<!--QuoteBegin--Kenichi+Apr 15 2003, 10:48 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Kenichi @ Apr 15 2003, 10:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To the guys arguing against rushing. Why do you go off saying you play for fun. HUH. Does not everyone play for fun. Where do you get off saying that only you play for fun. Rushing is fun to the winner. Losing is not fun as you specifically said. If you lost move on and win the next round and stop whining. The other team isnt going to slow down and let you tech a bit just so you feel happy. Learn to play the game. The game is about winning. Stop hiding around this "play for fun" stuff and win your round. Arguing that rushes suck just shows your a poor loser that can't take the heat of the game. Rushing is part of the game, and losing isn't always fun. it's how it works. It wont change because a bunch of you whine about it. Starcraft is the same exact way, as are many other RTS games. Deal with it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Kenechi, you got a real big issue with playing for fun, huh? Let me put my position in words you cannot missinterpret:
-I do not beleive that I am somehow playing differently on pubs than any other pub player.
-I play for fun on pubs as I understand everybody plays for fun on pubs.
-I also play to win, as I imagine most others do too.
-I found rushing to be fun for the first few times I did it.
-Rushing gets repeditive after you do it a few times.
-Rushing also misses out alot of NS's depth and other games do rush battles better IMO.
-I do not rush often at all because I find it repetitive and boring.
-I see many others doing this as well.
Do you understand that Kenichi? Want me to explain it better?
KenichiThis is not a pie.Join Date: 2002-11-01Member: 2941Members, NS1 Playtester
yes you failed to say how the arguement "i play for fun" somehow differentiates you in any possible way from every other gamer in existance. You failed to explain why you find yourself so above everyone else that you can claim above them that you play for fun. You failed to explain why you find yourself in a position to denounce other peoples style of play as not being fun for them. You failed to explain anything but the fact that you arguing that you play for fun is only ignorance.
<!--QuoteBegin--Kenichi+Apr 14 2003, 02:01 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Kenichi @ Apr 14 2003, 02:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Marines lose more on servers because talented players go alien in order to avoid being ordered around by the commander. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> oh how true it is.
[QUOTE=Calantus,Apr 14 2003, 09:44 PM] What I was saying was in concern to pubs only. Pubs play for fun, so they often don't rush as it ends the fun too quickly. I wasn't commented on the clan scene at all, just pubs. I wasn't confused at all, we were comparing how things are balanced depending on where you play (clan vs pubs), which is to do with differences of skill, and difference of play preferences (win at all costs vs squeeze in as much fun as you can). I was just saying that we don't see rushes in pubs as much, because the rushes as they stand strip all the fun out of NS, <i>which is the focus of NS pub games</i>. What's the point of playing a game purely for fun, when it isn't?
actually, it doesnt matter if the game lasts 5 mins or 30 mins, if one team is a lot better than the other, the game is no fun either way. Whether the marines JP/HMG rush, or they lock down two hives, or if the aliens dont let the marines out of their base, its not fun getting owned hard. Most people say they dont play to win, but they cry when they get their **** kicked so bad its almost better off that they were AFK. It doesnt even matter what strat is used if the marines are superior to aliens, and vice versa.
Scrubs get owned, they cry balance issues, They look for other people to be their excuse rather than operating on the premise that if they lose, ITS THEIR OWN FAULT. some examples of such phrases are "HES cheating", "they dont play the game properly", i really do love that one. And "lame rush" is another funny one). They cry on the forums to get support of other people to justify their loss, and rally against people who use rushes. Which is a valid tactic.
Veterans get owned, they adapt and find a way to win. They suck it up and deal with the loss.
unfortunately we are in a serious deficit of the latter.
<!--QuoteBegin--Kenichi+Apr 16 2003, 12:33 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Kenichi @ Apr 16 2003, 12:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> yes you failed to say how the arguement "i play for fun" somehow differentiates you in any possible way from every other gamer in existance. You failed to explain why you find yourself so above everyone else that you can claim above them that you play for fun. You failed to explain why you find yourself in a position to denounce other peoples style of play as not being fun for them. You failed to explain anything but the fact that you arguing that you play for fun is only ignorance. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Allow me to quote my last post in part Kenichi:
<!--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 do not beleive that I am somehow playing differently on pubs than any other pub player.
