Otherwise, the game will either listen to the comp scene requests, and pubbers will stop playing it, emptying the pool of potential future comp players, or will listen to the pubbers, and the comp players will just give up on it, no point in trying to set up tactics on a game made for pubbers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
^ THIS!
With one exception: If UWE caters the game to pubbers, the comp scene won't die. The influx of new comp players from the pubber-pool will sooner or later make a comp-mod that will be enforced on every league. WIN WIN!
<!--quoteo(post=1990195:date=Oct 12 2012, 12:39 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 12 2012, 12:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990195"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Obviously a casual player will approach the game differently, play the game differently, enjoy different aspects of the game, and so forth, than a competitive player. This is, however, irrelevant to the discussion. There is no reason why a game can't cater to both sides.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course there is a reason! It's called "Smaller Development Team"! You'r talking of games that had plenty of time to find that exact sweet spot of catering comp-players AND pubbers. CounterStrike is symmetrical and therefore easier to balance for both. SC had a huge development team behind it. And NS1 moved from being pub-friendly to being comp-friendly. But could never cater both at the same time.
You may be right, that it is theoretically possible to balance a game for both groups, so both have fun. But come on! You are intelligent enough to see for yourself, that this is in no way an easy task, that can be solved by some obscure match making system. (What in itself is not an easy task.) The difference in effective of the fade in pub and comp has showed this effect and it is obvious in many other parts like power nodes, rush-tactics and the early onos egg.
Many things you blame over at the forums are comp-problems. Things that mostly influence the fun of comp-players. For a normal just-for-fun pub player like me, the game is very good and fun. But your "Just make some kind of match making"-statement shows, that you either don't understand the position of pub-players or are just to ignorant to care.
The balance is horrible and aliens suck. The entire game suffers for this and it should not be launched on the 31st in it's terrible condition. The entire game relies on the slight boost aliens receive during their first and only fade evolution, and again this only works against bad players. Any decent marine can two shot a fade in the face with a shotgun and send 50 resources which that player will never see again right down the drain. I primarily stack aliens nowadays because marines is too easy. I get bored.
<b>The entire out come of the game shouldn't be decided by the first fade spawn.</b>
I'm not sure whether you can actually make every tech option viable at competitive level, but if you can then this is the best thing you can do for the game.
If comp players play the most efficient version of the game, and this involves using all the tech at your disposal by taking different routes in comp games. (I.e ARCs instead of EXO or GL/JP, etc)
Then you basically have a game that filters down into pub play very effectively, because it is ultimately 'balanced' and there is no one 'right' answer.
Pub play is just a longer drawn out version of that game, that is all.
The problem is, is that people think pub play is unsuccessful because of certain attributes. Usually it is - as one example - because 2 players get bored and leave the server half way through. Or the game starts before everyone has joined up, or team stacking, or a comm that likes to build in every room he comes across.
As has been pointed out, CS was hugely successful vanilla. But it was a simple game, and more complex games are always going to come a cropper in pub play.
I think ultimately that the best thing UWE can do is create the most balanced game they can based on the best way to win (which is competitive) because it is the most balanced version of the game.
Making it more accessible to new players (love all the 'well done' aspects of the UI to help new players) is the only thing you can do, or add a simpler game type like combat.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited October 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1990259:date=Oct 12 2012, 01:59 PM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Oct 12 2012, 01:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990259"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And NS1 moved from being pub-friendly to being comp-friendly. But could never cater both at the same time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, the changes made from 1.0-3.2 had nothing to do with catering to competitive play; they were the result of attempts to improve the game for everybody (and what do you know, 3.2 is vastly superior to 1.0 in every way). In a hypothetical world, where the game had been released in the state of 3.2, it would've been even more popular for public play, not less.
The rest of your post is just the same "god damn competitive players ruining my game" drivel certain people always spout on these forums.
A competitive scene is not born at the beginning of a game, it usually happens in full mid-way to late in a games life cycle.
It has only happened in the case of NS2 because of NS1.
A comp scene is a result of an exciting, fun and well balanced well performing game, and all the other stuff that includes.
Blaming competitive players is almost as ignorant as people who say you are dumbing down the game by making it more accessible. Now note that I said accessible, not easier!
Starting from the competitive level and working backwards (based on this truth) actually makes more sense to me.
<!--quoteo(post=1990317:date=Oct 12 2012, 04:53 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 12 2012, 04:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990317"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The rest of your post is just the same "god damn competitive players ruining my game" drivel certain people always spout on these forums.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. Actually it was the attempt to explain that a game that is balanced for comp doesn't has to be balanced in pubs. Because some mechanics may be balanced with good teamplay and on a high skill level but don't work in pub games, because they can be to weak without proper team play or even to strong for single players against a team with lower team play. Not to mention of it being fun in pubs.
blindJoin Date: 2010-04-17Member: 71437Members, Squad Five Gold
Sorry Necro, but this doesn't make sense at all (to me). There is no pub and comp balance, a game mechanic can only be balanced in general. It doesn't matter if you have people who just play for fun in public environment and not try-hard-lets-win, because in pubs both teams will have a random amount of players who understand the game better and less and people who just play for the lols. The mindset has absolutely nothing to do with balance. If you try to make the "let's just run around and jump in the pit olololol" mindset valid in terms of balance, for example by not punishing death with spawn time, you just hurt the balance for <b>all</b> players and not just for competitive ones.
Making a competitive mod is a horrible idea because it separates the players thus making the base smaller, increases the gap for new teams and we wouldn't be playing the same game at all. The millions of SC2 nubs (like me) who love to watch the masters play, watch the exact same game they play on public themselves. If they play tower defense, it's a complete different game. Fun mods (like combat) are there to let people have a change and enjoy themselves, but aren't subject to the main game, especially not balance-wise. Vanilla needs to be balanced for all players. Competitive players only help you to find the weak spots since they put much time in trying out everything. That's why I also don't understand the hostility towards them.
<!--quoteo(post=1990377:date=Oct 12 2012, 12:29 PM:name=blind)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blind @ Oct 12 2012, 12:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990377"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sorry Necro, but this doesn't make sense at all (to me). There is no pub and comp balance, a game mechanic can only be balanced in general. It doesn't matter if you have people who just play for fun in public environment and not try-hard-lets-win, because in pubs both teams will have a random amount of players who understand the game better and less and people who just play for the lols. The mindset has absolutely nothing to do with balance. If you try to make the "let's just run around and jump in the pit olololol" mindset valid in terms of balance, for example by not punishing death with spawn time, you just hurt the balance for <b>all</b> players and not just for competitive ones.
Making a competitive mod is a horrible idea because it separates the players thus making the base smaller, increases the gap for new teams and we wouldn't be playing the same game at all. The millions of SC2 nubs (like me) who love to watch the masters play, watch the exact same game they play on public themselves. If they play tower defense, it's a complete different game. Fun mods (like combat) are there to let people have a change and enjoy themselves, but aren't subject to the main game, especially not balance-wise. Vanilla needs to be balanced for all players. Competitive players only help you to find the weak spots since they put much time in trying out everything. That's why I also don't understand the hostility towards them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Blind, you're so smart I wish there was an upvote button. Name a successful esport that plays a different mode than the vanilla game. Sure, there are rule changes and such in some (but not many). Counter-Strike, Starcraft, League of Legends, Dota2, and Street Fighter 4, are all the most successful esports and everyone plays the same game.
This is the same logic I used to argue against a ProMod in Counter-Strike Source. The community needs to be united behind the same product. Additionally, balance is irrelevant to the people playing it, since teams are inherently random. There's difficulties of scale in strategy, ie: a play that requires ridiculous coordination to pull off but rewards with an immense pay out, but balance doesn't give a crap about who is playing. Look at Starcraft 2.
<!--quoteo(post=1989791:date=Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989791"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That is just another way of saying what I just said.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually not because you left out the inherit differences between asymmetric gameplay mechanics. These render your statistics useless, the statistics don't take into account the vast differences in terms of "player skill" and "game knowledge" that are present in NS2. And in NS these difference have always been very steep compared to other FPS games simply due to the high complexity.
