ah..right...I would be in a different catagory altogether then... I enjoy Team-play, and working together well, whether we lose or win is fun for me, as long as both teams put the effort into trying to win, and use their tactics well. Thats why i'm sick of SP games. But if i was to be put in any catagory it would be the * I enjoy playing in a more relaxed, casual atmosphere where the pressure is not on solely to win* <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I asked a friend who's a board certified behavioural psychologist to look over the article. He found it "disjointed and lacking appropriate methodology to support their claims."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did you happen to mention that it is an article and not a thesis? Sounds more like your board certified friend is criticising someones thesis at the university.
And shesh, NO, marine/alien is NOT the same as LEFT/RIGHT!! Left or right side of the screen!! Get it? Marine/Alien is to be compared with Ryu/Whoever (don't play thse sort of games and have no ideas of what name), get it? If you play a Ryu/Ryu game and the person that starts on the left side of the screen has an advantage it wouldn't be fair because the premise is that the fight is supposed to be on equal terms, there is no such thing as equal terms in NS and won't be unless they make a Marine vs Marine mod with symmetrical maps.
KenichiThis is not a pie.Join Date: 2002-11-01Member: 2941Members, NS1 Playtester
well wasnt this thread fun. knew it would spark some intresting talk. This is probably the single most intelligently posted thread ive ever seen in this forums. People are actually taking the time to think about what they post, for the most part.
Another interesting note is that even though it is a game where you are supposed to have fun-it is a competition against other players. You can play a single player game, and it can be fun, but after a while it can get boring. You know how the AI will react in specific situations and so on. There is no additional challenge after playing an entire single player game (unless there are harder settings or something of course <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->). But when you play a multiplayer game against live opponents, you can have fun winning or losing or whatever. But the most satisfaction is often derived from proving to yourself and others that you are BETTER than them. Because when you are better, you are either respected or feared. I've seen cocky clans ask for scrims and decide that they suddenly couldn't play when sYn offered to scrim them. A lot of people can make a name for themselves, and show that they are better. However, in a multiplayer environment that relies on teamwork to win, these people run into problems. Counter-Strike is a multiplayer game, but the best players did not depend on lower level players to help them (more often, teammates became the hinderance). Now we've got a Mod that rewards teamwork through experience and winning. Unfortunately the same attitude is held by the players that think (or sometimes know) they are better. Not only are they better than the other team, they are better than their teammates. But now, they need those teammates to succeed. And if those teammates don't, even the best players are screwed. Why the sirlin.net article is often linked to/quoted. A great deal of players ONLY have fun when they win, and the tactics to win are often the cheapest. It's a contest between themselves and how they rate themselves. Cheapness reigns. Using it is optional. When winning isn't optional, cheapness isn't either. Hence, cheapness is often used by the people who have to win to stay satisfied with themselves.
<!--QuoteBegin--Stoneburg+Mar 16 2003, 03:17 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stoneburg @ Mar 16 2003, 03:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So using the first part, marines should be able to abuse processing on hera because they must play to win. But wait, processing can only be abused by one side (aka player 1)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When he says "side" he means side as in left or right, not which player, team or race, but which side of the screen your fighter starts at.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So were allowed to be slightly unfair, but not overly unfair?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think you understood the article. If there is a tactic7bug/exploit that is *completely* over-powered then it should be avoided. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Dude, I think it should be blatantly obvious that the processing double-siege is indeed a case of abuse by "one side". His *example* was specific to a FIGHTING game. You should extrapolate his comments so they make sense in the NS world. Processing IS unfair and will thankfully be changed.
JP rush is also too huge of an advantage and will be changed.
HMG+HA+Welders + teamwork is NOT unfair and probably won't be changed much.
See the difference? People complain about all three, but not all three are balance issues.
Lastly, people reading this article should be sure to study more then a single viewpoint. Just because some dude writes something you happen to agree with (becuase it matches your viewpoint) doesn't make it any more valid then someone who disagrees with you.
Yea I'm confused, I have more fun playing, than winning, half the time when I win a game it's like "woohoo we won the game *mapchange*" not much beyond that. To me 95% of fun comes from the game itself, not winning.. I don't think I have any memories at all of a winning fun.. but I have hell of alot of memories of in game moments <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
I consider myself an average player of half life.. I'm not good, but I know what I'm doing. I don't play to get better so I can have fun later, I play to have fun now.
I like winning as much as anyone else, but maybe I enjoy the little things more so.
This thread is full of missconceptions, assumptions, and people who are repeatedly missquoting arguments either purposefully or through ignorance. Its not the first time this topic has been brought up here, every time sirlin is mentioned we get the same result. This argument has never managed to penetrate the thick skulls of half the forum and probably never will. The topic has been done to death, but like an idiot, im going to comment on it anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> A great deal of players ONLY have fun when they win <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the largest obsticle the argument has to get over. People who regardless of what you say will continually quote the above. The nature of competitive play is to do your best to win the game, <b>this in no way implies the above quote</b>. "Only having fun when you win" and "trying your best to win" are completely different concepts, understand this before you make any comment on the topic. There is no competitive team that will tell you a closely fought match between 2 opponents using everything at their disposal to defeat the other team, that is fought down to the last skulk bite is not enjoyable, even if you lose. Crushing yes, but still enjoyable. The difference between a competitive team, and a bunch of random people on a public server can be summed up in 1 phrase:
"Goal of the game"
The goal of the game is to stop the opposing team from spawning, and then kill them all. That's NS. Everything you do in a game has to be keyed towards this goal, if it isnt, then you aren't playing NS, you are playing your own little makebelieve game. If you do something purposefully that hinders this goal, such as refusing to rush the other team at the beginning of the game, then you aren't playing NS, you are playing your own little makebelieve game.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Game - the word means fun, fun for everyone! your playing a game, which denotes there is a time to scrub and a time not to. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To play a game is to compete, when anyone plays a game they compete, and do their best to succeed at the game. However, even within the confines of something like NS, <b>not everyone is playing the same game</b>. "Playing for fun" is essentially creating your own game, with your own rules and/or goals. This can be a deviation of rules, such as "try to stop the other team from respawning and kill them all..... but don't use jetpacks, or rush, or double siege..." or it can be a complete redesign of the goals such as "See how many parasite kills i can get". This is what people like to term "Playing for fun". The name gives it credibility, because it automatically implies that if you aren't playing for fun you must not get any enjoyment out of the game. This is nonsense.
In either case, you are not playing NS, you are playing your own game. And usually, you're are playing your own game <b>by yourself</b>. The thing about trying to score as many parasite kills as possible is that no one else on the server is competing with you. You are playing a game by yourself, and everyone else on the server is just a means of scoring. Consequently, there is no way for you to 'lose', and you are never let down. People find this comforting. By inventing your own rules regarding what can or cannot be used, you are doing a very similar thing. You are playing to your own rules in your head, and the rest of the server most likely has no knowledge of these rules. If you lose to something that in your head is 'against the rules' you can justify this to yourself, and avoid the thought that your playing ability might just be inadequate. Everyone on this forum is competitive, and everyone attempts to play a game to the best of their ability. But only a few of us are playing NS 1.04.
