It wouldn't be a big deal if the game was still fun when the round was over.
+1.
Besides the technical/design issues that arise late game, I really think NS2 still needs rfk come back to act as a soft timer against prolonged games. Just like it did in ns1. It's a simple enough concept that adds depth and keeps relevancy of player action in end game when the res/map control game is over.
There are other things probably coming that should help alot as well though such as decreased spawn rates. The problem is mostly not lack of strong end game tech, but too high defensive pressure.
RFK is horrible.
Unless you want Fades and Onos kicking down your door before you have A1.
marines controlling 7+ rts automatically causes all marines to get nano-shield until the team controls fewer than 7 rts.
aliens controlling 7+ rts automatically causes all aliens to get enzyme until the team controls fwer than 7 rts.
get 7 rts, and your team is overwhelmingly powerful, the game will end very quickly, every one is happy.
Onos vs Exo spam is both tanky and laughably low-skilled so it's crazy to have that as the vision for late-game. The level of skill plummets throughout the game until you are all fighting with unmissable, zero movement, high-hp, slow and brainless entities that just smash up against each-other at key locations (usually the base of the losing team - cue turtle). It's a really disgusting end-game in public play right now.
You mean people don't want to purchase a video game that turns out to be 'experts only' with no explanations what-so-ever other than outdated wiki's and amorphous and often incorrect player advice?
Shocking.
It's cool though, they'll change everything in a couple of weeks just to make sure that the skills you worked so hard to finely hone mean nothing at all in the current build. Like, I don't know, completely change wall jumping yet again? Maybe turn the Shotgun into a fully automatic skulk gibber? Or give Onos a fully automatic nuke launcher?
Sure, seems legit.
I'm sure it definitely won't turn into one gigantic e-peen fest of people that feel that they suffered through hundreds of hours of NS2 to become good therefore they are the last savior of mankind and all should bow before them.
(Caution: This post may contain gross hyperbole. Read at your own caution!)
schkorpioI can mspaintJoin Date: 2003-05-23Member: 16635Members
I have to agree with the OP. Losing is super painful in ns2.
I didn't mind it so much in NS1 as with marines you had that 'last stand' feeling. but for some reason in ns2 its just really annoying as marines. As an alien team losing slowly i'd rather sit in the ready room. Luckily the vote concede button has fixed some of that, you can vote to concede and keep stuffing around in game until you either lose properly or everyone votes.
Fade needs acid rocket back imo
Hopefully there will be more game ending abilities with 3 hives.
I have to agree with the OP. Losing is super painful in ns2.
I didn't mind it so much in NS1 as with marines you had that 'last stand' feeling. but for some reason in ns2 its just really annoying as marines. As an alien team losing slowly i'd rather sit in the ready room. Luckily the vote concede button has fixed some of that, you can vote to concede and keep stuffing around in game until you either lose properly or everyone votes.
Fade needs acid rocket back imo
Hopefully there will be more game ending abilities with 3 hives.
edit: and perhaps - maybe the marines need a 3rd command station to get some really end game weaponry.
The base mechanics are about creating imbalance in gameplay. There aren't people who want to run around and get stomped by Onos (which in itself, is a frustrating ability. No player in any game likes being stunned, but I digress), or get shotgunned down in one shot. The number of one/two shots in this game is pretty insane. Being put in to an impossible situation due to the game mechanics is tough to rationalize as being "fun". It makes for a fantastic game to watch competitively, but a very frustrating way to learn a game. It's rarely fun to win, and rarely fun to lose. But the first 5-10 minutes of every game are as fun as any game I've ever played.
I have been gaming for over a decade, and played NS1 religiously. I have followed NS2 from the announcement.
Don't get me wrong, I think it is great UWE are up and running as a company and have gotten NS2 out the door. But the major problems as I see it are:
- NS1 was a competitive game. NS2 is basically an NS1 clone but at an attempt to draw in a larger audience. It has done this, but instead of embracing what made NS1 competitive and building on it, they are at a middle ground that I don't think has hit the mark on either end of the spectrum. I am not saying it should have been NS1, but I think NS1 was so competitive that I think that NS2 speaks volumes about trying to achieve a broader market with a game that really was never about that. Look at the player base, like NS1, a small dedicated group of gamers playing week in week out. Same again here.
- There is nothing that new, or revolutionary about the game. UWE built this engine from scratch, and I can't begin to imagine how hard this has been. But think about the possibilities that FPS/RTS can bring. I think this has been under looked massively. We could have seen more world interaction by the commander, rooms could be more dynamic. Things like infestation are interesting, but really it is a 'cool factor' approach to game design. I don't think it has really added anything as such.