<!--quoteo(post=1989791:date=Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989791"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It can be fun despite being unbalanced, not because it is unbalanced.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's what i said? And what would be the logical conclusion from this statement? An unbalanced game can still be a fun game, but can it still be a competitive game? Is having "perfect balance" alone enough to make a game fun? It's all about getting the priorities right.
<!--quoteo(post=1989791:date=Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989791"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you actually read the example I used, yes, it does make player choice irrelevant. Reply to the post that was posted, not the post you wish was posted.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh sorry i didn't realize that the only iteration of RNG that's valid to discuss about, is the very specific one in your head which you haven't been very specific about at all. You only claimed that RNG makes player choice irrelevant without going into any details, using that logic, would you define Poker as a game of Chance or a game of Skill? My point still stands, RNG can be something good and important even for a competitive environment. Unless you want to turn the game into a very predictable version of rock-paper-scissors without the scissors (That's what it is right now).
<!--quoteo(post=1989791:date=Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989791"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Player FPS skill, netcode, computer problems in the worst case scenario, and a million other factors all make NS2 inherently unpredictable in matches between reasonably evenly skilled teams.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now you just burned the very first point you made, leaving player differences out of the equation. In "perfect balance land" you assume that everybody works of the same basics that also includes "skill", latency and computer performance. Yes that's not an state that can be realistically achieved, unless you use very advanced bots/AI to simulate it. But if these things apply and the game is "perfectly balanced" than all rounds will either end in draws or be played ad infinitum.
<!--quoteo(post=1989791:date=Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989791"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The argument for removing a feature is "this is not a good feature", and I'm sure that's what UWE's reasoning has been. It's irrelevant that somebody somewhere phrased it as "this is not a good feature for competitive play".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"this is not a good feature <b>for these specific reasons and because of that context</b>" that should be the argument against features. If you honestly think that the opinions of the competitive crowd are irrelevant for feature discussions then you must have been part of a different community/game.
<!--quoteo(post=1989791:date=Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989791"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A good game manages to have non-repetitive, non-boring tasks that also have long term implications. Competitive players would always prefer that over the opposite, just like a public player. You're positing scenarios that simply make no sense.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Scenarios that make no sense? Maybe you should play more on public servers to see that these arguments result directly from the way the game is played. Not to mention that the "munching RT" example has been a pretty popular and accepted one even in NS1. You simply ignoring it does not make it less true. There is no game that's full of "instant gratification" that's at the same time balanced.
If the implications of an action are so long term that a new player sees no direct gain from doing them, he will be more likely not to do them. That's why nobody likes munching RT's in publics and that task usually is left over to the few players on the team who actually know the mechanics in deep, while new players keep on suiciding into action. It leads to bad gameplay dynamics because able players are forced to do tasks that involve zero ability on their side, while non-able/new players ignore these tasks that would be best suited for their ability.
<!--quoteo(post=1989791:date=Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989791"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->All the necessary obscurity is already inherent in the teamplay and FPS aspects of the game. This isn't chess, where you know that x move will always beat y move, this is a FPS/RTS blend, where, amazingly, the board pieces have a mind of their own, and where sometimes y move will beat x move, even though you'd expect it not to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you think that marines always going mass shotguns -> jp -> gl and kharaa always going fast second hive +onos is not predictable? The tech choices right now are flat out stupid and shallow, valid openings are few and these few get used so much that they have become "accepted" and as such predictable. Just because a game is of a certain genre does not mean that it has the added obscurity/complexity of that genre. An RTS game that only has single linear tech tree for both sides lacks all complexity and obscurity because "teching up" will be the equivalent of "leveling up".
And once again you are pulling individual player differences into your scenario, please make up your mind about that. And sure this might not be Chess, but learning from the established winners has never been a bad thing, ignoring them only means you will repeat past mistakes that have already been done before.
A game is game and just that, the basic principles as to what constitutes as "a game" are always the same (It's always a matter of resource management). Lessons, mechanics and dynamics an be translated between genres and game styles.
<!--quoteo(post=1989791:date=Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989791"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Good thing then, that nobody is suggesting that it should be.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As long as you keep suggesting that comp and public play evolve around the same dynamics for balance and gameflow, you are suggesting exactly that for NS2.
<!--quoteo(post=1989791:date=Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989791"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No idea what you're talking about here. Both CS and NS were played vanilla as far as balance is concerned.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope, both of them required competitive configs because of the modding and setting freedoms for server owners. Vast majority of public servers ran with some kind of modification and from that spun the need for dedicated competitive configs, not to mention different league rules which also lead to different configs.
Have you actually played CS or NS1 in an comp setting or are you just blending these things out due to nostalgic feelings?
<!--quoteo(post=1989791:date=Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989791"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That might make somebody buy the game, but it won't keep them playing it for years on end.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because? No reason given.. NS1 already had this problem, the games setting and premise drew people in and scared lots of them away later on. Outside of the NS community the game had a reputation for being horribly unbalanced, usually coming from players who couldn't beat the learning curve on Kharaa side to understand the deeper and more complex systems. Right now NS2 is going exactly the same route again and as such will fail one of it's main goals: Making the game more accessible so it can gather a huge mainstream audience. Because only with a huge mainstream audience you can hope to support a somewhat successful competitive scene.
Nobody watches a competitive game he does not understand.
Not to mention: Making people buy the game should be the main goal. If nobody buys the game it does not matter if a small crowd keeps on playing for years, because then UWE will struggle to keep on supporting the game that players are playing. A game that gets played but not bought is a financial failure and burden for a developer.
<!--quoteo(post=1990384:date=Oct 12 2012, 05:36 PM:name=mR.Waffles)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mR.Waffles @ Oct 12 2012, 05:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990384"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Blind, you're so smart I wish there was an upvote button. Name a successful esport that plays a different mode than the vanilla game.<b> Sure, there are rule changes and such in some (but not many)</b>. Counter-Strike, Starcraft, League of Legends, Dota2, and Street Fighter 4, are all the most successful esports and everyone plays the same game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As soon as you change the rules, even just some of them, it is already a different setting and not "vanilla" anymore. Not to mention that these rules are often fluid and depend on the state of the game. It happens regularly that rules in a comp. setting are setup in such a way to compensate for the games balance shortcommings in a "vanilla" setting.
In other places the rules are often unwritten ones of honor, this mostly applies to fighting games where characters are tired by the community (or sometimes completely banned from being used). Sure you can use setups that revolve around phoenix in MvC3, but unless you are doing it very well or in a vastly different way, prepare to get frowned upon by the audience. In MK9 you sure as hell can lame your way around with Kabal zoning play, but don't expect much respect from the audience for such a win.
So it's not really as simple or obvious as you want to make it look like.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited October 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1990451:date=Oct 12 2012, 07:47 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 12 2012, 07:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990451"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Oh sorry i didn't realize that the only iteration of RNG that's valid to discuss about, is the very specific one in your head which you haven't been very specific about at all. You only claimed that RNG makes player choice irrelevant without going into any details, using that logic, would you define Poker as a game of Chance or a game of Skill? My point still stands, RNG can be something good and important even for a competitive environment. Unless you want to turn the game into a very predictable version of rock-paper-scissors without the scissors (That's what it is right now).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you actually read my post, you will see that I specified "decided entirely by". That's the example I used to clarify my point, and that's what you have to reply to if you want your argument to be relevant.
If you want to talk about poker, that depends on the variant being played. Some are almost entirely random, others rely heavily on player skill -- at least when you get over a certain amount of hands played. Texas holdem is the best example of the latter.
