But to be honest I wasn't looking at Exos to "fix them" as a mechanic - but rather I am looking to fix a larger problem not mentioned here and figured they could be of assistance in doing so.
I realize I wasn't up front about this, so there was no way for you or anybody to know my agenda, but trust me I am not focusing on the Exo because I think it's a priority over other things.
The real problem that I am unwilling to get into in this thread, is arguably as important as Lerks* or Fades
without following up on them.
It's vague, leading statements like this that make people look like they're talking crap for the sake of saving face; and being indirect towards the community is precisely what has driven many people who cared about this game away already. Transparency has always been an issue for the dev team, as you of all people should know; without it we end up with nonsense balance changes like we have seen in the past year. And I understand the dev team is in no way obligated to discuss these things publicly, but I'll be damned if you don't have a hard time learning from past mistakes.
If you've got some bright idea that's as important as you imply, I'm of the particular opinion you should air it on a public forum in a direct, transparent manner.
Until then, I don't buy what I can't see and I dont think anyone else should have to either, nor should we be expected to be content with "trust me"
Well I definitely don't mean to insult.. I just planned on starting a new thread for that, and just wanted approval from the devs before sharing certain graphs / data before doing so as I'm under an NDA.
I have no need to save face because I am being honest.. Ixian and wob and nordic can all confirm that I have been quite focused on this other problem for months or years.
There's nothing nefarious like me withholding big secret plans etc.. I just wanted to do it in a separate thread after i collected feedback from this one, so that it got the attention it deserved.. because how many are actually going to read this comment here from Mr Talks Too Much?
But here... I'll share what info I have despite not sharing the actual graphs / data :
Winrate by round time, while not fully informative due to lack of nuanced data, does tell a story.
Last time I checked, Marines start off with a ~75% winrate at the 5 min mark (data doesn't really exist prior to this because of default concede times) and then by 11 minutes they quickly drop to and remain around ~35% indefinitely. Some Wonitor data on certain servers back this up, albeit their numbers are a bit different from what I saw for all servers.
This is the average, over all games and over a multitude of patches (and the graphs can even compare between patches) .. and while some may find this acceptable and justify it with the 'ol "Asymmetry" card.. I find it to be unacceptably imbalanced. Ideally and in a perfect design vacuum, at any given time in a round either team should have a 50% chance of winning. Sure there can be fluctuations, variables, and an acceptable error % that veers from that.. but to me, 75% to 35% is pretty stark. It implies that rounds are far more predictable than they should be. (You either win early or you lose late etc)
Most would agree that pubs suffer from a weak early alien game, and while improvements continue to be made in that category (from adjusting skulk or lerk HP to bite cones, to nutrient mist on RTs and more incoming etc etc) .. nothing has occurred yet for late game Marines. SO, I was looking to gather feedback on whether the Exo had room for improvement to make it a better late game tool, (that might be more readily available?) since there seems to also be resistance to making the MG a better Anti-Onos weapon. As the poll demonstrates, over half of participants consider the Exo viable enough.. which isn't really conclusive to me unfortunately.
Many are going to respond to the late game Marine winrate by saying its a L2P issue - that pub marines just aren't aggressive.. I happen to think it's more than likely due to something simpler.
And if it were just a L2P issue, it wouldn't have been occurring for this long; a subtle adjustment probably wouldn't hurt and might alleviate some of this.
I doubt many will read this, so I'll probably still make a new thread about it anyways.. but at least you get your full explanation from me, and can understand why I wanted to garner feedback. I would've hoped that you would've just trusted what I said, though, instead of assuming malicious intent and going off about transparency to a person held to an NDA. :-/
TL;DR: I am interested in making Marines' late game tools more accessible and/or more viable to assist in making the lategame - and rounds in general - less predictable.
I find it to be unacceptably imbalanced. Ideally and in a perfect design vacuum, at any given time in a round either team should have a 50% chance of winning. Sure there can be fluctuations, variables, and an acceptable error % that veers from that.. but to me, 75% to 35% is pretty stark.
Note that this is your personal opinion and that it isn't a reason that justifys such a big change to game. The game should not be a playground for individuals (we should have learned this after last years Patch disaster).
Also regarding HMG: I never saw anyone resisting for it being stronger, in fact UWE released a much weaker Version of it than it was in comp mod.
This will be an "anecdote", and may only turn out to be true 1% of the time, but it only happened to me once under these circumstances and it worked out:
Veil, 9v9, im marine com (less than a week ago). We were barely able to hold sky+topo, the aliens basically had the whole map. We were trying to get a hold on pipe, but by 6min it was obvious we were getting fairly stomped. the players on our side were nothing special, noone was an extraordinary aimer (aliens had two really good players), but they positioned themselves fairly good without being asked, and when asked they actually did the thing x) So I stopped SGs and rushed exos, because they would've been dissected with jets.
And to my surprise, it worked. By 9min we had nano (nothing else, mind you, alien 3rd hive was growing/already up), pulled up the PG just in time to defend against onoses (which was our only truly lucky moment during the round, albeit crucial). When the first wave fell back to heal, we went for a sub rush, locked down the left side and by 12 min the aliens conceded after we killed cargo.
The lesson for me here was that even average players can win against a more skilled team in a (nice and enjoyable, not braindead tunnelrush) round, if the right tool is chosen... and exos were just that for that particular round!
TL;DR: I am interested in making Marines' late game tools more accessible and/or more viable to assist in making the lategame - and rounds in general - less predictable.
HandschuhJoin Date: 2005-03-08Member: 44338Members, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Community Developer
Ideally and in a perfect design vacuum, at any given time in a round either team should have a 50% chance of winning.
50% are still a bad Idea because aliens often win due to baserushes - which is fine in my opinion, because ppl need to learn to cover lanes.. but 50% on pub means that generally marines stomp aliens (=less fun), since marines arent able to pull off a hiverush that easy.. so less than 50% would be more ideal for marinewins, if you consider the whole story... since aliens will be even less fun with 50/50..
Especially on pub the only skills lots of ppl on the alienside develop is dropping tunnels since it's much harder to win normallly
@IronHorse I had a strong hunch this is exactly the issue you were going to be talking about. How could I know? Because myself and others (no doubt even yourself) have written pretty comprehensive posts about this over the years.
This is why the faux-secrecy really irked me, because this isn't anything new to the more learned people within the community. People have spoken out about it for years and been ignored.
It's the age-old should end game tech be game-ending tech? discussion, unless im missing something?
Well I definitely don't mean to insult.. I just planned on starting a new thread for that, and just wanted approval from the devs before sharing certain graphs / data before doing so as I'm under an NDA.
I have no need to save face because I am being honest.. Ixian and wob and nordic can all confirm that I have been quite focused on this other problem for months or years.
There's nothing nefarious like me withholding big secret plans etc.. I just wanted to do it in a separate thread after i collected feedback from this one, so that it got the attention it deserved.. because how many are actually going to read this comment here from Mr Talks Too Much?
But here... I'll share what info I have despite not sharing the actual graphs / data :
Winrate by round time, while not fully informative due to lack of nuanced data, does tell a story.
Last time I checked, Marines start off with a ~75% winrate at the 5 min mark (data doesn't really exist prior to this because of default concede times) and then by 11 minutes they quickly drop to and remain around ~35% indefinitely. Some Wonitor data on certain servers back this up, albeit their numbers are a bit different from what I saw for all servers.