- Too much action, all of the time. This is the same in films as in games, if you don't have any contrast it becomes a little (hate to use the word) dull. The charm of NS1 was the link it had with the alien movies. I think it actually worked really well because of those moments of action and quiet. Marines ability to relocate anywhere also helped. I think it is far too easy to see what is going on across the map now, and they are too compact.
- More player interaction to achieve objectives. The internet is all about connecting people. This is probably a personal thing, but there is nothing more satisfying than sitting in a cockpit of a chopper in BF3 with your mate and talking through tactics that actually succeed. L4D really hit the nail on the head in this regard. Watch some DayZ videos by FrankieonPC and how he works with JackFrags to take people out. Personally I think this sort of communicative online teamplay to achieve goals could be a really unique path to go down.
- Performance and slow development, though they are an Indie developer. I've personally never had a go at UWE about this and i've been playing on a laptop at 20 fps or less.
I get what UWE are trying to do, and they have achieved it. They have earned enough to build up the company and it has obviously been a lot easier for them and safer for them to not stray too far from the original. Now this has been achieved, I'd love to see a new project building on this engine with a lot more ambition (I say this lightly because Charlie/Max/Cory/Team have pulled off A LOT, and building a company is impressive in anyone's books) and freedom in terms of what they could do.
There are a lot of really cool possibilities with this engine, but that is the sort of thing I'd like to see them do. Just brainstorm some crazy ideas and then come up with a new game based on some of the more practical ideas they come up with. I don't actually think cool ideas come from a visual idea, but more from looking at human behaviour and interaction. Not sure I could explain my thoughts.
Their next game will have to be something special and different from the mainstream anyway, because you just can't compete with the BF3's of this world. Whilst I know this is an FPS/RTS I hear you cry, really it is the FPS aspect that is the largest part of this game and unless the RTS aspect or other areas become deeper, you'll be fighting these big games for evermore. Minecraft is a positive example of stepping away like this.
I am sure there are other things I could write, but no one wants to read anymore than that. I'm not even going to get mixed up with people who think it is because weapon x was excluded, or y is not the same. I don't think they are at all close to what actually makes a good game.
Ok, we had all these balance, performance and cheater discussions but now I want to tell you the truth why UWE sold more than 100k copies of the game and still the max playercount is around 2,5k at tops:
Losing in this game is one of the most painful game-experiences out there.
And:
Losing as Aliens in this game is the single most painful game-experiance out there.
I mean, I would say I got some experience in (online)gaming and of course I got my share of losses.
I lost in CS, Q3, UT, DoD, FLF, AHL, BF:2142, BF3, SC1, SC2, WC3, DOTA as well as NS1.
But let me tell you this: In none of these games is loosing a game so excruciatingly painful and unfun as in NS2.
Losing in NS2 is like boxing against both Klitchko brothers at the same time with your hand cuffed. It's like racing against a ferrarri with a 20 yrs. orld toyota corolla. It's like destructing a medieval castle with your only tool being your head that you have to constantly smash into walls in order to collapse them.
It's painful, without any hope and no fun at all.
Especially losing as alien, being on 1 hive and 2 rts for like 10 minutes and fighting with celerity only against W3/A3 shitgun marines ... that just the worst thing you can experience.
Now winning as Marines/Aliens is boring when the other team concedes. This also leads to people quitting.
I think adding anything that ends the game faster is just bad design. There should always be a way to come back.
Ok, we had all these balance, performance and cheater discussions but now I want to tell you the truth why UWE sold more than 100k copies of the game and still the max playercount is around 2,5k at tops:
Losing in this game is one of the most painful game-experiences out there.
And:
Losing as Aliens in this game is the single most painful game-experiance out there.
I mean, I would say I got some experience in (online)gaming and of course I got my share of losses.
I lost in CS, Q3, UT, DoD, FLF, AHL, BF:2142, BF3, SC1, SC2, WC3, DOTA as well as NS1.
But let me tell you this: In none of these games is loosing a game so excruciatingly painful and unfun as in NS2.
Losing in NS2 is like boxing against both Klitchko brothers at the same time with your hand cuffed. It's like racing against a ferrarri with a 20 yrs. orld toyota corolla. It's like destructing a medieval castle with your only tool being your head that you have to constantly smash into walls in order to collapse them.
It's painful, without any hope and no fun at all.
Especially losing as alien, being on 1 hive and 2 rts for like 10 minutes and fighting with celerity only against W3/A3 shitgun marines ... that just the worst thing you can experience.
Now winning as Marines/Aliens is boring when the other team concedes. This also leads to people quitting.
