After following this thread, reading and re-reading many posts, and digesting it as I play 20-man pub games every night...
I'm still not convinced there's even an issue here.
But I'm fully convinced that if there IS an issue, not a single person in this thread has come remotely close to a water-tight solution.
Exactly. BB rush is barely an issue, more so just a lack of awareness from the marines. Yet the changes that are being offered are insanely big, like literally changing the whole game. There are a lot of things higher of priority that should be changed in NS2 before this, to be honest. Maybe like how three skulks engaging one marine is barely in favor of the skulks...
One thing a winning team has that a losing team likely doesn't have is OLDER RTs. The winning team likely has a lot of RTs which have been up a while, the losing team is likely constantly losing and rebuilding RTs. Hence you can rebalance by making RTs stronger when new, and "age" to become less strong. Thus you simply reverse maturity for alien RTs (start strong and young, lose max HP over time), for marine RTs you can make them start with a 1-2 minute nano shield on construction and then lose it after that time.
This actually sounds like a really interesting idea...
There are a lot of things higher of priority that should be changed in NS2 before this, to be honest. Maybe like how three skulks engaging one marine is barely in favor of the skulks...
How can you say it is not in favour of the skulks? It is in favour of the skulks if they ambush a marine or bait the marine. It is in favour of the marine if he is in a very good position, like far away from the skulks and all skulks coming from one direction. This is not an issue at all, it's the melee vs range design...
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
edited May 2015
@nachos
If you cannot maintain a civil discussion without resorting to name calling and attacks, (regardless of whatever justification you think you may have) do not post - that is not a request.
I have to be honest, I have been using you to draw out counter arguments because you are quite capable of debating the nuances of interdependent mechanics. However you are failing to elaborate on the finest details, the meat and potatoes of the discussion imo, and instead consistently responding by "Begging the question" with forgone conclusions, which has resulted in me repeating my points again and again in an attempt for you to break it down. (also you are misunderstanding me quite a bit sometimes, like how I was speaking about everything else besides the meta when it comes to playercount differences)
I'd like to finally nail that portion to the ground to be done with our discussion and forgo dancing around all the external points like whether you agree with a high frequency of demotivation to continue a round or presuming I am inferring your level of experience in pub games etc. etc.
HOWEVER, making a comeback mechanic similar to GT BB rush for the sake of devastating a teams base is just dumb for all the reasons previously stated.
I've taken the grueling time to review all of your posts in this thread - I do not see you actually breaking down the reasons as you said you have. If anything, they've been left at superficially shallow dismissals such as "cheap", "byproduct", or "undeserved". This is not sufficient as you have never said why or how.
And when I attempt to draw that out from you by bringing up the pro's such as how said mechanics can lead to enjoyment through variation for lesser skilled games, (something that is needed for players who have difficulty with the meta) you respond with anger, hyperboles, and putting words in my mouth such as "everyone's a winner" - points I have not made.
Oh yeah because in your view those people whom take time to think about what they do and what they should do and appreciate the meta for what it is should have just as much fun as those who join a server and press W + left mouse button 1. Forget the beauty of strategy and the complexity of the game that could be explored, lets just make it easy for everyone to get that victory logo.
Should every player regardless of skill and hours played have just as much fun in NS2? Yes. Do you honestly advocate for newer players / lesser skilled to not enjoy NS2 by design??..
Should strategy and skill matter in the game? Of course they should, I have said this again and again, please cease the hyperbole.
Should there be only a couple strategies and skillsets that matter? No... for the reasons I have clearly listed in the other 5 posts, to include hypothetical examples.
Others have recognized how BB is "not a problem" in this thread... If a team wins by utilizing it, it was because the other team made a stupid mistake. How can it be simultaneously not a problem and also a horrid mechanic to model after?
A team could have made a hundred other mistakes that also led to their loss - and those are equally valid to exploit - mistakes that occurred only because they were unable to adapt to a strategy / not employ a certain skillset (like situational awareness) beyond the basic meta.
Can you honestly not find value in multiple methods of strategy and skill sets, especially in lesser skilled games where they are more predominantly used precisely because they have not mastered the meta at 20 hours in?
Why value the meta in such a way that would relegate all other strategies and skills to be useless, essentially making the meta the only means for victory regardless of mistakes made and inadequacies in other areas?
We need to account for the floor, to some degree, no matter how poor our data set is we need to at least attempt to diagnose and address instead of simply dismissing.
Everyone has the ability to position themselves properly, look at the map and read it the same, and make the right decisions.
And how well did that work out after years of that sticking to that mentality? Please don't respond with current anecdotal experiences again considering the playercount of 200 players, instead asses the entirety of ~3 years worth of pub games.
Allowing other mechanics to upset the success of strictly following the meta game allows for more variety (and thus enjoyment) in lesser skilled environments.
@meatmachine and @unrendered There isn't necessarily a high priority issue at hand, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement to make pub games more enjoyable.
While I would argue that conceding is a necessary feature of the game, I do believe it's necessity and high frequency of use is evidence of an issue in design - and if you disagree : So long as the victor is determined from utilization of strategies and skills, why is a game that is engaging, fun and worth fighting for to the bitter end a poor design? (again, it does not necessarily have to be from playing the meta)
@nemo I like the idea, but what's to prevent early game over expansion from being OP? For instance, at the start of a round dropping as many RTs as possible to secure a fortified early game RT count before they become weak? As the expanding team, you wouldn't have to be concerned with defending your RTs - so I suppose as long as the rate of expansion was evenly matched between teams (difficult both due to maps and playercounts) it might become a fun race?.. idk.. going to think about this.
instead asses the entirety of ~3 years worth of pub games.
Allowing other mechanics to upset the success of strictly following the meta game allows for more variety (and thus enjoyment) in lesser skilled environments.
This is a big part of why I keep saying to remove cysting and power requirements from building and using them in other more creative ways
There are a lot of things higher of priority that should be changed in NS2 before this, to be honest. Maybe like how three skulks engaging one marine is barely in favor of the skulks...
How can you say it is not in favour of the skulks? It is in favour of the skulks if they ambush a marine or bait the marine. It is in favour of the marine if he is in a very good position, like far away from the skulks and all skulks coming from one direction. This is not an issue at all, it's the melee vs range design...
I also like the idea of rts aging.
Ok, it was definitely badly worded, I'll give you that. But I do not think that vanilla skulk vs vanilla marine as a whole is as balanced as it could be. Even if you do a perfect ambush 1v1 you can still lose if the marine reacts fast and gets medspam (very likely because medpacks are virtually free).
There are a lot of things higher of priority that should be changed in NS2 before this, to be honest. Maybe like how three skulks engaging one marine is barely in favor of the skulks...
How can you say it is not in favour of the skulks? It is in favour of the skulks if they ambush a marine or bait the marine. It is in favour of the marine if he is in a very good position, like far away from the skulks and all skulks coming from one direction. This is not an issue at all, it's the melee vs range design...
I also like the idea of rts aging.
Ok, it was definitely badly worded, I'll give you that. But I do not think that vanilla skulk vs vanilla marine as a whole is as balanced as it could be. Even if you do a perfect ambush 1v1 you can still lose if the marine reacts fast and gets medspam (very likely because medpacks are virtually free).
Skulk is supposed to lose. In 1v1 it's not supposed to be balanced. That being said, it's pretty damn balanced. If anything I want more power given to marine strafing acceleration to make them even stronger here.
@IronHorse you pretty much nailed what I was going to respond with.
The idea would be that the buff would be roughly equal, even at the start. Normally the main concern is with rapid alien expansion which is currently handled with the maturity mechanic, however under this system I would be more worried for aliens as they are susceptible to the marines cutting the cyst chain.
Normally the continuing priority of a game is to attack the enemies economy, this would be marginally muted in the first couple minutes (as all RTs would be under the "new" condition). I think this would be beneficial to newer players, from a good enemy player attacking natural RTs within the first minute being less effective, to the odd person that's been AFK for the first couple minutes impacting a bit less.
I would imagine within 2 minutes of an RT being built it would have reverted to normal state anyway, so from that point on its a mostly typical game.
It gives a few beneficial conditions in a scenario discussed in this thread.
1. A Team is stuck in their base
A team pinned in their base (with no naturals built), might be able to get an RT up for a few moments right now, but they get pushed back into base and lose it almost right away. That brand new RT will now take a bit longer for the enemy to destroy, increasing the chances of saving it. It also delays the enemy from immediately pushing into the base.
If the previously stuck team does manage to push out then the enemy RTs are weaker than their own (theirs are under the new condition still, while the enemy RTs are likely passed that now). So they have a real opportunity to push back into the game. Note this doesn't entirely undermine the enemies hard worked for advantage as that advantage has already paid dividends in more res to spend on upgrades/ more pres.
2. A perfectly even normal match
The better team still wins, as nothing about a brand new RT being buffed would cause the winning team to lose out. This is because for the enemy to need to rebuild an RT you would have had to destroy it, which is still a good outcome. If the enemy has mostly buffed RTs then you are winning as it means every RT had to be recently built (with the associated cost to res, the cost to player positioning and the lack of distraction causing attacking). The fact the winning teams RTs aren't buffed isn't a disadvantage since the res gained from an RT being up that long (without needing replacing) far outweighs the disadvantage by orders of magnitude.
This also introduces a new skill meta for the more advanced players. Typically picking which enemy RT to attack is fairly easy, you normally attack the one that's furthest from any enemies to increase your chances of getting it down in time. Now there would also be another reason to attack an RT a bit deeper in enemy territory as it'll be weaker. Which is a great tactic for forcing the enemy to retreat into their own territory and is a natural counter for lane blocking. It also increases the emphasis on scouting, as you want to know if an RT is still in its buffed state or not. In this way good tactics become more emergent from normal game-play.
Skulk is supposed to lose. In 1v1 it's not supposed to be balanced. That being said, it's pretty damn balanced. If anything I want more power given to marine strafing acceleration to make them even stronger here.
Yes, it SHOULD naturally be a little in favor of the range side, but I'm afraid in NS2 it's a bit too one sided. The skulk is so fat and has such a slow strafe acceleration speed that if the marine can aim, you lose guaranteed. Almost no tres damage done either.
If we want to reach the much talked about ~50/50 team balance, I think you should first alter the very root of the game; skulk vs rifle. Only then changing structure costs, lifeform timings etc. becomes more apparent.
Skulk is supposed to lose. In 1v1 it's not supposed to be balanced. That being said, it's pretty damn balanced. If anything I want more power given to marine strafing acceleration to make them even stronger here.
yes, it SHOULD naturally be a little in favor of the range side, but I'm afraid in NS2 it's a bit too one sided. the skulk is so fat and has such a slow strafe acceleration speed that if the marine can aim you lose guaranteed. Almost no tres damage done either.
If we want to reach the much talked about ~50/50 team balance I think you should first alter the very root of the game; skulk vs rifle.
I don't care about 50/50 at all, that changes too much with maps. I just want it to be a fun uphill battle for the team that has a 40% win-rate on a given map. Not boring and repetitive.