This is different to rules agreed by a league or community, set in writing, and obeyed by everyone on the server. However, these rules do not necessarily enhance the game, there are such things as poor rules. They are a point of discussion, deciding wether rules should be enforced or gameplay elements changed is a question of how the changes effect the game in terms of competitive merit. The following section up untill indicated is pretty off-topic.
<-------------------------------- OFF TOPIC ------------------------->
Some games are better from a competitive point of view than others - for example, warcraft 3 is a better competitive game than snakes and ladders. You can define what makes warcraft 3 a better competitive game (Warning, i am about to use the word 'skill', duck and cover):
Firstly, there is near-limitess headroom to improve your skill at the game. A wc3 player can continue playing the game and improving himself, learning new skills and developing old.
Secondly, the performance of a wc3 player at wc3 is directly proportional to his 'skill' at wc3. (Ok when you bring random item drops into it this isnt a fantastic example, but lets pretend wc3 is a perfect competitive game).
Combine those 2 points and you get a game where you can constantly improve and develop your ability, and your self-improvement is always shown in your performance. An experienced player beats a new player, and an even more experienced player can beat that player. On the other hand, snakes and ladders offers no scope for advancement of skill, everything is decided by the throw of a dice.
From a game design perspective, to improve a competitive game you must press the importance of skills which have a great deal of room for advancement. 'Deep' skills if you like. Combat ability is a skill which can be continually improved, and so falls under this category. While, the ability to walk to a location and drop a res node, does not. However, you have to have a broader view of the game than this - the act of dropping a res node in itself can be considered one of the simplest tasks in NS, however the concept of attacking and defending res nodes spread across a map invokes a variety of more complex skills: Co-ordination of a team that has to cover many locations at once, and has to split up and spread out, combat skills when they inevitably encounter the enemy, tactics as to how to allocate your team, where and when to drop nodes, defend or attack. In otherwords, it would not be intelligent to argue for the removal of res nodes based on the fact that dropping a res node is simple. Take note of that, because it applies to the jetpack rush.
These concepts apply to league rules just as they apply to game design. What is the argument for the banning of aimbots, versus the banning of bunnyhopping, versus the banning of silent bunnyhopping? One completely eliminates several deep skills that are key to the game (aimbot). Another adds a new skill to the game that has plenty of scope for advancement (bunnyhopping). And the other adds a new skill while also removing various other skills relating to sound and prediction (Silent bunnyhopping). You can argue the case for all game changes, the banning or preservation of all "cheats" or "exploits" based on these principles.
It is also worth noting that the full extent of a games depth is rarely ever known untill the top level of play has remained stagnant or static for some time. Tactics which for a long time may have been considered extremely powerful are usually replaced by even more powerful strategies or counter strategies as the game progresses. You can see examples of this in NS, and very noticably in other games such as my WC3 example. If you do not have experience at the highest level of play, or in some cases even if you do, what you think might be a powerful strategy, given time, is often not nearly as stong or uncounterable as you thought. And to and a bit of zest to that...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> btw, in "high level" clan play. no one sieges processing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To give you a hint - this isnt because they consider it unfair.
<---------------------------- END OF OFF-TOPIC ---------------------->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> processing can only be abused by one side <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong, processing is "abusable" by both sides. Because both sides will play a marine round and an alien round. Alien and marine are not the 1P and 2P joysticks, they are 2 rounds of a clan game. There are a million differences between the 2 races, and a million advantages that only apply to one or the other, processing is just another drop in the pond. Suggesting that a single Marine vs. Alien round should present a perfectly fair match is naive. Balancing the 2 could only be achieved by making them identical, the slightest difference would be enough to present an advantage for one side or another when played by a clan team. The only reason they have to be close in strength is to avoid constant 1-1 matches, or having to play 50 rounds before a winner is decided. And even in that case, time rules can still create a good competitive match. The word balance is over used and poorly understood.
You call them dubious because it makes it easier to comfort yourself when you lose to them, you avoid the subject of actually trying to counter them by simply dismissing them as 'unfair'. You are refusing to advance your play, and are relying on rules or gameplay changes to do the job for you. Consequently, you will never become truely good at NS.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Once those tactics are removed, the people who exploit the same tactics repeatedly will actually have to LEARN how to play the game 'properly'. (Properly - IE as the developers intended.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here is how you play the game 'properly' - You stop the opposing team from respawning, and then kill all their players. That is all, those are the goals. When 1.1 is released, players will use the most effective means possible of stopping their opponents from respawning and then killing them, just as they did in 1.04. And you will still be complaining, because you refuse to adapt and counter, and will look for an easy excuse to justify every loss. You will deem any strategy you have trouble beating as 'unfair', and you will wait for another patch. And you will probably still be only playing 1 race.
The sirlin article is a little short-sighted, some of his reasoning falls apart when you take it out of the context of street fighter, but the general concepts are good, and its an enjoyable read.
<!--QuoteBegin--Savant+Mar 16 2003, 11:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Savant @ Mar 16 2003, 11:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In fact, in many ways I am GLAD that it happens! Since people are exploiting these 'dubious' tactics more and more, the developers are now REMOVING those tactics from the game. Therefore, in the end, the abuse of certain tactics is actually improving the game. I'm sure we can all respect that. Perhaps the time will come when there won't be any 'real' exploits, and then people can play a fair and balanced game. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Last time I checked, a dubious tactic would mean a weak tactic. I presume you mean a powerful tactic <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Therefore, how do you exploit a powerful tactic ? What is there to exploit ?
Also, pray tell, which tactics are being removed ? I know of nothing which is being changed that would prevent any strategies.
Please, please, please learn the difference between an over-powered strategy which is being addressed by the devs and an exploit.
Shooting through grates as a fade is an exploit.
JP/HMG rushing is an over-powered strategy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Teoh: The sirlin article is a little short-sighted, some of his reasoning falls apart when you take it out of the context of street fighter, but the general concepts are good, and its an enjoyable read.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Amen.
After coil posted this in the BHing thread, I saw it linked again several times in the midst of people's arguements, almost like an ace up a sleeve.
"You can not win, for I have.....the link to Sirlin!! Bwaahahaha!"
"Noo! Due to the production of this link you are inevitably correct!"
It's a good read. It has some interesting points. It's logic breaks down at a couple of points when applied to NS.
Read it, decide if you're willing to do <b>anything</b> (bar exploits/cheats) to win a game of NS. Then just get on playing with NS and don't gave grief to people who made a different decision to you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Last time I checked, a dubious tactic would mean a weak tactic. I presume you mean a powerful tactic :p <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Weak might be one way of interpreting it, but i think it's better interpreted as "questionable", which is what i assumed he meant:
du·bi·ous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (db-s, dy-) adj. Fraught with uncertainty or doubt; undecided. Arousing doubt; doubtful: a dubious distinction. Of questionable character: dubious profits.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Please, please, please learn the difference between an over-powered strategy which is being addressed by the devs and an exploit. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The way i like to think of things... a current feature of the game, a planned feature of the game, a current "cheat" in the game, and a current feature (exploit or stragey) of the game cited for removal all come under 2 categories:
Stuff which benefits the game from a competitive point of view.
Stuff which doesn't.