This is the average, over all games and over a multitude of patches (and the graphs can even compare between patches) .. and while some may find this acceptable and justify it with the 'ol "Asymmetry" card.. I find it to be unacceptably imbalanced. Ideally and in a perfect design vacuum, at any given time in a round either team should have a 50% chance of winning. Sure there can be fluctuations, variables, and an acceptable error % that veers from that.. but to me, 75% to 35% is pretty stark. It implies that rounds are far more predictable than they should be. (You either win early or you lose late etc)
Most would agree that pubs suffer from a weak early alien game, and while improvements continue to be made in that category (from adjusting skulk or lerk HP to bite cones, to nutrient mist on RTs and more incoming etc etc) .. nothing has occurred yet for late game Marines. SO, I was looking to gather feedback on whether the Exo had room for improvement to make it a better late game tool, (that might be more readily available?) since there seems to also be resistance to making the MG a better Anti-Onos weapon. As the poll demonstrates, over half of participants consider the Exo viable enough.. which isn't really conclusive to me unfortunately.
Many are going to respond to the late game Marine winrate by saying its a L2P issue - that pub marines just aren't aggressive.. I happen to think it's more than likely due to something simpler.
And if it were just a L2P issue, it wouldn't have been occurring for this long; a subtle adjustment probably wouldn't hurt and might alleviate some of this.
I doubt many will read this, so I'll probably still make a new thread about it anyways.. but at least you get your full explanation from me, and can understand why I wanted to garner feedback. I would've hoped that you would've just trusted what I said, though, instead of assuming malicious intent and going off about transparency to a person held to an NDA. :-/
TL;DR: I am interested in making Marines' late game tools more accessible and/or more viable to assist in making the lategame - and rounds in general - less predictable.
Great post and thanks for being candid. I don't know if it's much help but I've felt that it's quite easy for aliens (late game, once they've got their tech) to shove lots of pvp in an area. This greatly dissuades scrubs from moving in (I know you stated the aggression issue but perhaps this can help alleviate the aversion that most players seem to have). I often move in on my own and have little-to-no armour in the space of seconds (whips/hydras) before getting jumped by multiple aliens.
Of course, it's possible that there are a lot of little things that need to be tweaked rather than some catch-all. (maybe make welding something damaged give me more of my armour back...)
Often I find the problem is trying to get your economy back in order, whilst fighting more lifeforms, with less med/ammo support. One of the biggest problems is the mobility; if you've lost your RTs and map control, you need to regain them. It's tough to regain the RTs when a sporing lerk, a skulk and two fades jump you at the natural, whilst two onoses are sitting on the other one. What's the fix? I don't know. The easy (and lazy) answer is: don't let it get to that point. But as you correctly point out, this leads to homogenised gameplay wherein there are fewer paths to victory.
Has anyone given thought to Weapons/Armour 4? Instead of costing 50, you might stick it at 80. Most games would likely be over by the point you could get it, but it would give marines something more in late-game. idk I'm just throwing it out there.
So, marines will win 75% at 5 minutes and 50% after 11 minutes. Excellent idea. Or if you buff the aliens early game, they are just going to snowball it into end game plus neuter the marines before they even get their tech up. You're not going to be able to adjust it, you have to do a complete redesign.
By the way, the main problem for exos is not its capability as a unit. Its the way it is used. There's no point in having firepower if you can't hit with it or are not in position to hit.
@meatmachine I just planned on starting a new thread for that, and just wanted approval from the devs before sharing certain graphs / data before doing so as I'm under an NDA.
There's nothing nefarious like me withholding big secret plans etc..
The problem is you didn't say anything. You didn't give context for the poll, in fact you deliberately removed context from the poll so people are left asking "why is this a question" and then naturally ask themselves "why is he not telling us why he wants us to answer". No one wants graphs, plans, and answers, they just want to understand why you're asking a question and in what context.
And if it were just a L2P issue, it wouldn't have been occurring for this long; a subtle adjustment probably wouldn't hurt and might alleviate some of this.
The commander UI only has 4 slots, one of which is needed for cancelling / recycling
This really isn't a problem, there isn't a reason why you have every upgrade on a different slot anyway. Just make all weapon upgrades on one key and all armor upgrades on one key, problem solved.
Note that this is your personal opinion and that it isn't a reason that justifys such a big change to game. The game should not be a playground for individuals
Also regarding HMG: I never saw anyone resisting for it being stronger, in fact UWE released a much weaker Version of it than it was in comp mod.
Yes, it IS my personal opinion - that's what "but to me" means, precisely? I don't know how I couldn't have been more clear on this point throughout my post?
No, I don't single handedly design or balance NS2, so your unfounded fears of a "playground for individuals" is your own burden to be concerned with.
The resistance regarding making MG a more Onos oriented weapon has not been from the public. Or at the very least, an idea hasn't been good enough yet that accomplishes this in the dev's eyes.
Lastly, I assume you consider that data to be "just fine", given your response... so I'd much rather you gave a justification for that instead of whatever else that comment was.
It would've been more constructive and conducive to the topic being discussed.
So, marines will win 75% at 5 minutes and 50% after 11 minutes. Excellent idea. Or if you buff the aliens early game, they are just going to snowball it into end game plus neuter the marines before they even get their tech up. You're not going to be able to adjust it, you have to do a complete redesign.
By the way, the main problem for exos is not its capability as a unit. Its the way it is used. There's no point in having firepower if you can't hit with it or are not in position to hit.
No - as I already said, the ideal would be to close that gap closer to 50% at any point in the round. This includes bringing that 75% @ 5 min down.. (which has already been happening, as I said)
And yes, there's an argument that buffing aliens in the early game removes the advantage marines would normally get out the gate, that allows them a greater chance to win later on. Absolutely. But that's a poor reason not to adjust. "Don't put air in that tire, because the road might have nails that puncture it" is just leaving a fundamental problem as is because of fear of navigating the next step.
When skulk eHP was buffed and given a larger bite cone and moved quicker when sneaking etc, a few protested, but now nobody talks about it and there seems to be a general acceptance of these adjustments as being balanced or at least "good enough". These subtle adjustments can often have large impacts on the outcome, even at unpredictable times in a round, but if they're properly weighed to limit unforeseen consequences then they can be a targeted solution that is useful in alleviating a symptom.
In short, I disagree about requiring a complete redesign, but agree that further adjustments and considerations need to occur to fix things.
However, said requirements should not dissuade someone from fixing something so fundamental, imho.
Lastly, I have a hard time subscribing to L2P arguments when the frequency of proper usage across a playerbase is low over a long time period. That's when I see it as more of a design issue.
But that discussion is for another thread probably.
The problem is you didn't say anything. You didn't give context for the poll, in fact you deliberately removed context from the poll so people are left asking "why is this a question" and then naturally ask themselves "why is he not telling us why he wants us to answer". No one wants graphs, plans, and answers, they just want to understand why you're asking a question and in what context.
I get that, but obviously providing context and answering why had the potential for skewing the results. You know it, and I know it.
The questions "is X viable?" is a simple and encompassing question that one must weigh, compared to "could X be better used to alleviate Y?" which probably would disintegrate into highly contextual and anecdotal evidence arguments that never end. Plus, I was never interested in asking the context because all I wanted to know was whether there was even room to improve the mechanic. If there's no room (if everyone thought Exos were OP, for instance) then it's not even worth getting into a discussion about whether it could be contextually useful for Y!
"Had" ?.. I still see that all the time in pub games, bub.
Just like I see players not spending any pres all round because they're saving up for that purchase that they'll lose in their first engagement anyways.
@meatmachine
It's partially that topic, yes. But it's mostly geared towards the predictable, inherent statistical imbalance based on the time in the round.
I previously didn't even think it's a question worth asking, but given the Welsh's response I have to now assume others might share the same viewpoint, so : Do you consider specific times in a round being inherently and strongly biased to one team or the other as being balanced and fun?