Want to bring the game back to 50/50 for now where aliens have the higher rate? Stop giving people res when dead.
HOWEVER, making a comeback mechanic similar to GT BB rush for the sake of devastating a teams base is just dumb for all the reasons previously stated.
I've taken the grueling time to review all of your posts in this thread - I do not see you actually breaking down the reasons as you said you have. If anything, they've been left at superficially shallow dismissals such as "cheap", "byproduct", or "undeserved". This is not sufficient as you have never said why or how.
I feel no enjoyment winning a game due to such a rush (because I know it was lost and the other team simply played better) and it feels even worse to be on the winning marine team (who maybe fought a hard way trapping and killing lifeforms to reach that advantages) and lose within seconds because a single player slept.
Lost the meat of the game, now rushing just for win, not for fun. Because winning =/= fun.
IMO (and it's probably different to Anzestral's) it's not an accumulation of good plays by the aliens to come back through fair mechanics to overcome the skill of the marines, but a cheap mechanic easy to abuse marine mistakes.
Accumulation of good plays, not flipping the board is what makes comeback mechanics fun. Overcoming adversity through hard work is fun > simple coordination to get in a tunnel.
You can grind a win away as marines and be in a position to kill the game off through 10-15 minutes of hard work, and then a gorge rush happens. Doesn't mean alien team had better teamwork or map awareness in total, just for those last few minutes.
And no one is disputing that that is not a valid win for aliens, Anzestral was just saying how cheap, boring it is for aliens and how frustrating it is to be a marine playing with other incompetent people.
Cheap and boring are antonyms of fun. We're trying to make a game fun by introducing comeback mechanics for marines, they should NOT be on the same level as GT BB rush.
Oh yeah because in your view those people whom take time to think about what they do and what they should do and appreciate the meta for what it is should have just as much fun as those who join a server and press W + left mouse button 1. Forget the beauty of strategy and the complexity of the game that could be explored, lets just make it easy for everyone to get that victory logo.
Should every player regardless of skill and hours played have just as much fun in NS2? Yes. Do you honestly advocate for newer players / lesser skilled to not enjoy NS2 by design??..
Should strategy and skill matter in the game? Of course they should, I have said this again and again, please cease the hyperbole.
Should there be only a couple strategies and skillsets that matter? No... for the reasons I have clearly listed in the other 5 posts, to include hypothetical examples.
I believe people are enticed and have fun by the nature of the game and simply fragging. When people get frustrated by the meta of the game they should look to embrace it and learn it because it is mostly balanced at all levels. New players for the most part just focus on getting to grips with lifeforms, tracking, and the maps. When they grasp these concepts they then begin to appreciate the greater picture of things and naturally become frustrated with the meta because it is so hard to pull everything together and make sense of how each facet of the game works in tandem with each other. That does not mean that you should add a simple "get out of jail free card" to flip a game over with little effort. So I advocate for people to embrace the challenges and enjoy the learning process instead of winning at all costs. Those who would not enjoy the process would rather a more simple game, and frankly I wouldn't want those people in the community even if it meant higher numbers and greater popularity of NS2.
I applaud the attitude of the many public players who taunt me and take pride in their victories, be it in engagements or the round in general. I love seeing their satisfaction and thrive off of it myself. People should be proud of how they overcome the challenges NS2 provides them. Working with strangers to beat the finnish stack or to get one over on my teammates provides entertainment through individual plays people make, not the overall outcome of a game. There are many times, when people try and communicate, where everyone is proud of their efforts despite a loss because they made good plays but the other team made better. Mechanics that encourage consistent plays of ability greater than that of the opposition team should always take precedent over an all-in. All-in's are really not that fun.
Others have recognized how BB is "not a problem" in this thread... If a team wins by utilizing it, it was because the other team made a stupid mistake. How can it be simultaneously not a problem and also a horrid mechanic to model after?
GT BB rush is an unfortunate byproduct of two otherwise independently good mechanics. It is not a problem because it is easy to scout to prevent and easy to react to. It is a bad mechanic to want though because it uses such low tech to beat such a high tech and apparently skilled team through one small blip in concentration. The whole table-flip analogy seems perfectly adapt.
T1 tech vs T1 tech balanced
T1 tech vs T2 tech should be in slight favour of T2 but provide opportunities for T1 to get to T2.
T1 tech vs T3 tech should be virtually impossible to comeback from because the T3 tech'd team is stronger, unless ofc the T1 team starts playing exceptionally well in skill to be able to get T2.
T2 vs T2 should be balanced
T2 tech vs T3 tech should provide opportunities for comeback
T3 tech vs T3 tech should be balanced.
You yourself advocates for seeing more lategame tech, and yet you're happy with allowing early game tech to wreck havoc. But bilebomb shouldn't be any later than biomass 3 because ARCs. Perhaps gorgetunnels could work at biomass 4 but often you need them to get the 2nd hive and tech up.
A team could have made a hundred other mistakes that also led to their loss - and those are equally valid to exploit - mistakes that occurred only because they were unable to adapt to a strategy / not employ a certain skillset (like situational awareness) beyond the basic meta.
Equally valid to exploit in proportion to their reward. Skipping through marines in hub to bite RTs through south tunnels is frustrating and damaging to the marine's economy and perhaps a PG strong point, but that one player does not have the capability to flip the table. (Disproportionate damage to the mistake exploited).
Everyone has the ability to position themselves properly, look at the map and read it the same, and make the right decisions.
And how well did that work out after years of that sticking to that mentality? Please don't respond with current anecdotal experiences again considering the playercount of 200 players, instead asses the entirety of ~3 years worth of pub games.
Player count went down.
Game quality went up.
Player quality went up.
Game enjoyment increased.
I can't possible express the last 3 statements in a non-subjective way.
Allowing other mechanics to upset the success of strictly following the meta game allows for more variety (and thus enjoyment) in lesser skilled environments.
Upsetting the success of following the meta is by definition adding randomness to the game. Changing the meta so there are more varied responses (but there must be additions to both sides at the same time) is indeed a good thing. I'm not saying don't change the meta, I'm just saying don't ruin the meta by basing more features around unfortunately bad mechanics. If you suggest good changes I'm sure I could support them, I'm not all anti-change and l2p, I just think that you shouldn't cater a solution to a non-issue or an issue that is only apparent when playing with or against bad people.
One think I'd like to add is that lesser skilled =/= bad players in my opinion. Lesser skilled means aims/reflexes. Bad players means dumb players who refuse to coordinate with the team, communicate, make bad decisions, and give a net decrease in value to a team. I think bad players should L2P and you shouldn't change the game around them, I think lesser skilled players should have more opportunities to impact a game.
One thing a winning team has that a losing team likely doesn't have is OLDER RTs. The winning team likely has a lot of RTs which have been up a while, the losing team is likely constantly losing and rebuilding RTs. Hence you can rebalance by making RTs stronger when new, and "age" to become less strong. Thus you simply reverse maturity for alien RTs (start strong and young, lose max HP over time), for marine RTs you can make them start with a 1-2 minute nano shield on construction and then lose it after that time.
This actually sounds like a really interesting idea...
@nemo I like the idea, but what's to prevent early game over expansion from being OP? For instance, at the start of a round dropping as many RTs as possible to secure a fortified early game RT count before they become weak? As the expanding team, you wouldn't have to be concerned with defending your RTs - so I suppose as long as the rate of expansion was evenly matched between teams (difficult both due to maps and playercounts) it might become a fun race?.. idk.. going to think about this.
If I take nachos saying it is "interesting" as a positive, or more a non negative, then ironhorse and nachos seem to agree on this one point. I am sure we all agree that the idea needs fleshed out more, but it is an interesting idea and what I was hoping this thread would turn into. Maybe just maybe there is middle ground here.
I personally think something needs to change to make the game have better player retention and be more "learn-able." I do not know what that change would be. It could be added mechanics on not. I have seen a lot of comments regarding the economy in here as a key point of change. Maybe the discussion could focus a bit more on what could change about the economy.
Most games with a snowballing mechanic balance it out by making it so that every advantage picks up a disadvantage too.
The most common is that by expanding your territory you spread your numbers thinner and become more open to counter attack. However lane blocking is relatively easy in NS2, to the point were you can have most of the map, be on the offensive, and also block lanes all at the same time.
Aliens have tunnels and vents to help, as well as raw speed. Marines have phase gates, both teams have the ability to spawn at multiple locations (if they have invested in multiple bases).
A skulk pushing through the lines only really has the option of biting RTs, a risky base attack, or evolving and doing a tunnel + bile rush. A marine breaking through the lines can attack an RT or set up a PG.
In order to balance this you need to increase the reward for breaking through the lines, or to reduce how much it costs you to be the "stalled" team. You do this by looking at things a winning team has, that a losing team does not have.
One thing a winning team has that a losing team likely doesn't have is OLDER RTs. The winning team likely has a lot of RTs which have been up a while, the losing team is likely constantly losing and rebuilding RTs. Hence you can rebalance by making RTs stronger when new, and "age" to become less strong. Thus you simply reverse maturity for alien RTs (start strong and young, lose max HP over time), for marine RTs you can make them start with a 1-2 minute nano shield on construction and then lose it after that time.
The result is that when you break through the lines of the stronger team and bite/shoot RTs its more effective than before. It also motivates players to sneak through deeper into enemy territory (to attack the easier to kill, older RTs) and thus disrupt the lane blocking by making enemies fall back. This adds real cost to taking lots of territory. Marines pushed back into base have a real chance of getting their naturals back up, as a brand new RT is a lot stronger so the trickle of reinforcements has a chance. The start of the game becomes friendlier too, the couple of pro players who instantly run to the enemy naturals will have a harder time of making the game a lost cause within the first minute.
I prefer the Spore/Cyst as it would require less changes in the economy speed (on alien side). As the ultimate balance can't be reached in a single stroke; it would be better not to make big changes. Step by step is better IMO.
The good thing with Spore/Cyst is that if the khammander wants to protect older RTs he would add some more cyst to 'refresh'. So it's still an investment. The Cyst principle stays the same. No chain, no money.
Your idea would require to slow down the alien economy far more as :
(you saw that too but more incoming)
-Few harvesters kills means Lerk fade and onos are out sooner. It may be a little problem. Dev would nerf higher life forms (speed or lifepoints). But it would still be unforgiving and take time to balance.
So the price has to change too. Whatever it's a "re-buy for a cheaper price" fashion (less unforginving) or "higher price for the same" (but weaker). It may be hard to fine tune. Rookies would suffer the same issue in mid game i presume.
Or alien would make a second hive with full protection (crag, shift, shade, whip). It would delay too much fade as they would wait for biomass to be up to an appropriate level.
-About the Race syndrome : If i had that i would invest in Shift, some Crags, a gorge in the hive and use Echo at will. The thing is, it would lock alien in one plan (shift) to be the fastest. Not only on the field but also on RTs and RES income. The alien would always have a second hive. It's not bad in itself but it doesn't provide the same advantage for marine. Then the marines are late for good this time.
