Hmmm.... dn`s rine round vs cri was pretty interesting.
Granted that was because dn did very well to start and then did very poorly for the next 30 minutes while cri picked it up.
The game can be exciting in long games and competitive but only if both teams mess up.
As for all this arguing its pretty rediculous. I feel pretty safe in saying not a single one of the people arguing made their point effectively in this thread.
As for how many votes it would take to change something well news flash : nothing game wise is changing until after the release of 3.0.
Not to mention this poll is fairly worthless. The question is way to obtuse.
And whats all this crap about clanners vs pubbers?
Forlorn may be a "clanner" but I gurantee you he has "pubbed" more than 90 percent of pubbers.
<!--QuoteBegin-[SiD]Squishy+Sep 18 2004, 08:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([SiD]Squishy @ Sep 18 2004, 08:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The game can be exciting in long games and competitive but only if both teams mess up. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly. Both teams have to play at below 100% effectiveness for the game to be long and competitive. If one team messes up even a tiny bit in the first 4 minutes, it's usually gg very soon after. If neither team messes up at all, then the marines usually win, just because they have the ability to counter anything and everything the aliens do much easier than the aliens can counter them, but that's really a balance issue. I want it so that mistakes CAN be allowed; oh sure you'll have to work harder than normal to dig yourself out of the situation, but I hate it when the outcome to a game is decided in the first few minutes of the game.
If you vote for this, you aren't agreeing on 10 day long games, you're only saying that you'd like games to be longer, but not drawn out. The use of "comebacks" is important to the question involved, because if games were just longer on average, it might be the same stupid marine slaughter, only for longer times. Therefore, when you vote "longer games" you are saying you want the developers to go for "longer games that allow my team to make mistakes and still have a chance of winning."
Hardly vague.
And just for you, I'll discuss the Second part.
"No, game time is cool as it is right now."
Basically, by voting for this option, you are saying that changes to game time are not needed, that you like playing games that are short, with the occassional rare game that happens to be epic, for whatever reason.
The questions are more along the line of broad, to judge what actual percentage of active forum goers think the game should be longer, with a stronger possibility of comebacks. While some of us louder voices in this nicely sized majority are discussing the possibility of how games could be both balanced and lengthens, those discussions are largely in other threads.
I hate to agree with Forlorn, but the poll really isn't properly worded to prove any sort of a point. First of all, the question is just in regards to "balancing NS for longer games." What does that mean? What balance changes are we talking about that would make games longer? Nobody knows. You can't argue these results in favor of any specific suggestion because nobody voted on a specific suggestion.
On top of that, the answers are somewhat weighted and not completely related to the question. The "Yes" option says that long games <u>with chances for comebacks</u> are better. What's this about comebacks? That certainly wasn't mentioned in the question or thread title. Not all long games feature comebacks. This is a deceptively appealing option because most people enjoy those really long, hard-fought games, but that doesn't mean they're in favor of the mysterious balance changes involved in making all games this way. On the other hand, if you vote "No" then you're saying that the game time is perfect as it is with no need for change at all. People who are not comfortable with one extreme are forced into the other, thus making them not want to vote in the first place.
<!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Longer games with a better chance of comebacks"
<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>If you vote for this, you aren't agreeing on 10 day long games, you're only saying that you'd like games to be longer, but not drawn out. The use of "comebacks" is important to the question involved, because if games were just longer on average, it might be the same stupid marine slaughter, only for longer times. Therefore, when you vote "longer games" you are saying you want the developers to go for "longer games that allow my team to make mistakes and still have a chance of winning."
Hardly vague.
And just for you, I'll discuss the Second part.</span>
"No, game time is cool as it is right now."
<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>Basically, by voting for this option, you are saying that changes to game time are not needed, that you like playing games that are short, with the occassional rare game that happens to be epic, for whatever reason.
The questions are more along the line of broad, to judge what actual percentage of active forum goers think the game should be longer, with a stronger possibility of comebacks. While some of us louder voices in this nicely sized majority are discussing the possibility of how games could be both balanced and lengthens, those discussions are largely in other threads.</span> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh please Zek, get real. The poll is "deceptive" now? I think you're completely missing the point of the entire poll, and in fact the entire thread. If you bothered to read what some of us are saying in this, and related threads, the poll fits right in. No one wants a 50 minute long marine slaughter, nor do they want a 50 minute alien slaughter.