(PS. i also like the word 'Stuff')
Seperate everything into those 2 categories and you never have a problem with people whining 'exploit omg!', and any element of the game has to be argued to slide into one category or another. Now you get people actually reasoning instead of seeing something that they think "looks silly" and then arguing for its removal by just labelling it a bug or exploit. For example, fade firing through thin doors - I know this is being removed, it's being removed because it's had a bug/exploit sticker plonked on it. No one has actually stopped to think if it harms or benefits the game in any way, it's just being removed. I would be perfectly happy if it was left in, i can't see how it harms the game at all. I can't really make a good argument for keeping it in either, but the point is a game change is being made without any thought for gameplay. Fade firing through walls looks silly, people label it an exploit, and its removed. In this case, its not a big deal, but apply that to the lerk....
Lerk spikes are hitscan, the attack isnt. This is a bug. If you take the stance above and change the game ("fix the bug") without any consideration to the gameplay, we get a ****-poor lerk. All changes should be argued based on their effect on the gameplay, not just labbelled an exploit and "fixed".
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "You can not win, for I have.....the link to Sirlin!! Bwaahahaha!"
"Noo! Due to the production of this link you are inevitably correct!" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--TeoH+Mar 17 2003, 01:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TeoH @ Mar 17 2003, 01:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The way i like to think of things... a current feature of the game, a planned feature of the game, a current "cheat" in the game, and a current feature (exploit or stragey) of the game cited for removal all come under 2 categories:
Stuff which benefits the game from a competitive point of view.
Stuff which doesn't.
(PS. i also like the word 'Stuff')
Seperate everything into those 2 categories and you never have a problem with people whining 'exploit omg!', and any element of the game has to be argued to slide into one category or another. Now you get people actually reasoning instead of seeing something that they think "looks silly" and then arguing for its removal by just labelling it a bug or exploit. For example, fade firing through thin doors - I know this is being removed, it's being removed because it's had a bug/exploit sticker plonked on it. No one has actually stopped to think if it harms or benefits the game in any way, it's just being removed. I would be perfectly happy if it was left in, i can't see how it harms the game at all. I can't really make a good argument for keeping it in either, but the point is a game change is being made without any thought for gameplay. Fade firing through walls looks silly, people label it an exploit, and its removed. In this case, its not a big deal, but apply that to the lerk....
Lerk spikes are hitscan, the attack isnt. This is a bug. If you take the stance above and change the game ("fix the bug") without any consideration to the gameplay, we get a ****-poor lerk. All changes should be argued based on their effect on the gameplay, not just labbelled an exploit and "fixed". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> AFAIK, whilst the devs may know, nothing has been revealed as to what is going to happen re: the lerk spike attack. We know it will be fixed but which 'way' we don't know. It may well be the animation changes to a straight firing spike stream to reflect how it now operates. coil said he preferred a projectile. I'm personally undecided. I'd like to see both in action and decide then.
However, playing devil's advocate, whilst admittedly having the lerk spikes act as a projectile would make hitting Jpers difficult, it would also help differentiate betwen the skilled players and not-so-skilled players, something you seem to favour from previous posts. Wouldn't you agree ? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Re: fades firing through entities, it's obviously not intended, you can't hurt the fade as it wrecks stuff, so it's definately got gameplay consequences.
Also, you've very scientifically split your stuff into two parts. Flayra however, has a third part, which vanilla BHing falls into. It doesn't fit the theme of NS, his vision, hence it's going. At least I thought that was why it was going, if someone could prove the Devs are getting rid of it for another reason i'll happily cede the point.
It's amazing how many people make assumptions of others here in an effort to try and advance their arguments. It's also amazing how arrogant a couple people are in assuming just because a person has a particular personal opinion that it automatically means they have not attempted to adapt their style of play.
I'd like to know how complaining about those 'dubious tactics' automatically assumes that the person complaining has made no effort to counter those tactics. In almost every case I have made personal strides in countering nearly all of these 'dubious tactics'. However, just because I have a counter to them DOESN'T mean I approve of them OR like them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Here is how you play the game 'properly' - You stop the opposing team from respawning, and then kill all their players. That is all, those are the goals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The 'win at any cost' mentality is also quite selfish and usually deprives other people on the server the ability to have a FUN game. As I have said before, it's that 'win at any cost' mentality that drives those who make cheats and other 'game exploits' available.
I'm sorry, but no matter how you slice it you CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS! You can't say that playing properly means "You stop the opposing team from respawning, and then kill all their players" and then say 'oh, well without using exploits though'. The two are not mutually exclusive. You can't have a 'win at all costs' mentality and then say that it's NOT a 'win at all cost mentality' since you won't use this or this tactic.
In my case, I refuse to use exploits or dubious tactics to further my chances of winning. I refuse to adopt a playing style of 'win at all costs'. Yes I will adapt to those that continues to use those tactics, but I WON'T approve of them, and I will not restrain myself from expressing my opinion as such.
If others want to play that way. Fine. This may mean I lose more often, but that's not a big concern to me. I prefer to leave the game the same way I entered. With my morals and integrity intact.
ChurchMeatshield grunt-fodder // Has pre-ordered NS2Join Date: 2002-12-31Member: 11646Members, Constellation
If some exploit/tactics are REALLY that bad...servers will beginning banning those tactics. Building inside the furnace outside of Feedwater is banned at the BlackOps server for example, but Relocating to processing isn't (because it's still a decently easy with teamwork, but long, win).
<!--QuoteBegin--TeoH+Mar 17 2003, 07:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TeoH @ Mar 17 2003, 07:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To play a game is to compete, when anyone plays a game they compete, and do their best to succeed at the game. However, even within the confines of something like NS, <b>not everyone is playing the same game</b>. "Playing for fun" is essentially creating your own game, with your own rules and/or goals. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> All games, of any type, include subgames and ad hoc, unstated rules.
Consider, for example, a friendly football game with your mates. It's a nice summer day, and you're looking for something to do. You know Jim is a really strong runner. So you try to cripple him, so he ends up limping off the field and is unable to finish the game, right?
Of course not. Because, in addition to football, you're also playing the "social" game. You'd like to eventually pack up the ball and have a beer, and you know you'll lose in the "have a beer and joke around" game if you've forking broken Jim's leg.
In my earlier example, the rest of my team had adopted a sort of ad hoc "it's okay to have two gorges" rule. This was not part of the NS ruleset, nor was it the most efficient way to achieve victory. But we accepted the (unspoken) rule, because being a gorge was obviously important to this player, and we wanted him to have fun, too.
The clanner (who was shrieking at people over voicecomm) did not accept this rule. In fact, since he was playing with the "win at all costs" ruleset, he was frustrated and confused by the fact that we were adopting new rules. In his mind, the "win at all costs" ruleset was the only way to play, and the rest of us were "playing our own game."
Which is true. We were. We were also enjoying ourselves, and not spraying spittle all over our monitors in frustration. Does that mean we were somehow "lesser" NS players? Sure, whatever. It also probably means that we were better equipped to deal with the real world, which is full of inexplicit rules and ad hoc social contracts.
ChurchMeatshield grunt-fodder // Has pre-ordered NS2Join Date: 2002-12-31Member: 11646Members, Constellation
Sometimes people want to win, sometimes people want to mess around. The clanner probably just wanted to win at that particular round. Doesn't mean he can't adapt to the 'real' world.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's also amazing how arrogant a couple people are in assuming just because a person has a particular personal opinion that it automatically means they have not attempted to adapt their style of play.