<!--quoteo(post=1990451:date=Oct 12 2012, 07:47 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 12 2012, 07:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990451"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Have you actually played CS or NS1 in an comp setting<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href="http://www.ninelegends.com/team/fana/" target="_blank">http://www.ninelegends.com/team/fana/</a>
The rest of your post is too hilarious to even bother replying to :D
<!--quoteo(post=1990467:date=Oct 12 2012, 03:03 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 12 2012, 03:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990467"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As soon as you change the rules, even just some of them, it is already a different setting and not "vanilla" anymore. Not to mention that these rules are often fluid and depend on the state of the game. It happens regularly that rules in a comp. setting are setup in such a way to compensate for the games balance shortcommings in a "vanilla" setting.
In other places the rules are often unwritten ones of honor, this mostly applies to fighting games where characters are tired by the community (or sometimes completely banned from being used). Sure you can use setups that revolve around phoenix in MvC3, but unless you are doing it very well or in a vastly different way, prepare to get frowned upon by the audience. In MK9 you sure as hell can lame your way around with Kabal zoning play, but don't expect much respect from the audience for such a win.
So it's not really as simple or obvious as you want to make it look like.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It actually is. I don't follow the fighting game community, but rarely do they ban a character outright (Akuma comes to mind). Your statement about "being frowned upon by the audience" lacks a complete understanding of the competitive mindset. It doesn't matter what is frowned upon. Winning is all that matters. This is the difference between neighborhood heroes and Gods who win Evo's.
Counter-Strike matches have a standard, but they're still playing the exact same game as public players. Sure, the team sizes may be different, and the round time may be set, but those server settings not in the same ball park as a promod. All de_maps play the same way.
In Starcraft 2 everyone plays the exact same game.
In a true esport if Cabal is not banned, then no one cares about using him in a boring way to win. In Starcraft 2 it doesn't matter that in P v Z a neural parasite on the mothership wins the game. Gimmicky? Yeah. Frowned upon? Hell no.
If a game possesses inherently imbalanced mechanics, then it won't be an esport. This is why true asymmetric esport titles are so rare, especially in the strategy genre.
Regardless, all these points are irrelevant. NS2 needs to be balanced for pubs and competitive play, because balance is independent of who is playing at any given time. Balance is balance and we all need to be playing the same game for NS2 to thrive.
Also, all competitive communities are organic. You can't force an esport. Only if the core game is competitive will the competitive community flourish.
Ok so i just read through most of this thread and honestly it sounds pretty bad. Is the game really that poorly balanced? This thread alone is enough to make me hesitate from pre-purchasing.
<!--quoteo(post=1990487:date=Oct 12 2012, 03:33 PM:name=silveralen)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (silveralen @ Oct 12 2012, 03:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990487"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ok so i just read through most of this thread and honestly it sounds pretty bad. Is the game really that poorly balanced? This thread alone is enough to make me hesitate from pre-purchasing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, it is this bad, but that doesn't mean the game isn't fun. Even if aliens suck it's still a blast to try and unite together in the face of adversity and win! I want to encourage you to pick it up, enjoy it, and come be a voice in the conversation, and this is coming from the biggest alien rights advocate!
Vladimir Van VodkaSexy BeastJoin Date: 2010-07-30Member: 73364Members, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1990487:date=Oct 13 2012, 12:03 AM:name=silveralen)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (silveralen @ Oct 13 2012, 12:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990487"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ok so i just read through most of this thread and honestly it sounds pretty bad. Is the game really that poorly balanced? This thread alone is enough to make me hesitate from pre-purchasing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
People are just very passionate about the game, is all.
It'll be balanced soon, I don't worry, enough people are criticizing it for UWE to remain inactive anyways.
<!--quoteo(post=1990469:date=Oct 12 2012, 08:08 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 12 2012, 08:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990469"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you actually read my post, you will see that I specified "decided entirely by". That's the example I used to clarify my point, and that's what you have to reply to if you want your argument to be relevant.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And that's what i replied to, it's just really difficult to see what point you wanted to make by mentioning a game of complete chance and then saying "I don't like that". The conclusion i drew from that is that you dislike RNG, which is not an unheard/unpopular opinion among comp. players.
<!--quoteo(post=1990469:date=Oct 12 2012, 08:08 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 12 2012, 08:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990469"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you want to talk about poker, that depends on the variant being played. Some are almost entirely random, others rely heavily on player skill -- at least when you get over a certain amount of hands played. Texas holdem is the best example of the latter.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See now we are getting somewhere, i guess i just misunderstood your point about RNG.
And yet you don't remember having to load up different configs depending on the league/cup you have been playing on? I rest my case, clear example of nostalgic glasses.
<!--quoteo(post=1990469:date=Oct 12 2012, 08:08 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 12 2012, 08:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990469"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The rest of your post is too hilarious to even bother replying to :D<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not nearly as hilarious as the notion that a game that has dynamic resource income, for teams and players on an individual level, expresses the same kind of gameplay/balance dynamics in an 12v12 setting as they do in an 6v6 setting. That's the true hilarious part about this whole discussion and one of the major reasons why Marines are perceived as having an edge all over the place.
But who cares about 12v12? Only scrubs play that crap, real men only care about "perfect competitive balance". And who cares about accessibility? Only lazy scrubs care about that, real man go "L2P n00b" and proceed to pwn new players solely on their knowledge advantage.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1990506:date=Oct 12 2012, 09:03 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 12 2012, 09:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990506"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And yet you don't remember having to load up different configs depending on the league/cup you have been playing on?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No idea what you're on about. Never happened even once in any tournament I played in.
<!--quoteo(post=1990506:date=Oct 12 2012, 09:03 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 12 2012, 09:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990506"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But who cares about 12v12? Only scrubs play that crap, real men only care about "perfect competitive balance". And who cares about accessibility? Only lazy scrubs care about that, real man go "L2P n00b" and proceed to pwn new players solely on their knowledge advantage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is what I'm talking about. You're making stuff up and then pretending it's my opinion. I don't know if you're mental or just dishonest, but I don't enjoy conversing with either.
As players' skills reach perfection, marines will never miss and kill skulks in .3 seconds each, 5 per clip. Aliens on the other hand have a much longer time to kill (TTK), about 5 seconds (versus lvl3 armor), not including transit time to close the gap and and that inherent risk. A skulk could never kill a single marine unless they attacked ambushed with more than 5 at the same time.
This is why the game will never be balanced for all skill levels.
Except marines will never have perfect aim. Moreover you're using the example of level 3 armor marines vs skulks which is insane as by that time there should be more than just skulks around plus leap. In any event, the top teams in ns1 had insane aim but the game actually balanced out well at top levels. Why? One HUGE difference is the hive moment ability ie. they could teleport inbetween hives. Another main component was the way spores worked and early lerks. That isn't to say ns2 must copy everything from ns1 (though hive movement is an absolute must) but I am merely pointing out that balance isn't impossible to achieve. Frankly taking away welding from armories but making it not require an upgrade for people to buy welders and giving aliens movement between hives would fix much of the game in an instant.
<!--quoteo(post=1990576:date=Oct 12 2012, 03:39 PM:name=SquishyOne)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SquishyOne @ Oct 12 2012, 03:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990576"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Except marines will never have perfect aim. Moreover you're using the example of level 3 armor marines vs skulks which is insane as by that time there should be more than just skulks around plus leap.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's a way of attacking a problem dude. Like "As x goes to infinity". Just imagine I said good marines don't miss much, which even now, before release, the pros vastly prefer going marines to get a good k/d, which shows we have passed a threshold. Also I'm talking about the lategame staple classes fighting; lmg'er versus skulks, each on 2 bases, fully upgraded. The minimum time to kill is undeniable. The average marine ttk is only going down, as average player skill goes up. Many alien players on the other hand have hit that hard 5 sec TTK limit.
<!--quoteo(post=1990506:date=Oct 12 2012, 03:03 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 12 2012, 03:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990506"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And that's what i replied to, it's just really difficult to see what point you wanted to make by mentioning a game of complete chance and then saying "I don't like that". The conclusion i drew from that is that you dislike RNG, which is not an unheard/unpopular opinion among comp. players.
See now we are getting somewhere, i guess i just misunderstood your point about RNG.
And yet you don't remember having to load up different configs depending on the league/cup you have been playing on? I rest my case, clear example of nostalgic glasses.