-I play for fun on pubs as I understand everybody plays for fun on pubs. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tell me, in what way did I fail to specify that I feel myself no different than most if not all people? In which way did I say I was somehow playing to a higher standard than everyone else. You might note, that in my posts I have said this is what I do AND what I see others doing, and why. I used myself as an example because I can't know how other people think. I said why <i>I</i> don't rush, because <i>I</i> know how <i>I</i> play. I then said that others often do the same, for what I assume to be the same reasons. After that 6 games in a row of rushing, the comm said "that's enough of that, lets play properly now", <i>probably</i> because it's not exactly riveting play to kill the enemy in quick rushes.
I specifically stated that myself playing for fun makes me no different from everybody else, so I don't see where your argument lies. <i>I</i> play for fun. True. <i>Everbody</i> plays for fun. Probably true, but unprovable. I said "<i>I</i> play for fun" because I know it's true, while I cannot go around saying that everybody plays for fun because how the F would I know? Do you know? I've played games without playing them for fun before, most people with siblings would know that it is possible to play things for reasons entirely different than fun (like whipping your brother's butt in a game he loves but you hate). How do I know that people don't have reasons other than fun to play NS?
Firewater>>
If there are 2 sides of roughly equal numbers of talented players and the marines rush, they can end an otherwise equal match very early. If the game lasts long enough, the good players on the kharaa get the tools they need to compete on a level playing field. Games where one side overpower the other by sheer weight of skill imbalance are no good in and of themselves, rush or no rush, I agree. But some games that would otherwise be good matches are ended early due to marines capitolising on early advantages. Which is fair, it's just not fun. After a few times of "shoot the spawning skulk dead before he can move" it gets a little old, which is why (AFAIK) it is not often done. That was my point.
Actually Calantus, Kenichi is 100% correct. You can't use your own definition of "fun" in a game where two teams play against eachother, and where everyone has their own personal idea of what "fun" is.
<!--QuoteBegin--Chadseh+Apr 16 2003, 08:30 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Chadseh @ Apr 16 2003, 08:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually Calantus, Kenichi is 100% correct. You can't use your own definition of "fun" in a game where two teams play against eachother, and where everyone has their own personal idea of what "fun" is.
I bloody-well can use my personal definition for fun WHEN TALKING ABOUT MYSELF. God.
I said I don't see it as fun, so I don't do it. Then I said I see other people not doing it when they could, and supposed they had the same reason. Why would someone not end a game early when they could? Could it be any reason other than to have fun? I can't think of any. So, if someone extends a game beyond what they need in order to win, they are doing it for fun, because it would be more fun to extend the game. So... if someone refuses to rush (aka, end the game early) they do it because... IT'S MORE FUN NOT TO RUSH. God. Read. Comprehend. Please.
I <b>so</b> wish there were no swear filters for this post. I guess I'll just have to settle for caps and "God".
So its more fun to toy with the other team when one side is clearly better than the other, rather than end it as soon as possible to mix up the teams a little, to get perhaps a quality game?
man someone likes to drag out the game.
if the marines win on the rush, the aliens do not know how to play defense properly, in which case, they will not win anyways, so why make it last longer than it has to?
NS is horribly unbalanced. Go play Buzzybots <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif'><!--endemo-->
Seriously guys, why complain about balance? Balance is entirely dependent upon the calibre of the players on both sides. It's a great game. Even if you perceive it as horribly skewed(balance wise) you can't deny that it's not fun. If it's not fun, don't play. But *I* don't believe it's unbalanced, so I'll play and have fun
I really like this post, it is one of the few in this forum that is well thought out and has good content.
The problem with "scrubs" is that they are ALL over the pub scene.
I like to play NS to win, so I do that, and so do a fair amount of people, but we always get called lame due to rushing.