I'd like to know how complaining about those 'dubious tactics' automatically assumes that the person complaining has made no effort to counter those tactics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol? Hi, allow me to quote you:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In the end, while the exploiters may reap short term gains, they will NOT reap long term benefits. In fact, those same players will likely be complaining about how the game is imbalanced when they can NOT use their exploits and are hard pressed to win the game without them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now, who was it making the assumptions again?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm sorry, but no matter how you slice it you CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS! You can't say that playing properly means "You stop the opposing team from respawning, and then kill all their players" and then say 'oh, well without using exploits though'. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where did i say "without using exploits"? As you like to call them. I bunnyhop, i jetpack rush with 99 fps, i crouch in vents (OH NOE) and i fully expect the other team to do the same, because if they aren't doing their best to beat me it only makes the win less satisfying. If something isnt explicitly prohibted in server or league rules, written down and obeyed by all players in the match, then i'll happily use it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Consider, for example, a friendly football game with your mates. It's a nice summer day, and you're looking for something to do. You know Jim is a really strong runner. So you try to cripple him, so he ends up limping off the field and is unable to finish the game, right?
Of course not. Because, in addition to football, you're also playing the "social" game. You'd like to eventually pack up the ball and have a beer, and you know you'll lose in the "have a beer and joke around" game if you've forking broken Jim's leg. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That isnt competitive football, you're playing with your own made up rules. My argument still applies, but you have made an additional point. You've stated a situation where an incident in the game effects something else outside of the context of the game. Its a good point, but it doesn't exactly apply to the world of NS, where you can fire grenades in peoples faces and they don't tend to mind too much. As for using a NS strategy the other team may not like, that is a problem with their attitude, not your playing style. In some cases on a public server, you may have no option but to play a skewed version of NS. Because playing completely to win would involve you going out of the way to get rid of your own retarded teammates. Fortunately, i stick to clan matches :)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The 'win at any cost' mentality is also quite selfish and usually deprives other people on the server the ability to have a FUN game <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The player who is off attempting to score the most parasite kills, while the rest of his team is attempting to play NS is arguably as selfish, if not more so. By "playing for fun" you are probably hindering a team that is attempting to play a different game to you. After all, what is your team mostly likely to be trying to play? NS? Or the made up game with rules that exist only in your head? When the serious public server commander drops you a JP and a HMG and orders you to kill a hive, are you going to jump onto a func_kill?
Oh wait i forgot, you only play Aliens.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> However, playing devil's advocate, whilst admittedly having the lerk spikes act as a projectile would make hitting Jpers difficult, it would also help differentiate betwen the skilled players and not-so-skilled players, something you seem to favour from previous posts. Wouldn't you agree ? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Equally you could argue that it makes it increasingly ping dependant, introducing a greater random factor to lerk aiming. This would mean it is then poorer at differentiating between skilled players :)
In general i like projectile weapons, the prediction aspect adds a nice element to it, but i feel they work better as slower firing splash damage weapons (note: not fade rocket, fade rocket is too fast versus marine speed to really require prediction or dodging on the part of the marine or fade). The splash damage is nice because it creates something of a gradient between a perfect hit and a near perfect hit, again ties in with the random element. And prediction works out alot better, because the splash damage creates a situation where the marine has to predict and avoid your rocket by a good margin, randomly stepping left and right will get you killed by splash. You have to predict the rocket and move a good distance away from where the attacker is aiming. Equally when firing this type of weapon, you have a reasonable delay between shots to predict movement. Playing quake in rocket duels you get into some great situations where you can fakie the other guy, after getting an idea of his shot timing, move one way to get him to lead the shot, then change direction just before he shoots. This sort of complexity only appears in weapons with a slower firing rate, and a travel time vs. player movement speed that allows for dodging. In a usual fade vs. marine duel the fade might as well be firing a hitscan weapon. And it certainly isnt going to apply to lerk spikes. The problem with projectile lerk spikes (and similar weapons) is that, without any splash the most effective way to dodge them is always going to be to jiggle left and right randomly. Moving in any 1 direction for a significant period of time allows the other player to predict and track you. With the other player jiggling randomly, there really isnt any complexity to the weapon, you just fire in their general direction and hope for the best. No prediction involved here, and if you throw in latency it just gets silly. Against a jetpacker you are leading on 2 axis, versus a player who will be trying to move as randomly as possible. I don't think there is significant depth here to say that projectile lerk spikes would involve more skill to use than hitscan spikes. It would be *harder* to hit the marine yes, but this is not the same thing.
On the other hand, increasing the damage of fade rockets slightly, decreasing their travel speed and altering their prediction code to make it work more like a Q3 rocket (You and your opponent both see travelling rockets that actually exist in the correct place according to the server) would definately get my vote. Requires prediction to land them, can be dodged by a competant marine, but with higher damage can still be potent, of course what effects this may have on other aspects of the game is hard to say.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Re: fades firing through entities, it's obviously not intended, you can't hurt the fade as it wrecks stuff, so it's definately got gameplay consequences. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've never been particularly concerned about what was "intended" :) And the idea of things being able to hit other things through walls isnt exactly unique to the fade. Grenade launchers and all splash damage weapons take effect through walls, then there are sieges.
The idea of changing gameplay for purely thematic or atmospheric reasons has never been something i particuarly agreed with. Unfortunately as much as i may dissagree, i can't stop Flay from doing whatever he wants with his game.
<!--QuoteBegin---_Phoenix_-+Mar 17 2003, 10:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (-_Phoenix_- @ Mar 17 2003, 10:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> TeoHs been on this page for about 5 minutes now.
/me predicts another essay coming up :p <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> lol
I post from work, which means i frequently have to leave topics open while i do odd jobs. My typing speed is reasonable.
personally its never really fun win or lose, unless the team is actually working together for me
dunno why.......but I'm mainly here for the actual teamwork aspect of this fps game that doesn't exist as much in any other fps I've heard of yet (except for savage, another fps/rts thingy, which is not out yet anyways and of course C&C : 'gade )
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wrong, processing is "abusable" by both sides. Because both sides will play a marine round and an alien round.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong. You're limiting yourself to a clan vs clan match. In pub games, you often play only one game per map. Additionally, even if two games are played, the teams don't stay the same and simply switch sides. It it were like UT assault then it would be a different matter.
Well TeoH, to spare the readers from making this into a long and drawn out thread on how you and I don't see eye to eye, how about we just agree to disagree. You have your views and feelings about what is fair and appropriate in the game, and I have mine. It just so happens that your views are diametrically opposed to mine. In the end it's all rhetoric anyway.
We'll just have to wait and see what direction Flayra heads in with 1.1.
<!--QuoteBegin--TeoH+Mar 17 2003, 11:16 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TeoH @ Mar 17 2003, 11:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As for using a NS strategy the other team may not like, that is a problem with their attitude, not your playing style. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So if I shove in front of you in a supermarket line, the problem is with your attitude, not my style of checking my groceries out?