Because I personally see it as not only imbalanced in a way most players are entirely unaware of, but also not fun at all given how it creates more predictable outcomes and eventualities.
If you answered Yes to the previous question, I'd like to know why striving for a 50% chance of either team winning at any given time is a bad thing.
"Yes, it IS my personal opinion - that's what "but to me" means, precisely? I don't know how I couldn't have been more clear on this point throughout my post?
No, I don't single handedly design or balance NS2, so your unfounded fears of a "playground for individuals" is your own burden to be concerned with."
Sorry, I thought you was speaking for UWE balance comittee and what you are describing would be something UWE is aiming for too.
"Lastly, I assume you consider that data to be "just fine", given your response... so I'd much rather you gave a justification for that instead of whatever else that comment was.
It would've been more constructive and conducive to the topic being discussed."
Lol sorry, but I don't know what that means or what you want to say with that. What data and a response regarding which topic?
"Do you consider specific times in a round being inherently and strongly biased to one team or the other as being balanced and fun?"
You cannot say in general if that would be balanced or not because it is just a concept and can be either balanced or imbalanced, depending on what you make out of it. Is it fun? Depends again on how it is made, it is not fun by design, it is also not unfun by design.
"but also not fun at all given how it creates more predictable outcomes and eventualities."
I cannot see how this is true. There is nothing predictable because there is never a 100% chance of winning. It is just the goal that differs on different times into the game.
"I'd like to know why striving for a 50% chance of either team winning at any given time is a bad thing."
It isn't. But it is also not a good thing in general. It again depends on what you make out of it. In terms of NS2 the "never 50%" thing is an absolute game design fundamental and you cannot change it. However if you would try to change it, you would end up having a COMPLETELY different game. Personally I am not a fan of killing something that is so unique and which players enjoyed since above 10 years now.
You simply have too many defining hard capture points, especially lifeforms. I admit that with the change back then that made lifeforms cost less and make them pay for upgrades, they went into the 50/50 direction a bit more than it was before that change. I am fine with that. Of course you can shift it A BIT more in that direction, but honestly not by much and I don't see a reason why someone would want to.
Stop removing things that make this game unique and special, especially when the proposed idea wouldn't be any better, but only a change in direction. And yes, hard capture points and permanent shift in who gets the upper hand work extremely well in this game, it adds a nice layer of depth by requiring more decision making and making it important to play with and around those things.
When skulk eHP was buffed and given a larger bite cone and moved quicker when sneaking etc, a few protested, but now nobody talks about it and there seems to be a general acceptance of these adjustments as being balanced or at least "good enough".
Don't mistake people seeing no point in protesting because UWE won't listen for people accepting it. Those changes were made not so long after the other, worse changes were made, after which many saw little point in expending their energy in complaining to UWE.
There is nothing predictable because there is never a 100% chance of winning..
OK so by that logic, bringing the 4 minute onos back is a fine design decision because Marines would still win 2 out of 10 games. So you couldn't reliably say that an 80% loss rate over thousands of games could be predictable...
Come on.. you and me both know predictability does not require an absolute 100% certainty.
Stop pretending that, along with pretending that predictability is fun. It's not. It's wholly demotivating.
@meatmachine
It's partially that topic, yes. But it's mostly geared towards the predictable, inherent statistical imbalance based on the time in the round.
I previously didn't even think it's a question worth asking, but given the Welsh's response I have to now assume others might share the same viewpoint, so : Do you consider specific times in a round being inherently and strongly biased to one team or the other as being balanced and fun?
Because I personally see it as not only imbalanced in a way most players are entirely unaware of, but also not fun at all given how it creates more predictable outcomes and eventualities.
If you answered Yes to the previous question, I'd like to know why striving for a 50% chance of either team winning at any given time is a bad thing.
I would answer "yes", but I dont think striving for a 50% chance of either team winning at any given time is a bad thing either.
I personally don't care what the chance is for winning at any given time personally, as long as the opportunity exists at some point for either team.
I'm still completely of the opinion that the problem exists that the game does not end itself.
NS2 clings on to the opportunistic winning conditions of typical RTS games like SC, but we know that at the majority of skill tiers people dont know when they can win, and when they have lost. This isn't SO bad in SC because it's just one person deciding their fate. NS2 has to have the majority of a team know what's going on, and when there isn't this emergent hivemind behaviour, people get frustrated.
If you look at what I'd consider a more appropriate comparison, something like LoL or Dota - the playing field reaches some kind of equilibrium by itself due to the pressures of the mobs and turret defenses. You intuitively know when you're winning because you have a clear lane to an undefended base. Not defended by constantly-respawning skulks that you can't hit with your 10% acc, and not defended by 30 tres worth of crags and whips that the alien comm spent all their res on in the first minute.
Like you said earlier, marines aren't ever comfortable pushing a base until there's a CC, obs and arms lab on every TP, they have W3A3 and exos against unupgraded skulks, etc etc
Even the end-game tech doesn't make winning comfortable.
This is why I said exos are probably in the best place they've been since launch. At least when exo/arc trains were a thing, even idiots could do the job with them.
I dont think vying for a 50% wr at equal tech is worthwhile in NS2 though, mainly due to stuff like gorge tunnels. It seems to come down more to who should have to deal with the ticking time bomb of the oppositions end game tech? Should the marines be trying to finish before Onosplosions, or should Aliens be trying to win before the train arrives?
Playing devils advocate slightly here (because really, this game has deep-seated gameplay issues that will probably never be solved for everyone due to the very nature of the game), but I think it's a viewpoint worth airing.
@Ironhorse How bout to "alleviate Y" as you put it, we directly attack the problem (onos) then try to fix something (exo) that may counter it.
Some possible direct solutions to balance onos:
1) Nerf Charge (i.e. move it to a higher biomass, decrease +4 speed boost, increase energy, etc.). Onos are way too mobile for the amount of health/armor they have and the damage they can deal. In NS1, Charge was a third hive ability. The fact that is only requires Biomass 2 when the Onos will likely have Celerity as well is absurd. Bad positioning by Onos should be punished more heavily and they should absolutely not be able to outchase marines with jetpacks, which happens all the time on pubs. Also, it would allow better teamplay for easier pinches on overextended oni, which hardly ever succeed at the pub level because of the speed cow.
Just spitballing, but my personal preference would be to see Charge and Stomp swapped in the tech tree, while removing the damage of Stomp but keeping the knockdown. Then if I die as a marine, especially with a SG/JP, it wasn't because there was a 1000HP/500AR space cow rampaging at me almost as fast I can fly. God forbid I have to slow down to kill a leaping skulk or two.
2) Nerf Boneshield. Personally I'd like to see this the same as CompMod but w/e.
2) Make HMG great again. I know this isn't directly about Onos, but why does this gun suck so damn much still. The weight is still too high (should be same as SG) making it absolutely impossible to outmaneuver an onos with a JP (and also makes JP even more sluggish and unfun than it already is). It also feels terrible against other lifeforms and pales in comparison to the SG's effectiveness and fun in every way.
So many pubs I see hit a tipping point of w2/a2 marines (with jetpacks finishing or near finishing) when 2-3 onos pop with celerity/charge and possibly carapace/boneshield. At that point, I have to buy a SG and a "jetpack" in order to stay mobile and still protect/harass RTS while hoping for the best. Usually, it does not go in the marines favor, hence your late game statistics. Personally, I think railgun exo are in a good place, like @Wob showed, in regard to countering fades/lerks but are weak against onos (as they should be). I shouldn't be forced to buy an exo, however you plan to make them "viable". Instead, just balance the real problem.
