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.
Are you asking if that is intentional? If so, the answer is no.
In fact, something the old balance team (~build 250 and onward) focused on for quite a while was lessening the massive tech swings between the teams throughout a round.
They knew this occurred and that it was an issue, even without having the concrete data and graphs on hand.
Do you agree with my assessment that inherent roundtime biases are not only uncommunicated to the masses, but combined with RTS slippery slope mechanics can easily snowball rounds into far too predictable results? If nothing else, it can create seriously demotivating and un-engaging experiences.
I don't see an argument for why it shouldn't be 50/50 chances at any point in a round, at least until 15 min in?
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.
That absolutely plays a part, but its less to do with role, and more to do with when the role operates and how effective it is.
For example, a Lerk's role changes drastically with each additional minute in the early game, and until spores are researched the lerk should not return to its 2 min roundtime aggressiveness generally speaking.
However, changing the role shouldn't inherently come with a giant swing in advantage or disadvantage, but rather a suitable role with slightly more effectiveness.
One could argue that the spores example is a suitable fit and adequately effective, so then the next questions are "how effective was that lifeform's role prior to that unlock" and "was it consistently effective up to that point?" You cannot really change the role of the fade, for instance, but you could change its power output or survivability. (i wouldn't mess with timing) There's a lot of factors to consider, in other words.
An interesting thing to glean from the data is that you can easily determine when fades or onos come out on average, and the impact they have on marines.
I'd rather keep them where they are, both power and role, and instead just better equip marines. (people like toys, not nerfs) As for alien early game, there's other options..
MouseThe Lighter Side of PessimismJoin Date: 2002-03-02Member: 263Members, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
I wouldn't be surprised if some aspect of it is simply due to the nature of how aliens progress and establish themselves throughout the round.
Initially, it's stealth and scouting with the early tier lifeforms barely able to face marines and there being no safe zones outside of the hive. But as the round progresses, more powerful lifeforms become available and most importantly the map becomes littered with forward bases & PvE. So not only do marines need to clear lifeforms & nodes, they also need to clear whips, crags, gorge tunnels & other structures from the map - it becomes a war of attrition.
It's worth noting that barring the bases that appear around phase gates and active assaults, the marine game doesn't clutter the map in a similar fashion.
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.
Are you asking if that is intentional? If so, the answer is no.
In fact, something the old balance team (~build 250 and onward) focused on for quite a while was lessening the massive tech swings between the teams throughout a round.
They knew this occurred and that it was an issue, even without having the concrete data and graphs on hand.
Do you agree with my assessment that inherent roundtime biases are not only uncommunicated to the masses, but combined with RTS slippery slope mechanics can easily snowball rounds into far too predictable results? If nothing else, it can create seriously demotivating and un-engaging experiences.
I don't see an argument for why it shouldn't be 50/50 chances at any point in a round, at least until 15 min in?
Intention doesn't matter. Its just how the game ended up.
I'm past the point of caring about the "masses". They are hopeless and I'm not even that good/smart a player to begin with. As far as being predictable, no. I disagree. The difference between bending and breaking is the point. You are too focused on when teams are likely to break, but they absolutely deserve to lose if they didn't manage to hold on. If marines can't hold res or kill lifeforms, they should lose. If aliens can't get lifeforms or flash their lifeforms, they should lose, excepting successful base rushes.
I get what you are trying to go for. I just don't see the point, and more importantly, I don't think it is possible without an overhaul of the game.
@IronHorse
I was specifically speaking to skulk's leep and gorge bile bomb (maybe even bone shield but that's a 12+minute shift in the scales)
Bile bomb COMPLETLY changes the role of the gorge its more or less an entirely different life form. Leep take skulks from the ground/wall to the air making it possible to by pass entire engagements and hit back nodes, reengage or kill JP.
Contrary spore/metabolism/umbra/charge/swipe/advancemetaboliz/etc..., All Strengthen their play style...
Basically Like @Mouse said
-alien base defend and heal themselves allowing time to respond and no need to stay and repair.