It is pretty much common knowledge that there are some balance problems with NS: Classic right now. Some of us believe that part of the balance problem has to do with the target game length. If the Kharaa team can survive an aggressive marine team enough to grab the needed RT's and get a second hive up, there's a chance they can win. Otherwise...well, there is very little chance of a comeback. NS is extremely unforgiving, and unless you're playing on an unchained server, it's DMS4life.
We believe that by increasing the target game length to something around 40 minutes, the balance changes we know the game needs would appear naturally, because a more balanced game is needed for longer average gamelength.
DC_DarklingJoin Date: 2003-07-10Member: 18068Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver
a good match is where kharaa neevr have more then 2 full active hives and lose a few on the way. (gaining the third, so not losing anything expet res and time)
Rines should also have a hard time with bases and outposts.
The best this is now acomplished is by changing tactics midgame, and hoping it works. (if it does, its acomplished)
<!--QuoteBegin-D.C. Darkling+Sep 20 2004, 11:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (D.C. Darkling @ Sep 20 2004, 11:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> a good match is where kharaa neevr have more then 2 full active hives and lose a few on the way. (gaining the third, so not losing anything expet res and time)
Rines should also have a hard time with bases and outposts.
The best this is now acomplished is by changing tactics midgame, and hoping it works. (if it does, its acomplished) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Uh if the aliens have 2 hives... the game is pretty much over... unless the marines have LOTS of nodes and a proto lab.
A poll is a poll. You can't say "Well, look at what we're saying in the rest of the thread and try to imagine some good balance changes that would fix things." If the question and the corresponding answers don't properly reflect the entirety of the issue, then the poll is useless. The fact of the matter is that almost nobody reads an entire thread of this length before they answer a poll, nor should they have to. That's why the question and the answers are so important if you plan to use the information from the poll in any serious context, as you have attempted to do many times so far. If the question is ambiguous(which it is) and the answers biased(which they are), then the poll's results are invalidated no matter how much good discussion comes from it. You're right, I didn't bother to read what everyone said in all 13 pages of this thread. That's why I only argued that the poll was ineffective in and of itself.
You're trying to use the results of this poll to prove your point that games should be made longer. Well, the problem is that there's no magic "mp_targetgamelength" variable that fixes everything up that way. The only way to accomplish that objective is with specific balance changes, but all you know from this poll is that people like long games. When the question is so ambiguous, people don't know what they're really voting for and the results just don't mean very much. For example, if you suggest that tech times should be increased to lengthen the games, and say "This idea has a lot of support because longer games are more popular according to the poll," that isn't very credible.
Wait a minute. While I generally agree that comebacks should be possible and that the overall outcome of the game shouldn't be decided within the first five minutes of gameplay (ie: a truly <b>balanced</b> game), doesn't this seem like a really daunting task to begin with?
Everyone wants balance to be present, I don't have to justify this and neither does this poll/thread. The veteran program was a good idea, but it unfortunately failed. Perhaps it would be more useful to lock this poll and instead create a different thread for pub and clan players alike to suggest ideas to achieve such balance.
This would resolve the confusion surrounding this poll as both questions are practically the same if you break them down: balance is essential in online fps games ok.
Ok so we can agree we want a game thats more balanced and is harder for one side to lock down...Thanks guys this 13 pages of arguing over facts that mostly had nothing to do with this concept was really useful..... So's the conclusion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> um no it wouldn't. I didn't think you guys were even serious? You really want the devs to bother with this?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well the overwhelming majority for longer games with easier turnaroudns is speaking for itself.
the problem with short games is that you have so little room for error.
in clan matches, im sure the clan goes over strategies on who fades, who goes gorge, how many rts you get, what chamber first, yada yada before the game ever starts. thats why you can have "epic games" in such a short time period. everyone is fully prepared.
however, on a pub game, with roughly 10 people per side, its hard to tell whose good at fade or whose going to gorge. you need some time to prepare while in the game. this is especially true for aliens. this time taking to prepare is usually the downfall. a comm is all the marines need. they get waypoints and just shoot whatever comes there way. they have no say on how to spend resources or what upgrades they get. thats why the game should be stretched out. so you arent in a rush to make a battleplan and in turn, have a generally funner game.
The only reason this thread is a joke is because of you making it into one. Most of the people that post are serious; they are sick of short games that have no leeway for error. The poll's whole point was to say "ok, enough people are saying something, we should try and figure out if a decent amount of forum goers agree or disagree with this seemingly growing sentiment."