Absolutely! I'm all for weighing out alternatives, like I said, I only ever wanted to get a bead on public perception of exos as a potential adjuster.
We've now fully delved into the topic without a new thread anyways, so let the ideas fly.
I am a bit hesitant to support nerfing Charge, however. It can be useful for lesser skilled players to survive a dumb decision and learn from it. I'd rather do something like make it more risky for aliens to save up for Oni en mass. I agree with the other two points. I don't recall why the MG is not lighter with a JP, but I guess it might have to do with concern over making it far better than an Exo? I'd like to test it..
Also, I do admit that I am generally more in favor of providing better tools (buffing) a team more often than I am in favor of nerfing a team - and that may be where your perception of me using a counter over "directly attacking" the problem comes from. For instance, what if you mistaked the source of the problem, or the scope of it? How do you know it's related to Oni, specifically, for instance? That's where a counter can be a better option, as it's not trying to fish in a large ocean of suspicions, it's targeted towards the known symptom.
I'm still completely of the opinion that the problem exists that the game does not end itself.
Anecdotal, but I do feel like it's far easier to end games as Aliens.. especially with T3 tech being intentionally OP (stomp, contamination etc) in order to break turtles.
Should the marines be trying to finish before Onosplosions, or should Aliens be trying to win before the train arrives?
I think one of those scenarios occur more often than the other. I could be wrong though.
Most rounds feel like "survive past X to win" as Aliens, and "win before Y" as Marines.
No - as I already said, the ideal would be to close that gap closer to 50% at any point in the round. This includes bringing that 75% @ 5 min down.. (which has already been happening, as I said)
And yes, there's an argument that buffing aliens in the early game removes the advantage marines would normally get out the gate, that allows them a greater chance to win later on. Absolutely. But that's a poor reason not to adjust. "Don't put air in that tire, because the road might have nails that puncture it" is just leaving a fundamental problem as is because of fear of navigating the next step.
When skulk eHP was buffed and given a larger bite cone and moved quicker when sneaking etc, a few protested, but now nobody talks about it and there seems to be a general acceptance of these adjustments as being balanced or at least "good enough". These subtle adjustments can often have large impacts on the outcome, even at unpredictable times in a round, but if they're properly weighed to limit unforeseen consequences then they can be a targeted solution that is useful in alleviating a symptom.
In short, I disagree about requiring a complete redesign, but agree that further adjustments and considerations need to occur to fix things.
However, said requirements should not dissuade someone from fixing something so fundamental, imho.
Lastly, I have a hard time subscribing to L2P arguments when the frequency of proper usage across a playerbase is low over a long time period. That's when I see it as more of a design issue.
But that discussion is for another thread probably.
Yes, and how is the 30% marine win rate working out for you?
Your analogy is poor. Its more like "Changing the material of the tire won't help the car if the wheel is square." You need to address the fundamental problem to fix it. And it reflects/reinforces my impression of patches ignoring secondary effects of changes.
I don't particularly care about the eHP change, the bite cone and hitbox size change sucks. It is just mitigated by half the players missing by a mile. It only helps when they barely miss. As I said before, 10% marine shooters are still at 10%. Aliens are harder to gauge when lerking and gorging pulls the accuracy down, but they are still more or less 30-40% on bites/swipes.
Oh, and increased sneak speed? Hard to care when you have something worse like silence on shift (first hive by how many % again?)
Look, I'm not against changes. But you have to be aware that it won't meet your stated goal. And please take into consideration the secondary and tertiary effects of any change you might make. Don't solve a problem but create more in the process of doing so.
L2P is absolutely an issue. You wouldn't necessarily see an improvement just by the passage of time. People stagnate. It doesn't help that exos are not a favoured tech path and that player retention is low.
Lastly, I just want to make sure that we agree that the viability of exos should be measured against jetpacks and arcs and not marine win rate since the conversation has shifted to win rates now.
Yes, and how is the 30% marine win rate working out for you?
I don't understand what point you're making - one of us is misunderstanding, more than likely.
If you mean "leave the weak alien early game alone, because it's the only way marines have a chance" .. then I disagree.
"Survive past X to win" as Aliens, and "win before Y" as Marines is just unnecessary and not fun whatsoever.
Look, I'm not against changes. But you have to be aware that it won't meet your stated goal. And please take into consideration the secondary and tertiary effects of any change you might make. Don't solve a problem but create more in the process of doing so.
What is "it" in this instance? I haven't proposed a damn thing yet to resolve the symptom? All I've done is collect feedback, recognize and explain the symptom, and expressed a desire to address it. Obviously, taking into consideration ripple effects in the pool of balance is the utmost priority.. it never stopped being.
L2P is absolutely an issue. You wouldn't necessarily see an improvement just by the passage of time. People stagnate.
That's called improper design imho.
F.ex : If 90% of your customer base cannot use your product as intended, at what point do you admit the design and your expectations of your base are what failed?
Lastly, I just want to make sure that we agree that the viability of exos should be measured against jetpacks and arcs and not marine win rate since the conversation has shifted to win rates now.
Of course.. that's why I framed it that way in the OP - and something important to distinguish is winrates - which are borderline useless metrics - vs winrate by round time.
As I've said already, it's still an inaccurate metric (esp without average lifeform timing data, even if you can extrapolate it from looking at the graphs), but it tells a story and provides additional data not found in other sources.
Yes, and how is the 30% marine win rate working out for you?
I don't understand what point you're making - one of us is misunderstanding, more than likely.
If you mean "leave the weak alien early game alone, because it's the only way marines have a chance" .. then I disagree.
"Survive past X to win" as Aliens, and "win before Y" as Marines is just unnecessary and not fun whatsoever.
Look, I'm not against changes. But you have to be aware that it won't meet your stated goal. And please take into consideration the secondary and tertiary effects of any change you might make. Don't solve a problem but create more in the process of doing so.
What is "it" in this instance? I haven't proposed a damn thing yet to resolve the symptom? All I've done is collect feedback, recognize and explain the symptom, and expressed a desire to address it. Obviously, taking into consideration ripple effects in the pool of balance is the utmost priority.. it never stopped being.
L2P is absolutely an issue. You wouldn't necessarily see an improvement just by the passage of time. People stagnate.
That's called improper design imho.
F.ex : If 90% of your customer base cannot use your product as intended, at what point do you admit the design and your expectations of your base are what failed?
Lastly, I just want to make sure that we agree that the viability of exos should be measured against jetpacks and arcs and not marine win rate since the conversation has shifted to win rates now.
Of course.. that's why I framed it that way in the OP - and something important to distinguish is winrates - which are borderline useless metrics - vs winrate by round time.
As I've said already, it's still an inaccurate metric (esp without average lifeform timing data, even if you can extrapolate it from looking at the graphs), but it tells a story and provides additional data not found in other sources.
Sort of, yes. If marines are already behind in the late game when they are winning early, they obviously are going to do worse when they don't even manage to do that. As far as surviving past X, winning before Y goes, its just the way it is currently. Its not a foregone conclusion, aliens can certainly win even before lifeforms and marines can take down higher lifeforms after they come up, its just in terms of the advantage that the sides have at certain points in the game. Its up to the players to press the advantage.
You haven't proposed anything, but you have listed examples of actual changes. Obviously, what with all the knee jerk changes in rapid iteration, I have serious doubts.
Shrug. If you put it that way, I guess we can look forward to HA trains again? I really don't see how you "fix" the exo when the main problem is that players are out of position. Let them phase?
I just wanted it to be sure since you said you mentioned boosting exos in the same post you were lamenting low marine late game win rates.