I think adding anything that ends the game faster is just bad design. There should always be a way to come back.
Making comebacks too easy defeats the whole purpose of the game's RTS elements. How do you make map control and resources matter as much as they should if a team that is getting crushed can turn the game on its head at a moment's notice? It should be possible to come back, but only if you begin consistently outperforming the other team. Which you probably won't since they were beating you when it was a fair fight and now they have way more money and tech than you. Comebacks are overrated - the solution to conceding is to allow the game to end more quickly when one team is in a commanding lead.
It wouldn't be a big deal if the game was still fun when the round was over.
+1.
Besides the technical/design issues that arise late game, I really think NS2 still needs rfk come back to act as a soft timer against prolonged games. Just like it did in ns1. It's a simple enough concept that adds depth and keeps relevancy of player action in end game when the res/map control game is over.
There are other things probably coming that should help alot as well though such as decreased spawn rates. The problem is mostly not lack of strong end game tech, but too high defensive pressure.
RFK is horrible.
Unless you want Fades and Onos kicking down your door before you have A1.
Actual arguments for RFK, and how that logic against RFK is fallicious and ignorant of systems already in the game.
Promoting turtling has slight merit to it, but honestly does the ability to recap weapons for 30 seconds after death and be healed to full health by an armory in 7 seconds not promote that even more then a small RFK?
Not to mention that the basics for his argument assume that the RFK amount would be considerable, most people that suggest it for NS2 (including myself) i think want an amount that is quite small (im talking .5 pres per kill or LESS). This amount is enough to break up lifeforms like no pres when dead, reward good play over camping in base, and not be significant enough to give massive advantages to good players. Honestly if you managed to get 100 kills with a single fade I highly doubt that you wouldnt be able to afford 2 new fades at that point already without the RFK.
People are talking about an additional system that adds very subtle depth by allowing good players to reduce the timings on lifeforms by reasonable ammounts (say 30 seconds to a minute on a fade depending on kills). So really, the answer to your dilemna is yes it is noticeable, but only in the context of very tight min/maxing which you see only in competitive 6 v 6. Is 45ish seconds 'too much'? Even without rfk you'll see good players get lifeforms earlier than new players simply because they evolve at 30/50/75 pres on the dot. The whole comparison between good and bad players in the context of a well tweaked rfk system is largely irrelevant.
Why are people opposed to slightly early lifeforms if they are the result of good play being rewarded, but not slightly early lifeforms if they are the result of a tres strategy?
On the topic of snowballing, xdragon has rightly pointed out good players don't exactly benefit from rfk post-lifeform and spend less pres on marine weapons overall anyway. The 'snowballing effect' is an example of a seemingly intuitive conclusion that is actually quite flawed.
Firstly, RFD is bound to make less of an impact than RFK. Even very skilled skulks typically get a kill and then die afterwards or stay outfield to maintain their effectiveness despite being on low health, subsequently getting picked off. The number of deaths that people get doesn't differentiate nearly as much as the number of kills so it's bound to make more of a difference. Additionally, RFK better reflects successful endeavours because it can take into account the fact that a skulk might have monster-killed 3 marines but died to a 4th (RFD would have just punished this skulk anyway).
Ugh, anyway. I agree with the OPs point, in that playing a lost game is indeed painful. Heck, playing a won game of NS2 isn't enjoyable either.
It wouldn't be a big deal if the game was still fun when the round was over.
+1.
Besides the technical/design issues that arise late game, I really think NS2 still needs rfk come back to act as a soft timer against prolonged games. Just like it did in ns1. It's a simple enough concept that adds depth and keeps relevancy of player action in end game when the res/map control game is over.
There are other things probably coming that should help alot as well though such as decreased spawn rates. The problem is mostly not lack of strong end game tech, but too high defensive pressure.
RFK is horrible.
Unless you want Fades and Onos kicking down your door before you have A1.
Actual arguments for RFK, and how that logic against RFK is fallicious and ignorant of systems already in the game.
Promoting turtling has slight merit to it, but honestly does the ability to recap weapons for 30 seconds after death and be healed to full health by an armory in 7 seconds not promote that even more then a small RFK?
Not to mention that the basics for his argument assume that the RFK amount would be considerable, most people that suggest it for NS2 (including myself) i think want an amount that is quite small (im talking .5 pres per kill or LESS). This amount is enough to break up lifeforms like no pres when dead, reward good play over camping in base, and not be significant enough to give massive advantages to good players. Honestly if you managed to get 100 kills with a single fade I highly doubt that you wouldnt be able to afford 2 new fades at that point already without the RFK.