Atm, it IS not balanced between clan and pub play. This is unfortunate, but it may very well remain(prove me wrong Flayra), due to the inheriant difference of the two sides and the particular way they are ment to be played.
Clans will ALWAYS be better at marines and pubs will ALWAYS have the advantage on alien sides when the skill is equal(barring a few exceptions of course)
<!--QuoteBegin--FireWater+Apr 16 2003, 09:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FireWater @ Apr 16 2003, 09:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So its more fun to toy with the other team when one side is clearly better than the other, rather than end it as soon as possible to mix up the teams a little, to get perhaps a quality game?
man someone likes to drag out the game.
if the marines win on the rush, the aliens do not know how to play defense properly, in which case, they will not win anyways, so why make it last longer than it has to? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You can win a rush against a kharaa team just as good as your own. There are many factors, such as a little luck. If one player takes out three skulks by luck, the balance has been thrown way out of whack for so early in the game. Also there are many players who are really good lerks/fades, but not too good with skulk. And there are skulks that just can't survive without cara, with they start to be able to compete. And like I said before, you only need 3 good marines to rush kill a pub kharaa team.
The thing is, I don't ever say "ok, lets not kill their hive even though all the skulks are dead" or "don't kill their IPs, let them build up". I don't extend a game already won. What I <i>do</i> instead, is not rush. If the opportunity jumps up and slaps me in the face I take it, otherwise I do something else. Tell me this, why would pub players go for any other strategy than the hive rush since it works so well and efficiently? Because it gets tired and boring. It's the same thing every damn time. That is all I am saying, I'm not saying you <i>shouldn't</i> rush. I'm not saying that you shouldn't kill off the enemy when you have them beaten. I'm just saying that I, and I think others, don't rush in pub games because it is boring and repeditive.
That is all I am saying. Here, I'll say it again:
<b>To me, rushes are boring and repeditive, so I don't do them in pubs. I presume that others don't rush for the same reason.</b>
That is all. Don't put words into my mouth. That is <i>all</i> I am saying. If it aint in bold, I'm not saying 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--> Balance is entirely dependent upon the calibre of the players on both sides.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That makes no sense, you can only judge balance, by definition, when both sides are exactly equal (Thus, it has to be theoritical)
Ah, well that's true. I suppose it would be better to say the outcome of the game, which si really what I meant.
If the game is balanced then, luck aside, it'll be a tie assuming both teams are equivalent in skill. And that's definately what I've seen in my NS experience. You get two groups of regs on my homeserver, toss them on teams, and you'll come out roughly equal in wins over a period of time.
The problem with your concept of balance is it totally discards skill. In a balanced game the only factor is luck, and I don't care for that. In my book balance is this:
Either side has an equal opportunity to win, based upon game mechanics.
This means that in optimal conditions(i.e. both teams are 100% equal), there's a 50/50 chance either team will win. But there is no such thing as a game under optimal conditions, so any game will be weighted by the skills of the involved players.
"I can't tell you what pornography is, but I can identify it when I see it" <-- No idea who said that. Change it to this "I can't tell you what balance is, but I can identify it when I see it"
KenichiThis is not a pie.Join Date: 2002-11-01Member: 2941Members, NS1 Playtester
<!--QuoteBegin--MooMan+Apr 16 2003, 10:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MooMan @ Apr 16 2003, 10:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Clans will ALWAYS be better at marines and pubs will ALWAYS have the advantage on alien sides when the skill is equal(barring a few exceptions of course) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually i only partially agree with this. The alien side however i can't really agree with. "ALWAYS" wouldnt be where i would put it. "More commonly in comparison to the marine game" is what i would have said. Since its not really anywhere near sided to pubs yet. This is mainly because, in an equal situation the marine team with the clanners would pull the fast hard core strats out (there are strats that are near impossible to counter unless you specifically plan for it, and how many random pub players know that) So i really wouldnt say "ALWAYS" at all.