Exo have low skill ceiling and high skill floor compared to JP. This makes them advantageous for less skilled players...
So yes exos are viable in low skill games but less so in high skill games...
Skill floor comparison-
-Noob Exo... gets in and shoots, does ok feels empowered and actually pushes in. Extra health and dps helps lack of mobility doesn't matter because he sucks at positioning anyway.
-Noob JP... gets in waists all his fuel and ends up walking around when a skulk bites his ass. No additional DPS and lack of movement skill makes JP pointless.
Skill ceiling comparison-
- Pro exo... gets in and kills everything around him but is dependent on support welding, gets parisited and swarmed eventually. extra DPS helps but lack of mobility handicaps.
-Pro JP...gets in and can move in an out of engagements and use his mini map to cut off retreating lerk/fades/onos,Then sneaks a gate up in ball court. Extra mobility is huge, buys SG, hmm, GL to achieve optimal DPS for given strategy.
In large pub games having both is helpful... less skilled players go exo and hopefully can hit a onos or hive doing continuous high DPS, while skilled JP/SG keeps exo welded and fades/skulks/gorges at bay.
You haven't proposed anything, but you have listed examples of actual changes. Obviously, what with all the knee jerk changes in rapid iteration, I have serious doubts.
I was goaded into suggestions so as to be constructive and not just refute everyone. I even made a disclaimer to not take them as anything other than me coming with an idea on the spot. :-/
I really don't see how you "fix" the exo when the main problem is that players are out of position.
I don't think they need fixing per se, but I would like to see them as a more accessible tool, where positioning isn't as crucial because you could move away quickly. idk..
________________________
@maD_maX_
I think you have skill floor confused. Having a High skill floor means it's difficult to learn to use adequately.. which.. in this case I'd agree with your assessment considering how easily pub marines die with them, but that definitely doesn't make them advantageous for lesser skilled players.
"Extra health and dps helps lack of mobility doesn't matter because he sucks at positioning anyway."
Like I mentioned previously in this thread, there may potentially be only a 1-2 sec difference in Time To Kill comparing a medpacked A3 marine to a A3 Exo.
But I agree with your DPS assessment. Annddd lack of mobility DOES matter precisely because they suck at positioning. If they had mobility, it would be easier /more forgiving to correct.
There is nothing predictable because there is never a 100% chance of winning..
OK so by that logic, bringing the 4 minute onos back is a fine design decision because Marines would still win 2 out of 10 games. So you couldn't reliably say that an 80% loss rate over thousands of games could be predictable...
Come on.. you and me both know predictability does not require an absolute 100% certainty.
Stop pretending that, along with pretending that predictability is fun. It's not. It's wholly demotivating.
2 things
aliens having a higher winrate late game is not a balance problem, 50% chance of winning for each team is at the START of the game not during, not after they lose all their RT, at the start only, it's a huge misconception of what balance is Ironhorse. Do you think when the chess master has 1 pawn left vs a full army hes like meh where muh 50% chance? no
As I understand what you were talking about is not balance rather comebacks and how it can be a problem if late game, while the game is not decided yet marines sort of tend to always lose automatically.
Ok fine thats a different issue but you have to be extremely careful in how you identify and chose a fix for it. Because remember 3 hives is meant as a win conditions so remove those games from your stats, and look at games only where aliens won with not 3rd hive yet.
And really Exos seem in a good place buffing them would be making them op, so look somewhere else, probably yes revert boneshield maybe.
You haven't proposed anything, but you have listed examples of actual changes. Obviously, what with all the knee jerk changes in rapid iteration, I have serious doubts.
I was goaded into suggestions so as to be constructive and not just refute everyone. I even made a disclaimer to not take them as anything other than me coming with an idea on the spot. :-/
I really don't see how you "fix" the exo when the main problem is that players are out of position.
I don't think they need fixing per se, but I would like to see them as a more accessible tool, where positioning isn't as crucial because you could move away quickly. idk..
But that is just the flow of the game isn't it? Aliens are supposed to be able to weather the storm and come out on top after lifeforms and marines are supposed end it before or kill those lifeforms after if they want to win. Don't you have a more or less 50% overall win rate? I get what you are going for, I'm just saying that to do that you have to change the game so that the teams start from the same point and progress at the same rate. It requires a complete redesign and tweaks aren't going to affect it enough.
Exos don't need fixing but they also aren't viable? If you say so.
@Ironhorse How bout to "alleviate Y" as you put it, we directly attack the problem (onos) then try to fix something (exo) that may counter it.
Some possible direct solutions to balance onos:
1) Nerf Charge (i.e. move it to a higher biomass, decrease +4 speed boost, increase energy, etc.). Onos are way too mobile for the amount of health/armor they have and the damage they can deal. In NS1, Charge was a third hive ability. The fact that is only requires Biomass 2 when the Onos will likely have Celerity as well is absurd. Bad positioning by Onos should be punished more heavily and they should absolutely not be able to outchase marines with jetpacks, which happens all the time on pubs. Also, it would allow better teamplay for easier pinches on overextended oni, which hardly ever succeed at the pub level because of the speed cow.
Sorry for taking this off topic. Just like to share my five cents in regard to Onos.
To me, Charge feels like it could be improved to be more enjoyable for both teams. The speed boost accelerates too quickly (it should take longer to reach max speed), since Onos without Charge is already quite fast and difficult to escape from; The direction locking feels too restrictive and clumsy to use (It could be tweaked so turning slows you down and can cancel Charge if speed drops too low, but mouse turning is no longer locked). There is so much confined space in NS2 maps that Charge rarely lasts longer than 5 seconds without ramming into a wall.
they do act fairly well as a deterrent... "oh there is an EXO in there ... maybe I'll go somewhere else".
Would I rather fight an exo then a SG/JP? Probably but JP/SG tend not to be as easy to avoid...
That said in higher skilled games players know the importance of killing high value targets instead of avoiding and living. So again in lower skill matches they are more effective based on player play style,.,,
As to the general shift in balance from early to late game....
I chock 1/2 of it up to an imbalance in base life form abilities.... low level aliens inherently change roles as new abilities are unlocked.
- rines get armor and dmg, but without a welder buddy(gl in Pub) the armor buff is short lived. So a base rine will not change roles because without a SG, JP, or EXO he is effectively the same as he was 5 minutes ago.
- Aliens however get speed, silence, armor to match the rine tech tree. Then you add abilities like leep and bile to the low level life forms an they completely change their play styles. Leeping skulls don't hide and wait as much but are inherently more aggressive. Gorges now switch from support to offensive....
So around the 5-7min mark the entire alien team is playing a different life form and play style.
Oh and tunnel rush... it's the secret to my 4500 hive score. Getting stomped? No point in onos/fade they only have 1 CC...
Comments
without following up on them.
It's vague, leading statements like this that make people look like they're talking crap for the sake of saving face; and being indirect towards the community is precisely what has driven many people who cared about this game away already. Transparency has always been an issue for the dev team, as you of all people should know; without it we end up with nonsense balance changes like we have seen in the past year. And I understand the dev team is in no way obligated to discuss these things publicly, but I'll be damned if you don't have a hard time learning from past mistakes.
If you've got some bright idea that's as important as you imply, I'm of the particular opinion you should air it on a public forum in a direct, transparent manner.
Until then, I don't buy what I can't see and I dont think anyone else should have to either, nor should we be expected to be content with "trust me"
Well I definitely don't mean to insult.. I just planned on starting a new thread for that, and just wanted approval from the devs before sharing certain graphs / data before doing so as I'm under an NDA.
I have no need to save face because I am being honest.. Ixian and wob and nordic can all confirm that I have been quite focused on this other problem for months or years.