And :
-The cyst will be attacked non the less. The Cyst chain can still be broken without any counter part. So even if the RT is claimed and up there would be the "Pro" doing their stuff. If they can't kill the RT right away, they would cut the Cyst. On the other hand Spore/Cyst would force them to be far away to at least cut the chain (ranged weapon + ammo pack) or to attack the RT. Also the Kham can reCyst on purpose (héhé) or hide the cyst in specific angles. Also 3 guys can be 'spore-ed', etc...
It's not that i don't like the idea. In fact i like the idea to protect the Havesters (which i didn't suggested) along with making the Cyst 'retaliate'. But i would be cautious about the magnitude of such change. Even for what i suggest which i think to be of minimal impact on the game mechanics.
Lost the meat of the game, now rushing just for win, not for fun. Because winning =/= fun.
While this is a good point, I think this it is very subjective and does not reflect the attitude I most often hear in NA pubs..
I get your point, in that it's more rewarding to win from hard effort than exploiting a flaw, but imo it's the lesser evil compared to a (i know you hate this phrase) predictable outcome.
If I polled this question in a pub game of what the losing team would want : a win or the predictable loss... I am 90% certain the results would be "a win", resoundingly so.
This is well, because winning IS in fact fun, especially when it was not likely.. and even if you know the other team "deserved" it, because you still bested them at something after failing at the meta game. It's a consolation prize, I suppose, but it still is more "fun" than losing in a game already lost with no hope.
So I advocate for people to embrace the challenges and enjoy the learning process instead of winning at all costs. Those who would not enjoy the process would rather a more simple game, and frankly I wouldn't want those people in the community even if it meant higher numbers and greater popularity of NS2.
If "the process" is hundreds of hours of frustrating games that weren't worth your time, due to being demoralizing and leaving a poor taste in your mouth thanks to the average team not able to get beyond just tracking and fragging (I.e. not "embracing" the meta game) ... I say no thank you to such a design. It's wholly unwelcoming and essentially requires a masochist in order to maybe one day enjoy.
I know you believe in an accessible game, (meaning fun from the start) so why advocate for unnecessary hurdles for those without hundreds of hours under their belt?
It doesn't have to be that way, and who knows after all this economy discussion maybe there's a way without having to rely on a table-flip foo mechanic like we've been talking about.
For the record, I loathe foo mechanics.. I consider them to be indicative of poor fundamental design.
A proper design would foster a new player to intuitively learn mechanics at a fast rate, while still having an impact / being fun to play. This creates a narrow skill gap for the meta.
The issue with such a design is that it too often results in a "if everybody is special then no one is" low skill ceiling, where the only place skill can be expressed ends up being in the micro and is unimpactful. The other typical outcome is the game must be so incredibly simple that any layman can absorb it... which can be fine for some games where the point of the game isn't the goal but everything in between, and thus can afford to be simple in design, much like CS.
Would you not want those who enjoy a simple game like CS in our NS2 community? (troll question, don't answer was just meant to invoke a comparison in design)
Equally valid to exploit in proportion to their reward. Skipping through marines in hub to bite RTs through south tunnels is frustrating and damaging to the marine's economy and perhaps a PG strong point, but that one player does not have the capability to flip the table. (Disproportionate damage to the mistake exploited).
Succinctly put! I think that part in parenthesis sums up your gripe with BB perfectly.... and I actually agree with your gripe in that regard.
Which brings me to question whether there are enough vulnerabilities present for either team?
I can understand that some people such as yourself may not find value in upsetting the meta for the lesser skilled, especially when it's so disproportionate - so what about changing the meta as you proposed?
It could achieve the same goal without the downside of an "unfair" perception. But it would have to be accessible, still, something that could still be attained by a losing team.
Which brings me to this gem..
@nemo had a really good point about this that we both agreed on :
Most games with a snowballing mechanic balance it out by making it so that every advantage picks up a disadvantage too. The most common is that by expanding your territory you spread your numbers thinner and become more open to counter attack. However lane blocking is relatively easy in NS2, to the point were you can have most of the map, be on the offensive, and also block lanes all at the same time.
Lost the meat of the game, now rushing just for win, not for fun. Because winning =/= fun.
While this is a good point, I think this it is very subjective and does not reflect the attitude I most often hear in NA pubs..
Unfortunately subjectivity is what we're dealing with here when we're talking about implementing a range of comeback mechanics with different modes of action. What type of comeback mechanic is more fun; is what we're currently debating when talking about GT BB rush. It's a bad example because it's not as fun as other comeback mechanics and of course that's a subjective point. I'd argue this is one occasion to convince people to change their attitude rather than conforming to it.
I get your point, in that it's more rewarding to win from hard effort than exploiting a flaw, but imo it's the lesser evil compared to a (i know you hate this phrase) predictable outcome.
The hive system does not benefit from upsetting "predictable outcomes" from single blip moments in games allowing a table-flip. The GT BB rush team will gain skill points but will more than likely get crushed time and time again because instead of being consistently good throughout the game and more skilled, and so more likely to win a game (indicated by having a higher skill point), they won through a BB rush exploiting one single moment. Winning =/= fun, =/= skill, =/= future balance wins and good games due to narrow skill disparity between players. If you encourage more of these mechanics, more games will be based actually around the "predictable play" of a GT BB rush or marine equivalent, actually leading to a DECREASE in qualities of games.
If I polled this question in a pub game of what the losing team would want : a win or the predictable loss... I am 90% certain the results would be "a win", resoundingly so.
Probably because this is a heavily loaded question...
I think at this point you really need to define when exactly a loss becomes predictable; frankly a massive undertaking considering all the variable factors (thus a game never really having a predictable outcome unless you're fairly narrow minded or misunderstand the meta).
Also I'd once again argue that most players are yet to understand basic RTS elements like trading. It's one thing to make poor decisions and lose from it, it's another to just not understand your own decisions. I think most players fall into the latter category, but that's not to say those that do understand can't communicate and fix these issues; Sometimes you get the "forget nano go base rush" which is a trade in itself (although probably a poor decision). So those that don't understand these basic elements probably aren't eligible to participate in that survey you propose because then the game would be conforming to non-understanding players instead of skilled players of all skill ranges from the floor to the ceiling. When I say skilled in this context, I am placing a lot more weight on the ability to understand the aspects of the game that everyone has access too like positioning (micro and macro), and decision making; and less on aim/reflexes.
Much like how combat got balanced to the "general mindset" instead of for the top (and was subsequently awful).
This is well, because winning IS in fact fun... because you still bested them at something after failing at the meta game.
I can see the merit in this, however I believe that this is the greater of two evils because the marines who did so well all game threw it away in one moment which is MORE unenjoyable than enjoyable for the (parts of) the alien team. Reread anzestrals posts on the first page and also my sword of Damocles analogy.
So I advocate for people to embrace the challenges and enjoy the learning process instead of winning at all costs. Those who would not enjoy the process would rather a more simple game, and frankly I wouldn't want those people in the community even if it meant higher numbers and greater popularity of NS2.
If "the process" is hundreds of hours of frustrating games that weren't worth your time, due to being demoralizing and leaving a poor taste in your mouth thanks to the average team not able to get beyond just tracking and fragging (I.e. not "embracing" the meta game) ... I say no thank you to such a design. It's wholly unwelcoming and essentially requires a masochist in order to maybe one day enjoy.
Of course which is why you balance for skill disparities with rookie servers and FET. You also allow things easy to learn and hard to masters. You can encourage lesser skilled players to be useful by doing easy things like res biting or bile bombing, but to encourage fundamentally game changing moments with such ease is a mistake.
I know you believe in an accessible game, (meaning fun from the start) so why advocate for unnecessary hurdles for those without hundreds of hours under their belt?
New players can be useful and have fun simply by shooting/biting stuff.
Simple things like understanding how economies work and how they support both teams are not unnecessary hurdles in my opinion, and learning to be the most effective and efficient at manipulating the economies for both teams is the learning curve in this game and is the beauty of this game. In my competitive team I focus most of my efforts on manipulating skulks to attack targets that I can then easily defend. In public I often get people complaining that I appear to be all over the map at the same time. These are not things people can be naturally good at like aim/reflexes, these are skills that require brains and when I get ambushed or denied by other players employing similar methods, I applaud them.
When people don't take time to think, get outbrained and then complain, I have little sympathy for them.
If an onos runs into hub on his own vs a pg with 5 marines in it and dies, I have no sympathy for when he makes the exact same mistake next game.
When skulks run straightline into ore processing from a warehouse spawn and die 2-3 times in a row letting the major expansion route from north tunnels --> mezzanine die, I have no sympathy.
When people make the same basic mistakes and then place the whole blame on the opposition or game balance and at the same time see one of their teammates doing very well, how can you do anything to make those dumb (not lesser-skilled) players better without making the higher-skilled players even better?
This is why I advocate for meta changes or more varied strategies which make sense in terms of balance and challenge in proportion to their efficacy. NOT just changes for the sake of making a game "more unpredictable" and last minute saving graces for 15-20 minutes worth of dribble. Make it for lesser skilled players to be more effective, NOT dumb players.
Although I do argue that there is enough impact lesser skilled (aim/reflexes) can have on a game and that is res biting as aliens or expansion gorge tunnels and for marines; building / mines / solo scout play.
If anything, the economy change suggested actually adds hurdles to this aspect of the game because it would be more complicated.
Equally valid to exploit in proportion to their reward. Skipping through marines in hub to bite RTs through south tunnels is frustrating and damaging to the marine's economy and perhaps a PG strong point, but that one player does not have the capability to flip the table. (Disproportionate damage to the mistake exploited).
Succinctly put! I think that part in parenthesis sums up your gripe with BB perfectly.... and I actually agree with your gripe in that regard.
Which brings me to question whether there are enough vulnerabilities present for either team?
Yes but why shouldn't there be more? This does not mean that you should base any future vulnerabilities on hail-mary tactics.
I can understand that some people such as yourself may not find value in upsetting the meta for the lesser skilled, especially when it's so disproportionate - so what about changing the meta as you proposed?
It could achieve the same goal without the downside of an "unfair" perception. But it would have to be accessible, still, something that could still be attained by a losing team.
The problem with changing the meta or producing more vulnerabilities which are balanced is threefold.
1) Theory
2) Testing
3) Implementation
Most games with a snowballing mechanic balance it out by making it so that every advantage picks up a disadvantage too. The most common is that by expanding your territory you spread your numbers thinner and become more open to counter attack. However lane blocking is relatively easy in NS2, to the point were you can have most of the map, be on the offensive, and also block lanes all at the same time.
Actually the closer to the middle of the map you get the harder it becomes to hold ground.
If marines hold all three lateral tech points in summit, there are vents in summit reception and the crevasse in maintenance/cross/glass hallway to get behind is one example.
This leads to a concentration in aliens to one side to ensure a 2nd TP and because it's actually just stronger because of routes to res bite and fewer marines to encounter. If you like it's a wheeling mechanic much like (in appearance) a scrum in rugby.