People are talking about an additional system that adds very subtle depth by allowing good players to reduce the timings on lifeforms by reasonable ammounts (say 30 seconds to a minute on a fade depending on kills). So really, the answer to your dilemna is yes it is noticeable, but only in the context of very tight min/maxing which you see only in competitive 6 v 6. Is 45ish seconds 'too much'? Even without rfk you'll see good players get lifeforms earlier than new players simply because they evolve at 30/50/75 pres on the dot. The whole comparison between good and bad players in the context of a well tweaked rfk system is largely irrelevant.
Why are people opposed to slightly early lifeforms if they are the result of good play being rewarded, but not slightly early lifeforms if they are the result of a tres strategy?
On the topic of snowballing, xdragon has rightly pointed out good players don't exactly benefit from rfk post-lifeform and spend less pres on marine weapons overall anyway. The 'snowballing effect' is an example of a seemingly intuitive conclusion that is actually quite flawed.
Firstly, RFD is bound to make less of an impact than RFK. Even very skilled skulks typically get a kill and then die afterwards or stay outfield to maintain their effectiveness despite being on low health, subsequently getting picked off. The number of deaths that people get doesn't differentiate nearly as much as the number of kills so it's bound to make more of a difference. Additionally, RFK better reflects successful endeavours because it can take into account the fact that a skulk might have monster-killed 3 marines but died to a 4th (RFD would have just punished this skulk anyway).
Ugh, anyway. I agree with the OPs point, in that playing a lost game is indeed painful. Heck, playing a won game of NS2 isn't enjoyable either.
I take it you didn't play NS1?
RFK didn't make NS1 better.
I don't think game pace is a relevant argument for or against RFK. The base resource generation could be reduced if need be to preserve that. The question is whether or not you want res flow to be based on combat performance. I think doing that makes the game less accessible, penalizes support players and changes player motivations in a way that isn't necessarily desirable.
Well if they're playing as support then what do they need the extra resources for anyway. They can keep on supporting if they want to or they can stop.
Killing people and stuff is essentially the main motivation and purpose in the game believe it or not. Everything else you do is a means to that end. So why is adding another means like "rfk" going to change the goal, motivation, purpose, etc of the game.
marines controlling 7+ rts automatically causes all marines to get nano-shield until the team controls fewer than 7 rts.
aliens controlling 7+ rts automatically causes all aliens to get enzyme until the team controls fwer than 7 rts.
get 7 rts, and your team is overwhelmingly powerful, the game will end very quickly, every one is happy.
now its about rts and not the CC/Hives.
I prefer the escape option mentioned earlier. The team that is winning now has to close the game before the other team can humiliatingly retreat/evacuate.
Well if they're playing as support then what do they need the extra resources for anyway. They can keep on supporting if they want to or they can stop.
Killing people and stuff is essentially the main motivation and purpose in the game believe it or not. Everything else you do is a means to that end. So why is adding another means like "rfk" going to change the goal, motivation, purpose, etc of the game.
Well even playing support every marine can benefit from buying a full loadout every life. Worst case they can dump extra res on mines. Gorges also should have more res sinks in the next update. I don't think there's any lack of motivation to kill people as it is right now, you do it because it's fun and it wins you the game.
Well if you're playing support you're less likely to lose your full load out, and if you do you're likely with the group or near a location that is easily reinforced so your pres is basically never at risk of being lost. So I don't see how this support player is in anyway penalized for playing conservatively as a marine. I also don't see how your argument has any relevance to the gorge either. The gorge has the least chance of dying and the greatest rate of res generation for taking the fewest risks. I mean what more could a support player want?
I never said there was a lack of motivation to kill players. But you claimed it would cause undesirable changes in motivations. So how could that change anyone's motivations in an undesirable way.
I don't think game pace is a relevant argument for or against RFK. The base resource generation could be reduced if need be to preserve that. The question is whether or not you want res flow to be based on combat performance. I think doing that makes the game less accessible, penalizes support players and changes player motivations in a way that isn't necessarily desirable.
My comment about the game pace wasn't an argument detracting, nor supporting the idea of RFK, just a statement of what it did do.
RFK wouldn't work in NS2, not without some serious changes.
The aliens have access to all of their goodies(sans upgrades) from the get go.
Marines have to tech up.
Even if the marines are trouncing the aliens early game, how are they going to get JP/Flamethrowers/GLs/Exos if the commander hasn't researched them?
Conversely, the aliens could feasibly go Fade/Onos before marines get armour 1.
Yes, quite clearly Armour 1 is the same thing as placing 6 cysts.
Edit:
RFK would change the way the game is played.
There are already people worried about their KDR in NS2.
