--quoteo(post=1973970:date=Sep 8 2012, 07:33 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Sep 8 2012, 07:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1973970"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I should also add that 1.x and 2.x was only played for a little over a year, whereas 3.x was played for roughly seven years (competitively, pubs are stilling playing it), so you're not exactly giving an accurate description of NS gameplay by using them as a measure.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I believe some people think that 1.04 lasted few years. It's funny how time changes memory and it's even funnier when those people act like they know NS1.
fana, reaching a state of balance that works for more people than it doesn't is easier said than done. I mean it may be that if Charlie stepped down and appointed you in his place you'd have everything fixed and ship-shape in a month? But I personally think that's unlikely. What I see in successful games is a perpetual, iterative process. I continue to maintain the following:
1) A competitive scene grows out of a large pub scene independent of balance, however 2) Decent balance is necessary to keep that scene thriving
That means there's some time to do some of that iterating after release, and the priority needs to be on a game that's fun to play in a pub format. IMO of course.
Hell, game balance in sc2 has changed continuously since it released.
I wasn't using 1.0/2.0 as a measure for some nefarious purpose. I stopped playing shortly after the 3.0 release, in part because I joined the military at that point and spent most of 2005, 2006, and 2007 either in training or in Afghanistan. Even before I left, though, NS was dying in CAL in America. This is the first I've heard that people played 3.0 competitively for years. I'm pretty surprised to hear it, TBH.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I believe some people think that 1.04 lasted few years. It's funny how time changes memory and it's even funnier when those people act like they know NS1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited September 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1973986:date=Sep 8 2012, 01:29 PM:name=paella)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (paella @ Sep 8 2012, 01:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1973986"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That means there's some time to do some of that iterating after release, and the priority needs to be on a game that's fun to play in a pub format. IMO of course.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Iteration is great, but iteration for the sake of iteration is not. Why can't we learn from the mistakes of the past, instead of resetting to zero and wasting 10 years of iterative experience form NS?
Why does a game have to be broken and unbalanced for competitive play in order to be fun to play in a pub format? The answer is that no, it doesn't. There is no disconnect between the idea that NS needs to be popular and the idea that it needs to be balanced for competitive play.
<!--quoteo(post=1973986:date=Sep 8 2012, 01:29 PM:name=paella)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (paella @ Sep 8 2012, 01:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1973986"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Even before I left, though, NS was dying in CAL in America. This is the first I've heard that people played 3.0 competitively for years. I'm pretty surprised to hear it, TBH.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The last CAL season was during fall 2006, season 10 if I remember correctly. If you quit early in 2005, you missed about half of those I guess. ANSL continued to host tournaments for one or two years after that. The European community continued playing tournaments until early 2011. 2004 and 2005 were the two biggest years in Europe in amount of tournaments and active teams. I got the impression the situation was similar in the US.
<!--quoteo(post=1974013:date=Sep 8 2012, 07:03 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Sep 8 2012, 07:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1974013"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Iteration is great, but iteration for the sake of iteration is not. Why can't we learn from the mistakes of the past, instead of resetting to zero and wasting 10 years of iterative experience form NS?
Why does a game have to be broken and unbalanced for competitive play in order to be fun to play in a pub format? The answer is that no, it doesn't. There is no disconnect between the idea that NS needs to be popular and the idea that it needs to be balanced for competitive play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pub play should be focused on more than comp. If only because comp can use a certain mod or rules to keep it 'fair' while there is no such thing in pubs. Let's just use Team Fortress 2 as an example: They have a competitive format where shotgun spread and random crits are disabled.
Edit: Basically what I'm saying is; if you're going out of your way to set up a competitive match, you can self-balance. That's not really possible in pubs.
I'll use the Exo suit as an example. Let's say that the Railgun Exo is released, and the Railgun's mechanic is that it takes a long time to charge a shot to fire, but said shot will do heavy damage to structures through walls (Like an ARC). In pub play, this wouldn't really matter so much because the Exo would be incredibly weak in direct combat and would find it difficult to get the locations of enemy structures to hit. But in comp play, it's completely broken because they can protect the Exo while the Comm pings the Hive, letting the Exo burst down the Hive from complete safety. In that case, you can simply ban it's use in comp as opposed to having to rework the entire concept behind it because it's too powerful in a comp setting.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why can't we learn from the mistakes of the past, instead of resetting to zero and wasting 10 years of iterative experience form NS?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would gently suggest that your subjective experience of this as a reset to 0 and a waste of a decade of experience may not be as objectively accurate as it feels like it is for you.
The game isn't out of beta yet and one team (yours) is able to consistently take both rounds on the basis of superior skill and teamwork. This was not true of ns1 for years after release.
OTOH perhaps my optimism is misplaced.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is no disconnect between the idea that NS needs to be popular and the idea that it needs to be balanced for competitive play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me be clear that I absolutely <b>do agree</b> with you here. You are correct when you say this.
What I'm trying to say is that things that make for fun pub play - features, exo suits, pretty graphics - can and do take time away from balancing competitive play. In fact, the adding of features for fun pub play purposes may <i>derail</i> efforts at balance (adding a cool new weapon or ability that wrecks midgame in a competitive match, for instance) and yet I would still say they should implement those features for release.
Finally, there's no way to ensure success absolutely. It's a crowded market - maybe NS2 1.0 will be brilliant in all respects and perfectly balanced yet fun for noobs; even in this case it could still fail. It wouldn't be the first time.
FWIW, the conversations on this forum remind me a great deal of conversations on bnet forums about blizzard games, just on a smaller scale. Over time, blizzard games have generally improved, but at any given second the forums are guaranteed to be in a state of crisis over some mechanic or another.