There's nothing nefarious like me withholding big secret plans etc.. I just wanted to do it in a separate thread after i collected feedback from this one, so that it got the attention it deserved.. because how many are actually going to read this comment here from Mr Talks Too Much?
But here... I'll share what info I have despite not sharing the actual graphs / data :
Winrate by round time, while not fully informative due to lack of nuanced data, does tell a story.
Last time I checked, Marines start off with a ~75% winrate at the 5 min mark (data doesn't really exist prior to this because of default concede times) and then by 11 minutes they quickly drop to and remain around ~35% indefinitely. Some Wonitor data on certain servers back this up, albeit their numbers are a bit different from what I saw for all servers.
This is the average, over all games and over a multitude of patches (and the graphs can even compare between patches) .. and while some may find this acceptable and justify it with the 'ol "Asymmetry" card.. I find it to be unacceptably imbalanced. Ideally and in a perfect design vacuum, at any given time in a round either team should have a 50% chance of winning. Sure there can be fluctuations, variables, and an acceptable error % that veers from that.. but to me, 75% to 35% is pretty stark. It implies that rounds are far more predictable than they should be. (You either win early or you lose late etc)
Most would agree that pubs suffer from a weak early alien game, and while improvements continue to be made in that category (from adjusting skulk or lerk HP to bite cones, to nutrient mist on RTs and more incoming etc etc) .. nothing has occurred yet for late game Marines. SO, I was looking to gather feedback on whether the Exo had room for improvement to make it a better late game tool, (that might be more readily available?) since there seems to also be resistance to making the MG a better Anti-Onos weapon. As the poll demonstrates, over half of participants consider the Exo viable enough.. which isn't really conclusive to me unfortunately.
Many are going to respond to the late game Marine winrate by saying its a L2P issue - that pub marines just aren't aggressive.. I happen to think it's more than likely due to something simpler.
And if it were just a L2P issue, it wouldn't have been occurring for this long; a subtle adjustment probably wouldn't hurt and might alleviate some of this.
I doubt many will read this, so I'll probably still make a new thread about it anyways.. but at least you get your full explanation from me, and can understand why I wanted to garner feedback. I would've hoped that you would've just trusted what I said, though, instead of assuming malicious intent and going off about transparency to a person held to an NDA. :-/
TL;DR: I am interested in making Marines' late game tools more accessible and/or more viable to assist in making the lategame - and rounds in general - less predictable.
Also regarding HMG: I never saw anyone resisting for it being stronger, in fact UWE released a much weaker Version of it than it was in comp mod.
This will be an "anecdote", and may only turn out to be true 1% of the time, but it only happened to me once under these circumstances and it worked out:
Veil, 9v9, im marine com (less than a week ago). We were barely able to hold sky+topo, the aliens basically had the whole map. We were trying to get a hold on pipe, but by 6min it was obvious we were getting fairly stomped. the players on our side were nothing special, noone was an extraordinary aimer (aliens had two really good players), but they positioned themselves fairly good without being asked, and when asked they actually did the thing x) So I stopped SGs and rushed exos, because they would've been dissected with jets.
And to my surprise, it worked. By 9min we had nano (nothing else, mind you, alien 3rd hive was growing/already up), pulled up the PG just in time to defend against onoses (which was our only truly lucky moment during the round, albeit crucial). When the first wave fell back to heal, we went for a sub rush, locked down the left side and by 12 min the aliens conceded after we killed cargo.
The lesson for me here was that even average players can win against a more skilled team in a (nice and enjoyable, not braindead tunnelrush) round, if the right tool is chosen... and exos were just that for that particular round!
Yes please! x)
Especially on pub the only skills lots of ppl on the alienside develop is dropping tunnels since it's much harder to win normallly
This is why the faux-secrecy really irked me, because this isn't anything new to the more learned people within the community. People have spoken out about it for years and been ignored.
It's the age-old should end game tech be game-ending tech? discussion, unless im missing something?
Great post and thanks for being candid. I don't know if it's much help but I've felt that it's quite easy for aliens (late game, once they've got their tech) to shove lots of pvp in an area. This greatly dissuades scrubs from moving in (I know you stated the aggression issue but perhaps this can help alleviate the aversion that most players seem to have). I often move in on my own and have little-to-no armour in the space of seconds (whips/hydras) before getting jumped by multiple aliens.
Of course, it's possible that there are a lot of little things that need to be tweaked rather than some catch-all. (maybe make welding something damaged give me more of my armour back...)
Often I find the problem is trying to get your economy back in order, whilst fighting more lifeforms, with less med/ammo support. One of the biggest problems is the mobility; if you've lost your RTs and map control, you need to regain them. It's tough to regain the RTs when a sporing lerk, a skulk and two fades jump you at the natural, whilst two onoses are sitting on the other one. What's the fix? I don't know. The easy (and lazy) answer is: don't let it get to that point. But as you correctly point out, this leads to homogenised gameplay wherein there are fewer paths to victory.
Has anyone given thought to Weapons/Armour 4? Instead of costing 50, you might stick it at 80. Most games would likely be over by the point you could get it, but it would give marines something more in late-game. idk I'm just throwing it out there.
By the way, the main problem for exos is not its capability as a unit. Its the way it is used. There's no point in having firepower if you can't hit with it or are not in position to hit.
Yeah like we had fast PGs for 4 years
The commander UI only has 4 slots, one of which is needed for cancelling / recycling
No, I don't single handedly design or balance NS2, so your unfounded fears of a "playground for individuals" is your own burden to be concerned with.
The resistance regarding making MG a more Onos oriented weapon has not been from the public. Or at the very least, an idea hasn't been good enough yet that accomplishes this in the dev's eyes.
Lastly, I assume you consider that data to be "just fine", given your response... so I'd much rather you gave a justification for that instead of whatever else that comment was.
It would've been more constructive and conducive to the topic being discussed.
No - as I already said, the ideal would be to close that gap closer to 50% at any point in the round. This includes bringing that 75% @ 5 min down.. (which has already been happening, as I said)
And yes, there's an argument that buffing aliens in the early game removes the advantage marines would normally get out the gate, that allows them a greater chance to win later on. Absolutely. But that's a poor reason not to adjust. "Don't put air in that tire, because the road might have nails that puncture it" is just leaving a fundamental problem as is because of fear of navigating the next step.
When skulk eHP was buffed and given a larger bite cone and moved quicker when sneaking etc, a few protested, but now nobody talks about it and there seems to be a general acceptance of these adjustments as being balanced or at least "good enough". These subtle adjustments can often have large impacts on the outcome, even at unpredictable times in a round, but if they're properly weighed to limit unforeseen consequences then they can be a targeted solution that is useful in alleviating a symptom.
In short, I disagree about requiring a complete redesign, but agree that further adjustments and considerations need to occur to fix things.
However, said requirements should not dissuade someone from fixing something so fundamental, imho.
Lastly, I have a hard time subscribing to L2P arguments when the frequency of proper usage across a playerbase is low over a long time period. That's when I see it as more of a design issue.
But that discussion is for another thread probably.
I get that, but obviously providing context and answering why had the potential for skewing the results. You know it, and I know it.
The questions "is X viable?" is a simple and encompassing question that one must weigh, compared to "could X be better used to alleviate Y?" which probably would disintegrate into highly contextual and anecdotal evidence arguments that never end. Plus, I was never interested in asking the context because all I wanted to know was whether there was even room to improve the mechanic. If there's no room (if everyone thought Exos were OP, for instance) then it's not even worth getting into a discussion about whether it could be contextually useful for Y!
"Had" ?.. I still see that all the time in pub games, bub.