Not nearly as hilarious as the notion that a game that has dynamic resource income, for teams and players on an individual level, expresses the same kind of gameplay/balance dynamics in an 12v12 setting as they do in an 6v6 setting. That's the true hilarious part about this whole discussion and one of the major reasons why Marines are perceived as having an edge all over the place.
But who cares about 12v12? Only scrubs play that crap, real men only care about "perfect competitive balance". And who cares about accessibility? Only lazy scrubs care about that, real man go "L2P n00b" and proceed to pwn new players solely on their knowledge advantage.
All this is indeed very hilarious...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It seems to be you have already made up your mind how competitive players think and look at the game in a very narrow way. But In most cases I think you are dead wrong. Most mentioned problems in this thread has little to do with balance but more how the fundamental game mechanics work and connect to each other. For example - sprint gives marines the ability to travel very fast and it neglects big part of the alien mobility advantage. Aliens are build from ground up to win with mobility and coordination. - Like mentioned before this is a single game so the problems in competitive play do actually exist in public play even though they are not obvious right away. If these problems are not addressed it will cause problems in the long run when players start abusing these problems to win games. - For example - NS1 was a lot about territorial control, in competitive matches players positioned them self very effectively to keep both rts save and their map control. It is true that this did usually not happen in public but the same law applied. Instead marines often used turrets and electrified rts to defend their territories versus the alien mobility. This is of course just a small example of how it is actually possible to make a game work for both public and competitive. You just need to understand what is the most important for both teams to win a match and then make it so that players have the tools to achieve at all skill level. This is in no way easy thing to do and takes a lot of effort, but with such access to knowledge and experience around them I believe they are capable to gather the necessary feedback to work with to achieve that goal. They just need to tap into the resources they have access to.
blindJoin Date: 2010-04-17Member: 71437Members, Squad Five Gold
@yehawmcgraw
That's why a skill-based movement system for aliens is necessary to keep aliens balanced for all skill levels - newb marines vs newb skulks and pro marines vs pro skulks. NS1 did pretty damn well with it.
<!--quoteo(post=1990487:date=Oct 12 2012, 03:33 PM:name=silveralen)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (silveralen @ Oct 12 2012, 03:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990487"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ok so i just read through most of this thread and honestly it sounds pretty bad. Is the game really that poorly balanced? This thread alone is enough to make me hesitate from pre-purchasing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes.
Wait 2-3 month. Watch the post-release development and ask again. The first couple months make or break the game. The game will either explode further in popularity or become a ghost town.
It's funny to see NS1 competitive players saying that since Counter-Strike, Starcraft and NS1 comp scene took off, NS2 could take off the same way, you just need a "balanced game". Beside the problem of having enough time, money and devs for that, something happened.
At least 10 years later (now that we're soon in 2013), what happened ? => The video game industry estimated revenues more than doubled. The amount of people playing multiplayer games online skyrocketed.
Did it changed the way people play online multiplayers, or are we still like in the early 2000s, a bunch of passionate gamers ?
Personally, I do not believe things are the same. I would really like to hear the arguments of someone thinking the opposite, because I clearly can't see how things haven't drastically changed.
...
Now, why don't we just have a game "balanced", that would fit perfectly for competitive play, and would still be enjoyable by pubbers ?
Before talking about the playerbase, I need to remind the comp players that NS1 wasn't fully enjoyable by pubbers unless the comm were both comp (or comp level) players.
Regarding the playerbase: People playing NS1 had to learn about it, then download it, then install it, it filtered out a lot of players.
The result was simple: you had enough players willing to go through hoops and endure game mechanics to get an enjoyable and interesting gameplay. That's why they would munch RT, they would stay in group, they would *try* to set up ambushes.
Nowadays, people no longer do that, the mod scene (in general) is barely existing (Day Z only worked because of its crowd-marketing), you struggle to fill a server a week after a mod latest release.
...
This is why NS2, when balanced for comp play, is no longer enjoyable by pubbers.
=> When the game put quite a lot of emphasis on RTs to balance lifeformes/upgrades/weapons (in terms of delay to get it, risk of losing it, etc), the comp player will take that into account, while the 2012 pubber will NOT take that into account at all.
The 2002 pubber might have took that into account a little, he's now (2012) a very small minority in the oceans of more "modern" pubbers. Just try to get any teamwork done, or a minimum of sportsmanship in any FPS, in 2012: that's just a lost cause, you're better off becoming one of them.
It wasn't that bad 10 years ago, and that's why NS1 had the opportunity of becoming what it became. My opinion is: it is no longer possible.
...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Obviously a casual player will approach the game differently, play the game differently, enjoy different aspects of the game, and so forth, than a competitive player. This is, however, irrelevant to the discussion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think you're missing something major here: how the game is actually played by people, and the actual gaming experiences the players are having. If a game is perfectly "balanced", but the actual gaming experience is unbalanced games after unbalanced games, something is wrong in the game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This has already been proved by hugely popular games like Counter-Strike, StarCraft and even Natural Selection. All of these titles have had public play and competitive play flourish under vanilla gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> => Like I wrote above, they all happened at a very specific moment in the history of online multiplayer video games, an era that is now over.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As long as the fundamental gameplay mechanics are properly designed, a game can appeal equally, or almost equally, to all players within a particular group (in NS2's case, primarily FPS gamers).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> => The problem is now that the group you're mentioning "FPS gamers" is now featuring millions of people playing Call of Duty MW3 and a few hundreds of people playing unknown alpha builds of mods.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only interesting, and difficult to solve, problem caused by different player "groups", is that of intermingling. When you have players of wildly differing skill levels playing against each other on the same servers, the experience is bound to be a frustrating one for many of the players on the low end of the skill spectrum. This isn't a game breaking problem, but some sort of matchmaking to alleviate the problem would be beneficial.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> => except that never a matchmaking system proved being efficient enough to fix such problem on such a complex problem (RTS+FPS asymmetrical teams). And with a playerbase so small (and with such an importance regarding the latency, at least for the marines, making playing with more than 120 ms a real problem), such a thing is impossible to implement. There isn't enough players playing NS2 at the same time in the region to sort them into "skill" tiers.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You've missed my point entirely. I'd also advise you to be mindful of who it is you're discussing with. I can guarantee you that you don't want to try to lecture me on what is required to succeed in competitive play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Then, rather than threatening me with an appeal to your "authority", why didn't you tried to explain how I missed your point ?
Sadly, when I read this: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The rest of your post is just the same "god damn competitive players ruining my game" drivel certain people always spout on these forums.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The rest of your post is too hilarious to even bother replying to :D<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is what I'm talking about. You're making stuff up and then pretending it's my opinion. I don't know if you're mental or just dishonest, but I don't enjoy conversing with either.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->You're not answering nor bringing counter-arguments to people's concerns and opinions, and when someone say ANYTHING regarding your point of view, you jump the gun and aggressively attack them.
At least other people like mR.Waffles are bringing something to the debate, like here regarding "vanilla" games actually having specific rules (written or just assumed) when played competitively, but also regarding the risk of having two separated playerbases. If you don't want to debate and argue with people, then why do you keep posting in such threads ?
If the only thing you can bring on the table is your experience of the NS1 competitive scene, you can easily just post your complete thoughts on NS2 balancing on a blog dedicated to your NS gaming activity, post a link here so everyone can go and read it, and everything will be fine. Going here and calling other people mental isn't improving NS2.
I understand you only want NS2 to be truly balanced and well-designed, so the "base" is good enough for comp and pubs, however I (and quite a lot of pubbers) believe this is not possible, for many reason, one being "this is not the 00s anymore".
Every server everyone is stacking marines. The scoreboard for marines is usually 40 kills and 3 deaths while aliens with 15 kills and 30 deaths. This patch should have fixed many aliens issues but they went to buffing marines again, and again. I have a feeling the guys working on balance are marines minded only. Go join a server and you will see what I am talking about the Aliens are broken really bad. Now, we have to worry about arcs more than ever and the aim of marines is impossible to dodge. I have been playing this beta for two years and I never seen it so lopsided like it is now. Right now is a good time to just be a marine. But, I am still for the underdogs Aliens. This patch put a nail to the underdogs and no one is looking in to buffing aliens.