<!--QuoteBegin--Deacon+Mar 17 2003, 07:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Deacon @ Mar 17 2003, 07:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--TeoH+Mar 17 2003, 11:16 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TeoH @ Mar 17 2003, 11:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As for using a NS strategy the other team may not like, that is a problem with their attitude, not your playing style. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So if I shove in front of you in a supermarket line, the problem is with your attitude, not my style of checking my groceries out?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Worst. Analogy. Evar.
'Playing for fun' does NOT mean completely ignoring the goals of the game, and running around seeing how many parasite kills you can get, or how high of a chamber tower you can make, or how fast you can tour the map on a JP. I have NEVER seen anyone play that way in a game, but i'm pretty sure people are still 'playing for fun'.
AFAIK, 'playing for fun' means playing to complete the goals of the game while keeping the game fun for all involved (IE no exploits or broken strategies), and maintaining the atmosphere of the game (Yes, NS does have atmosphere and storyline. It is not a construct who's sole purpose is to define who is better than who) which means no skin hacking, no building outside the level, no bunnyhopping, not removing muzzleflash/skulk teeth, etc.
I'm sure someone could come along and create the perfect competitive game, a game completely devoid of context and that does not maintain any believability at all, but after a match is done there is a winner and loser, perfectly defined by the skill of the teams alone. <b>NS is not that game.</b>
See, one could make the argument that its actually the 'play to win' people that arent actually playing NS. They are playing their own 'i'm better than you are' game through NS. The people that are playing NS without bugs/exploits/etc. are actually the ones playing the real NS. They are playing the game the <b>developers intended people to play</b> (evidenced by the fact that the devs are actively working to REMOVE those bugs/exploits/unbalances).
A quick poll for anyone:
1) Do you believe the game will become better for competitive play if all the bugs/exploits/unbalanced strategies are removed?
2) Do you believe the game will become better for casual play if all the bugs/exploits/unbalanced strategies are removed?
The 'win at any cost' mentality is also quite selfish and usually deprives other people on the server the ability to have a FUN game. As I have said before, it's that 'win at any cost' mentality that drives those who make cheats and other 'game exploits' available.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> so..... would u have us run at you backwards for the 1st half of a game? or let you get some nodes then kill you? or should we let you tech up 1st then kill you? or should we let you kill 2 hives, then kill you? which would u recomend would be the most fun for you..... before we kill you.
Comments
I enjoy Team-play, and working together well, whether we lose or win is fun for me, as long as both teams put the effort into trying to win, and use their tactics well. Thats why i'm sick of SP games. But if i was to be put in any catagory it would be the * I enjoy playing in a more relaxed, casual atmosphere where the pressure is not on solely to win* <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Did you happen to mention that it is an article and not a thesis? Sounds more like your board certified friend is criticising someones thesis at the university.
And shesh, NO, marine/alien is NOT the same as LEFT/RIGHT!! Left or right side of the screen!! Get it? Marine/Alien is to be compared with Ryu/Whoever (don't play thse sort of games and have no ideas of what name), get it? If you play a Ryu/Ryu game and the person that starts on the left side of the screen has an advantage it wouldn't be fair because the premise is that the fight is supposed to be on equal terms, there is no such thing as equal terms in NS and won't be unless they make a Marine vs Marine mod with symmetrical maps.
But when you play a multiplayer game against live opponents, you can have fun winning or losing or whatever. But the most satisfaction is often derived from proving to yourself and others that you are BETTER than them. Because when you are better, you are either respected or feared. I've seen cocky clans ask for scrims and decide that they suddenly couldn't play when sYn offered to scrim them.
A lot of people can make a name for themselves, and show that they are better. However, in a multiplayer environment that relies on teamwork to win, these people run into problems. Counter-Strike is a multiplayer game, but the best players did not depend on lower level players to help them (more often, teammates became the hinderance).
Now we've got a Mod that rewards teamwork through experience and winning. Unfortunately the same attitude is held by the players that think (or sometimes know) they are better. Not only are they better than the other team, they are better than their teammates. But now, they need those teammates to succeed. And if those teammates don't, even the best players are screwed.
Why the sirlin.net article is often linked to/quoted. A great deal of players ONLY have fun when they win, and the tactics to win are often the cheapest. It's a contest between themselves and how they rate themselves. Cheapness reigns. Using it is optional. When winning isn't optional, cheapness isn't either. Hence, cheapness is often used by the people who have to win to stay satisfied with themselves.
Just 2 cents. Don't spend them in one place.
When he says "side" he means side as in left or right, not which player, team or race, but which side of the screen your fighter starts at.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So were allowed to be slightly unfair, but not overly unfair?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think you understood the article. If there is a tactic7bug/exploit that is *completely* over-powered then it should be avoided. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dude, I think it should be blatantly obvious that the processing double-siege is indeed a case of abuse by "one side". His *example* was specific to a FIGHTING game. You should extrapolate his comments so they make sense in the NS world. Processing IS unfair and will thankfully be changed.
JP rush is also too huge of an advantage and will be changed.
HMG+HA+Welders + teamwork is NOT unfair and probably won't be changed much.
See the difference? People complain about all three, but not all three are balance issues.
Lastly, people reading this article should be sure to study more then a single viewpoint. Just because some dude writes something you happen to agree with (becuase it matches your viewpoint) doesn't make it any more valid then someone who disagrees with you.
Yea I'm confused, I have more fun playing, than winning, half the time when I win a game it's like "woohoo we won the game *mapchange*" not much beyond that. To me 95% of fun comes from the game itself, not winning.. I don't think I have any memories at all of a winning fun.. but I have hell of alot of memories of in game moments <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
I consider myself an average player of half life.. I'm not good, but I know what I'm doing. I don't play to get better so I can have fun later, I play to have fun now.
I like winning as much as anyone else, but maybe I enjoy the little things more so.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
A great deal of players ONLY have fun when they win
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the largest obsticle the argument has to get over. People who regardless of what you say will continually quote the above. The nature of competitive play is to do your best to win the game, <b>this in no way implies the above quote</b>. "Only having fun when you win" and "trying your best to win" are completely different concepts, understand this before you make any comment on the topic. There is no competitive team that will tell you a closely fought match between 2 opponents using everything at their disposal to defeat the other team, that is fought down to the last skulk bite is not enjoyable, even if you lose. Crushing yes, but still enjoyable. The difference between a competitive team, and a bunch of random people on a public server can be summed up in 1 phrase:
"Goal of the game"
The goal of the game is to stop the opposing team from spawning, and then kill them all. That's NS. Everything you do in a game has to be keyed towards this goal, if it isnt, then you aren't playing NS, you are playing your own little makebelieve game. If you do something purposefully that hinders this goal, such as refusing to rush the other team at the beginning of the game, then you aren't playing NS, you are playing your own little makebelieve game.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Game - the word means fun, fun for everyone! your playing a game, which denotes there is a time to scrub and a time not to.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To play a game is to compete, when anyone plays a game they compete, and do their best to succeed at the game. However, even within the confines of something like NS, <b>not everyone is playing the same game</b>. "Playing for fun" is essentially creating your own game, with your own rules and/or goals. This can be a deviation of rules, such as "try to stop the other team from respawning and kill them all..... but don't use jetpacks, or rush, or double siege..." or it can be a complete redesign of the goals such as "See how many parasite kills i can get". This is what people like to term "Playing for fun". The name gives it credibility, because it automatically implies that if you aren't playing for fun you must not get any enjoyment out of the game. This is nonsense.