<!--QuoteBegin--|ds|meatshield+Apr 17 2003, 09:30 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (|ds|meatshield @ Apr 17 2003, 09:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> and then theere's the alien clanners who expect the strat, and can tell the otehrs what to do.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Only to then be ignored i'd bet <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Comments
Argh, the OT monkey strikes again D:
Kenechi, you got a real big issue with playing for fun, huh? Let me put my position in words you cannot missinterpret:
-I do not beleive that I am somehow playing differently on pubs than any other pub player.
-I play for fun on pubs as I understand everybody plays for fun on pubs.
-I also play to win, as I imagine most others do too.
-I found rushing to be fun for the first few times I did it.
-Rushing gets repeditive after you do it a few times.
-Rushing also misses out alot of NS's depth and other games do rush battles better IMO.
-I do not rush often at all because I find it repetitive and boring.
-I see many others doing this as well.
Do you understand that Kenichi? Want me to explain it better?
oh how true it is.
actually, it doesnt matter if the game lasts 5 mins or 30 mins, if one team is a lot better than the other, the game is no fun either way. Whether the marines JP/HMG rush, or they lock down two hives, or if the aliens dont let the marines out of their base, its not fun getting owned hard. Most people say they dont play to win, but they cry when they get their **** kicked so bad its almost better off that they were AFK. It doesnt even matter what strat is used if the marines are superior to aliens, and vice versa.
Scrubs get owned, they cry balance issues, They look for other people to be their excuse rather than operating on the premise that if they lose, ITS THEIR OWN FAULT. some examples of such phrases are "HES cheating", "they dont play the game properly", i really do love that one. And "lame rush" is another funny one). They cry on the forums to get support of other people to justify their loss, and rally against people who use rushes. Which is a valid tactic.
Veterans get owned, they adapt and find a way to win. They suck it up and deal with the loss.
unfortunately we are in a serious deficit of the latter.
Allow me to quote my last post in part Kenichi:
<!--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 do not beleive that I am somehow playing differently on pubs than any other pub player.
-I play for fun on pubs as I understand everybody plays for fun on pubs.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tell me, in what way did I fail to specify that I feel myself no different than most if not all people? In which way did I say I was somehow playing to a higher standard than everyone else. You might note, that in my posts I have said this is what I do AND what I see others doing, and why. I used myself as an example because I can't know how other people think. I said why <i>I</i> don't rush, because <i>I</i> know how <i>I</i> play. I then said that others often do the same, for what I assume to be the same reasons. After that 6 games in a row of rushing, the comm said "that's enough of that, lets play properly now", <i>probably</i> because it's not exactly riveting play to kill the enemy in quick rushes.
I specifically stated that myself playing for fun makes me no different from everybody else, so I don't see where your argument lies. <i>I</i> play for fun. True. <i>Everbody</i> plays for fun. Probably true, but unprovable. I said "<i>I</i> play for fun" because I know it's true, while I cannot go around saying that everybody plays for fun because how the F would I know? Do you know? I've played games without playing them for fun before, most people with siblings would know that it is possible to play things for reasons entirely different than fun (like whipping your brother's butt in a game he loves but you hate). How do I know that people don't have reasons other than fun to play NS?
Firewater>>
If there are 2 sides of roughly equal numbers of talented players and the marines rush, they can end an otherwise equal match very early. If the game lasts long enough, the good players on the kharaa get the tools they need to compete on a level playing field. Games where one side overpower the other by sheer weight of skill imbalance are no good in and of themselves, rush or no rush, I agree. But some games that would otherwise be good matches are ended early due to marines capitolising on early advantages. Which is fair, it's just not fun. After a few times of "shoot the spawning skulk dead before he can move" it gets a little old, which is why (AFAIK) it is not often done. That was my point.
Sorry.
Sorry. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wha...?
I bloody-well can use my personal definition for fun WHEN TALKING ABOUT MYSELF. God.
I said I don't see it as fun, so I don't do it. Then I said I see other people not doing it when they could, and supposed they had the same reason. Why would someone not end a game early when they could? Could it be any reason other than to have fun? I can't think of any. So, if someone extends a game beyond what they need in order to win, they are doing it for fun, because it would be more fun to extend the game. So... if someone refuses to rush (aka, end the game early) they do it because... IT'S MORE FUN NOT TO RUSH. God. Read. Comprehend. Please.