Only when you sit on a natural and hold the tech point on the opposite side are marines often in a position to shut out aliens and snowball into a "predictable outcome". But this is probably due to inappropriate response by the aliens in the first place and can still be broken by exceptional play there after. There is a degree in randomness to a "predictable outcome" due to player skill and at how inconsistent it can be per player throughout a game.
If your ENTIRE team over-extends and doesnt have the ability to press the map button, see that there are areas that are not covered, and anticipate a sneaky rush, that is not 'one little lapse of concentration', that is team-wide ignorance.
If a skulk gets through the lines and you dont see an RT flash red, you damn well call it and make sure someone responds; whether by face-checking or with a commander scan.
If you plan to extend your offense into a hive, you simply have to do these checks to make sure you're not going to be trading something valuable.
"Where are all the aliens? Well, we have an entire maps worth of res, lets invest a bit into scans to make sure we dont lose everything"
This is really basic stuff.
And even if you completely fail to have any kind of map awareness, marine comm can STILL teleport the entire marine team into the base.
Remember what happenned before gorge tunnels? People just egg for gorge near to a marine base and rush like that instead.
All gorge tunnels mean is that only one player needs to sneak out rather than, say, 2 or 3 (which is really all you need for a sneak BB rush to have a chance at being effective), with the caveat that a player either went gorge and lost it earlier on, or has enough res to go gorge, place a tunnel in base, DIE without the marine team becoming suspicious, sneak out and then evolve gorge and place the tunnel without being found, which again takes time.
So many people here painting BB rush as something that requires little effort and always succeeds.
Indeed, in the time I spend playing I certainly dont see a majority of BB rushes end successfully, or even with an alien win.
I can tell you that within just a couple of games of commanding marines, reaching mid/late game with a huge advantage and losing everything because I was not vigilant enough to anticipate a tunnel rush, I realised that there is a point in the game where you need to start being really paranoid. With a bit more time, that paranoia gives rise to the awareness required to think one step ahead of derpy alien pub teams.
"why havent they conceded yet? Where are they all? Do you think they might try and get a tunnel up near our base? Is the tunnel in their base open? HMMMMMMMM"
Even if you're on the push team, as long as you're within a few meters of your PG to main as you should be, you just step through the PG and shoot the slowest moving life form in the game.
this is entirely L2P... Maybe a year ago this thread would have only reached a couple of pages before being shot down (and I believe rightly so).
And since it's L2P, the solution is once again DUN DUN DUNNNNN Education. Oh my gawd please, tutorials.
Whats next? A thread complaining about how marine jumping is totally OP and makes them invincible in 100% of situations? Aye carumba.
BUT OH WAIT. The OP wasnt even about tunnels or bile rushes being a problem, it was about how there is no equivalent weapon for the marines to use, or rather that the equivalent tech is much harder to use for marines.
And I'm sorry, but the reason for this is simple- aliens are faster in general and therefore rely much less on tunnels throughout the entire game, therefore are going to be skipping over less rooms as they get from spawn to the frontlines. Therefore they find 'sneaky but not sneaky enough' marines at a greater frequency.
But the thing is, is that marine comebacks this way CAN and DO happen, they're just a bit harder to pull off. Provided you have some base defense, you can kill a hive, take the techpoint via the PG you just used, and work your way through each of the hives like this. You know, killing hives, the thing that your shitty team should have done back when you had W2A2 shotguns and fades werent even up yet.
Ergo; marines dont know how to defend, marines dont know how to capitalise on the multiple advantages they get throughout the game, aliens and marines dont play the game to the same tune.
TL;DR - Asymmetry. It absolutely baffles me that people with any experience with the game would complain about such a fundamental aspect of NS2.
My fix is to make all alien lifeforms twice as big, half as fast and twice as horny. Make it so gorge tunnels can be placed by the alien comm and teleport aliens instantly to the other side. That seems to be what you're piping for here. /sarcasm
/rant
/workplace procrastination
This is well, because winning IS in fact fun... because you still bested them at something after failing at the meta game.
I can see the merit in this, however I believe that this is the greater of two evils because the marines who did so well all game threw it away in one moment which is MORE unenjoyable than enjoyable for the (parts of) the alien team. Reread anzestrals posts on the first page and also my sword of Damocles analogy.
My point was actually, that "the marines who did so well all game" often "threw it away in one moment" due to one or two single marine players (and/or the commander) who made a crucial mistake or a bad decision and let the rush happen. These players might have not done well at all most of the game and might have been carried by players who played a very good game but still get punished by losing within seconds.
A team could have made a hundred other mistakes that also led to their loss - and those are equally valid to exploit - mistakes that occurred only because they were unable to adapt to a strategy / not employ a certain skillset (like situational awareness) beyond the basic meta.
If A TEAM makes a hundret mistakes that get punished by the opponent, then THE TEAM was obviously the worse one team and deserves to lose. If however A TEAM makes no mistakes but punishes the mistakes made by the opponents but in the end still loses to a rush because a FEW PLAYERS made bad decisions it (in my opinion) doesn't deserve to lose.
If I would change anything at all, I would not implement a similar mecahnic for marine wins but I would try to implement a counter to the rushes. Maybe mobile observatories (without the ability to beacon and a smaller radius) build in the robotics, that the commander can move to his naturals. I don't know what exactly, but anything that provides vision at the naturals in the lategame without a marine beeing there, because it has shown that 95% of the respawners just phase away.
@meatmachine Lack of asymmetry is why gorge tunnels are stupid. Why do both teams need a magic portal?
xD 'lack of asymmetry'. This comment is non-sense.
I think I get what you're saying though. I don't agree that gorge tunnels makes the two factions even remotely symmetrical just because they both have portals. Even if you ignore everything else and focus on the portal part, they work completely differently. And even if they did work the same, I don't think it's necessarily 'stupid'. If it works it works, no need to
@meatmachine
I don't think you paint an accurate narrative of this thread. People are not complaining that gorge tunnels are difficult to counter at all. They are not saying that it's overly successful.
What they are saying is; when it works, the success is based on a lucky break because a few players made a mistake or lacked general awareness.
This punishes the whole team, including individuals that aren't necessarily in a position to do anything about it, by no fault of their own.
- If I understand it correctly, it's not a problem with balance at all, it's a problem with game design, inhibiting 'fun'.
I hope I didn't mis-characterize that.
And it is relevant to the OP, because the idea was to shape the marine comeback after the gorge tunnel, so if there are glaring problems with the gorge tunnel, it's probably not a good model to shape the next mechanic after it.
I don't think you paint an accurate narrative of this thread. People are not complaining that gorge tunnels are difficult to counter at all. They are not saying that it's overly successful.
What they are saying is; when it works, the success is based on a lucky break because a few players made a mistake or lacked general awareness.
This punishes the whole team, including individuals that aren't necessarily in a position to do anything about it, by no fault of their own.
- If I understand it correctly, it's not a problem with balance at all, it's a problem with game design, inhibiting 'fun'.
I hope I didn't mis-characterize that.
I see some people understand what I am trying to say. There is hope :-)
@meatmachine Lack of asymmetry is why gorge tunnels are stupid. Why do both teams need a magic portal?
Well frankly I've always been of the position that gorge tunnels werent strictly needed. As I understand they're not common in comp games, giving credence to this position.
They add oodles of flavour to the game though.
As for symmetry, they operate pretty different to marine PGs and are an isolated example of analogous technology between marine and khaara so they dont bother me for that reason.
I'm glad the HP got nerfed on them though, it feels like pubbers are getting used to being wary not to piss away 5 res and a gorge for an illusion of map control that lasts all of 20 seconds.
@meatmachine Lack of asymmetry is why gorge tunnels are stupid. Why do both teams need a magic portal?
Well frankly I've always been of the position that gorge tunnels werent strictly needed. As I understand they're not common in comp games, giving credence to this position.
They add oodles of flavour to the game though.
As for symmetry, they operate pretty different to marine PGs and are an isolated example of analogous technology between marine and khaara so they dont bother me for that reason.
I'm glad the HP got nerfed on them though, it feels like pubbers are getting used to being wary not to piss away 5 res and a gorge for an illusion of map control that lasts all of 20 seconds.
In my opinion gorge tunnels for BB rushes are relied upon too much, takes too much time to build one, shouting above all over players to prepare for a rush, the amount of noise generated from healspray, lifeforms popping out of a tunnel and clueless skulks running on all fours and infestation possibly warning the commander (this is dependant on the placement though) and of course that one stray skulk that can't resist the temptation to bite the resource tower nearby.
I've had much greater success grabbing two like minded individuals to gorge on location with me, drop two babblers each and just rush, 3 gorges is optimal for base obliteration, any greater amount of players risks detection.
All game mechanics are subject to how each player effectively uses them anyway, gorge/bilebomb rushes are great yes when used to its maximum potential but I'd say 6/10 times in public games they fail as players simply don't know the prerequisites to mounting a base attack.
Its not that hard to deter a BB rush anyways aslong as you have players with good map awareness and a commander that has a habit of scanning (specially during hive rushes) where marine base is most vulnerable.
If you lose your base to a rush they deserve the win as its your own fault for not being aware of an impending rush coming anyways. I usually congratulate aliens for marines being so sloppy.
FrozenNew York, NYJoin Date: 2010-07-02Member: 72228Members, Constellation
I would feel more okay with gorge tunnels, except in the base rush from behind scenario, if they simply weren't magic. Why can't aliens just have to travel the actual linear distance of the tunnel? Isn't that what a tunnel is?
I don't think that aliens need an analogue to phase gates, at all, and that's what I don't like. I'd rather they just be faster overall. But if they must be given this, which they must as money was spent designing them, then they should be tunnels, not portals.
Maybe if they didn't damage marine armor for no reason they would be different enough for me to find reasonable. But marines can't even reasonably get through a tunnel and out safely to take advantage of the difference in mechanics
Well frankly I've always been of the position that gorge tunnels werent strictly needed. As I understand they're not common in comp games, giving credence to this position.
They're more common than you think. Gorge tunnels offer a lot of stability to teams who might end up being hurt on the res game.
Well frankly I've always been of the position that gorge tunnels werent strictly needed. As I understand they're not common in comp games, giving credence to this position.
They're more common than you think. Gorge tunnels offer a lot of stability to teams who might end up being hurt on the res game.
I understand they do get used in comp, but I think "Gorge tunnels offer a lot of stability to teams who might end up being hurt on the res game" is particularly true for the pub scene.
I'm very glad that aliens playing from sub on veil no longer spend 90% of the game stopping marines from shooting system waypointing cysts
Well frankly I've always been of the position that gorge tunnels werent strictly needed. As I understand they're not common in comp games, giving credence to this position.
They're more common than you think. Gorge tunnels offer a lot of stability to teams who might end up being hurt on the res game.
I'm very glad that aliens playing from sub on veil no longer spend 90% of the game stopping marines from shooting system waypointing cysts
If cysts weren't required for building stuff, bs issues like this would just disappear
If cysts weren't required for building stuff, bs issues like this would just disappear
Ok, I'll bite. Then how would you slow the expansion of the alien team so that it wouldn't be OP?