There certainly seems to be a theme on the state of aliens. I'd really like to see the devs weigh in on it based on the statistics they (hopefully) pulled from all the beta servers. The strange thing is that they've made this game before; why do the aliens feel so "incomplete"? The marine team feels like its "NS <b>Two</b>", all the classics are there (lmg, shotguns, jetpacks) plus some fancy new gadgets and weapons (flame thrower, macs, arcs). The aliens have only lost functionality since the first game. Important functionality too!
Coming into this game right out of NS1 and hopping on aliens is nothing short than <b>disappointing</b>. Where are my favorite abilities? Focus, Adrenaline, Leap, Web, Xenocide, Acid Rocket, Devour, Babblers. Gorge and Onos are missing a fourth move. I discourage all aliens from even playing lerk before umbra, the resources are much more important to be put into fade. The devs have mentioned they've instantiated a content lock, which is scary because it sounds like we won't be receiving any options before release.
I read somewhere (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the devs plan on implementing web. I remember playing games in NS1 that were won by a hero gorge and his mighty webs. Aliens desperately need more functionality against shotgunning jetpackers, and web fills this role. If it's planned to go into the game, why wait until after release to put it in?
matsoMaster of PatchesJoin Date: 2002-11-05Member: 7000Members, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, Squad Five Gold, Reinforced - Shadow, NS2 Community Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1990740:date=Oct 13 2012, 08:06 AM:name=Shnagenburg)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shnagenburg @ Oct 13 2012, 08:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990740"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If it's planned to go into the game, why wait until after release to put it in?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Considering the length of the wish-list for stuff that's planned to go into the game, and considering the resources available ... the answer is simple; because it would mean a late 2013 release, about.
You can't let perfect become the enemy of good. The game - as is - is good, warts and all.
I do share the frustration that some (IMO) obvious things are not getting the attention I feel it deserves (fundamentally broken alien strategic gameplay, spawning etc), but right now most of the focus is on performance and making the game more welcoming for non-hardcore players.
Considering the commitment of UWE to the Natural Selection - they have been living for NS for 12+ years now - I think the broken things will get fixed in the end. NS is not something they do for the money, but because it's their baby.
<!--quoteo(post=1990767:date=Oct 13 2012, 06:53 PM:name=matso)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (matso @ Oct 13 2012, 06:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990767"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->but right now most of the focus is on performance and making the game more welcoming for non-hardcore players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sorry will just snip that as its an interesting point....
It is frustrating though that UWE thinks that new players (who should come in droves come 31st...) will only want to play marines as alien game mechanic requires too much prior knowledge for non hardcore players. Most new players are not "hard core" enough to learn these tricky movement mechanics and now be expected to have aim equivocal to a marine in melee combat (sorry but this is where aliens are meant to be stronger...its not meant to be an even battle once aliens get close).
It seems that its assumed new/non hardcore players will only play marines and that they wont want to play on the alien side (as aliens keep getting nerfed (decent abilities removed ie focus, teleporting between hives, SOF etc) whilst marines buffed). This is a very dangerous assumption to be making and potentially a costly one that damages the player base.
I hope that the time between now and then is atleast partially spent on trying to make aliens actually enjoyable to play, you have only 1 chance with most of the new players, get it wrong they will simply say "well stuff that...only fun to play 1 side...oh well was only 20 bucks" and put into the "pile of shame" aka games you no longer play/finished. I already see people refuse to play aliens and simply sit in RR all game instead....
That's why a skill-based movement system for aliens is necessary to keep aliens balanced for all skill levels - newb marines vs newb skulks and pro marines vs pro skulks. NS1 did pretty damn well with it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think it's pretty important to note that even with all the movement in NS1, aliens were still going stronger in lower levels. On public games the massive game sizes and alien inabilitiy to operate with huge playercounts ended up 'balancing' it quite right, but skill wise marines still gained more as the level went up.
I think that's kind of telling how much skill potential aliens need to match their marine counterparts.
Comments
Otherwise, the game will either listen to the comp scene requests, and pubbers will stop playing it, emptying the pool of potential future comp players, or will listen to the pubbers, and the comp players will just give up on it, no point in trying to set up tactics on a game made for pubbers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
^ THIS!
With one exception: If UWE caters the game to pubbers, the comp scene won't die. The influx of new comp players from the pubber-pool will sooner or later make a comp-mod that will be enforced on every league. WIN WIN!
<!--quoteo(post=1990195:date=Oct 12 2012, 12:39 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 12 2012, 12:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990195"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Obviously a casual player will approach the game differently, play the game differently, enjoy different aspects of the game, and so forth, than a competitive player. This is, however, irrelevant to the discussion. There is no reason why a game can't cater to both sides.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course there is a reason! It's called "Smaller Development Team"!
You'r talking of games that had plenty of time to find that exact sweet spot of catering comp-players AND pubbers.
CounterStrike is symmetrical and therefore easier to balance for both.
SC had a huge development team behind it.
And NS1 moved from being pub-friendly to being comp-friendly. But could never cater both at the same time.
You may be right, that it is theoretically possible to balance a game for both groups, so both have fun. But come on! You are intelligent enough to see for yourself, that this is in no way an easy task, that can be solved by some obscure match making system. (What in itself is not an easy task.)
The difference in effective of the fade in pub and comp has showed this effect and it is obvious in many other parts like power nodes, rush-tactics and the early onos egg.
Many things you blame over at the forums are comp-problems. Things that mostly influence the fun of comp-players. For a normal just-for-fun pub player like me, the game is very good and fun. But your "Just make some kind of match making"-statement shows, that you either don't understand the position of pub-players or are just to ignorant to care.
<b>The entire out come of the game shouldn't be decided by the first fade spawn.</b>
I'm not sure whether you can actually make every tech option viable at competitive level, but if you can then this is the best thing you can do for the game.
If comp players play the most efficient version of the game, and this involves using all the tech at your disposal by taking different routes in comp games. (I.e ARCs instead of EXO or GL/JP, etc)
Then you basically have a game that filters down into pub play very effectively, because it is ultimately 'balanced' and there is no one 'right' answer.
Pub play is just a longer drawn out version of that game, that is all.
The problem is, is that people think pub play is unsuccessful because of certain attributes. Usually it is - as one example - because 2 players get bored and leave the server half way through. Or the game starts before everyone has joined up, or team stacking, or a comm that likes to build in every room he comes across.
As has been pointed out, CS was hugely successful vanilla. But it was a simple game, and more complex games are always going to come a cropper in pub play.
I think ultimately that the best thing UWE can do is create the most balanced game they can based on the best way to win (which is competitive) because it is the most balanced version of the game.
Making it more accessible to new players (love all the 'well done' aspects of the UI to help new players) is the only thing you can do, or add a simpler game type like combat.
I'm not a fan of combat though!
No, the changes made from 1.0-3.2 had nothing to do with catering to competitive play; they were the result of attempts to improve the game for everybody (and what do you know, 3.2 is vastly superior to 1.0 in every way). In a hypothetical world, where the game had been released in the state of 3.2, it would've been even more popular for public play, not less.
The rest of your post is just the same "god damn competitive players ruining my game" drivel certain people always spout on these forums.
It has only happened in the case of NS2 because of NS1.
A comp scene is a result of an exciting, fun and well balanced well performing game, and all the other stuff that includes.
Blaming competitive players is almost as ignorant as people who say you are dumbing down the game by making it more accessible. Now note that I said accessible, not easier!
Starting from the competitive level and working backwards (based on this truth) actually makes more sense to me.
No. Actually it was the attempt to explain that a game that is balanced for comp doesn't has to be balanced in pubs. Because some mechanics may be balanced with good teamplay and on a high skill level but don't work in pub games, because they can be to weak without proper team play or even to strong for single players against a team with lower team play. Not to mention of it being fun in pubs.