KDR isn't really all that important.
It's good to not die, but sometimes, dying can help your team.
Say for example, there's a Gorge/Lerk/Fade fighting marines, they're weak, you're a skulk, so you rush in to take the fire from the marines.
It's beneficial to run distraction, and die in that case.
It's cute you're so blissfully unaware that your example was only slightly more plausible than mine. But it's nice to see you followed that up with a random tangential discussion about KDR's that has no merit to the discussion of RFK.
Say for example we're discussing RFK and I bring up how much I dislike the color of clogs. It's of equal relevance to RFK as KDR is. Your logic and comprehension of how the game works is weak so you rush into the thread and take fire from the posters. Fortunately you realize it's beneficial to run a distraction instead of just dying with your illogical shitspew so you made that reply.
I don't think game pace is a relevant argument for or against RFK. The base resource generation could be reduced if need be to preserve that. The question is whether or not you want res flow to be based on combat performance. I think doing that makes the game less accessible, penalizes support players and changes player motivations in a way that isn't necessarily desirable.
Yes, there are alot of different factors that go into determining game pace and addressing the problem brought up by the OP, with RFK probably being a smaller one. But it is still an effective mechanic that modifies player behaviour and improves the 'definition' of game flow in the time periods relevant to this thread. The OP's issue is multifaceted and thus requires a comprehensive solution that includes things like rfk.
There are two late game situations that we must consider
1) The map control dominant team (eventual/apparent winner) does not push or make a concerted effort to finish the game over a long period.
2) The map control dominant team (eventual/apparent winner) cannot finish the game despite a concerted effort to finish the game over a long period.
How does RFK affect each situation?
1) RFK provides a means in equalising the ratio of pres incomes. Say without rfk the ratio is 10:2 (5) in terms of some standardised pres income power. With rfk it becomes say 11:3 (3.6). What this means is a tighter end game, and a tighter 'soft timelimit' that the dominant team has to win the game before it starts getting harder. This is the end game 'definition' i am talking about. If you know you are pretty much guaranteed to win, why bother to win quickly if you can extend the game for another 20 minutes at no risk in order to ensure your, say 80% win probability becomes closer to 100%?
As a quick example, here is a simplified marine commander decision.
I now have res domination over aliens, our team has enough pres for 2 exo's, if i send them in now they may possibly die and open up a counter-attack timing for aliens. Although it is extremely probable that the 2 exo's will be able to finish the game, why should i risk it when i can spend the next 20 minutes spamming sentries/armouries/CC's/phasegates etc. around every techpoint, build an unbeatuable arc army, and wait for everyone to be able to afford double exo? Basically, i can spend long periods of time to increase my probability of winning with zero risk.
The first step in tackling this situation is breaking the above relationship and having risk increase with time. Counter-intuitively, deepening the possibilities available for comeback (as long as these possibilities are inherently tied to skill) actually helps improve the quality of late gameplay.
2) Despite the good intentions of both teams, the game is at this stage stalemate. Usually a problem with low skill games where the offensive power of each team is too low to overcome the 'natural' defensive power floor (by floor i mean res independant) of the other team. This is where you lower the defensive floor by reducing things like spawn rates, alien lifeform skill floors, armoury armour healing etc. Reducing defensive floors does not solve situation 1), which is a behavioral based issue.
Independent of any defensive power floors, rfk acts by encouraging each team to think about what they're doing and do it both better and more efficiently, because of the opportunity to influence which way the rfk favours. Here, it's an additional dynamic to help tip the stalemated balance so to speak, that also maintains the relevancy of player action instead of die, spawn, zerg, die, spawn, zerg. Basically, for a balanced game to be fun, it by necessity has to be skill based (outcomes scale with skill). Balanced games that lack skill based mechanics produce the psychological problems outlined by the OP.
It's cute you're so blissfully unaware that your example was only slightly more plausible than mine. But it's nice to see you followed that up with a random tangential discussion about KDR's that has no merit to the discussion of RFK.
Say for example we're discussing RFK and I bring up how much I dislike the color of clogs. It's of equal relevance to RFK as KDR is. Your logic and comprehension of how the game works is weak so you rush into the thread and take fire from the posters. Fortunately you realize it's beneficial to run a distraction instead of just dying with your illogical shitspew so you made that reply.
RFK has a DIRECT impact on people wanting to sustain a good KDR.
At least the game is being improved, it might be slow, but any is better than none at all. Can't wait to see what is going to be thrown up in the big patch, but it should make things interesting either way.
Don't take a loss too hard, it's just a game, if you know your team has ask if anyone wants to vote concede, if they don't, don't take it so seriously and just use the rest of the time to improve your skills, win or lose.