Marines must build while also playing offensively as well as defensively, and can be slow at it (especially pub marines) when the alien team's players have nothing better to do than apply pressure to you in the early game, where expansion is most impactful and important. Therefore, alien expansion is intentionally slowed to a crazy degree unless they wish to direct more players contributing to expansion (gorges), which removes players from the offensive front and eases the pressure on advancing marines. Alternatively they can utilize Tres (drifters) to build, but it's still slower. It's pretty close to balanced as is after all these years of tweaking, imo.
The only solution I could think of would be dynamic infestation that spreads _slowly_ from a structure you've placed (anywhere on the map) and it cannot begin building at all - even with a drifter or gorge - until the infestation reaches the hive to create a link. The infestation wouldn't be able to be destroyed unless you killed the farthest reaching structure that it was originally connected to, because how else would you remove it? (a large issue to consider) Making dealing with PvE - imagine an entire side of a map whose infestation is protected by the final structure at the end of the gauntlet you must wade through - much more difficult / annoying to combat.
You'd also need to retweak the costs of every single structure. Also this would make distance from the hive more risky to expansion than it is now, which may end up hurting legitimately viewed comebacks later in the game (that would otherwise be able to assist in building a destroyable cyst chain to quickly get up forward structures).
It's either all that or you scrap infestation entirely and just severely slow down build times all across the board to an annoying degree, which would negatively impact a team's ability to quickly respond to an adapting battlefield.. and if you didn't touch the build times and still removed infestation.. you'd have the potential for being OP again, as well as having to deal with increased PvE again because killing a cyst or chain to eventually kill structures is an effective method (and can redirect gorges to respond) compared to the time/risk involved with entering/staying a room of structures and environmental hazards.
If cysts weren't required for building stuff, bs issues like this would just disappear
Ok, I'll bite. Then how would you slow the expansion of the alien team so that it wouldn't be OP?
Marines must build while also playing offensively as well as defensively, and can be slow at it (especially pub marines) when the alien team's players have nothing better to do than apply pressure to you in the early game, where expansion is most impactful and important. Therefore, alien expansion is intentionally slowed to a crazy degree unless they wish to direct more players contributing to expansion (gorges), which removes players from the offensive front and eases the pressure on advancing marines. Alternatively they can utilize Tres (drifters) to build, but it's still slower. It's pretty close to balanced as is after all these years of tweaking, imo.
The only solution I could think of would be dynamic infestation that spreads _slowly_ from a structure you've placed (anywhere on the map) and it cannot begin building at all - even with a drifter or gorge - until the infestation reaches the hive to create a link. The infestation wouldn't be able to be destroyed unless you killed the farthest reaching structure that it was originally connected to, because how else would you remove it? (a large issue to consider) Making dealing with PvE - imagine an entire side of a map whose infestation is protected by the final structure at the end of the gauntlet you must wade through - much more difficult / annoying to combat.
You'd also need to retweak the costs of every single structure. Also this would make distance from the hive more risky to expansion than it is now, which may end up hurting legitimately viewed comebacks later in the game (that would otherwise be able to assist in building a destroyable cyst chain to quickly get up forward structures).
It's either all that or you scrap infestation entirely and just severely slow down build times all across the board to an annoying degree, which would negatively impact a team's ability to quickly respond to an adapting battlefield.. and if you didn't touch the build times and still removed infestation.. you'd have the potential for being OP again, as well as having to deal with increased PvE again because killing a cyst or chain to eventually kill structures is an effective method (and can redirect gorges to respond) compared to the time/risk involved with entering/staying a room of structures and environmental hazards.
Is there a 3rd option I'm not thinking of?
This is primarily a response to the first paragraph, and final question.
It would, of course, require balance testing the resource costs. But the idea would be lower starting res to make it similarly hard to expand as it currently. However if you are building off a cysts, you will require a gorge to do that. You COULD (instead of MUST) cyst to the RT to build it. Cysting could provide the maturation mechanics, among other ideas to make that position stronger. This complicates commanding in a meaningful way without adding much complexity to how field players treat it differently.
I think that infestation is a great thing, and a cool thing. I just think it needs to be its own thing. A choice between fully trusting your team to defend the node, or bolstering its defense to buy time through maturation and commander abilities.
I DO NOT consider my ideas fleshed out, while I'm highly confident in my concept, I of course don't think I can make all the specific decisions around it perfectly, AT ALL. I just TRULY BELIEVE in the concept and how worth re-balancing for it is.
It allows a commander to make decisions without such a direct responsibility for his team to do ONE SPECIFIC thing, that being prevent the cyst chain cutting. So imagine I'm south spawn on tram, I can cap my naturals, cyst to repair, have less players defending repair because the I can bolster them with cysts, while having more in elevator without cysts. It's strategic diversity I'm looking for.
And yes, marines would need some bufferages. Removing power nodes building reqs provides faster expansion which gives map control early. You can include relatively steep electrification res costs with power nodes etc which allow choices between rapid and stable expansion, etc. But again, there can be more abilities linked to this instead of havign direct, limiting power reqs on rts. Just need some ideas and input and balance testing in-line with the idea.
This is something that was heavily contested during the beta-testing of the game. I simply truly feel the wrong decision was made and the repurcussions are still being felt today in the form stagnant metagame and boringly necessary choices.
That's the third option.
edit: That's really the first option.
edit2: Drifters need to be repurposed, because alot of focus needs to be on the early game importance of the gorge res.
edit3: Most important of all. This opens up mapping decision-making MASSIVELY. And for some reason, people seem to disagree that maps have more to do with balance than the game does itself. So I've highly considered mapping in my conceptual ideas too. I don't see anything wrong with this either. It sucks that some maps are balanced toward marines or aliens... but that's the way it is and should be to keep things interesting. Every map IS balanced 50/50 in a match of 2 rounds where each team gets to play. THAT itself can't be argued. But people like to argue that you shouldn't balance for that. That's how we end up with the strong ns2_summit (MOBA map.) affinity which I consider boring and harmful to interest in the game.
edit4: Alot of this decisionmaking can replace strong PVE elements like whips, such that they could be repurposed to propel grenades and stuff again
One thing a winning team has that a losing team likely doesn't have is OLDER RTs. The winning team likely has a lot of RTs which have been up a while, the losing team is likely constantly losing and rebuilding RTs. Hence you can rebalance by making RTs stronger when new, and "age" to become less strong. Thus you simply reverse maturity for alien RTs (start strong and young, lose max HP over time), for marine RTs you can make them start with a 1-2 minute nano shield on construction and then lose it after that time.
This actually sounds like a really interesting idea...
i agree that it is interesting, but i would propose that it is backwards
i play aliens almost exclusively, and command a lot
marine wins are and should be based on consistent gameplay, and i dont think marines should have an endgame hail mary bilebomb rush, because their strength is consistent gameplay which will always get a win
aliens are already weak to rt harrass, and it is correct that winning teams usually have older rts
therefore i would really like to see more maturity structures like whips currently are, especially an alien rt that starts at 75% current hp and 75% current collection rate, and matures over time to 125% current hp and 100% current collection rate
wouldnt need to change marine rts at all, and it would weight game more towards marine wins with consistent good gameplay, and especially to marine teams harrassing rts
and the reason why bile bomb rushes are even notable is because of what i consider to be a flaw in the game in which marines are not forced to have more than one command chair because they basically dont even need one, so marine team usually only has 1 cc, which is an easy weakpoint for an easy win when undefended
But the idea would be lower starting res to make it similarly hard to expand as it currently. However if you are building off a cysts, you will require a gorge to do that. You COULD (instead of MUST) cyst to the RT to build it. Cysting could provide the maturation mechanics, among other ideas to make that position stronger.
Lowering starting Tres would not be enough, as then it just allows hyper expansion during the time when expansion is the slowest / most contested, during the mid game.
Basically acting as a general buff to aliens. You could balance it instead on building time and not costs, so it remains consistent at all times in a round.
But regardless, it sounds like it'd be confusing to a player of what infestation is and what it does, if it's not a requirement or modeling well known things like Starcraft's "creep".
Also would cysting ever be worth the costs for so little return?? You'd have to chop the price down to a fraction of 1 Tres to only be worth "providing maturation", which would be muddying things quickly as the only non whole number cost in the game, and then of course you'd have justification to put the stuff everywhere for that low cost. It would all get messy, fast.
I DO NOT consider my ideas fleshed out, while I'm highly confident in my concept, I of course don't think I can make all the specific decisions around it perfectly, AT ALL. I just TRULY BELIEVE in the concept and how worth re-balancing for it is.
You see, that's the issue with such a broad concept that isn't thought out entirely in every facet (and is why I believe in bringing these ideas forward to be thrown through the ringer, like this thread) - a concept can sound amazing and sound like the solution to all your problems, but until you've hashed it out entirely and ensured it's not broken once applied... well, it's simply a dream.
One that could be a complete failure and waste of time once it's not just on paper anymore.
So hash it out a tad and suggest it.. I've thought about this like you since the beta days (day 1 of flamethrower!) and so far everything I've thought through entirely comes up as insufficient in some way in the end.
Comments
Exactly. BB rush is barely an issue, more so just a lack of awareness from the marines. Yet the changes that are being offered are insanely big, like literally changing the whole game. There are a lot of things higher of priority that should be changed in NS2 before this, to be honest. Maybe like how three skulks engaging one marine is barely in favor of the skulks...
This actually sounds like a really interesting idea...
How can you say it is not in favour of the skulks? It is in favour of the skulks if they ambush a marine or bait the marine. It is in favour of the marine if he is in a very good position, like far away from the skulks and all skulks coming from one direction. This is not an issue at all, it's the melee vs range design...
I also like the idea of rts aging.
If you cannot maintain a civil discussion without resorting to name calling and attacks, (regardless of whatever justification you think you may have) do not post - that is not a request.
I have to be honest, I have been using you to draw out counter arguments because you are quite capable of debating the nuances of interdependent mechanics. However you are failing to elaborate on the finest details, the meat and potatoes of the discussion imo, and instead consistently responding by "Begging the question" with forgone conclusions, which has resulted in me repeating my points again and again in an attempt for you to break it down. (also you are misunderstanding me quite a bit sometimes, like how I was speaking about everything else besides the meta when it comes to playercount differences)
I'd like to finally nail that portion to the ground to be done with our discussion and forgo dancing around all the external points like whether you agree with a high frequency of demotivation to continue a round or presuming I am inferring your level of experience in pub games etc. etc.
I've taken the grueling time to review all of your posts in this thread - I do not see you actually breaking down the reasons as you said you have. If anything, they've been left at superficially shallow dismissals such as "cheap", "byproduct", or "undeserved". This is not sufficient as you have never said why or how.
And when I attempt to draw that out from you by bringing up the pro's such as how said mechanics can lead to enjoyment through variation for lesser skilled games, (something that is needed for players who have difficulty with the meta) you respond with anger, hyperboles, and putting words in my mouth such as "everyone's a winner" - points I have not made. Should every player regardless of skill and hours played have just as much fun in NS2? Yes. Do you honestly advocate for newer players / lesser skilled to not enjoy NS2 by design??..