Just like I see players not spending any pres all round because they're saving up for that purchase that they'll lose in their first engagement anyways.
@meatmachine
It's partially that topic, yes. But it's mostly geared towards the predictable, inherent statistical imbalance based on the time in the round.
I previously didn't even think it's a question worth asking, but given the Welsh's response I have to now assume others might share the same viewpoint, so : Do you consider specific times in a round being inherently and strongly biased to one team or the other as being balanced and fun?
Because I personally see it as not only imbalanced in a way most players are entirely unaware of, but also not fun at all given how it creates more predictable outcomes and eventualities.
If you answered Yes to the previous question, I'd like to know why striving for a 50% chance of either team winning at any given time is a bad thing.
No, I don't single handedly design or balance NS2, so your unfounded fears of a "playground for individuals" is your own burden to be concerned with."
Sorry, I thought you was speaking for UWE balance comittee and what you are describing would be something UWE is aiming for too.
"Lastly, I assume you consider that data to be "just fine", given your response... so I'd much rather you gave a justification for that instead of whatever else that comment was.
It would've been more constructive and conducive to the topic being discussed."
Lol sorry, but I don't know what that means or what you want to say with that. What data and a response regarding which topic?
"Do you consider specific times in a round being inherently and strongly biased to one team or the other as being balanced and fun?"
You cannot say in general if that would be balanced or not because it is just a concept and can be either balanced or imbalanced, depending on what you make out of it. Is it fun? Depends again on how it is made, it is not fun by design, it is also not unfun by design.
"but also not fun at all given how it creates more predictable outcomes and eventualities."
I cannot see how this is true. There is nothing predictable because there is never a 100% chance of winning. It is just the goal that differs on different times into the game.
"I'd like to know why striving for a 50% chance of either team winning at any given time is a bad thing."
It isn't. But it is also not a good thing in general. It again depends on what you make out of it. In terms of NS2 the "never 50%" thing is an absolute game design fundamental and you cannot change it. However if you would try to change it, you would end up having a COMPLETELY different game. Personally I am not a fan of killing something that is so unique and which players enjoyed since above 10 years now.
You simply have too many defining hard capture points, especially lifeforms. I admit that with the change back then that made lifeforms cost less and make them pay for upgrades, they went into the 50/50 direction a bit more than it was before that change. I am fine with that. Of course you can shift it A BIT more in that direction, but honestly not by much and I don't see a reason why someone would want to.
Stop removing things that make this game unique and special, especially when the proposed idea wouldn't be any better, but only a change in direction. And yes, hard capture points and permanent shift in who gets the upper hand work extremely well in this game, it adds a nice layer of depth by requiring more decision making and making it important to play with and around those things.
Don't mistake people seeing no point in protesting because UWE won't listen for people accepting it. Those changes were made not so long after the other, worse changes were made, after which many saw little point in expending their energy in complaining to UWE.
Come on.. you and me both know predictability does not require an absolute 100% certainty.
Stop pretending that, along with pretending that predictability is fun. It's not. It's wholly demotivating.
I would answer "yes", but I dont think striving for a 50% chance of either team winning at any given time is a bad thing either.
I personally don't care what the chance is for winning at any given time personally, as long as the opportunity exists at some point for either team.
I'm still completely of the opinion that the problem exists that the game does not end itself.
NS2 clings on to the opportunistic winning conditions of typical RTS games like SC, but we know that at the majority of skill tiers people dont know when they can win, and when they have lost. This isn't SO bad in SC because it's just one person deciding their fate. NS2 has to have the majority of a team know what's going on, and when there isn't this emergent hivemind behaviour, people get frustrated.
If you look at what I'd consider a more appropriate comparison, something like LoL or Dota - the playing field reaches some kind of equilibrium by itself due to the pressures of the mobs and turret defenses. You intuitively know when you're winning because you have a clear lane to an undefended base. Not defended by constantly-respawning skulks that you can't hit with your 10% acc, and not defended by 30 tres worth of crags and whips that the alien comm spent all their res on in the first minute.
Like you said earlier, marines aren't ever comfortable pushing a base until there's a CC, obs and arms lab on every TP, they have W3A3 and exos against unupgraded skulks, etc etc
Even the end-game tech doesn't make winning comfortable.
This is why I said exos are probably in the best place they've been since launch. At least when exo/arc trains were a thing, even idiots could do the job with them.
I dont think vying for a 50% wr at equal tech is worthwhile in NS2 though, mainly due to stuff like gorge tunnels. It seems to come down more to who should have to deal with the ticking time bomb of the oppositions end game tech? Should the marines be trying to finish before Onosplosions, or should Aliens be trying to win before the train arrives?
Playing devils advocate slightly here (because really, this game has deep-seated gameplay issues that will probably never be solved for everyone due to the very nature of the game), but I think it's a viewpoint worth airing.
Some possible direct solutions to balance onos:
1) Nerf Charge (i.e. move it to a higher biomass, decrease +4 speed boost, increase energy, etc.). Onos are way too mobile for the amount of health/armor they have and the damage they can deal. In NS1, Charge was a third hive ability. The fact that is only requires Biomass 2 when the Onos will likely have Celerity as well is absurd. Bad positioning by Onos should be punished more heavily and they should absolutely not be able to outchase marines with jetpacks, which happens all the time on pubs. Also, it would allow better teamplay for easier pinches on overextended oni, which hardly ever succeed at the pub level because of the speed cow.
Just spitballing, but my personal preference would be to see Charge and Stomp swapped in the tech tree, while removing the damage of Stomp but keeping the knockdown. Then if I die as a marine, especially with a SG/JP, it wasn't because there was a 1000HP/500AR space cow rampaging at me almost as fast I can fly. God forbid I have to slow down to kill a leaping skulk or two.
2) Nerf Boneshield. Personally I'd like to see this the same as CompMod but w/e.
2) Make HMG great again. I know this isn't directly about Onos, but why does this gun suck so damn much still. The weight is still too high (should be same as SG) making it absolutely impossible to outmaneuver an onos with a JP (and also makes JP even more sluggish and unfun than it already is). It also feels terrible against other lifeforms and pales in comparison to the SG's effectiveness and fun in every way.
So many pubs I see hit a tipping point of w2/a2 marines (with jetpacks finishing or near finishing) when 2-3 onos pop with celerity/charge and possibly carapace/boneshield. At that point, I have to buy a SG and a "jetpack" in order to stay mobile and still protect/harass RTS while hoping for the best. Usually, it does not go in the marines favor, hence your late game statistics. Personally, I think railgun exo are in a good place, like @Wob showed, in regard to countering fades/lerks but are weak against onos (as they should be). I shouldn't be forced to buy an exo, however you plan to make them "viable". Instead, just balance the real problem.
Absolutely! I'm all for weighing out alternatives, like I said, I only ever wanted to get a bead on public perception of exos as a potential adjuster.
We've now fully delved into the topic without a new thread anyways, so let the ideas fly.
I am a bit hesitant to support nerfing Charge, however. It can be useful for lesser skilled players to survive a dumb decision and learn from it. I'd rather do something like make it more risky for aliens to save up for Oni en mass. I agree with the other two points. I don't recall why the MG is not lighter with a JP, but I guess it might have to do with concern over making it far better than an Exo? I'd like to test it..
Also, I do admit that I am generally more in favor of providing better tools (buffing) a team more often than I am in favor of nerfing a team - and that may be where your perception of me using a counter over "directly attacking" the problem comes from. For instance, what if you mistaked the source of the problem, or the scope of it? How do you know it's related to Oni, specifically, for instance? That's where a counter can be a better option, as it's not trying to fish in a large ocean of suspicions, it's targeted towards the known symptom.