Matches in this game are very short to mediocre length on average, if you can't go into a game and expect to have wasted half an hour then you need to play a different game. I used to play C&C Renegade, a very similar game as far as being an RTS FPS with two contrasting sides, matches in that often stretched into two or three hours. (Had one match last about thirteen hours, played four, got bored, went to sleep and woke up to find it still going, played another couple of hours before the server crashed from the load.)
People already had the same if not greater motivation to sustain a good KDR completely independent of RFK because that for all intensive purposes is the only way to get anything accomplished in ns2 especially with noRFD. (You either stay alive long enough to kill enough structures or you kill enough players to deny them the abilitity to be effective at doing the earlier to your team.)
So once again, discussion of players playing to improve or maintain KDR is completely irrelevant to the discussion of RFK belonging in the game or being appropriate for it because the motivation to maintain KDR is implicit in how the game functions independent of RFK or even noRFD.
People already had the same if not greater motivation to sustain a good KDR completely independent of RFK because that for all intensive purposes is the only way to get anything accomplished in ns2 especially with noRFD. (You either stay alive long enough to kill enough structures or you kill enough players to deny them the abilitity to be effective at doing the earlier to your team.)
So once again, discussion of players playing to improve or maintain KDR is completely irrelevant to the discussion of RFK belonging in the game or being appropriate for it.
RFK would put more of an emphasis on sustaining a positive KDR.
In a game like NS2 it is feasible to win, even if your team has a negative KDR overall.
Again, it's better to not die, but sometimes you have to literally take one for the team.
Your argument would work if there were no structures or other entities (of value) in the game besides players where the only thing players did was play a min/max game of deaths and kills.
But ns2 has more than just players as entities of value so your argument doesn't actually work or hold any value except in trivial scenarios where the res gained or lost from RFK is so extreme neither side will act.
I will grant you that it will make figuring out if dying to kill a structure or protect a team mate vs just killing a bunch of players a more complex situation, but RFK will not just flat out emphasize playing for a better KDR in ns2.
Your argument would work if there were no structures or other entities (of value) in the game besides players where the only thing players did was play a min/max game of deaths and kills.
But ns2 has more than just players as entities of value so your argument doesn't actually work or hold any value except in trivial scenarios where the res gained or lost from RFK is so extreme neither side will act.
Again, they had RFK in NS1.
It punished new players even more than they were already being punished(Being dead all the time sucks).
All RFK would do in NS2 is allow insanely good players access to even more powerful lifeforms earlier.
You see the snowball affect here, right?
Comments
Unless you want Fades and Onos kicking down your door before you have A1.
aliens controlling 7+ rts automatically causes all aliens to get enzyme until the team controls fwer than 7 rts.
get 7 rts, and your team is overwhelmingly powerful, the game will end very quickly, every one is happy.
Shocking.
It's cool though, they'll change everything in a couple of weeks just to make sure that the skills you worked so hard to finely hone mean nothing at all in the current build. Like, I don't know, completely change wall jumping yet again? Maybe turn the Shotgun into a fully automatic skulk gibber? Or give Onos a fully automatic nuke launcher?
Sure, seems legit.
I'm sure it definitely won't turn into one gigantic e-peen fest of people that feel that they suffered through hundreds of hours of NS2 to become good therefore they are the last savior of mankind and all should bow before them.
(Caution: This post may contain gross hyperbole. Read at your own caution!)
I didn't mind it so much in NS1 as with marines you had that 'last stand' feeling. but for some reason in ns2 its just really annoying as marines. As an alien team losing slowly i'd rather sit in the ready room. Luckily the vote concede button has fixed some of that, you can vote to concede and keep stuffing around in game until you either lose properly or everyone votes.
Fade needs acid rocket back imo
Hopefully there will be more game ending abilities with 3 hives.
edit: and perhaps - maybe the marines need a 3rd command station to get some really end game weaponry.
Don't get me wrong, I think it is great UWE are up and running as a company and have gotten NS2 out the door. But the major problems as I see it are:
- NS1 was a competitive game. NS2 is basically an NS1 clone but at an attempt to draw in a larger audience. It has done this, but instead of embracing what made NS1 competitive and building on it, they are at a middle ground that I don't think has hit the mark on either end of the spectrum. I am not saying it should have been NS1, but I think NS1 was so competitive that I think that NS2 speaks volumes about trying to achieve a broader market with a game that really was never about that. Look at the player base, like NS1, a small dedicated group of gamers playing week in week out. Same again here.