Making a competitive mod is a horrible idea because it separates the players thus making the base smaller, increases the gap for new teams and we wouldn't be playing the same game at all. The millions of SC2 nubs (like me) who love to watch the masters play, watch the exact same game they play on public themselves. If they play tower defense, it's a complete different game. Fun mods (like combat) are there to let people have a change and enjoy themselves, but aren't subject to the main game, especially not balance-wise. Vanilla needs to be balanced for all players. Competitive players only help you to find the weak spots since they put much time in trying out everything. That's why I also don't understand the hostility towards them.
Making a competitive mod is a horrible idea because it separates the players thus making the base smaller, increases the gap for new teams and we wouldn't be playing the same game at all. The millions of SC2 nubs (like me) who love to watch the masters play, watch the exact same game they play on public themselves. If they play tower defense, it's a complete different game. Fun mods (like combat) are there to let people have a change and enjoy themselves, but aren't subject to the main game, especially not balance-wise. Vanilla needs to be balanced for all players. Competitive players only help you to find the weak spots since they put much time in trying out everything. That's why I also don't understand the hostility towards them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Blind, you're so smart I wish there was an upvote button. Name a successful esport that plays a different mode than the vanilla game. Sure, there are rule changes and such in some (but not many). Counter-Strike, Starcraft, League of Legends, Dota2, and Street Fighter 4, are all the most successful esports and everyone plays the same game.
This is the same logic I used to argue against a ProMod in Counter-Strike Source. The community needs to be united behind the same product. Additionally, balance is irrelevant to the people playing it, since teams are inherently random. There's difficulties of scale in strategy, ie: a play that requires ridiculous coordination to pull off but rewards with an immense pay out, but balance doesn't give a crap about who is playing. Look at Starcraft 2.
Actually not because you left out the inherit differences between asymmetric gameplay mechanics. These render your statistics useless, the statistics don't take into account the vast differences in terms of "player skill" and "game knowledge" that are present in NS2. And in NS these difference have always been very steep compared to other FPS games simply due to the high complexity.
<!--quoteo(post=1989791:date=Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989791"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It can be fun despite being unbalanced, not because it is unbalanced.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's what i said? And what would be the logical conclusion from this statement? An unbalanced game can still be a fun game, but can it still be a competitive game? Is having "perfect balance" alone enough to make a game fun? It's all about getting the priorities right.
<!--quoteo(post=1989791:date=Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989791"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you actually read the example I used, yes, it does make player choice irrelevant. Reply to the post that was posted, not the post you wish was posted.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh sorry i didn't realize that the only iteration of RNG that's valid to discuss about, is the very specific one in your head which you haven't been very specific about at all. You only claimed that RNG makes player choice irrelevant without going into any details, using that logic, would you define Poker as a game of Chance or a game of Skill? My point still stands, RNG can be something good and important even for a competitive environment. Unless you want to turn the game into a very predictable version of rock-paper-scissors without the scissors (That's what it is right now).
<!--quoteo(post=1989791:date=Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989791"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Player FPS skill, netcode, computer problems in the worst case scenario, and a million other factors all make NS2 inherently unpredictable in matches between reasonably evenly skilled teams.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now you just burned the very first point you made, leaving player differences out of the equation. In "perfect balance land" you assume that everybody works of the same basics that also includes "skill", latency and computer performance. Yes that's not an state that can be realistically achieved, unless you use very advanced bots/AI to simulate it. But if these things apply and the game is "perfectly balanced" than all rounds will either end in draws or be played ad infinitum.
<!--quoteo(post=1989791:date=Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989791"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The argument for removing a feature is "this is not a good feature", and I'm sure that's what UWE's reasoning has been. It's irrelevant that somebody somewhere phrased it as "this is not a good feature for competitive play".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"this is not a good feature <b>for these specific reasons and because of that context</b>" that should be the argument against features. If you honestly think that the opinions of the competitive crowd are irrelevant for feature discussions then you must have been part of a different community/game.
<!--quoteo(post=1989791:date=Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989791"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A good game manages to have non-repetitive, non-boring tasks that also have long term implications. Competitive players would always prefer that over the opposite, just like a public player. You're positing scenarios that simply make no sense.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Scenarios that make no sense? Maybe you should play more on public servers to see that these arguments result directly from the way the game is played.
Not to mention that the "munching RT" example has been a pretty popular and accepted one even in NS1. You simply ignoring it does not make it less true.
There is no game that's full of "instant gratification" that's at the same time balanced.
If the implications of an action are so long term that a new player sees no direct gain from doing them, he will be more likely not to do them. That's why nobody likes munching RT's in publics and that task usually is left over to the few players on the team who actually know the mechanics in deep, while new players keep on suiciding into action. It leads to bad gameplay dynamics because able players are forced to do tasks that involve zero ability on their side, while non-able/new players ignore these tasks that would be best suited for their ability.
<!--quoteo(post=1989791:date=Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989791"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->All the necessary obscurity is already inherent in the teamplay and FPS aspects of the game. This isn't chess, where you know that x move will always beat y move, this is a FPS/RTS blend, where, amazingly, the board pieces have a mind of their own, and where sometimes y move will beat x move, even though you'd expect it not to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you think that marines always going mass shotguns -> jp -> gl and kharaa always going fast second hive +onos is not predictable?
The tech choices right now are flat out stupid and shallow, valid openings are few and these few get used so much that they have become "accepted" and as such predictable. Just because a game is of a certain genre does not mean that it has the added obscurity/complexity of that genre. An RTS game that only has single linear tech tree for both sides lacks all complexity and obscurity because "teching up" will be the equivalent of "leveling up".
And once again you are pulling individual player differences into your scenario, please make up your mind about that. And sure this might not be Chess, but learning from the established winners has never been a bad thing, ignoring them only means you will repeat past mistakes that have already been done before.
A game is game and just that, the basic principles as to what constitutes as "a game" are always the same (It's always a matter of resource management). Lessons, mechanics and dynamics an be translated between genres and game styles.
<!--quoteo(post=1989791:date=Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989791"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Good thing then, that nobody is suggesting that it should be.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As long as you keep suggesting that comp and public play evolve around the same dynamics for balance and gameflow, you are suggesting exactly that for NS2.
<!--quoteo(post=1989791:date=Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989791"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No idea what you're talking about here. Both CS and NS were played vanilla as far as balance is concerned.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope, both of them required competitive configs because of the modding and setting freedoms for server owners. Vast majority of public servers ran with some kind of modification and from that spun the need for dedicated competitive configs, not to mention different league rules which also lead to different configs.
Have you actually played CS or NS1 in an comp setting or are you just blending these things out due to nostalgic feelings?
<!--quoteo(post=1989791:date=Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989791"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That might make somebody buy the game, but it won't keep them playing it for years on end.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because? No reason given..
NS1 already had this problem, the games setting and premise drew people in and scared lots of them away later on. Outside of the NS community the game had a reputation for being horribly unbalanced, usually coming from players who couldn't beat the learning curve on Kharaa side to understand the deeper and more complex systems. Right now NS2 is going exactly the same route again and as such will fail one of it's main goals: Making the game more accessible so it can gather a huge mainstream audience. Because only with a huge mainstream audience you can hope to support a somewhat successful competitive scene.
Nobody watches a competitive game he does not understand.
Not to mention: Making people buy the game should be the main goal. If nobody buys the game it does not matter if a small crowd keeps on playing for years, because then UWE will struggle to keep on supporting the game that players are playing. A game that gets played but not bought is a financial failure and burden for a developer.
As soon as you change the rules, even just some of them, it is already a different setting and not "vanilla" anymore. Not to mention that these rules are often fluid and depend on the state of the game. It happens regularly that rules in a comp. setting are setup in such a way to compensate for the games balance shortcommings in a "vanilla" setting.