Should strategy and skill matter in the game? Of course they should, I have said this again and again, please cease the hyperbole.
Should there be only a couple strategies and skillsets that matter? No... for the reasons I have clearly listed in the other 5 posts, to include hypothetical examples.
Others have recognized how BB is "not a problem" in this thread... If a team wins by utilizing it, it was because the other team made a stupid mistake. How can it be simultaneously not a problem and also a horrid mechanic to model after?
A team could have made a hundred other mistakes that also led to their loss - and those are equally valid to exploit - mistakes that occurred only because they were unable to adapt to a strategy / not employ a certain skillset (like situational awareness) beyond the basic meta.
Can you honestly not find value in multiple methods of strategy and skill sets, especially in lesser skilled games where they are more predominantly used precisely because they have not mastered the meta at 20 hours in?
Why value the meta in such a way that would relegate all other strategies and skills to be useless, essentially making the meta the only means for victory regardless of mistakes made and inadequacies in other areas?
And how well did that work out after years of that sticking to that mentality? Please don't respond with current anecdotal experiences again considering the playercount of 200 players, instead asses the entirety of ~3 years worth of pub games.
Allowing other mechanics to upset the success of strictly following the meta game allows for more variety (and thus enjoyment) in lesser skilled environments.
____________________________________________________
@meatmachine and @unrendered There isn't necessarily a high priority issue at hand, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement to make pub games more enjoyable.
While I would argue that conceding is a necessary feature of the game, I do believe it's necessity and high frequency of use is evidence of an issue in design - and if you disagree :
So long as the victor is determined from utilization of strategies and skills, why is a game that is engaging, fun and worth fighting for to the bitter end a poor design? (again, it does not necessarily have to be from playing the meta)
@nemo I like the idea, but what's to prevent early game over expansion from being OP? For instance, at the start of a round dropping as many RTs as possible to secure a fortified early game RT count before they become weak? As the expanding team, you wouldn't have to be concerned with defending your RTs - so I suppose as long as the rate of expansion was evenly matched between teams (difficult both due to maps and playercounts) it might become a fun race?.. idk.. going to think about this.
This is a big part of why I keep saying to remove cysting and power requirements from building and using them in other more creative ways
Ok, it was definitely badly worded, I'll give you that. But I do not think that vanilla skulk vs vanilla marine as a whole is as balanced as it could be. Even if you do a perfect ambush 1v1 you can still lose if the marine reacts fast and gets medspam (very likely because medpacks are virtually free).
Skulk is supposed to lose. In 1v1 it's not supposed to be balanced. That being said, it's pretty damn balanced. If anything I want more power given to marine strafing acceleration to make them even stronger here.
The idea would be that the buff would be roughly equal, even at the start. Normally the main concern is with rapid alien expansion which is currently handled with the maturity mechanic, however under this system I would be more worried for aliens as they are susceptible to the marines cutting the cyst chain.
Normally the continuing priority of a game is to attack the enemies economy, this would be marginally muted in the first couple minutes (as all RTs would be under the "new" condition). I think this would be beneficial to newer players, from a good enemy player attacking natural RTs within the first minute being less effective, to the odd person that's been AFK for the first couple minutes impacting a bit less.
I would imagine within 2 minutes of an RT being built it would have reverted to normal state anyway, so from that point on its a mostly typical game.
It gives a few beneficial conditions in a scenario discussed in this thread.
1. A Team is stuck in their base
A team pinned in their base (with no naturals built), might be able to get an RT up for a few moments right now, but they get pushed back into base and lose it almost right away. That brand new RT will now take a bit longer for the enemy to destroy, increasing the chances of saving it. It also delays the enemy from immediately pushing into the base.
If the previously stuck team does manage to push out then the enemy RTs are weaker than their own (theirs are under the new condition still, while the enemy RTs are likely passed that now). So they have a real opportunity to push back into the game. Note this doesn't entirely undermine the enemies hard worked for advantage as that advantage has already paid dividends in more res to spend on upgrades/ more pres.
2. A perfectly even normal match
The better team still wins, as nothing about a brand new RT being buffed would cause the winning team to lose out. This is because for the enemy to need to rebuild an RT you would have had to destroy it, which is still a good outcome. If the enemy has mostly buffed RTs then you are winning as it means every RT had to be recently built (with the associated cost to res, the cost to player positioning and the lack of distraction causing attacking). The fact the winning teams RTs aren't buffed isn't a disadvantage since the res gained from an RT being up that long (without needing replacing) far outweighs the disadvantage by orders of magnitude.
This also introduces a new skill meta for the more advanced players. Typically picking which enemy RT to attack is fairly easy, you normally attack the one that's furthest from any enemies to increase your chances of getting it down in time. Now there would also be another reason to attack an RT a bit deeper in enemy territory as it'll be weaker. Which is a great tactic for forcing the enemy to retreat into their own territory and is a natural counter for lane blocking. It also increases the emphasis on scouting, as you want to know if an RT is still in its buffed state or not. In this way good tactics become more emergent from normal game-play.
Yes, it SHOULD naturally be a little in favor of the range side, but I'm afraid in NS2 it's a bit too one sided. The skulk is so fat and has such a slow strafe acceleration speed that if the marine can aim, you lose guaranteed. Almost no tres damage done either.
If we want to reach the much talked about ~50/50 team balance, I think you should first alter the very root of the game; skulk vs rifle. Only then changing structure costs, lifeform timings etc. becomes more apparent.
I don't care about 50/50 at all, that changes too much with maps. I just want it to be a fun uphill battle for the team that has a 40% win-rate on a given map. Not boring and repetitive.
Want to bring the game back to 50/50 for now where aliens have the higher rate? Stop giving people res when dead.
Lost the meat of the game, now rushing just for win, not for fun. Because winning =/= fun.
Accumulation of good plays, not flipping the board is what makes comeback mechanics fun. Overcoming adversity through hard work is fun > simple coordination to get in a tunnel.
Sword of Damocles dilema...
Cheap and boring are antonyms of fun. We're trying to make a game fun by introducing comeback mechanics for marines, they should NOT be on the same level as GT BB rush.
I believe people are enticed and have fun by the nature of the game and simply fragging. When people get frustrated by the meta of the game they should look to embrace it and learn it because it is mostly balanced at all levels. New players for the most part just focus on getting to grips with lifeforms, tracking, and the maps. When they grasp these concepts they then begin to appreciate the greater picture of things and naturally become frustrated with the meta because it is so hard to pull everything together and make sense of how each facet of the game works in tandem with each other. That does not mean that you should add a simple "get out of jail free card" to flip a game over with little effort. So I advocate for people to embrace the challenges and enjoy the learning process instead of winning at all costs. Those who would not enjoy the process would rather a more simple game, and frankly I wouldn't want those people in the community even if it meant higher numbers and greater popularity of NS2.
I applaud the attitude of the many public players who taunt me and take pride in their victories, be it in engagements or the round in general. I love seeing their satisfaction and thrive off of it myself. People should be proud of how they overcome the challenges NS2 provides them. Working with strangers to beat the finnish stack or to get one over on my teammates provides entertainment through individual plays people make, not the overall outcome of a game. There are many times, when people try and communicate, where everyone is proud of their efforts despite a loss because they made good plays but the other team made better. Mechanics that encourage consistent plays of ability greater than that of the opposition team should always take precedent over an all-in. All-in's are really not that fun.
GT BB rush is an unfortunate byproduct of two otherwise independently good mechanics. It is not a problem because it is easy to scout to prevent and easy to react to. It is a bad mechanic to want though because it uses such low tech to beat such a high tech and apparently skilled team through one small blip in concentration. The whole table-flip analogy seems perfectly adapt.
T1 tech vs T1 tech balanced
T1 tech vs T2 tech should be in slight favour of T2 but provide opportunities for T1 to get to T2.
T1 tech vs T3 tech should be virtually impossible to comeback from because the T3 tech'd team is stronger, unless ofc the T1 team starts playing exceptionally well in skill to be able to get T2.
T2 vs T2 should be balanced
T2 tech vs T3 tech should provide opportunities for comeback
T3 tech vs T3 tech should be balanced.
You yourself advocates for seeing more lategame tech, and yet you're happy with allowing early game tech to wreck havoc. But bilebomb shouldn't be any later than biomass 3 because ARCs. Perhaps gorgetunnels could work at biomass 4 but often you need them to get the 2nd hive and tech up.
Equally valid to exploit in proportion to their reward. Skipping through marines in hub to bite RTs through south tunnels is frustrating and damaging to the marine's economy and perhaps a PG strong point, but that one player does not have the capability to flip the table. (Disproportionate damage to the mistake exploited).
Player count went down.
Game quality went up.
Player quality went up.
Game enjoyment increased.
I can't possible express the last 3 statements in a non-subjective way.
Upsetting the success of following the meta is by definition adding randomness to the game. Changing the meta so there are more varied responses (but there must be additions to both sides at the same time) is indeed a good thing. I'm not saying don't change the meta, I'm just saying don't ruin the meta by basing more features around unfortunately bad mechanics. If you suggest good changes I'm sure I could support them, I'm not all anti-change and l2p, I just think that you shouldn't cater a solution to a non-issue or an issue that is only apparent when playing with or against bad people.
One think I'd like to add is that lesser skilled =/= bad players in my opinion. Lesser skilled means aims/reflexes. Bad players means dumb players who refuse to coordinate with the team, communicate, make bad decisions, and give a net decrease in value to a team. I think bad players should L2P and you shouldn't change the game around them, I think lesser skilled players should have more opportunities to impact a game.
If I take nachos saying it is "interesting" as a positive, or more a non negative, then ironhorse and nachos seem to agree on this one point. I am sure we all agree that the idea needs fleshed out more, but it is an interesting idea and what I was hoping this thread would turn into. Maybe just maybe there is middle ground here.
I personally think something needs to change to make the game have better player retention and be more "learn-able." I do not know what that change would be. It could be added mechanics on not. I have seen a lot of comments regarding the economy in here as a key point of change. Maybe the discussion could focus a bit more on what could change about the economy.
Hmmm, repetition? (or this)
I prefer the Spore/Cyst as it would require less changes in the economy speed (on alien side). As the ultimate balance can't be reached in a single stroke; it would be better not to make big changes. Step by step is better IMO.
The good thing with Spore/Cyst is that if the khammander wants to protect older RTs he would add some more cyst to 'refresh'. So it's still an investment. The Cyst principle stays the same. No chain, no money.
Your idea would require to slow down the alien economy far more as :
(you saw that too but more incoming)
-Few harvesters kills means Lerk fade and onos are out sooner. It may be a little problem. Dev would nerf higher life forms (speed or lifepoints). But it would still be unforgiving and take time to balance.
So the price has to change too. Whatever it's a "re-buy for a cheaper price" fashion (less unforginving) or "higher price for the same" (but weaker). It may be hard to fine tune. Rookies would suffer the same issue in mid game i presume.