-contrary marine bases are liabilities... more then 3 PG? GL.... the more marines expand the easier it is to find an unguarded PG and then wreck a base...
Marines themselves are always scary, their bases not so much... Marines in combat are effective so don't buff them, instead buff their bases so they are less target and more strong holds...
Balance? PVE for rines, electrified turret factory/RT... AA repair armor... MAC mines... flame turret (auto target bile bomb).... these would all boost rines after 5 minutes and maybe bump those win stats...
Now THAT'S an interesting idea! Taking out sentry batteries is a walkinthepark for gorges atm, it would be interesting if you could upgrade one of your sentries to a flamer
Not sure about the balance though, sentries are quite powerful early-game, if that stays for mid-game even with gorge bile, that might be a big problem
@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.
Agree with 2 and 2 (sic) but I am less sure about 1.
I just don't see the point, and more importantly, I don't think it is possible without an overhaul of the game.
So is that the only answer to "I don't see an argument for why it shouldn't be 50/50 chances at any point in a round, at least until 15 min in?"
You're afraid it cannot be accomplished with a few number tweaks?
@maD_maX_
Interesting approach.. strengthening their bases.
Some of those suggestions are annoying to deal with though, like electrified structures, and others promote bad playstyle (armory giving armor)
What about unlocking sentries from the robo and making them slightly more expensive? That way you could hold a techpoint for a bit longer perhaps? Idk, I consider sentries to be borderline useless in most cases. At best they can buy you a little time in the mid game and onward.
twilitebluebug stalkerJoin Date: 2003-02-04Member: 13116Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited February 2017
I'd rather see Sentries buffed a bit than being so under-used as the are. They are currently a waste of resources unless when used to support an all out push, which only adds insult to injury and is the last place where Sentries are required. We could try increase Sentry's health and damage slightly to warrant their costs. Alien already have plenty of ways to destroy or nullify turrets. But because Sentries are so weak, these interactions are rarely seen and become trivialized in the current metagame.
On the other hand, I feel FT is very anti-fun for aliens, as it instantly and completely shuts down all support abilities. While it is good to have counters in a game, one weapon should not shut down most of the opposing team's game pieces. Bile Bomb and Flamethrower are too easy to use and given so much power, that many game elements and interaction become useless and trivialized. The wide splash damage on BB indiscriminately and simultaneously wipes out Sentries, Mines, structures and MACs with little thought or selective targeting required;
Flamethrower can remove all Spores, Umbras, Bile projectiles, Enzyme, as well as disable all structures and kill Cysts in a wide area within two seconds by simply sweeping the mouse left and right. One weapon/ability should not counter more than half of the other team's arsenal. Meanwhile, it also paints a giant bullseye on the user, making it an unattractive purchase. Rebalancing the damage and utility of the FT would make it more enjoyable for everyone. For example, instead of instantly vaporizing bile filled projectiles and alien clouds (such as Umbra), FT would require more effort to destroy those objects, taking 0.5 to 1 second of persistent flame to kill. Whip Bombard, with their fast projectile speed, might become more difficult to intercept and encourage multiple FT on the field.
Sorry for going off topic. In a way, aren't Exos like big mobile Sentries? :P
I'd rather see Sentries buffed a bit than being so under-used as the are.
I hate to derail this thread, like the other one that turned out to be all about tremulous/unvanquished. But when I briefly played those games, sentries were a huge part of the game it seems. And it sucked, at least to me. Sentries really suck the fun out of this game imo. It becomes a game of PvE, instead of PvP. Whips is in a different category entirely, because they are basically melee only and relatively easy to deal with as a result.
(On the other hand, I feel FT is very anti-fun for aliens, as it totally shuts down so many abilities).
While it is good to have counters in a game, they should require skill and some opportunity cost. BB and FT are too easy to use to be given so much power, that many game elements and interaction become useless and trivialized.
FT does have great opportunity cost though. A flamethrower means one less shotgun. Which is probably why you hardly ever see it in competitive play. And I'd add, that flamethrower actually does require a great deal of tracking skill to use effectively. -it's just a shame that even with great tracking you can't really output enough player damage for it to hold its own- but it's still a skillful weapon by design in my opinion.