Detached optimism is an approach that has served me well.
Comments
??
NS was marine marine ties all day until ns 2.0, and even in 2.0 high-level play tended towards marine ties.
Btw, officially it's "vayle" (not "veal")!
1.04 and 2.0 had significant problems with, amongst other things, lerk movement, fade movement, jetpack fuel and hmg damage to structures. Subsequent versions fixed these and more. While the same could happen with NS2; why not fix it right away instead of having everyone wait over a year for a balanced version (3.0b)?
I should also add that 1.x and 2.x was only played for a little over a year, whereas 3.x was played for roughly seven years (competitively, pubs are stilling playing it), so you're not exactly giving an accurate description of NS gameplay by using them as a measure.
<!--quoteo(post=1973970:date=Sep 8 2012, 07:33 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Sep 8 2012, 07:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1973970"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I should also add that 1.x and 2.x was only played for a little over a year, whereas 3.x was played for roughly seven years (competitively, pubs are stilling playing it), so you're not exactly giving an accurate description of NS gameplay by using them as a measure.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe some people think that 1.04 lasted few years. It's funny how time changes memory and it's even funnier when those people act like they know NS1.
1) A competitive scene grows out of a large pub scene independent of balance, however
2) Decent balance is necessary to keep that scene thriving
That means there's some time to do some of that iterating after release, and the priority needs to be on a game that's fun to play in a pub format. IMO of course.
Hell, game balance in sc2 has changed continuously since it released.
I wasn't using 1.0/2.0 as a measure for some nefarious purpose. I stopped playing shortly after the 3.0 release, in part because I joined the military at that point and spent most of 2005, 2006, and 2007 either in training or in Afghanistan. Even before I left, though, NS was dying in CAL in America. This is the first I've heard that people played 3.0 competitively for years. I'm pretty surprised to hear it, TBH.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I believe some people think that 1.04 lasted few years. It's funny how time changes memory and it's even funnier when those people act like they know NS1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Spare me your misplaced sarcasm.
Iteration is great, but iteration for the sake of iteration is not. Why can't we learn from the mistakes of the past, instead of resetting to zero and wasting 10 years of iterative experience form NS?
Why does a game have to be broken and unbalanced for competitive play in order to be fun to play in a pub format? The answer is that no, it doesn't. There is no disconnect between the idea that NS needs to be popular and the idea that it needs to be balanced for competitive play.
<!--quoteo(post=1973986:date=Sep 8 2012, 01:29 PM:name=paella)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (paella @ Sep 8 2012, 01:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1973986"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Even before I left, though, NS was dying in CAL in America. This is the first I've heard that people played 3.0 competitively for years. I'm pretty surprised to hear it, TBH.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The last CAL season was during fall 2006, season 10 if I remember correctly. If you quit early in 2005, you missed about half of those I guess. ANSL continued to host tournaments for one or two years after that. The European community continued playing tournaments until early 2011. 2004 and 2005 were the two biggest years in Europe in amount of tournaments and active teams. I got the impression the situation was similar in the US.
Why does a game have to be broken and unbalanced for competitive play in order to be fun to play in a pub format? The answer is that no, it doesn't. There is no disconnect between the idea that NS needs to be popular and the idea that it needs to be balanced for competitive play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pub play should be focused on more than comp. If only because comp can use a certain mod or rules to keep it 'fair' while there is no such thing in pubs. Let's just use Team Fortress 2 as an example: They have a competitive format where shotgun spread and random crits are disabled.
Edit: Basically what I'm saying is; if you're going out of your way to set up a competitive match, you can self-balance. That's not really possible in pubs.
I'll use the Exo suit as an example. Let's say that the Railgun Exo is released, and the Railgun's mechanic is that it takes a long time to charge a shot to fire, but said shot will do heavy damage to structures through walls (Like an ARC). In pub play, this wouldn't really matter so much because the Exo would be incredibly weak in direct combat and would find it difficult to get the locations of enemy structures to hit. But in comp play, it's completely broken because they can protect the Exo while the Comm pings the Hive, letting the Exo burst down the Hive from complete safety. In that case, you can simply ban it's use in comp as opposed to having to rework the entire concept behind it because it's too powerful in a comp setting.
I would gently suggest that your subjective experience of this as a reset to 0 and a waste of a decade of experience may not be as objectively accurate as it feels like it is for you.
The game isn't out of beta yet and one team (yours) is able to consistently take both rounds on the basis of superior skill and teamwork. This was not true of ns1 for years after release.
OTOH perhaps my optimism is misplaced.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is no disconnect between the idea that NS needs to be popular and the idea that it needs to be balanced for competitive play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me be clear that I absolutely <b>do agree</b> with you here. You are correct when you say this.
What I'm trying to say is that things that make for fun pub play - features, exo suits, pretty graphics - can and do take time away from balancing competitive play. In fact, the adding of features for fun pub play purposes may <i>derail</i> efforts at balance (adding a cool new weapon or ability that wrecks midgame in a competitive match, for instance) and yet I would still say they should implement those features for release.
Finally, there's no way to ensure success absolutely. It's a crowded market - maybe NS2 1.0 will be brilliant in all respects and perfectly balanced yet fun for noobs; even in this case it could still fail. It wouldn't be the first time.
FWIW, the conversations on this forum remind me a great deal of conversations on bnet forums about blizzard games, just on a smaller scale. Over time, blizzard games have generally improved, but at any given second the forums are guaranteed to be in a state of crisis over some mechanic or another.
Detached optimism is an approach that has served me well.