I <b>so</b> wish there were no swear filters for this post. I guess I'll just have to settle for caps and "God".
man someone likes to drag out the game.
if the marines win on the rush, the aliens do not know how to play defense properly, in which case, they will not win anyways, so why make it last longer than it has to?
Seriously guys, why complain about balance? Balance is entirely dependent upon the calibre of the players on both sides. It's a great game. Even if you perceive it as horribly skewed(balance wise) you can't deny that it's not fun. If it's not fun, don't play. But *I* don't believe it's unbalanced, so I'll play and have fun
The problem with "scrubs" is that they are ALL over the pub scene.
I like to play NS to win, so I do that, and so do a fair amount of people, but we always get called lame due to rushing.
Atm, it IS not balanced between clan and pub play. This is unfortunate, but it may very well remain(prove me wrong Flayra), due to the inheriant difference of the two sides and the particular way they are ment to be played.
Clans will ALWAYS be better at marines and pubs will ALWAYS have the advantage on alien sides when the skill is equal(barring a few exceptions of course)
man someone likes to drag out the game.
if the marines win on the rush, the aliens do not know how to play defense properly, in which case, they will not win anyways, so why make it last longer than it has to? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can win a rush against a kharaa team just as good as your own. There are many factors, such as a little luck. If one player takes out three skulks by luck, the balance has been thrown way out of whack for so early in the game. Also there are many players who are really good lerks/fades, but not too good with skulk. And there are skulks that just can't survive without cara, with they start to be able to compete. And like I said before, you only need 3 good marines to rush kill a pub kharaa team.
The thing is, I don't ever say "ok, lets not kill their hive even though all the skulks are dead" or "don't kill their IPs, let them build up". I don't extend a game already won. What I <i>do</i> instead, is not rush. If the opportunity jumps up and slaps me in the face I take it, otherwise I do something else. Tell me this, why would pub players go for any other strategy than the hive rush since it works so well and efficiently? Because it gets tired and boring. It's the same thing every damn time. That is all I am saying, I'm not saying you <i>shouldn't</i> rush. I'm not saying that you shouldn't kill off the enemy when you have them beaten. I'm just saying that I, and I think others, don't rush in pub games because it is boring and repeditive.
That is all I am saying. Here, I'll say it again:
<b>To me, rushes are boring and repeditive, so I don't do them in pubs. I presume that others don't rush for the same reason.</b>
That is all. Don't put words into my mouth. That is <i>all</i> I am saying. If it aint in bold, I'm not saying it.
That makes no sense, you can only judge balance, by definition, when both sides are exactly equal (Thus, it has to be theoritical)
If the game is balanced then, luck aside, it'll be a tie assuming both teams are equivalent in skill. And that's definately what I've seen in my NS experience. You get two groups of regs on my homeserver, toss them on teams, and you'll come out roughly equal in wins over a period of time.
The problem with your concept of balance is it totally discards skill. In a balanced game the only factor is luck, and I don't care for that. In my book balance is this:
Either side has an equal opportunity to win, based upon game mechanics.
This means that in optimal conditions(i.e. both teams are 100% equal), there's a 50/50 chance either team will win. But there is no such thing as a game under optimal conditions, so any game will be weighted by the skills of the involved players.
"I can't tell you what pornography is, but I can identify it when I see it" <-- No idea who said that. Change it to this
"I can't tell you what balance is, but I can identify it when I see it"
Rox
Actually i only partially agree with this. The alien side however i can't really agree with. "ALWAYS" wouldnt be where i would put it. "More commonly in comparison to the marine game" is what i would have said. Since its not really anywhere near sided to pubs yet. This is mainly because, in an equal situation the marine team with the clanners would pull the fast hard core strats out (there are strats that are near impossible to counter unless you specifically plan for it, and how many random pub players know that) So i really wouldnt say "ALWAYS" at all.
But yes, marines are asomewhat stronger in 1.04.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only to then be ignored i'd bet <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->