I'd rather see Sentries buffed a bit than being so under-used as the are.
I hate to derail this thread, like the other one that turned out to be all about tremulous/unvanquished. But when I briefly played those games, sentries were a huge part of the game it seems. And it sucked, at least to me. Sentries really suck the fun out of this game imo. It becomes a game of PvE, instead of PvP. Whips is in a different category entirely, because they are basically melee only and relatively easy to deal with as a result.
(On the other hand, I feel FT is very anti-fun for aliens, as it totally shuts down so many abilities).
While it is good to have counters in a game, they should require skill and some opportunity cost. BB and FT are too easy to use to be given so much power, that many game elements and interaction become useless and trivialized.
FT does have great opportunity cost though. A flamethrower means one less shotgun. Which is probably why you hardly ever see it in competitive play. And I'd add, that flamethrower actually does require a great deal of tracking skill to use effectively. -it's just a shame that even with great tracking you can't really output enough player damage for it to hold its own- but it's still a skillful weapon by design in my opinion.
I would rather try to outsmart balanced Sentry puzzles for PvE than simply hold down attack button for a whole minute to gnaw on a bunch of boring bleeping structures. While Sentries used to be too good at defending on their own, they have been overnerfed and now five minute into a game, almost any alien can rush at them and proceed to give them the slimey treatment from behind, without even using any of the half a dozen tools that were designed for the job.
As for the flame turret suggestion, I think they would be grossly overpowered, if they can nullify BB/Bombard, making Sentries immune to their main threat without player intervention.
Edited my previous post to elaborate on my reasons.
I just don't see the point, and more importantly, I don't think it is possible without an overhaul of the game.
So is that the only answer to "I don't see an argument for why it shouldn't be 50/50 chances at any point in a round, at least until 15 min in?"
You're afraid it cannot be accomplished with a few number tweaks?
No.
a) Its not necessary. You are still too focused on when teams are likely to lose, but as someone else mentioned upthread, they have an equal chance at the start. Again, teams are supposed to bend and not break. That advantage isn't fatal.
b) What changes at 15 minutes that 50/50 is not relevant anymore?
c) I'm not afraid. I'm absolutely confident that it cannot be done. If you want to do it, go ahead. I'm just telling you that you are unlikely to succeed.
If you were so concerned about having 50/50 chances until 15 minutes in, maybe you shouldn't have been so hard on our resident plagiariser and supported him through his attempts on that cancer siege mod.
But they don't? That was the purpose of me sharing that info.
Unless we're pretending that the time period we don't have data for is magically allowing an equal chance? Which sounds wholly unsupported..
What changes at 15 minutes that 50/50 is not relevant anymore?
I was just using the average round time. Beyond that, there's the argument that aliens need to be stronger to break potential turtles - which don't get me started on, it just pains me how it's symptom chasing. Changing that aspect would definitely require more fundamental changes than just value tweaks, so that's why I limited it in my question.
If you were so concerned about having 50/50 chances until 15 minutes in, maybe you shouldn't have been so hard on our resident plagiariser and supported him through his attempts on that cancer siege mod.
Is that analogous to those backwood folks' bumper stickers that say "If the flag offends you, you're free to leave" ?
I rarely consider things being beyond improvement, and I'd hope even suggesting such wouldn't result in "gtfo" :-/
I get your point about bending.. but I have a hard time seeing those stats I shared as bending.
But they don't? That was the purpose of me sharing that info.
Unless we're pretending that the time period we don't have data for is magically allowing an equal chance? Which sounds wholly unsupported..
What changes at 15 minutes that 50/50 is not relevant anymore?
I was just using the average round time. Beyond that, there's the argument that aliens need to be stronger to break potential turtles - which don't get me started on, it just pains me how it's symptom chasing. Changing that aspect would definitely require more fundamental changes than just value tweaks, so that's why I limited it in my question.
If you were so concerned about having 50/50 chances until 15 minutes in, maybe you shouldn't have been so hard on our resident plagiariser and supported him through his attempts on that cancer siege mod.