Low and behold, around 78% of people want longer games that are not just a drawn out slaughter. They want some time to think and react to the game. The only reason people believe the thread is a joke is because they think it's rediculous to want something like this, because NS has become more an FPS in Version 3, beneficial to super marines and super fades, but bad for everyone else.
Damn there are a lot of posts here. To be honest, I don't think making games 'longer' will be that much more fun. The reason the games aren't a lot of fun now is because usually one team either marines or aliens will have a couple of really good players in the midst of decent pubbers while the other team has only decent pubbers. The better team usually wins and unless the losing team get an organized rush together which usually doesn't happen, they enter a defeatist attitude and lose.
If you extend the targetted time game, what I see happening is upgrades being obtained slower, the only way I can see extending games. If this happens, the 2nd hive will take more time to drop, instead of dropping it 4-6 minutes into the game, it'll probably be dropped 9-11 minutes into the game. It'll take longer for fades to appear and lerks as well. On marine side, it'll take longer for weapon 2 and 3 to come but armor 1 will still be pretty fast and SGs can be dropped at any time. This leads to marine domination since marines usually dominate the 'First Phase' of the games unless the alien team has pretty nasty teamwork.
So basically, extending the game just extends the time skulks get murdered by long range weaponry.
The only way to create 'epic' games is with even teams to be honest and it's already happening now, just not as often since teams almost never equal out on public servers. Good and experienced players sometimes are able to rally their team into comebacks because instead of going 'Omg we lost the hive, omg we lost a fade we lose', they look for solutions. They either gather 5 skulks, own the marine base and set them back a bit or take over a hive and redrop it. So in my opinion, the problem with games these days is skill on team 1 vs skill on team 2, not the game length.
<!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Low and behold, around 78% of people want longer games that are not just a drawn out slaughter. They want some time to think and react to the game. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> To be more precise, about 78% of people agree that long games with comebacks are better. It's important to note that these opinions were mostly formed within the current build; they believe that the long, hard-fought games in 3.0 right now are more fun than the short, pre-determined ones. I think most people can agree with that. Balancing NS for longer games could mean anything, and I guarantee that no matter how you go about it,, it would have side-effects that would result in these games being very different from the long games we have now(and thus the long games people voted in favor of). That's why I said the poll doesn't mean very much in regards to the actual issue of changing the game. Making games longer would change the mechanics of the game, and there is no guarantee that these new games will be the same as the rare long ones we have now.
The reason long games in 3.0 are fun is because they occur almost exclusively in games that are closely matched and have many comebacks. The one-sided games that are actually very common in NS end relatively quickly and aren't all that memorable. So, what happens if we balance the entire game to be longer? We'll still have one-sided games for all the same reasons we do currently, they'll just take a lot longer to unfold and thus will be a lot more agonizing. The good games that you all are reminiscing about will still happen rarely because they will still rely on an uncommon set of circumstances.
That's why the poll doesn't prove anything. You got people to agree on an abstract concept that sounds nice in reality, but hasn't yet been established in the form of an actual idea. For example, go look at the Unchained poll. If it was more like this one, then the poll would say "Should the devs balance the game to make aliens more interesting?" and people would be using the positive results to argue the benefits of unchained chambers. Do you see the distinction?
DC_DarklingJoin Date: 2003-07-10Member: 18068Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver
uhm. if kharaa keep losing hives while the other goes up rines are teched up fairly well, its a match where alot changed and both sides are near equal. Its great..
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well the overwhelming majority for longer games with easier turnaroudns is speaking for itself.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And stop going oh looke 80 percent of us or so want this this and this First of all a pure forum poll is not a good way to get unbiased results. Secondly 300 vs 80 is nothing. And finally the wording of the poll makes it worthless as has been pointed out MANY TIMES
I understand you guys would actually like this to happen. I just don't see where these is anything whatsoever useful for a dev to spend his time mucking through this thread to read and then respond to.
They already know the things being posted here that are worthwhile and if they had some magic solution it would probably be done.
Not to mention there will NOT be any significant gameplay changes on the release of 3.0
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:red'>I could write a Plugin were When a Hive is about to die. ALL THE aliens spawn in umbra. Giveing them one last chance to defend. Same thing for marines but with HMGs. I should be able to make that work</span></span>
<!--QuoteBegin-deathx987+Sep 21 2004, 04:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (deathx987 @ Sep 21 2004, 04:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:red'>I could write a Plugin were When a Hive is about to die. ALL THE aliens spawn in umbra. Giveing them one last chance to defend. Same thing for marines but with HMGs. I should be able to make that work</span></span> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No thanks, that would be silly.