In either case, you are not playing NS, you are playing your own game. And usually, you're are playing your own game <b>by yourself</b>. The thing about trying to score as many parasite kills as possible is that no one else on the server is competing with you. You are playing a game by yourself, and everyone else on the server is just a means of scoring. Consequently, there is no way for you to 'lose', and you are never let down. People find this comforting. By inventing your own rules regarding what can or cannot be used, you are doing a very similar thing. You are playing to your own rules in your head, and the rest of the server most likely has no knowledge of these rules. If you lose to something that in your head is 'against the rules' you can justify this to yourself, and avoid the thought that your playing ability might just be inadequate. Everyone on this forum is competitive, and everyone attempts to play a game to the best of their ability. But only a few of us are playing NS 1.04.
This is different to rules agreed by a league or community, set in writing, and obeyed by everyone on the server. However, these rules do not necessarily enhance the game, there are such things as poor rules. They are a point of discussion, deciding wether rules should be enforced or gameplay elements changed is a question of how the changes effect the game in terms of competitive merit. The following section up untill indicated is pretty off-topic.
<-------------------------------- OFF TOPIC ------------------------->
Some games are better from a competitive point of view than others - for example, warcraft 3 is a better competitive game than snakes and ladders. You can define what makes warcraft 3 a better competitive game (Warning, i am about to use the word 'skill', duck and cover):
Firstly, there is near-limitess headroom to improve your skill at the game. A wc3 player can continue playing the game and improving himself, learning new skills and developing old.
Secondly, the performance of a wc3 player at wc3 is directly proportional to his 'skill' at wc3. (Ok when you bring random item drops into it this isnt a fantastic example, but lets pretend wc3 is a perfect competitive game).
Combine those 2 points and you get a game where you can constantly improve and develop your ability, and your self-improvement is always shown in your performance. An experienced player beats a new player, and an even more experienced player can beat that player. On the other hand, snakes and ladders offers no scope for advancement of skill, everything is decided by the throw of a dice.
From a game design perspective, to improve a competitive game you must press the importance of skills which have a great deal of room for advancement. 'Deep' skills if you like. Combat ability is a skill which can be continually improved, and so falls under this category. While, the ability to walk to a location and drop a res node, does not. However, you have to have a broader view of the game than this - the act of dropping a res node in itself can be considered one of the simplest tasks in NS, however the concept of attacking and defending res nodes spread across a map invokes a variety of more complex skills: Co-ordination of a team that has to cover many locations at once, and has to split up and spread out, combat skills when they inevitably encounter the enemy, tactics as to how to allocate your team, where and when to drop nodes, defend or attack. In otherwords, it would not be intelligent to argue for the removal of res nodes based on the fact that dropping a res node is simple. Take note of that, because it applies to the jetpack rush.
These concepts apply to league rules just as they apply to game design. What is the argument for the banning of aimbots, versus the banning of bunnyhopping, versus the banning of silent bunnyhopping? One completely eliminates several deep skills that are key to the game (aimbot). Another adds a new skill to the game that has plenty of scope for advancement (bunnyhopping). And the other adds a new skill while also removing various other skills relating to sound and prediction (Silent bunnyhopping). You can argue the case for all game changes, the banning or preservation of all "cheats" or "exploits" based on these principles.
It is also worth noting that the full extent of a games depth is rarely ever known untill the top level of play has remained stagnant or static for some time. Tactics which for a long time may have been considered extremely powerful are usually replaced by even more powerful strategies or counter strategies as the game progresses. You can see examples of this in NS, and very noticably in other games such as my WC3 example. If you do not have experience at the highest level of play, or in some cases even if you do, what you think might be a powerful strategy, given time, is often not nearly as stong or uncounterable as you thought. And to and a bit of zest to that...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
btw, in "high level" clan play. no one sieges processing.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To give you a hint - this isnt because they consider it unfair.
<---------------------------- END OF OFF-TOPIC ---------------------->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
processing can only be abused by one side
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong, processing is "abusable" by both sides. Because both sides will play a marine round and an alien round. Alien and marine are not the 1P and 2P joysticks, they are 2 rounds of a clan game. There are a million differences between the 2 races, and a million advantages that only apply to one or the other, processing is just another drop in the pond. Suggesting that a single Marine vs. Alien round should present a perfectly fair match is naive. Balancing the 2 could only be achieved by making them identical, the slightest difference would be enough to present an advantage for one side or another when played by a clan team. The only reason they have to be close in strength is to avoid constant 1-1 matches, or having to play 50 rounds before a winner is decided. And even in that case, time rules can still create a good competitive match. The word balance is over used and poorly understood.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
exploiting these 'dubious' tactics
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You call them dubious because it makes it easier to comfort yourself when you lose to them, you avoid the subject of actually trying to counter them by simply dismissing them as 'unfair'. You are refusing to advance your play, and are relying on rules or gameplay changes to do the job for you. Consequently, you will never become truely good at NS.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Once those tactics are removed, the people who exploit the same tactics repeatedly will actually have to LEARN how to play the game 'properly'. (Properly - IE as the developers intended.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here is how you play the game 'properly' - You stop the opposing team from respawning, and then kill all their players. That is all, those are the goals. When 1.1 is released, players will use the most effective means possible of stopping their opponents from respawning and then killing them, just as they did in 1.04. And you will still be complaining, because you refuse to adapt and counter, and will look for an easy excuse to justify every loss. You will deem any strategy you have trouble beating as 'unfair', and you will wait for another patch. And you will probably still be only playing 1 race.
The sirlin article is a little short-sighted, some of his reasoning falls apart when you take it out of the context of street fighter, but the general concepts are good, and its an enjoyable read.
Last time I checked, a dubious tactic would mean a weak tactic. I presume you mean a powerful tactic <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Therefore, how do you exploit a powerful tactic ? What is there to exploit ?
Also, pray tell, which tactics are being removed ? I know of nothing which is being changed that would prevent any strategies.
Please, please, please learn the difference between an over-powered strategy which is being addressed by the devs and an exploit.
Shooting through grates as a fade is an exploit.
JP/HMG rushing is an over-powered strategy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Teoh: The sirlin article is a little short-sighted, some of his reasoning falls apart when you take it out of the context of street fighter, but the general concepts are good, and its an enjoyable read.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Amen.
After coil posted this in the BHing thread, I saw it linked again several times in the midst of people's arguements, almost like an ace up a sleeve.
"You can not win, for I have.....the link to Sirlin!! Bwaahahaha!"
"Noo! Due to the production of this link you are inevitably correct!"
It's a good read. It has some interesting points. It's logic breaks down at a couple of points when applied to NS.
Read it, decide if you're willing to do <b>anything</b> (bar exploits/cheats) to win a game of NS. Then just get on playing with NS and don't gave grief to people who made a different decision to you.
Last time I checked, a dubious tactic would mean a weak tactic. I presume you mean a powerful tactic :p
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Weak might be one way of interpreting it, but i think it's better interpreted as "questionable", which is what i assumed he meant:
du·bi·ous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (db-s, dy-)
adj.
Fraught with uncertainty or doubt; undecided.