Is that analogous to those backwood folks' bumper stickers that say "If the flag offends you, you're free to leave" ?
I rarely consider things being beyond improvement, and I'd hope even suggesting such wouldn't result in "gtfo" :-/
I get your point about bending.. but I have a hard time seeing those stats I shared as bending.
No. I meant the overall win rate. Again, you are too focused on when the teams actually lose. Both teams have an equal chance of winning before anything has happened to snowball the round.
I don't follow.
1. Outside of base rushes, games are usually lost way before the actual concede/tech point loss.
2. Using average round time is really just arbitrary. Tech levels should be more appropriate.
3. If you are turtling, you are already on the back foot and unlikely to make a come back bar an epic collapse from the WarriorsFalcons aliens.
4. It will result in an inherent advantage for a team after x time, which is what you are trying to fix now.
Shrug. I was just trolling you. The similarities are there, you have to admit.
Well, I don't have access to the stats, but what you've shown so far isn't really a concern in my opinion.
Now that it's derailed: Marines get to jp+xo consequently if the teams are balanced to begin with, I think the bigger problem is that you rarely get through to top tier alien abilities. I can count on one hand how many times i've seen xeno in the last half of year, even though 15min+ marine turtles are not rare. Contamination is very powerful, and it takes away the omportance of those alien abilities (and stab is also useless atm x)
Did read whole thread and the number of "Yes" supprise me. From my commander point of view exos are kind of toys that people like to use and it's fun to be inside, but without real tactical usefulness. As someone already said, they are like mobile turrets. Best for low skill players, as I might need high skill jp to make something usefull eg. protect rts, chase that onos, protect ARC effectively. They often appear late on game as an add-on and fun bonus, but alone are incapable of changing much if aliens are already winning or have good skill. Alone they're very weak, they have to retreat (or even explode) after confrontation with one skulk. Want to rush hive with exos? sure, but compare that to sitting with ARCs behind the wall vs exo rush where you can lose plenty of res in exo. Plenty of aliens in hive? better not enter as this might be a total failure.
They even have less dmg points than ARC, lol!
ARC -> 2000 hp 500 armor = 2000/3000 dmg
EXO -> 415 armor = 830 dmg
I always thought exos are suppose to be like that cause rookies will find it fun to play.
I would change way the exos are used. Slow them down (50%), maybe also make crosschair more inert, but boost their armour (200%) so they're able to enter the hive more. But idk how it will work out.
This will:
- even more punish exo going alone as they won't be able to escape easily
- will give finally more good and bad tactical meaning, eg.: exo will be totally usless for protecting rts or chasing lifeforms, but will be fair at pushing (taking hive down)
P.S. Was playing game yesterday where 3-4 exos, welder boys, ARCs were struggling to take down hive with fade and leap skulks, lol, and I bet they wouldn't take the hive down if not the ARCs.
I would change way the exos are used. Slow them down (50%), maybe also make crosschair more inert, but boost their armour (200%) so they're able to enter the hive more. But idk how it will work out.
So basically like they used to be.
I'm not saying it was good back then, but damn, I'd gladly play one more match with an oldschool arc + exo train.
Played with a comm who was relatively new, so he wasn't quick on the meds and ammo at all. Decided to pick up an exo and wreak havoc, dropping out to weld it myself (slow process). I think without that option the round would have been lost.
Just an anecdote, of course, but that seems to be what most views in this thread are coming down to.
As it stands, bigger problems for snowballing include the Onos boneshield and the difficulty in re-taking the map, against higher lifeforms, whilst with a low economy (tough to med your marines through the onslaught on 2-3 RTs).
#import a_shitty_programming_language
#pseudo code attempting to lessen snowballing
AlienResRate = (TotalHarvesters * 1.0) #as an example.