Or alien would make a second hive with full protection (crag, shift, shade, whip). It would delay too much fade as they would wait for biomass to be up to an appropriate level.
-About the Race syndrome : If i had that i would invest in Shift, some Crags, a gorge in the hive and use Echo at will. The thing is, it would lock alien in one plan (shift) to be the fastest. Not only on the field but also on RTs and RES income. The alien would always have a second hive. It's not bad in itself but it doesn't provide the same advantage for marine. Then the marines are late for good this time.
And :
-The cyst will be attacked non the less. The Cyst chain can still be broken without any counter part. So even if the RT is claimed and up there would be the "Pro" doing their stuff. If they can't kill the RT right away, they would cut the Cyst. On the other hand Spore/Cyst would force them to be far away to at least cut the chain (ranged weapon + ammo pack) or to attack the RT. Also the Kham can reCyst on purpose (héhé) or hide the cyst in specific angles. Also 3 guys can be 'spore-ed', etc...
It's not that i don't like the idea. In fact i like the idea to protect the Havesters (which i didn't suggested) along with making the Cyst 'retaliate'. But i would be cautious about the magnitude of such change. Even for what i suggest which i think to be of minimal impact on the game mechanics.
I get your point, in that it's more rewarding to win from hard effort than exploiting a flaw, but imo it's the lesser evil compared to a (i know you hate this phrase) predictable outcome.
If I polled this question in a pub game of what the losing team would want : a win or the predictable loss... I am 90% certain the results would be "a win", resoundingly so.
This is well, because winning IS in fact fun, especially when it was not likely.. and even if you know the other team "deserved" it, because you still bested them at something after failing at the meta game. It's a consolation prize, I suppose, but it still is more "fun" than losing in a game already lost with no hope.
If "the process" is hundreds of hours of frustrating games that weren't worth your time, due to being demoralizing and leaving a poor taste in your mouth thanks to the average team not able to get beyond just tracking and fragging (I.e. not "embracing" the meta game) ... I say no thank you to such a design. It's wholly unwelcoming and essentially requires a masochist in order to maybe one day enjoy.
I know you believe in an accessible game, (meaning fun from the start) so why advocate for unnecessary hurdles for those without hundreds of hours under their belt?
It doesn't have to be that way, and who knows after all this economy discussion maybe there's a way without having to rely on a table-flip foo mechanic like we've been talking about.
For the record, I loathe foo mechanics.. I consider them to be indicative of poor fundamental design.
A proper design would foster a new player to intuitively learn mechanics at a fast rate, while still having an impact / being fun to play. This creates a narrow skill gap for the meta.
The issue with such a design is that it too often results in a "if everybody is special then no one is" low skill ceiling, where the only place skill can be expressed ends up being in the micro and is unimpactful. The other typical outcome is the game must be so incredibly simple that any layman can absorb it... which can be fine for some games where the point of the game isn't the goal but everything in between, and thus can afford to be simple in design, much like CS.
Would you not want those who enjoy a simple game like CS in our NS2 community? (troll question, don't answer
Succinctly put! I think that part in parenthesis sums up your gripe with BB perfectly.... and I actually agree with your gripe in that regard.
Which brings me to question whether there are enough vulnerabilities present for either team?
I can understand that some people such as yourself may not find value in upsetting the meta for the lesser skilled, especially when it's so disproportionate - so what about changing the meta as you proposed?
It could achieve the same goal without the downside of an "unfair" perception. But it would have to be accessible, still, something that could still be attained by a losing team.
Which brings me to this gem..
@nemo had a really good point about this that we both agreed on :
Unfortunately subjectivity is what we're dealing with here when we're talking about implementing a range of comeback mechanics with different modes of action. What type of comeback mechanic is more fun; is what we're currently debating when talking about GT BB rush. It's a bad example because it's not as fun as other comeback mechanics and of course that's a subjective point. I'd argue this is one occasion to convince people to change their attitude rather than conforming to it.
The hive system does not benefit from upsetting "predictable outcomes" from single blip moments in games allowing a table-flip. The GT BB rush team will gain skill points but will more than likely get crushed time and time again because instead of being consistently good throughout the game and more skilled, and so more likely to win a game (indicated by having a higher skill point), they won through a BB rush exploiting one single moment. Winning =/= fun, =/= skill, =/= future balance wins and good games due to narrow skill disparity between players. If you encourage more of these mechanics, more games will be based actually around the "predictable play" of a GT BB rush or marine equivalent, actually leading to a DECREASE in qualities of games.
Probably because this is a heavily loaded question...
I think at this point you really need to define when exactly a loss becomes predictable; frankly a massive undertaking considering all the variable factors (thus a game never really having a predictable outcome unless you're fairly narrow minded or misunderstand the meta).
Also I'd once again argue that most players are yet to understand basic RTS elements like trading. It's one thing to make poor decisions and lose from it, it's another to just not understand your own decisions. I think most players fall into the latter category, but that's not to say those that do understand can't communicate and fix these issues; Sometimes you get the "forget nano go base rush" which is a trade in itself (although probably a poor decision). So those that don't understand these basic elements probably aren't eligible to participate in that survey you propose because then the game would be conforming to non-understanding players instead of skilled players of all skill ranges from the floor to the ceiling. When I say skilled in this context, I am placing a lot more weight on the ability to understand the aspects of the game that everyone has access too like positioning (micro and macro), and decision making; and less on aim/reflexes.
Much like how combat got balanced to the "general mindset" instead of for the top (and was subsequently awful).
I can see the merit in this, however I believe that this is the greater of two evils because the marines who did so well all game threw it away in one moment which is MORE unenjoyable than enjoyable for the (parts of) the alien team. Reread anzestrals posts on the first page and also my sword of Damocles analogy.
Of course which is why you balance for skill disparities with rookie servers and FET. You also allow things easy to learn and hard to masters. You can encourage lesser skilled players to be useful by doing easy things like res biting or bile bombing, but to encourage fundamentally game changing moments with such ease is a mistake.
New players can be useful and have fun simply by shooting/biting stuff.
Simple things like understanding how economies work and how they support both teams are not unnecessary hurdles in my opinion, and learning to be the most effective and efficient at manipulating the economies for both teams is the learning curve in this game and is the beauty of this game. In my competitive team I focus most of my efforts on manipulating skulks to attack targets that I can then easily defend. In public I often get people complaining that I appear to be all over the map at the same time. These are not things people can be naturally good at like aim/reflexes, these are skills that require brains and when I get ambushed or denied by other players employing similar methods, I applaud them.
When people don't take time to think, get outbrained and then complain, I have little sympathy for them.
If an onos runs into hub on his own vs a pg with 5 marines in it and dies, I have no sympathy for when he makes the exact same mistake next game.
When skulks run straightline into ore processing from a warehouse spawn and die 2-3 times in a row letting the major expansion route from north tunnels --> mezzanine die, I have no sympathy.
When people make the same basic mistakes and then place the whole blame on the opposition or game balance and at the same time see one of their teammates doing very well, how can you do anything to make those dumb (not lesser-skilled) players better without making the higher-skilled players even better?
This is why I advocate for meta changes or more varied strategies which make sense in terms of balance and challenge in proportion to their efficacy. NOT just changes for the sake of making a game "more unpredictable" and last minute saving graces for 15-20 minutes worth of dribble. Make it for lesser skilled players to be more effective, NOT dumb players.
Although I do argue that there is enough impact lesser skilled (aim/reflexes) can have on a game and that is res biting as aliens or expansion gorge tunnels and for marines; building / mines / solo scout play.
If anything, the economy change suggested actually adds hurdles to this aspect of the game because it would be more complicated.
Yes but why shouldn't there be more? This does not mean that you should base any future vulnerabilities on hail-mary tactics.
The problem with changing the meta or producing more vulnerabilities which are balanced is threefold.
1) Theory
2) Testing
3) Implementation
Actually the closer to the middle of the map you get the harder it becomes to hold ground.
If marines hold all three lateral tech points in summit, there are vents in summit reception and the crevasse in maintenance/cross/glass hallway to get behind is one example.
This leads to a concentration in aliens to one side to ensure a 2nd TP and because it's actually just stronger because of routes to res bite and fewer marines to encounter. If you like it's a wheeling mechanic much like (in appearance) a scrum in rugby.
Only when you sit on a natural and hold the tech point on the opposite side are marines often in a position to shut out aliens and snowball into a "predictable outcome". But this is probably due to inappropriate response by the aliens in the first place and can still be broken by exceptional play there after. There is a degree in randomness to a "predictable outcome" due to player skill and at how inconsistent it can be per player throughout a game.
If a skulk gets through the lines and you dont see an RT flash red, you damn well call it and make sure someone responds; whether by face-checking or with a commander scan.
If you plan to extend your offense into a hive, you simply have to do these checks to make sure you're not going to be trading something valuable.
"Where are all the aliens? Well, we have an entire maps worth of res, lets invest a bit into scans to make sure we dont lose everything"
This is really basic stuff.
And even if you completely fail to have any kind of map awareness, marine comm can STILL teleport the entire marine team into the base.
Remember what happenned before gorge tunnels? People just egg for gorge near to a marine base and rush like that instead.
All gorge tunnels mean is that only one player needs to sneak out rather than, say, 2 or 3 (which is really all you need for a sneak BB rush to have a chance at being effective), with the caveat that a player either went gorge and lost it earlier on, or has enough res to go gorge, place a tunnel in base, DIE without the marine team becoming suspicious, sneak out and then evolve gorge and place the tunnel without being found, which again takes time.
So many people here painting BB rush as something that requires little effort and always succeeds.
Indeed, in the time I spend playing I certainly dont see a majority of BB rushes end successfully, or even with an alien win.
I can tell you that within just a couple of games of commanding marines, reaching mid/late game with a huge advantage and losing everything because I was not vigilant enough to anticipate a tunnel rush, I realised that there is a point in the game where you need to start being really paranoid. With a bit more time, that paranoia gives rise to the awareness required to think one step ahead of derpy alien pub teams.
"why havent they conceded yet? Where are they all? Do you think they might try and get a tunnel up near our base? Is the tunnel in their base open? HMMMMMMMM"
Even if you're on the push team, as long as you're within a few meters of your PG to main as you should be, you just step through the PG and shoot the slowest moving life form in the game.
this is entirely L2P... Maybe a year ago this thread would have only reached a couple of pages before being shot down (and I believe rightly so).
And since it's L2P, the solution is once again DUN DUN DUNNNNN Education. Oh my gawd please, tutorials.
Whats next? A thread complaining about how marine jumping is totally OP and makes them invincible in 100% of situations? Aye carumba.
BUT OH WAIT. The OP wasnt even about tunnels or bile rushes being a problem, it was about how there is no equivalent weapon for the marines to use, or rather that the equivalent tech is much harder to use for marines.
And I'm sorry, but the reason for this is simple- aliens are faster in general and therefore rely much less on tunnels throughout the entire game, therefore are going to be skipping over less rooms as they get from spawn to the frontlines. Therefore they find 'sneaky but not sneaky enough' marines at a greater frequency.