In other places the rules are often unwritten ones of honor, this mostly applies to fighting games where characters are tired by the community (or sometimes completely banned from being used). Sure you can use setups that revolve around phoenix in MvC3, but unless you are doing it very well or in a vastly different way, prepare to get frowned upon by the audience. In MK9 you sure as hell can lame your way around with Kabal zoning play, but don't expect much respect from the audience for such a win.
So it's not really as simple or obvious as you want to make it look like.
If you actually read my post, you will see that I specified "decided entirely by". That's the example I used to clarify my point, and that's what you have to reply to if you want your argument to be relevant.
If you want to talk about poker, that depends on the variant being played. Some are almost entirely random, others rely heavily on player skill -- at least when you get over a certain amount of hands played. Texas holdem is the best example of the latter.
<!--quoteo(post=1990451:date=Oct 12 2012, 07:47 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 12 2012, 07:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990451"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Have you actually played CS or NS1 in an comp setting<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.ninelegends.com/team/fana/" target="_blank">http://www.ninelegends.com/team/fana/</a>
The rest of your post is too hilarious to even bother replying to :D
In other places the rules are often unwritten ones of honor, this mostly applies to fighting games where characters are tired by the community (or sometimes completely banned from being used). Sure you can use setups that revolve around phoenix in MvC3, but unless you are doing it very well or in a vastly different way, prepare to get frowned upon by the audience. In MK9 you sure as hell can lame your way around with Kabal zoning play, but don't expect much respect from the audience for such a win.
So it's not really as simple or obvious as you want to make it look like.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It actually is. I don't follow the fighting game community, but rarely do they ban a character outright (Akuma comes to mind). Your statement about "being frowned upon by the audience" lacks a complete understanding of the competitive mindset. It doesn't matter what is frowned upon. Winning is all that matters. This is the difference between neighborhood heroes and Gods who win Evo's.
Counter-Strike matches have a standard, but they're still playing the exact same game as public players. Sure, the team sizes may be different, and the round time may be set, but those server settings not in the same ball park as a promod. All de_maps play the same way.
In Starcraft 2 everyone plays the exact same game.
In a true esport if Cabal is not banned, then no one cares about using him in a boring way to win. In Starcraft 2 it doesn't matter that in P v Z a neural parasite on the mothership wins the game. Gimmicky? Yeah. Frowned upon? Hell no.
If a game possesses inherently imbalanced mechanics, then it won't be an esport. This is why true asymmetric esport titles are so rare, especially in the strategy genre.
Regardless, all these points are irrelevant. NS2 needs to be balanced for pubs and competitive play, because balance is independent of who is playing at any given time. Balance is balance and we all need to be playing the same game for NS2 to thrive.
Also, all competitive communities are organic. You can't force an esport. Only if the core game is competitive will the competitive community flourish.
Yes, it is this bad, but that doesn't mean the game isn't fun. Even if aliens suck it's still a blast to try and unite together in the face of adversity and win! I want to encourage you to pick it up, enjoy it, and come be a voice in the conversation, and this is coming from the biggest alien rights advocate!
People are just very passionate about the game, is all.
It'll be balanced soon, I don't worry, enough people are criticizing it for UWE to remain inactive anyways.
And that's what i replied to, it's just really difficult to see what point you wanted to make by mentioning a game of complete chance and then saying "I don't like that". The conclusion i drew from that is that you dislike RNG, which is not an unheard/unpopular opinion among comp. players.
<!--quoteo(post=1990469:date=Oct 12 2012, 08:08 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 12 2012, 08:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990469"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you want to talk about poker, that depends on the variant being played. Some are almost entirely random, others rely heavily on player skill -- at least when you get over a certain amount of hands played. Texas holdem is the best example of the latter.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See now we are getting somewhere, i guess i just misunderstood your point about RNG.
<!--quoteo(post=1990469:date=Oct 12 2012, 08:08 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 12 2012, 08:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990469"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><a href="http://www.ninelegends.com/team/fana/" target="_blank">http://www.ninelegends.com/team/fana/</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And yet you don't remember having to load up different configs depending on the league/cup you have been playing on? I rest my case, clear example of nostalgic glasses.
<!--quoteo(post=1990469:date=Oct 12 2012, 08:08 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 12 2012, 08:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990469"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The rest of your post is too hilarious to even bother replying to :D<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not nearly as hilarious as the notion that a game that has dynamic resource income, for teams and players on an individual level, expresses the same kind of gameplay/balance dynamics in an 12v12 setting as they do in an 6v6 setting. That's the true hilarious part about this whole discussion and one of the major reasons why Marines are perceived as having an edge all over the place.
But who cares about 12v12? Only scrubs play that crap, real men only care about "perfect competitive balance".
And who cares about accessibility? Only lazy scrubs care about that, real man go "L2P n00b" and proceed to pwn new players solely on their knowledge advantage.
All this is indeed very hilarious...
No idea what you're on about. Never happened even once in any tournament I played in.
<!--quoteo(post=1990506:date=Oct 12 2012, 09:03 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 12 2012, 09:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990506"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But who cares about 12v12? Only scrubs play that crap, real men only care about "perfect competitive balance".
And who cares about accessibility? Only lazy scrubs care about that, real man go "L2P n00b" and proceed to pwn new players solely on their knowledge advantage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is what I'm talking about. You're making stuff up and then pretending it's my opinion. I don't know if you're mental or just dishonest, but I don't enjoy conversing with either.
This is why the game will never be balanced for all skill levels.
It's a way of attacking a problem dude. Like "As x goes to infinity". Just imagine I said good marines don't miss much, which even now, before release, the pros vastly prefer going marines to get a good k/d, which shows we have passed a threshold. Also I'm talking about the lategame staple classes fighting; lmg'er versus skulks, each on 2 bases, fully upgraded. The minimum time to kill is undeniable. The average marine ttk is only going down, as average player skill goes up. Many alien players on the other hand have hit that hard 5 sec TTK limit.
See now we are getting somewhere, i guess i just misunderstood your point about RNG.
And yet you don't remember having to load up different configs depending on the league/cup you have been playing on? I rest my case, clear example of nostalgic glasses.
Not nearly as hilarious as the notion that a game that has dynamic resource income, for teams and players on an individual level, expresses the same kind of gameplay/balance dynamics in an 12v12 setting as they do in an 6v6 setting. That's the true hilarious part about this whole discussion and one of the major reasons why Marines are perceived as having an edge all over the place.
But who cares about 12v12? Only scrubs play that crap, real men only care about "perfect competitive balance".
And who cares about accessibility? Only lazy scrubs care about that, real man go "L2P n00b" and proceed to pwn new players solely on their knowledge advantage.
All this is indeed very hilarious...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It seems to be you have already made up your mind how competitive players think and look at the game in a very narrow way. But In most cases I think you are dead wrong. Most mentioned problems in this thread has little to do with balance but more how the fundamental game mechanics work and connect to each other. For example - sprint gives marines the ability to travel very fast and it neglects big part of the alien mobility advantage. Aliens are build from ground up to win with mobility and coordination.
-
Like mentioned before this is a single game so the problems in competitive play do actually exist in public play even though they are not obvious right away. If these problems are not addressed it will cause problems in the long run when players start abusing these problems to win games.
-
For example - NS1 was a lot about territorial control, in competitive matches players positioned them self very effectively to keep both rts save and their map control. It is true that this did usually not happen in public but the same law applied. Instead marines often used turrets and electrified rts to defend their territories versus the alien mobility.
This is of course just a small example of how it is actually possible to make a game work for both public and competitive. You just need to understand what is the most important for both teams to win a match and then make it so that players have the tools to achieve at all skill level.
This is in no way easy thing to do and takes a lot of effort, but with such access to knowledge and experience around them I believe they are capable to gather the necessary feedback to work with to achieve that goal. They just need to tap into the resources they have access to.
That's why a skill-based movement system for aliens is necessary to keep aliens balanced for all skill levels - newb marines vs newb skulks and pro marines vs pro skulks. NS1 did pretty damn well with it.
Yes.