MarineResRate = (TotalExtractors * 1.0)
#this is a function
def HandicapMultiplier(ANumberRepresentingHowBadTheyAreSucking)
#TODO: write code that generates a multiplier depending on severity of passed variable. Ex: 0.2 cuts Res Rate by 20%
while(AlienResNodes/MarineResNodes >= 1.5)
AlienResRate -= (AlienResRate * HandicapMultiplier(AlienResNodes/MarineResNodes))
#Example, at 3 Harvesters vs 1 Extractor, and Handicap Multiplier at 0.2, AlienResRate is now 2.4, and Marines still have 1.0
while(MarineResNodes/AlienResNodes >= 1.5)
MarineResRate -= (MarineResRate * HandicapMultiplier(MarineResNodes/AlienResNodes))
#example, at 5 Extractors vs 0 Harvesters, the program will crash because I didn't bother to error check division by zero. You get the idea.
I had a simpler idea in mind to reduce the resource snowballing. It's much more transparent and easy to calculate.
Each team would start off with increased default res income regardless of RT, with linear increase of income per RT just like now.
eg for personal res income
0RT = 2res per minute;
1RT = 3res/min;
2RT = 4res/min;
3RT = 5res/min, income rate which is only 167% of 1 RT, instead of 300%.
With this increase, weapon costs would have to be adjusted.
I had a simpler idea in mind to reduce the resource snowballing. It's much more transparent and easy to calculate.
Each team would start off with increased default res income regardless of RT, with linear increase of income per RT just like now.
eg for personal res income
0RT = 2res per minute;
1RT = 3res/min;
2RT = 4res/min;
3RT = 5res/min, income rate which is only 167% of 1 RT, instead of 300%.
With this increase, weapon costs would have to be adjusted.
I think this is actually really neat. It gives you two variables to adjust balance with (offset and gradient), but is still easy and intuitive to understand due to it's linearity.
edit: two variables as opposed to the one variable (gradient) which we have right now
Or maybe just let tech points give res? However, overall, I'm not in too much favor of reducing res snowballing in such a manner. If you don't have map control and can't defend rt's, you are put in an equally correct disadvantage.
Or maybe just let tech points give res? However, overall, I'm not in too much favor of reducing res snowballing in such a manner. If you don't have map control and can't defend rt's, you are put in an equally correct disadvantage.
That would also eliminate a lot of alien rush wins, since now marines don't sit on one comm chair all day long.
On the other hand, late game aliens become even more op. Would need to account for that.
But half the game is about killing the other teams RT....This devalues the RT and would encourage more players to ignore them. While biting RT's is one of the less fun parts, it is also part of what makes NS/NS2 a stratagy game
twilitebluebug stalkerJoin Date: 2003-02-04Member: 13116Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
As long as players understand that enemy RT standing around is not good for your team, then they will get knocked down. Even if each additional RT only gives 10% more resource, NS2 will remain a strategic game. It is, and should be much deeper than just resource nodes. But I digress.
I think rescaling resource graph to have a gentler gradient will have an overall positive effect on the game. Losing RTs will have much less short term impact. It could potentially help Marine late game as well. Marines will be less likely to suddenly lose most of their income and momentum as they organise their assault on Hives.
it is also part of what makes NS/NS2 a stratagy game
I'd argue that a mechanic that is a non-choice (obtaining RTs and destroying enemy RTs) is not "strategy".
Strategy comes from your tech path, coordination, team composition, upgrade choices, physical locations on the map itself etc.
RTs are just the requirement to be able to deploy said strategies.
it is also part of what makes NS/NS2 a stratagy game
I'd argue that a mechanic that is a non-choice (obtaining RTs and destroying enemy RTs) is not "strategy".
Strategy comes from your tech path, coordination, team composition, upgrade choices, physical locations on the map itself etc.
RTs are just the requirement to be able to deploy said strategies.
But RTs are key to force the other team to react (preferably) disadvantageously. It's a cost of opportunity: you save your RT observation, or keep wrecking them in hub... It's not strategy per-se, but it contributes heavily to the idea... If you remove that aspect, what's there to prevent both teams fighting in one room the whole time? Power nodes?
Comments
In fact, something the old balance team (~build 250 and onward) focused on for quite a while was lessening the massive tech swings between the teams throughout a round.