Anecdotal, but I do feel like it's far easier to end games as Aliens.. especially with T3 tech being intentionally OP (stomp, contamination etc) in order to break turtles.
I think one of those scenarios occur more often than the other. I could be wrong though.
Most rounds feel like "survive past X to win" as Aliens, and "win before Y" as Marines.
Yes, and how is the 30% marine win rate working out for you?
Your analogy is poor. Its more like "Changing the material of the tire won't help the car if the wheel is square." You need to address the fundamental problem to fix it. And it reflects/reinforces my impression of patches ignoring secondary effects of changes.
I don't particularly care about the eHP change, the bite cone and hitbox size change sucks. It is just mitigated by half the players missing by a mile. It only helps when they barely miss. As I said before, 10% marine shooters are still at 10%. Aliens are harder to gauge when lerking and gorging pulls the accuracy down, but they are still more or less 30-40% on bites/swipes.
Oh, and increased sneak speed? Hard to care when you have something worse like silence on shift (first hive by how many % again?)
Look, I'm not against changes. But you have to be aware that it won't meet your stated goal. And please take into consideration the secondary and tertiary effects of any change you might make. Don't solve a problem but create more in the process of doing so.
L2P is absolutely an issue. You wouldn't necessarily see an improvement just by the passage of time. People stagnate. It doesn't help that exos are not a favoured tech path and that player retention is low.
Lastly, I just want to make sure that we agree that the viability of exos should be measured against jetpacks and arcs and not marine win rate since the conversation has shifted to win rates now.
If you mean "leave the weak alien early game alone, because it's the only way marines have a chance" .. then I disagree.
"Survive past X to win" as Aliens, and "win before Y" as Marines is just unnecessary and not fun whatsoever.
What is "it" in this instance? I haven't proposed a damn thing yet to resolve the symptom? All I've done is collect feedback, recognize and explain the symptom, and expressed a desire to address it.
Obviously, taking into consideration ripple effects in the pool of balance is the utmost priority.. it never stopped being.
That's called improper design imho.
F.ex : If 90% of your customer base cannot use your product as intended, at what point do you admit the design and your expectations of your base are what failed?
Of course.. that's why I framed it that way in the OP - and something important to distinguish is winrates - which are borderline useless metrics - vs winrate by round time.
As I've said already, it's still an inaccurate metric (esp without average lifeform timing data, even if you can extrapolate it from looking at the graphs), but it tells a story and provides additional data not found in other sources.
Sort of, yes. If marines are already behind in the late game when they are winning early, they obviously are going to do worse when they don't even manage to do that. As far as surviving past X, winning before Y goes, its just the way it is currently. Its not a foregone conclusion, aliens can certainly win even before lifeforms and marines can take down higher lifeforms after they come up, its just in terms of the advantage that the sides have at certain points in the game. Its up to the players to press the advantage.
You haven't proposed anything, but you have listed examples of actual changes. Obviously, what with all the knee jerk changes in rapid iteration, I have serious doubts.
Shrug. If you put it that way, I guess we can look forward to HA trains again? I really don't see how you "fix" the exo when the main problem is that players are out of position. Let them phase?
I just wanted it to be sure since you said you mentioned boosting exos in the same post you were lamenting low marine late game win rates.
So yes exos are viable in low skill games but less so in high skill games...
Skill floor comparison-
-Noob Exo... gets in and shoots, does ok feels empowered and actually pushes in. Extra health and dps helps lack of mobility doesn't matter because he sucks at positioning anyway.
-Noob JP... gets in waists all his fuel and ends up walking around when a skulk bites his ass. No additional DPS and lack of movement skill makes JP pointless.
Skill ceiling comparison-
- Pro exo... gets in and kills everything around him but is dependent on support welding, gets parisited and swarmed eventually. extra DPS helps but lack of mobility handicaps.
-Pro JP...gets in and can move in an out of engagements and use his mini map to cut off retreating lerk/fades/onos,Then sneaks a gate up in ball court. Extra mobility is huge, buys SG, hmm, GL to achieve optimal DPS for given strategy.
In large pub games having both is helpful... less skilled players go exo and hopefully can hit a onos or hive doing continuous high DPS, while skilled JP/SG keeps exo welded and fades/skulks/gorges at bay.
Is it ever unfair? What about 95%? 80%?
For me, 75% is pushing it.
I was goaded into suggestions so as to be constructive and not just refute everyone. I even made a disclaimer to not take them as anything other than me coming with an idea on the spot. :-/
I don't think they need fixing per se, but I would like to see them as a more accessible tool, where positioning isn't as crucial because you could move away quickly. idk..
________________________
@maD_maX_
I think you have skill floor confused. Having a High skill floor means it's difficult to learn to use adequately.. which.. in this case I'd agree with your assessment considering how easily pub marines die with them, but that definitely doesn't make them advantageous for lesser skilled players.
"Extra health and dps helps lack of mobility doesn't matter because he sucks at positioning anyway."
Like I mentioned previously in this thread, there may potentially be only a 1-2 sec difference in Time To Kill comparing a medpacked A3 marine to a A3 Exo.
But I agree with your DPS assessment. Annddd lack of mobility DOES matter precisely because they suck at positioning. If they had mobility, it would be easier /more forgiving to correct.
2 things
aliens having a higher winrate late game is not a balance problem, 50% chance of winning for each team is at the START of the game not during, not after they lose all their RT, at the start only, it's a huge misconception of what balance is Ironhorse. Do you think when the chess master has 1 pawn left vs a full army hes like meh where muh 50% chance? no
As I understand what you were talking about is not balance rather comebacks and how it can be a problem if late game, while the game is not decided yet marines sort of tend to always lose automatically.
Ok fine thats a different issue but you have to be extremely careful in how you identify and chose a fix for it. Because remember 3 hives is meant as a win conditions so remove those games from your stats, and look at games only where aliens won with not 3rd hive yet.
And really Exos seem in a good place buffing them would be making them op, so look somewhere else, probably yes revert boneshield maybe.
Exos don't need fixing but they also aren't viable? If you say so.
Sorry for taking this off topic. Just like to share my five cents in regard to Onos.
To me, Charge feels like it could be improved to be more enjoyable for both teams. The speed boost accelerates too quickly (it should take longer to reach max speed), since Onos without Charge is already quite fast and difficult to escape from; The direction locking feels too restrictive and clumsy to use (It could be tweaked so turning slows you down and can cancel Charge if speed drops too low, but mouse turning is no longer locked). There is so much confined space in NS2 maps that Charge rarely lasts longer than 5 seconds without ramming into a wall.
Plus, for welding, just use macs
Would I rather fight an exo then a SG/JP? Probably but JP/SG tend not to be as easy to avoid...
That said in higher skilled games players know the importance of killing high value targets instead of avoiding and living. So again in lower skill matches they are more effective based on player play style,.,,
I chock 1/2 of it up to an imbalance in base life form abilities.... low level aliens inherently change roles as new abilities are unlocked.
- rines get armor and dmg, but without a welder buddy(gl in Pub) the armor buff is short lived. So a base rine will not change roles because without a SG, JP, or EXO he is effectively the same as he was 5 minutes ago.
- Aliens however get speed, silence, armor to match the rine tech tree. Then you add abilities like leep and bile to the low level life forms an they completely change their play styles. Leeping skulls don't hide and wait as much but are inherently more aggressive. Gorges now switch from support to offensive....
So around the 5-7min mark the entire alien team is playing a different life form and play style.
Oh and tunnel rush... it's the secret to my 4500 hive score. Getting stomped? No point in onos/fade they only have 1 CC...