Wait 2-3 month. Watch the post-release development and ask again. The first couple months make or break the game. The game will either explode further in popularity or become a ghost town.
Starcraft ? 1998
Counter-Strike ? 1999
Natural Selection ? 2002-2003
At least 10 years later (now that we're soon in 2013), what happened ? => The video game industry estimated revenues more than doubled. The amount of people playing multiplayer games online skyrocketed.
Did it changed the way people play online multiplayers, or are we still like in the early 2000s, a bunch of passionate gamers ?
Personally, I do not believe things are the same. I would really like to hear the arguments of someone thinking the opposite, because I clearly can't see how things haven't drastically changed.
...
Now, why don't we just have a game "balanced", that would fit perfectly for competitive play, and would still be enjoyable by pubbers ?
Before talking about the playerbase, I need to remind the comp players that NS1 wasn't fully enjoyable by pubbers unless the comm were both comp (or comp level) players.
Regarding the playerbase: People playing NS1 had to learn about it, then download it, then install it, it filtered out a lot of players.
The result was simple: you had enough players willing to go through hoops and endure game mechanics to get an enjoyable and interesting gameplay. That's why they would munch RT, they would stay in group, they would *try* to set up ambushes.
Nowadays, people no longer do that, the mod scene (in general) is barely existing (Day Z only worked because of its crowd-marketing), you struggle to fill a server a week after a mod latest release.
...
This is why NS2, when balanced for comp play, is no longer enjoyable by pubbers.
=> When the game put quite a lot of emphasis on RTs to balance lifeformes/upgrades/weapons (in terms of delay to get it, risk of losing it, etc), the comp player will take that into account, while the 2012 pubber will NOT take that into account at all.
The 2002 pubber might have took that into account a little, he's now (2012) a very small minority in the oceans of more "modern" pubbers. Just try to get any teamwork done, or a minimum of sportsmanship in any FPS, in 2012: that's just a lost cause, you're better off becoming one of them.
It wasn't that bad 10 years ago, and that's why NS1 had the opportunity of becoming what it became. My opinion is: it is no longer possible.
...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Obviously a casual player will approach the game differently, play the game differently, enjoy different aspects of the game, and so forth, than a competitive player. This is, however, irrelevant to the discussion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you're missing something major here: how the game is actually played by people, and the actual gaming experiences the players are having. If a game is perfectly "balanced", but the actual gaming experience is unbalanced games after unbalanced games, something is wrong in the game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This has already been proved by hugely popular games like Counter-Strike, StarCraft and even Natural Selection. All of these titles have had public play and competitive play flourish under vanilla gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
=> Like I wrote above, they all happened at a very specific moment in the history of online multiplayer video games, an era that is now over.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As long as the fundamental gameplay mechanics are properly designed, a game can appeal equally, or almost equally, to all players within a particular group (in NS2's case, primarily FPS gamers).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
=> The problem is now that the group you're mentioning "FPS gamers" is now featuring millions of people playing Call of Duty MW3 and a few hundreds of people playing unknown alpha builds of mods.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only interesting, and difficult to solve, problem caused by different player "groups", is that of intermingling. When you have players of wildly differing skill levels playing against each other on the same servers, the experience is bound to be a frustrating one for many of the players on the low end of the skill spectrum. This isn't a game breaking problem, but some sort of matchmaking to alleviate the problem would be beneficial.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
=> except that never a matchmaking system proved being efficient enough to fix such problem on such a complex problem (RTS+FPS asymmetrical teams). And with a playerbase so small (and with such an importance regarding the latency, at least for the marines, making playing with more than 120 ms a real problem), such a thing is impossible to implement. There isn't enough players playing NS2 at the same time in the region to sort them into "skill" tiers.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You've missed my point entirely. I'd also advise you to be mindful of who it is you're discussing with. I can guarantee you that you don't want to try to lecture me on what is required to succeed in competitive play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Then, rather than threatening me with an appeal to your "authority", why didn't you tried to explain how I missed your point ?
Sadly, when I read this:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The rest of your post is just the same "god damn competitive players ruining my game" drivel certain people always spout on these forums.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The rest of your post is too hilarious to even bother replying to :D<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is what I'm talking about. You're making stuff up and then pretending it's my opinion. I don't know if you're mental or just dishonest, but I don't enjoy conversing with either.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->You're not answering nor bringing counter-arguments to people's concerns and opinions, and when someone say ANYTHING regarding your point of view, you jump the gun and aggressively attack them.
At least other people like mR.Waffles are bringing something to the debate, like here regarding "vanilla" games actually having specific rules (written or just assumed) when played competitively, but also regarding the risk of having two separated playerbases. If you don't want to debate and argue with people, then why do you keep posting in such threads ?
If the only thing you can bring on the table is your experience of the NS1 competitive scene, you can easily just post your complete thoughts on NS2 balancing on a blog dedicated to your NS gaming activity, post a link here so everyone can go and read it, and everything will be fine. Going here and calling other people mental isn't improving NS2.
I understand you only want NS2 to be truly balanced and well-designed, so the "base" is good enough for comp and pubs, however I (and quite a lot of pubbers) believe this is not possible, for many reason, one being "this is not the 00s anymore".
Coming into this game right out of NS1 and hopping on aliens is nothing short than <b>disappointing</b>. Where are my favorite abilities? Focus, Adrenaline, Leap, Web, Xenocide, Acid Rocket, Devour, Babblers. Gorge and Onos are missing a fourth move. I discourage all aliens from even playing lerk before umbra, the resources are much more important to be put into fade. The devs have mentioned they've instantiated a content lock, which is scary because it sounds like we won't be receiving any options before release.
I read somewhere (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the devs plan on implementing web. I remember playing games in NS1 that were won by a hero gorge and his mighty webs. Aliens desperately need more functionality against shotgunning jetpackers, and web fills this role. If it's planned to go into the game, why wait until after release to put it in?
Considering the length of the wish-list for stuff that's planned to go into the game, and considering the resources available ... the answer is simple; because it would mean a late 2013 release, about.
You can't let perfect become the enemy of good. The game - as is - is good, warts and all.
I do share the frustration that some (IMO) obvious things are not getting the attention I feel it deserves (fundamentally broken alien strategic gameplay, spawning etc), but right now most of the focus is on performance and making the game more welcoming for non-hardcore players.
Considering the commitment of UWE to the Natural Selection - they have been living for NS for 12+ years now - I think the broken things will get fixed in the end. NS is not something they do for the money, but because it's their baby.
Sorry will just snip that as its an interesting point....
It is frustrating though that UWE thinks that new players (who should come in droves come 31st...) will only want to play marines as alien game mechanic requires too much prior knowledge for non hardcore players.
Most new players are not "hard core" enough to learn these tricky movement mechanics and now be expected to have aim equivocal to a marine in melee combat (sorry but this is where aliens are meant to be stronger...its not meant to be an even battle once aliens get close).
It seems that its assumed new/non hardcore players will only play marines and that they wont want to play on the alien side (as aliens keep getting nerfed (decent abilities removed ie focus, teleporting between hives, SOF etc) whilst marines buffed).
This is a very dangerous assumption to be making and potentially a costly one that damages the player base.
I hope that the time between now and then is atleast partially spent on trying to make aliens actually enjoyable to play, you have only 1 chance with most of the new players, get it wrong they will simply say "well stuff that...only fun to play 1 side...oh well was only 20 bucks" and put into the "pile of shame" aka games you no longer play/finished.
I already see people refuse to play aliens and simply sit in RR all game instead....
That's why a skill-based movement system for aliens is necessary to keep aliens balanced for all skill levels - newb marines vs newb skulks and pro marines vs pro skulks. NS1 did pretty damn well with it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it's pretty important to note that even with all the movement in NS1, aliens were still going stronger in lower levels. On public games the massive game sizes and alien inabilitiy to operate with huge playercounts ended up 'balancing' it quite right, but skill wise marines still gained more as the level went up.
I think that's kind of telling how much skill potential aliens need to match their marine counterparts.