They knew this occurred and that it was an issue, even without having the concrete data and graphs on hand.
Do you agree with my assessment that inherent roundtime biases are not only uncommunicated to the masses, but combined with RTS slippery slope mechanics can easily snowball rounds into far too predictable results? If nothing else, it can create seriously demotivating and un-engaging experiences.
I don't see an argument for why it shouldn't be 50/50 chances at any point in a round, at least until 15 min in?
That absolutely plays a part, but its less to do with role, and more to do with when the role operates and how effective it is.
For example, a Lerk's role changes drastically with each additional minute in the early game, and until spores are researched the lerk should not return to its 2 min roundtime aggressiveness generally speaking.
However, changing the role shouldn't inherently come with a giant swing in advantage or disadvantage, but rather a suitable role with slightly more effectiveness.
One could argue that the spores example is a suitable fit and adequately effective, so then the next questions are "how effective was that lifeform's role prior to that unlock" and "was it consistently effective up to that point?" You cannot really change the role of the fade, for instance, but you could change its power output or survivability. (i wouldn't mess with timing) There's a lot of factors to consider, in other words.
An interesting thing to glean from the data is that you can easily determine when fades or onos come out on average, and the impact they have on marines.
I'd rather keep them where they are, both power and role, and instead just better equip marines. (people like toys, not nerfs) As for alien early game, there's other options..
Initially, it's stealth and scouting with the early tier lifeforms barely able to face marines and there being no safe zones outside of the hive. But as the round progresses, more powerful lifeforms become available and most importantly the map becomes littered with forward bases & PvE. So not only do marines need to clear lifeforms & nodes, they also need to clear whips, crags, gorge tunnels & other structures from the map - it becomes a war of attrition.
It's worth noting that barring the bases that appear around phase gates and active assaults, the marine game doesn't clutter the map in a similar fashion.
Intention doesn't matter. Its just how the game ended up.
I'm past the point of caring about the "masses". They are hopeless and I'm not even that good/smart a player to begin with. As far as being predictable, no. I disagree. The difference between bending and breaking is the point. You are too focused on when teams are likely to break, but they absolutely deserve to lose if they didn't manage to hold on. If marines can't hold res or kill lifeforms, they should lose. If aliens can't get lifeforms or flash their lifeforms, they should lose, excepting successful base rushes.
I get what you are trying to go for. I just don't see the point, and more importantly, I don't think it is possible without an overhaul of the game.
I was specifically speaking to skulk's leep and gorge bile bomb (maybe even bone shield but that's a 12+minute shift in the scales)
Bile bomb COMPLETLY changes the role of the gorge its more or less an entirely different life form. Leep take skulks from the ground/wall to the air making it possible to by pass entire engagements and hit back nodes, reengage or kill JP.
Contrary spore/metabolism/umbra/charge/swipe/advancemetaboliz/etc..., All Strengthen their play style...
Basically Like @Mouse said
-alien base defend and heal themselves allowing time to respond and no need to stay and repair.
-contrary marine bases are liabilities... more then 3 PG? GL.... the more marines expand the easier it is to find an unguarded PG and then wreck a base...
Marines themselves are always scary, their bases not so much... Marines in combat are effective so don't buff them, instead buff their bases so they are less target and more strong holds...
Balance? PVE for rines, electrified turret factory/RT... AA repair armor... MAC mines... flame turret (auto target bile bomb).... these would all boost rines after 5 minutes and maybe bump those win stats...
Now THAT'S an interesting idea! Taking out sentry batteries is a walkinthepark for gorges atm, it would be interesting if you could upgrade one of your sentries to a flamer
Not sure about the balance though, sentries are quite powerful early-game, if that stays for mid-game even with gorge bile, that might be a big problem
Agree with 2 and 2 (sic) but I am less sure about 1.
So is that the only answer to "I don't see an argument for why it shouldn't be 50/50 chances at any point in a round, at least until 15 min in?"
You're afraid it cannot be accomplished with a few number tweaks?
@maD_maX_
Interesting approach.. strengthening their bases.