But the thing is, is that marine comebacks this way CAN and DO happen, they're just a bit harder to pull off. Provided you have some base defense, you can kill a hive, take the techpoint via the PG you just used, and work your way through each of the hives like this. You know, killing hives, the thing that your shitty team should have done back when you had W2A2 shotguns and fades werent even up yet.
Ergo; marines dont know how to defend, marines dont know how to capitalise on the multiple advantages they get throughout the game, aliens and marines dont play the game to the same tune.
TL;DR - Asymmetry. It absolutely baffles me that people with any experience with the game would complain about such a fundamental aspect of NS2.
My fix is to make all alien lifeforms twice as big, half as fast and twice as horny. Make it so gorge tunnels can be placed by the alien comm and teleport aliens instantly to the other side. That seems to be what you're piping for here. /sarcasm
/rant
/workplace procrastination
My point was actually, that "the marines who did so well all game" often "threw it away in one moment" due to one or two single marine players (and/or the commander) who made a crucial mistake or a bad decision and let the rush happen. These players might have not done well at all most of the game and might have been carried by players who played a very good game but still get punished by losing within seconds.
If A TEAM makes a hundret mistakes that get punished by the opponent, then THE TEAM was obviously the worse one team and deserves to lose. If however A TEAM makes no mistakes but punishes the mistakes made by the opponents but in the end still loses to a rush because a FEW PLAYERS made bad decisions it (in my opinion) doesn't deserve to lose.
If I would change anything at all, I would not implement a similar mecahnic for marine wins but I would try to implement a counter to the rushes. Maybe mobile observatories (without the ability to beacon and a smaller radius) build in the robotics, that the commander can move to his naturals. I don't know what exactly, but anything that provides vision at the naturals in the lategame without a marine beeing there, because it has shown that 95% of the respawners just phase away.
I think I get what you're saying though. I don't agree that gorge tunnels makes the two factions even remotely symmetrical just because they both have portals. Even if you ignore everything else and focus on the portal part, they work completely differently. And even if they did work the same, I don't think it's necessarily 'stupid'. If it works it works, no need to
@meatmachine
I don't think you paint an accurate narrative of this thread. People are not complaining that gorge tunnels are difficult to counter at all. They are not saying that it's overly successful.
What they are saying is; when it works, the success is based on a lucky break because a few players made a mistake or lacked general awareness.
This punishes the whole team, including individuals that aren't necessarily in a position to do anything about it, by no fault of their own.
- If I understand it correctly, it's not a problem with balance at all, it's a problem with game design, inhibiting 'fun'.
I hope I didn't mis-characterize that.
And it is relevant to the OP, because the idea was to shape the marine comeback after the gorge tunnel, so if there are glaring problems with the gorge tunnel, it's probably not a good model to shape the next mechanic after it.
I see some people understand what I am trying to say. There is hope :-)
They add oodles of flavour to the game though.
As for symmetry, they operate pretty different to marine PGs and are an isolated example of analogous technology between marine and khaara so they dont bother me for that reason.
I'm glad the HP got nerfed on them though, it feels like pubbers are getting used to being wary not to piss away 5 res and a gorge for an illusion of map control that lasts all of 20 seconds.
In my opinion gorge tunnels for BB rushes are relied upon too much, takes too much time to build one, shouting above all over players to prepare for a rush, the amount of noise generated from healspray, lifeforms popping out of a tunnel and clueless skulks running on all fours and infestation possibly warning the commander (this is dependant on the placement though) and of course that one stray skulk that can't resist the temptation to bite the resource tower nearby.
I've had much greater success grabbing two like minded individuals to gorge on location with me, drop two babblers each and just rush, 3 gorges is optimal for base obliteration, any greater amount of players risks detection.
All game mechanics are subject to how each player effectively uses them anyway, gorge/bilebomb rushes are great yes when used to its maximum potential but I'd say 6/10 times in public games they fail as players simply don't know the prerequisites to mounting a base attack.
Its not that hard to deter a BB rush anyways aslong as you have players with good map awareness and a commander that has a habit of scanning (specially during hive rushes) where marine base is most vulnerable.
If you lose your base to a rush they deserve the win as its your own fault for not being aware of an impending rush coming anyways. I usually congratulate aliens for marines being so sloppy.
I don't think that aliens need an analogue to phase gates, at all, and that's what I don't like. I'd rather they just be faster overall. But if they must be given this, which they must as money was spent designing them, then they should be tunnels, not portals.
Maybe if they didn't damage marine armor for no reason they would be different enough for me to find reasonable. But marines can't even reasonably get through a tunnel and out safely to take advantage of the difference in mechanics
They're more common than you think. Gorge tunnels offer a lot of stability to teams who might end up being hurt on the res game.
I'm very glad that aliens playing from sub on veil no longer spend 90% of the game stopping marines from shooting system waypointing cysts
If cysts weren't required for building stuff, bs issues like this would just disappear
Then how would you slow the expansion of the alien team so that it wouldn't be OP?
Marines must build while also playing offensively as well as defensively, and can be slow at it (especially pub marines) when the alien team's players have nothing better to do than apply pressure to you in the early game, where expansion is most impactful and important. Therefore, alien expansion is intentionally slowed to a crazy degree unless they wish to direct more players contributing to expansion (gorges), which removes players from the offensive front and eases the pressure on advancing marines. Alternatively they can utilize Tres (drifters) to build, but it's still slower. It's pretty close to balanced as is after all these years of tweaking, imo.
The only solution I could think of would be dynamic infestation that spreads _slowly_ from a structure you've placed (anywhere on the map) and it cannot begin building at all - even with a drifter or gorge - until the infestation reaches the hive to create a link. The infestation wouldn't be able to be destroyed unless you killed the farthest reaching structure that it was originally connected to, because how else would you remove it? (a large issue to consider) Making dealing with PvE - imagine an entire side of a map whose infestation is protected by the final structure at the end of the gauntlet you must wade through - much more difficult / annoying to combat.
You'd also need to retweak the costs of every single structure. Also this would make distance from the hive more risky to expansion than it is now, which may end up hurting legitimately viewed comebacks later in the game (that would otherwise be able to assist in building a destroyable cyst chain to quickly get up forward structures).
It's either all that or you scrap infestation entirely and just severely slow down build times all across the board to an annoying degree, which would negatively impact a team's ability to quickly respond to an adapting battlefield.. and if you didn't touch the build times and still removed infestation.. you'd have the potential for being OP again, as well as having to deal with increased PvE again because killing a cyst or chain to eventually kill structures is an effective method (and can redirect gorges to respond) compared to the time/risk involved with entering/staying a room of structures and environmental hazards.
Is there a 3rd option I'm not thinking of?
This is primarily a response to the first paragraph, and final question.
It would, of course, require balance testing the resource costs. But the idea would be lower starting res to make it similarly hard to expand as it currently. However if you are building off a cysts, you will require a gorge to do that. You COULD (instead of MUST) cyst to the RT to build it. Cysting could provide the maturation mechanics, among other ideas to make that position stronger. This complicates commanding in a meaningful way without adding much complexity to how field players treat it differently.
I think that infestation is a great thing, and a cool thing. I just think it needs to be its own thing. A choice between fully trusting your team to defend the node, or bolstering its defense to buy time through maturation and commander abilities.
I DO NOT consider my ideas fleshed out, while I'm highly confident in my concept, I of course don't think I can make all the specific decisions around it perfectly, AT ALL. I just TRULY BELIEVE in the concept and how worth re-balancing for it is.
It allows a commander to make decisions without such a direct responsibility for his team to do ONE SPECIFIC thing, that being prevent the cyst chain cutting. So imagine I'm south spawn on tram, I can cap my naturals, cyst to repair, have less players defending repair because the I can bolster them with cysts, while having more in elevator without cysts. It's strategic diversity I'm looking for.
And yes, marines would need some bufferages. Removing power nodes building reqs provides faster expansion which gives map control early. You can include relatively steep electrification res costs with power nodes etc which allow choices between rapid and stable expansion, etc. But again, there can be more abilities linked to this instead of havign direct, limiting power reqs on rts. Just need some ideas and input and balance testing in-line with the idea.
This is something that was heavily contested during the beta-testing of the game. I simply truly feel the wrong decision was made and the repurcussions are still being felt today in the form stagnant metagame and boringly necessary choices.
That's the third option.
edit: That's really the first option.
edit2: Drifters need to be repurposed, because alot of focus needs to be on the early game importance of the gorge res.
edit3: Most important of all. This opens up mapping decision-making MASSIVELY. And for some reason, people seem to disagree that maps have more to do with balance than the game does itself. So I've highly considered mapping in my conceptual ideas too. I don't see anything wrong with this either. It sucks that some maps are balanced toward marines or aliens... but that's the way it is and should be to keep things interesting. Every map IS balanced 50/50 in a match of 2 rounds where each team gets to play. THAT itself can't be argued. But people like to argue that you shouldn't balance for that. That's how we end up with the strong ns2_summit (MOBA map.) affinity which I consider boring and harmful to interest in the game.
edit4: Alot of this decisionmaking can replace strong PVE elements like whips, such that they could be repurposed to propel grenades and stuff again
i agree that it is interesting, but i would propose that it is backwards
i play aliens almost exclusively, and command a lot
marine wins are and should be based on consistent gameplay, and i dont think marines should have an endgame hail mary bilebomb rush, because their strength is consistent gameplay which will always get a win
aliens are already weak to rt harrass, and it is correct that winning teams usually have older rts
therefore i would really like to see more maturity structures like whips currently are, especially an alien rt that starts at 75% current hp and 75% current collection rate, and matures over time to 125% current hp and 100% current collection rate
wouldnt need to change marine rts at all, and it would weight game more towards marine wins with consistent good gameplay, and especially to marine teams harrassing rts
and the reason why bile bomb rushes are even notable is because of what i consider to be a flaw in the game in which marines are not forced to have more than one command chair because they basically dont even need one, so marine team usually only has 1 cc, which is an easy weakpoint for an easy win when undefended
Basically acting as a general buff to aliens. You could balance it instead on building time and not costs, so it remains consistent at all times in a round.
But regardless, it sounds like it'd be confusing to a player of what infestation is and what it does, if it's not a requirement or modeling well known things like Starcraft's "creep".
Also would cysting ever be worth the costs for so little return?? You'd have to chop the price down to a fraction of 1 Tres to only be worth "providing maturation", which would be muddying things quickly as the only non whole number cost in the game, and then of course you'd have justification to put the stuff everywhere for that low cost. It would all get messy, fast.
You see, that's the issue with such a broad concept that isn't thought out entirely in every facet (and is why I believe in bringing these ideas forward to be thrown through the ringer, like this thread) - a concept can sound amazing and sound like the solution to all your problems, but until you've hashed it out entirely and ensured it's not broken once applied... well, it's simply a dream.
One that could be a complete failure and waste of time once it's not just on paper anymore.
So hash it out a tad and suggest it.. I've thought about this like you since the beta days (day 1 of flamethrower!) and so far everything I've thought through entirely comes up as insufficient in some way in the end.