- There is nothing that new, or revolutionary about the game. UWE built this engine from scratch, and I can't begin to imagine how hard this has been. But think about the possibilities that FPS/RTS can bring. I think this has been under looked massively. We could have seen more world interaction by the commander, rooms could be more dynamic. Things like infestation are interesting, but really it is a 'cool factor' approach to game design. I don't think it has really added anything as such.
- Too much action, all of the time. This is the same in films as in games, if you don't have any contrast it becomes a little (hate to use the word) dull. The charm of NS1 was the link it had with the alien movies. I think it actually worked really well because of those moments of action and quiet. Marines ability to relocate anywhere also helped. I think it is far too easy to see what is going on across the map now, and they are too compact.
- More player interaction to achieve objectives. The internet is all about connecting people. This is probably a personal thing, but there is nothing more satisfying than sitting in a cockpit of a chopper in BF3 with your mate and talking through tactics that actually succeed. L4D really hit the nail on the head in this regard. Watch some DayZ videos by FrankieonPC and how he works with JackFrags to take people out. Personally I think this sort of communicative online teamplay to achieve goals could be a really unique path to go down.
- Performance and slow development, though they are an Indie developer. I've personally never had a go at UWE about this and i've been playing on a laptop at 20 fps or less.
I get what UWE are trying to do, and they have achieved it. They have earned enough to build up the company and it has obviously been a lot easier for them and safer for them to not stray too far from the original. Now this has been achieved, I'd love to see a new project building on this engine with a lot more ambition (I say this lightly because Charlie/Max/Cory/Team have pulled off A LOT, and building a company is impressive in anyone's books) and freedom in terms of what they could do.
There are a lot of really cool possibilities with this engine, but that is the sort of thing I'd like to see them do. Just brainstorm some crazy ideas and then come up with a new game based on some of the more practical ideas they come up with. I don't actually think cool ideas come from a visual idea, but more from looking at human behaviour and interaction. Not sure I could explain my thoughts.
Their next game will have to be something special and different from the mainstream anyway, because you just can't compete with the BF3's of this world. Whilst I know this is an FPS/RTS I hear you cry, really it is the FPS aspect that is the largest part of this game and unless the RTS aspect or other areas become deeper, you'll be fighting these big games for evermore. Minecraft is a positive example of stepping away like this.
I am sure there are other things I could write, but no one wants to read anymore than that. I'm not even going to get mixed up with people who think it is because weapon x was excluded, or y is not the same. I don't think they are at all close to what actually makes a good game.
I think adding anything that ends the game faster is just bad design. There should always be a way to come back.
Making comebacks too easy defeats the whole purpose of the game's RTS elements. How do you make map control and resources matter as much as they should if a team that is getting crushed can turn the game on its head at a moment's notice? It should be possible to come back, but only if you begin consistently outperforming the other team. Which you probably won't since they were beating you when it was a fair fight and now they have way more money and tech than you. Comebacks are overrated - the solution to conceding is to allow the game to end more quickly when one team is in a commanding lead.
Actual arguments for RFK, and how that logic against RFK is fallicious and ignorant of systems already in the game.
Ugh, anyway. I agree with the OPs point, in that playing a lost game is indeed painful. Heck, playing a won game of NS2 isn't enjoyable either.
I take it you didn't play NS1?
RFK didn't make NS1 better.
It did speed up the pace of the game though.
I dont think lerks have been changed yet? im sick of playing skulks for 15mins then going onos every game. boring....
Killing people and stuff is essentially the main motivation and purpose in the game believe it or not. Everything else you do is a means to that end. So why is adding another means like "rfk" going to change the goal, motivation, purpose, etc of the game.
now its about rts and not the CC/Hives.
I prefer the escape option mentioned earlier. The team that is winning now has to close the game before the other team can humiliatingly retreat/evacuate.
Well even playing support every marine can benefit from buying a full loadout every life. Worst case they can dump extra res on mines. Gorges also should have more res sinks in the next update. I don't think there's any lack of motivation to kill people as it is right now, you do it because it's fun and it wins you the game.
I never said there was a lack of motivation to kill players. But you claimed it would cause undesirable changes in motivations. So how could that change anyone's motivations in an undesirable way.
RFK wouldn't work in NS2, not without some serious changes.
The aliens have access to all of their goodies(sans upgrades) from the get go.
Marines have to tech up.
Even if the marines are trouncing the aliens early game, how are they going to get JP/Flamethrowers/GLs/Exos if the commander hasn't researched them?
Conversely, the aliens could feasibly go Fade/Onos before marines get armour 1.
Edit:
RFK would change the way the game is played.
There are already people worried about their KDR in NS2.
KDR isn't really all that important.