Some of those suggestions are annoying to deal with though, like electrified structures, and others promote bad playstyle (armory giving armor)
What about unlocking sentries from the robo and making them slightly more expensive? That way you could hold a techpoint for a bit longer perhaps? Idk, I consider sentries to be borderline useless in most cases. At best they can buy you a little time in the mid game and onward.
On the other hand, I feel FT is very anti-fun for aliens, as it instantly and completely shuts down all support abilities. While it is good to have counters in a game, one weapon should not shut down most of the opposing team's game pieces. Bile Bomb and Flamethrower are too easy to use and given so much power, that many game elements and interaction become useless and trivialized. The wide splash damage on BB indiscriminately and simultaneously wipes out Sentries, Mines, structures and MACs with little thought or selective targeting required;
Flamethrower can remove all Spores, Umbras, Bile projectiles, Enzyme, as well as disable all structures and kill Cysts in a wide area within two seconds by simply sweeping the mouse left and right. One weapon/ability should not counter more than half of the other team's arsenal. Meanwhile, it also paints a giant bullseye on the user, making it an unattractive purchase. Rebalancing the damage and utility of the FT would make it more enjoyable for everyone. For example, instead of instantly vaporizing bile filled projectiles and alien clouds (such as Umbra), FT would require more effort to destroy those objects, taking 0.5 to 1 second of persistent flame to kill. Whip Bombard, with their fast projectile speed, might become more difficult to intercept and encourage multiple FT on the field.
Sorry for going off topic. In a way, aren't Exos like big mobile Sentries? :P
FT does have great opportunity cost though. A flamethrower means one less shotgun. Which is probably why you hardly ever see it in competitive play. And I'd add, that flamethrower actually does require a great deal of tracking skill to use effectively. -it's just a shame that even with great tracking you can't really output enough player damage for it to hold its own- but it's still a skillful weapon by design in my opinion.
I would rather try to outsmart balanced Sentry puzzles for PvE than simply hold down attack button for a whole minute to gnaw on a bunch of boring bleeping structures. While Sentries used to be too good at defending on their own, they have been overnerfed and now five minute into a game, almost any alien can rush at them and proceed to give them the slimey treatment from behind, without even using any of the half a dozen tools that were designed for the job.
As for the flame turret suggestion, I think they would be grossly overpowered, if they can nullify BB/Bombard, making Sentries immune to their main threat without player intervention.
Edited my previous post to elaborate on my reasons.
No.
a) Its not necessary. You are still too focused on when teams are likely to lose, but as someone else mentioned upthread, they have an equal chance at the start. Again, teams are supposed to bend and not break. That advantage isn't fatal.
b) What changes at 15 minutes that 50/50 is not relevant anymore?
c) I'm not afraid. I'm absolutely confident that it cannot be done. If you want to do it, go ahead. I'm just telling you that you are unlikely to succeed.
Unless we're pretending that the time period we don't have data for is magically allowing an equal chance? Which sounds wholly unsupported..
I was just using the average round time. Beyond that, there's the argument that aliens need to be stronger to break potential turtles - which don't get me started on, it just pains me how it's symptom chasing. Changing that aspect would definitely require more fundamental changes than just value tweaks, so that's why I limited it in my question.
Is that analogous to those backwood folks' bumper stickers that say "If the flag offends you, you're free to leave" ?
I rarely consider things being beyond improvement, and I'd hope even suggesting such wouldn't result in "gtfo" :-/
I get your point about bending.. but I have a hard time seeing those stats I shared as bending.
No. I meant the overall win rate. Again, you are too focused on when the teams actually lose. Both teams have an equal chance of winning before anything has happened to snowball the round.
I don't follow.
1. Outside of base rushes, games are usually lost way before the actual concede/tech point loss.
2. Using average round time is really just arbitrary. Tech levels should be more appropriate.
3. If you are turtling, you are already on the back foot and unlikely to make a come back bar an epic collapse from the Warriors Falcons aliens.
4. It will result in an inherent advantage for a team after x time, which is what you are trying to fix now.
Shrug. I was just trolling you. The similarities are there, you have to admit.