Arousing doubt; doubtful: a dubious distinction.
Of questionable character: dubious profits.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Please, please, please learn the difference between an over-powered strategy which is being addressed by the devs and an exploit.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The way i like to think of things... a current feature of the game, a planned feature of the game, a current "cheat" in the game, and a current feature (exploit or stragey) of the game cited for removal all come under 2 categories:
Stuff which benefits the game from a competitive point of view.
Stuff which doesn't.
(PS. i also like the word 'Stuff')
Seperate everything into those 2 categories and you never have a problem with people whining 'exploit omg!', and any element of the game has to be argued to slide into one category or another. Now you get people actually reasoning instead of seeing something that they think "looks silly" and then arguing for its removal by just labelling it a bug or exploit. For example, fade firing through thin doors - I know this is being removed, it's being removed because it's had a bug/exploit sticker plonked on it. No one has actually stopped to think if it harms or benefits the game in any way, it's just being removed. I would be perfectly happy if it was left in, i can't see how it harms the game at all. I can't really make a good argument for keeping it in either, but the point is a game change is being made without any thought for gameplay. Fade firing through walls looks silly, people label it an exploit, and its removed. In this case, its not a big deal, but apply that to the lerk....
Lerk spikes are hitscan, the attack isnt. This is a bug. If you take the stance above and change the game ("fix the bug") without any consideration to the gameplay, we get a ****-poor lerk. All changes should be argued based on their effect on the gameplay, not just labbelled an exploit and "fixed".
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"You can not win, for I have.....the link to Sirlin!! Bwaahahaha!"
"Noo! Due to the production of this link you are inevitably correct!"
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
LOL, yea i got a very similar impression :)
Stuff which benefits the game from a competitive point of view.
Stuff which doesn't.
(PS. i also like the word 'Stuff')
Seperate everything into those 2 categories and you never have a problem with people whining 'exploit omg!', and any element of the game has to be argued to slide into one category or another. Now you get people actually reasoning instead of seeing something that they think "looks silly" and then arguing for its removal by just labelling it a bug or exploit. For example, fade firing through thin doors - I know this is being removed, it's being removed because it's had a bug/exploit sticker plonked on it. No one has actually stopped to think if it harms or benefits the game in any way, it's just being removed. I would be perfectly happy if it was left in, i can't see how it harms the game at all. I can't really make a good argument for keeping it in either, but the point is a game change is being made without any thought for gameplay. Fade firing through walls looks silly, people label it an exploit, and its removed. In this case, its not a big deal, but apply that to the lerk....
Lerk spikes are hitscan, the attack isnt. This is a bug. If you take the stance above and change the game ("fix the bug") without any consideration to the gameplay, we get a ****-poor lerk. All changes should be argued based on their effect on the gameplay, not just labbelled an exploit and "fixed".
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
AFAIK, whilst the devs may know, nothing has been revealed as to what is going to happen re: the lerk spike attack. We know it will be fixed but which 'way' we don't know. It may well be the animation changes to a straight firing spike stream to reflect how it now operates. coil said he preferred a projectile. I'm personally undecided. I'd like to see both in action and decide then.
However, playing devil's advocate, whilst admittedly having the lerk spikes act as a projectile would make hitting Jpers difficult, it would also help differentiate betwen the skilled players and not-so-skilled players, something you seem to favour from previous posts. Wouldn't you agree ? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Re: fades firing through entities, it's obviously not intended, you can't hurt the fade as it wrecks stuff, so it's definately got gameplay consequences.
Also, you've very scientifically split your stuff into two parts. Flayra however, has a third part, which vanilla BHing falls into. It doesn't fit the theme of NS, his vision, hence it's going. At least I thought that was why it was going, if someone could prove the Devs are getting rid of it for another reason i'll happily cede the point.
I'd like to know how complaining about those 'dubious tactics' automatically assumes that the person complaining has made no effort to counter those tactics. In almost every case I have made personal strides in countering nearly all of these 'dubious tactics'. However, just because I have a counter to them DOESN'T mean I approve of them OR like them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Here is how you play the game 'properly' - You stop the opposing team from respawning, and then kill all their players. That is all, those are the goals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The 'win at any cost' mentality is also quite selfish and usually deprives other people on the server the ability to have a FUN game. As I have said before, it's that 'win at any cost' mentality that drives those who make cheats and other 'game exploits' available.
I'm sorry, but no matter how you slice it you CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS! You can't say that playing properly means "You stop the opposing team from respawning, and then kill all their players" and then say 'oh, well without using exploits though'. The two are not mutually exclusive. You can't have a 'win at all costs' mentality and then say that it's NOT a 'win at all cost mentality' since you won't use this or this tactic.
In my case, I refuse to use exploits or dubious tactics to further my chances of winning. I refuse to adopt a playing style of 'win at all costs'. Yes I will adapt to those that continues to use those tactics, but I WON'T approve of them, and I will not restrain myself from expressing my opinion as such.
If others want to play that way. Fine. This may mean I lose more often, but that's not a big concern to me. I prefer to leave the game the same way I entered. With my morals and integrity intact.
Regards,
Savant
All games, of any type, include subgames and ad hoc, unstated rules.
Consider, for example, a friendly football game with your mates. It's a nice summer day, and you're looking for something to do. You know Jim is a really strong runner. So you try to cripple him, so he ends up limping off the field and is unable to finish the game, right?
Of course not. Because, in addition to football, you're also playing the "social" game. You'd like to eventually pack up the ball and have a beer, and you know you'll lose in the "have a beer and joke around" game if you've forking broken Jim's leg.
In my earlier example, the rest of my team had adopted a sort of ad hoc "it's okay to have two gorges" rule. This was not part of the NS ruleset, nor was it the most efficient way to achieve victory. But we accepted the (unspoken) rule, because being a gorge was obviously important to this player, and we wanted him to have fun, too.
The clanner (who was shrieking at people over voicecomm) did not accept this rule. In fact, since he was playing with the "win at all costs" ruleset, he was frustrated and confused by the fact that we were adopting new rules. In his mind, the "win at all costs" ruleset was the only way to play, and the rest of us were "playing our own game."
Which is true. We were. We were also enjoying ourselves, and not spraying spittle all over our monitors in frustration. Does that mean we were somehow "lesser" NS players? Sure, whatever. It also probably means that we were better equipped to deal with the real world, which is full of inexplicit rules and ad hoc social contracts.
/me predicts another essay coming up <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
It's also amazing how arrogant a couple people are in assuming just because a person has a particular personal opinion that it automatically means they have not attempted to adapt their style of play.
I'd like to know how complaining about those 'dubious tactics' automatically assumes that the person complaining has made no effort to counter those tactics.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol? Hi, allow me to quote you:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
In the end, while the exploiters may reap short term gains, they will NOT reap long term benefits. In fact, those same players will likely be complaining about how the game is imbalanced when they can NOT use their exploits and are hard pressed to win the game without them.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now, who was it making the assumptions again?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I'm sorry, but no matter how you slice it you CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS! You can't say that playing properly means "You stop the opposing team from respawning, and then kill all their players" and then say 'oh, well without using exploits though'.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where did i say "without using exploits"? As you like to call them. I bunnyhop, i jetpack rush with 99 fps, i crouch in vents (OH NOE) and i fully expect the other team to do the same, because if they aren't doing their best to beat me it only makes the win less satisfying. If something isnt explicitly prohibted in server or league rules, written down and obeyed by all players in the match, then i'll happily use it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Consider, for example, a friendly football game with your mates. It's a nice summer day, and you're looking for something to do. You know Jim is a really strong runner. So you try to cripple him, so he ends up limping off the field and is unable to finish the game, right?