It's good to not die, but sometimes, dying can help your team.
Say for example, there's a Gorge/Lerk/Fade fighting marines, they're weak, you're a skulk, so you rush in to take the fire from the marines.
It's beneficial to run distraction, and die in that case.
Say for example we're discussing RFK and I bring up how much I dislike the color of clogs. It's of equal relevance to RFK as KDR is. Your logic and comprehension of how the game works is weak so you rush into the thread and take fire from the posters. Fortunately you realize it's beneficial to run a distraction instead of just dying with your illogical shitspew so you made that reply.
There are two late game situations that we must consider
1) The map control dominant team (eventual/apparent winner) does not push or make a concerted effort to finish the game over a long period.
2) The map control dominant team (eventual/apparent winner) cannot finish the game despite a concerted effort to finish the game over a long period.
How does RFK affect each situation?
1) RFK provides a means in equalising the ratio of pres incomes. Say without rfk the ratio is 10:2 (5) in terms of some standardised pres income power. With rfk it becomes say 11:3 (3.6). What this means is a tighter end game, and a tighter 'soft timelimit' that the dominant team has to win the game before it starts getting harder. This is the end game 'definition' i am talking about. If you know you are pretty much guaranteed to win, why bother to win quickly if you can extend the game for another 20 minutes at no risk in order to ensure your, say 80% win probability becomes closer to 100%?
As a quick example, here is a simplified marine commander decision.
I now have res domination over aliens, our team has enough pres for 2 exo's, if i send them in now they may possibly die and open up a counter-attack timing for aliens. Although it is extremely probable that the 2 exo's will be able to finish the game, why should i risk it when i can spend the next 20 minutes spamming sentries/armouries/CC's/phasegates etc. around every techpoint, build an unbeatuable arc army, and wait for everyone to be able to afford double exo? Basically, i can spend long periods of time to increase my probability of winning with zero risk.
"Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law
The first step in tackling this situation is breaking the above relationship and having risk increase with time. Counter-intuitively, deepening the possibilities available for comeback (as long as these possibilities are inherently tied to skill) actually helps improve the quality of late gameplay.
2) Despite the good intentions of both teams, the game is at this stage stalemate. Usually a problem with low skill games where the offensive power of each team is too low to overcome the 'natural' defensive power floor (by floor i mean res independant) of the other team. This is where you lower the defensive floor by reducing things like spawn rates, alien lifeform skill floors, armoury armour healing etc. Reducing defensive floors does not solve situation 1), which is a behavioral based issue.
Independent of any defensive power floors, rfk acts by encouraging each team to think about what they're doing and do it both better and more efficiently, because of the opportunity to influence which way the rfk favours. Here, it's an additional dynamic to help tip the stalemated balance so to speak, that also maintains the relevancy of player action instead of die, spawn, zerg, die, spawn, zerg. Basically, for a balanced game to be fun, it by necessity has to be skill based (outcomes scale with skill). Balanced games that lack skill based mechanics produce the psychological problems outlined by the OP.
RFK has a DIRECT impact on people wanting to sustain a good KDR.
Killing them = Res for me.
Dying = res for them.
Don't take a loss too hard, it's just a game, if you know your team has ask if anyone wants to vote concede, if they don't, don't take it so seriously and just use the rest of the time to improve your skills, win or lose.
Matches in this game are very short to mediocre length on average, if you can't go into a game and expect to have wasted half an hour then you need to play a different game. I used to play C&C Renegade, a very similar game as far as being an RTS FPS with two contrasting sides, matches in that often stretched into two or three hours. (Had one match last about thirteen hours, played four, got bored, went to sleep and woke up to find it still going, played another couple of hours before the server crashed from the load.)
"FUN" -DF
So once again, discussion of players playing to improve or maintain KDR is completely irrelevant to the discussion of RFK belonging in the game or being appropriate for it because the motivation to maintain KDR is implicit in how the game functions independent of RFK or even noRFD.
In a game like NS2 it is feasible to win, even if your team has a negative KDR overall.
Again, it's better to not die, but sometimes you have to literally take one for the team.
But ns2 has more than just players as entities of value so your argument doesn't actually work or hold any value except in trivial scenarios where the res gained or lost from RFK is so extreme neither side will act.
I will grant you that it will make figuring out if dying to kill a structure or protect a team mate vs just killing a bunch of players a more complex situation, but RFK will not just flat out emphasize playing for a better KDR in ns2.
Again, they had RFK in NS1.
It punished new players even more than they were already being punished(Being dead all the time sucks).
All RFK would do in NS2 is allow insanely good players access to even more powerful lifeforms earlier.
You see the snowball affect here, right?