Well, I don't have access to the stats, but what you've shown so far isn't really a concern in my opinion.
They even have less dmg points than ARC, lol!
ARC -> 2000 hp 500 armor = 2000/3000 dmg
EXO -> 415 armor = 830 dmg
I always thought exos are suppose to be like that cause rookies will find it fun to play.
I would change way the exos are used. Slow them down (50%), maybe also make crosschair more inert, but boost their armour (200%) so they're able to enter the hive more. But idk how it will work out.
This will:
- even more punish exo going alone as they won't be able to escape easily
- will give finally more good and bad tactical meaning, eg.: exo will be totally usless for protecting rts or chasing lifeforms, but will be fair at pushing (taking hive down)
P.S. Was playing game yesterday where 3-4 exos, welder boys, ARCs were struggling to take down hive with fade and leap skulks, lol, and I bet they wouldn't take the hive down if not the ARCs.
So basically like they used to be.
I'm not saying it was good back then, but damn, I'd gladly play one more match with an oldschool arc + exo train.
Just an anecdote, of course, but that seems to be what most views in this thread are coming down to.
As it stands, bigger problems for snowballing include the Onos boneshield and the difficulty in re-taking the map, against higher lifeforms, whilst with a low economy (tough to med your marines through the onslaught on 2-3 RTs).
#import a_shitty_programming_language #pseudo code attempting to lessen snowballing AlienResRate = (TotalHarvesters * 1.0) #as an example. MarineResRate = (TotalExtractors * 1.0) #this is a function def HandicapMultiplier(ANumberRepresentingHowBadTheyAreSucking) #TODO: write code that generates a multiplier depending on severity of passed variable. Ex: 0.2 cuts Res Rate by 20% while(AlienResNodes/MarineResNodes >= 1.5) AlienResRate -= (AlienResRate * HandicapMultiplier(AlienResNodes/MarineResNodes)) #Example, at 3 Harvesters vs 1 Extractor, and Handicap Multiplier at 0.2, AlienResRate is now 2.4, and Marines still have 1.0 while(MarineResNodes/AlienResNodes >= 1.5) MarineResRate -= (MarineResRate * HandicapMultiplier(MarineResNodes/AlienResNodes)) #example, at 5 Extractors vs 0 Harvesters, the program will crash because I didn't bother to error check division by zero. You get the idea.I had a simpler idea in mind to reduce the resource snowballing. It's much more transparent and easy to calculate.
Each team would start off with increased default res income regardless of RT, with linear increase of income per RT just like now.
eg for personal res income
0RT = 2res per minute;
1RT = 3res/min;
2RT = 4res/min;
3RT = 5res/min, income rate which is only 167% of 1 RT, instead of 300%.
With this increase, weapon costs would have to be adjusted.
I think this is actually really neat. It gives you two variables to adjust balance with (offset and gradient), but is still easy and intuitive to understand due to it's linearity.
edit: two variables as opposed to the one variable (gradient) which we have right now
That would also eliminate a lot of alien rush wins, since now marines don't sit on one comm chair all day long.
On the other hand, late game aliens become even more op. Would need to account for that.
I think rescaling resource graph to have a gentler gradient will have an overall positive effect on the game. Losing RTs will have much less short term impact. It could potentially help Marine late game as well. Marines will be less likely to suddenly lose most of their income and momentum as they organise their assault on Hives.
Strategy comes from your tech path, coordination, team composition, upgrade choices, physical locations on the map itself etc.
RTs are just the requirement to be able to deploy said strategies.
Whoever brought that up probably took it out of its behind. And well he likes poop you were warned.
The fact that Irnhorse who said he couldnt argue anything with us now openly talks nonsense about it is just another sign we are not on topic.
But RTs are key to force the other team to react (preferably) disadvantageously. It's a cost of opportunity: you save your RT observation, or keep wrecking them in hub... It's not strategy per-se, but it contributes heavily to the idea... If you remove that aspect, what's there to prevent both teams fighting in one room the whole time? Power nodes?