Of course not. Because, in addition to football, you're also playing the "social" game. You'd like to eventually pack up the ball and have a beer, and you know you'll lose in the "have a beer and joke around" game if you've forking broken Jim's leg.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That isnt competitive football, you're playing with your own made up rules. My argument still applies, but you have made an additional point. You've stated a situation where an incident in the game effects something else outside of the context of the game. Its a good point, but it doesn't exactly apply to the world of NS, where you can fire grenades in peoples faces and they don't tend to mind too much. As for using a NS strategy the other team may not like, that is a problem with their attitude, not your playing style. In some cases on a public server, you may have no option but to play a skewed version of NS. Because playing completely to win would involve you going out of the way to get rid of your own retarded teammates. Fortunately, i stick to clan matches :)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The 'win at any cost' mentality is also quite selfish and usually deprives other people on the server the ability to have a FUN game
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The player who is off attempting to score the most parasite kills, while the rest of his team is attempting to play NS is arguably as selfish, if not more so. By "playing for fun" you are probably hindering a team that is attempting to play a different game to you. After all, what is your team mostly likely to be trying to play? NS? Or the made up game with rules that exist only in your head? When the serious public server commander drops you a JP and a HMG and orders you to kill a hive, are you going to jump onto a func_kill?
Oh wait i forgot, you only play Aliens.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
However, playing devil's advocate, whilst admittedly having the lerk spikes act as a projectile would make hitting Jpers difficult, it would also help differentiate betwen the skilled players and not-so-skilled players, something you seem to favour from previous posts. Wouldn't you agree ?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Equally you could argue that it makes it increasingly ping dependant, introducing a greater random factor to lerk aiming. This would mean it is then poorer at differentiating between skilled players :)
In general i like projectile weapons, the prediction aspect adds a nice element to it, but i feel they work better as slower firing splash damage weapons (note: not fade rocket, fade rocket is too fast versus marine speed to really require prediction or dodging on the part of the marine or fade). The splash damage is nice because it creates something of a gradient between a perfect hit and a near perfect hit, again ties in with the random element. And prediction works out alot better, because the splash damage creates a situation where the marine has to predict and avoid your rocket by a good margin, randomly stepping left and right will get you killed by splash. You have to predict the rocket and move a good distance away from where the attacker is aiming. Equally when firing this type of weapon, you have a reasonable delay between shots to predict movement. Playing quake in rocket duels you get into some great situations where you can fakie the other guy, after getting an idea of his shot timing, move one way to get him to lead the shot, then change direction just before he shoots. This sort of complexity only appears in weapons with a slower firing rate, and a travel time vs. player movement speed that allows for dodging. In a usual fade vs. marine duel the fade might as well be firing a hitscan weapon. And it certainly isnt going to apply to lerk spikes. The problem with projectile lerk spikes (and similar weapons) is that, without any splash the most effective way to dodge them is always going to be to jiggle left and right randomly. Moving in any 1 direction for a significant period of time allows the other player to predict and track you. With the other player jiggling randomly, there really isnt any complexity to the weapon, you just fire in their general direction and hope for the best. No prediction involved here, and if you throw in latency it just gets silly. Against a jetpacker you are leading on 2 axis, versus a player who will be trying to move as randomly as possible. I don't think there is significant depth here to say that projectile lerk spikes would involve more skill to use than hitscan spikes. It would be *harder* to hit the marine yes, but this is not the same thing.
On the other hand, increasing the damage of fade rockets slightly, decreasing their travel speed and altering their prediction code to make it work more like a Q3 rocket (You and your opponent both see travelling rockets that actually exist in the correct place according to the server) would definately get my vote. Requires prediction to land them, can be dodged by a competant marine, but with higher damage can still be potent, of course what effects this may have on other aspects of the game is hard to say.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Re: fades firing through entities, it's obviously not intended, you can't hurt the fade as it wrecks stuff, so it's definately got gameplay consequences.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've never been particularly concerned about what was "intended" :)
And the idea of things being able to hit other things through walls isnt exactly unique to the fade. Grenade launchers and all splash damage weapons take effect through walls, then there are sieges.
The idea of changing gameplay for purely thematic or atmospheric reasons has never been something i particuarly agreed with. Unfortunately as much as i may dissagree, i can't stop Flay from doing whatever he wants with his game.
/me predicts another essay coming up :p <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol
I post from work, which means i frequently have to leave topics open while i do odd jobs. My typing speed is reasonable.
dunno why.......but I'm mainly here for the actual teamwork aspect of this fps game that doesn't exist as much in any other fps I've heard of yet (except for savage, another fps/rts thingy, which is not out yet anyways and of course C&C : 'gade )
Wrong. You're limiting yourself to a clan vs clan match. In pub games, you often play only one game per map. Additionally, even if two games are played, the teams don't stay the same and simply switch sides. It it were like UT assault then it would be a different matter.
We'll just have to wait and see what direction Flayra heads in with 1.1.
Regards,
Savant
So if I shove in front of you in a supermarket line, the problem is with your attitude, not my style of checking my groceries out?
So if I shove in front of you in a supermarket line, the problem is with your attitude, not my style of checking my groceries out?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Worst. Analogy. Evar.
AFAIK, 'playing for fun' means playing to complete the goals of the game while keeping the game fun for all involved (IE no exploits or broken strategies), and maintaining the atmosphere of the game (Yes, NS does have atmosphere and storyline. It is not a construct who's sole purpose is to define who is better than who) which means no skin hacking, no building outside the level, no bunnyhopping, not removing muzzleflash/skulk teeth, etc.
I'm sure someone could come along and create the perfect competitive game, a game completely devoid of context and that does not maintain any believability at all, but after a match is done there is a winner and loser, perfectly defined by the skill of the teams alone. <b>NS is not that game.</b>
See, one could make the argument that its actually the 'play to win' people that arent actually playing NS. They are playing their own 'i'm better than you are' game through NS. The people that are playing NS without bugs/exploits/etc. are actually the ones playing the real NS. They are playing the game the <b>developers intended people to play</b> (evidenced by the fact that the devs are actively working to REMOVE those bugs/exploits/unbalances).
A quick poll for anyone:
1) Do you believe the game will become better for competitive play if all the bugs/exploits/unbalanced strategies are removed?
2) Do you believe the game will become better for casual play if all the bugs/exploits/unbalanced strategies are removed?
The 'win at any cost' mentality is also quite selfish and usually deprives other people on the server the ability to have a FUN game. As I have said before, it's that 'win at any cost' mentality that drives those who make cheats and other 'game exploits' available.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so..... would u have us run at you backwards for the 1st half of a game? or let you get some nodes then kill you? or should we let you tech up 1st then kill you?
or should we let you kill 2 hives, then kill you? which would u recomend would be the most fun for you..... before we kill you.