Sano, The suggested changes for the aliens would also to be to improve the skulk with a +10 increase in AP and a slight speed increase. That way the gap between marines and skulks can be closed better. Also, if marines are unable to have MT for the first few minutes, the skulk can actually do what it does best: ambush.
Yes, research and upgrade time will need to be lengthened, but there needs to be some changes to the alien classes to better match the early game marines.
In any case, details for such things are being discussed in other threads. The likeliness that they will happen is small though.
Zek, games in 3bx are not very fun, hence me not playing classic much anymore. After I came back to NS at 3b3, I found that classic was terrible, but that combat was actually quite a lot of fun. So I spent my time working that. Lately I've been hitting up classic servers, and I've played a few fun games, even one where I actually had fun playing marines. That was a shock.
However, NS3bx is still the worst version of NS I've ever played, and if combat mode didn't exist, I would imagine a fairly good sized portion of the players NS has would be pretty much gone. I'd like to have actual fun in the Classic games I play, instead of waiting around for some mystical "3b5 epic game" that pales in comparison to older versions of NS as far as "epic games" go.
Comments
Granted that was because dn did very well to start and then did very poorly for the next 30 minutes while cri picked it up.
The game can be exciting in long games and competitive but only if both teams mess up.
As for all this arguing its pretty rediculous. I feel pretty safe in saying not a single one of the people arguing made their point effectively in this thread.
As for how many votes it would take to change something well news flash : nothing game wise is changing until after the release of 3.0.
Not to mention this poll is fairly worthless. The question is way to obtuse.
And whats all this crap about clanners vs pubbers?
Forlorn may be a "clanner" but I gurantee you he has "pubbed" more than 90 percent of pubbers.
Exactly. Both teams have to play at below 100% effectiveness for the game to be long and competitive. If one team messes up even a tiny bit in the first 4 minutes, it's usually gg very soon after.
If neither team messes up at all, then the marines usually win, just because they have the ability to counter anything and everything the aliens do much easier than the aliens can counter them, but that's really a balance issue.
I want it so that mistakes CAN be allowed; oh sure you'll have to work harder than normal to dig yourself out of the situation, but I hate it when the outcome to a game is decided in the first few minutes of the game.
If you vote for this, you aren't agreeing on 10 day long games, you're only saying that you'd like games to be longer, but not drawn out. The use of "comebacks" is important to the question involved, because if games were just longer on average, it might be the same stupid marine slaughter, only for longer times. Therefore, when you vote "longer games" you are saying you want the developers to go for "longer games that allow my team to make mistakes and still have a chance of winning."
Hardly vague.
And just for you, I'll discuss the Second part.
"No, game time is cool as it is right now."
Basically, by voting for this option, you are saying that changes to game time are not needed, that you like playing games that are short, with the occassional rare game that happens to be epic, for whatever reason.
The questions are more along the line of broad, to judge what actual percentage of active forum goers think the game should be longer, with a stronger possibility of comebacks. While some of us louder voices in this nicely sized majority are discussing the possibility of how games could be both balanced and lengthens, those discussions are largely in other threads.
Right now the classic game are not satisfying. Especially since the Aliens are not capable to build as mus as the rines do.
On top of that, the answers are somewhat weighted and not completely related to the question. The "Yes" option says that long games <u>with chances for comebacks</u> are better. What's this about comebacks? That certainly wasn't mentioned in the question or thread title. Not all long games feature comebacks. This is a deceptively appealing option because most people enjoy those really long, hard-fought games, but that doesn't mean they're in favor of the mysterious balance changes involved in making all games this way. On the other hand, if you vote "No" then you're saying that the game time is perfect as it is with no need for change at all. People who are not comfortable with one extreme are forced into the other, thus making them not want to vote in the first place.
Um... lol <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Anyways... this is what the vote should say:
<!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Longer games with a better chance of comebacks"
<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>If you vote for this, you aren't agreeing on 10 day long games, you're only saying that you'd like games to be longer, but not drawn out. The use of "comebacks" is important to the question involved, because if games were just longer on average, it might be the same stupid marine slaughter, only for longer times. Therefore, when you vote "longer games" you are saying you want the developers to go for "longer games that allow my team to make mistakes and still have a chance of winning."
Hardly vague.
And just for you, I'll discuss the Second part.</span>
"No, game time is cool as it is right now."
<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>Basically, by voting for this option, you are saying that changes to game time are not needed, that you like playing games that are short, with the occassional rare game that happens to be epic, for whatever reason.
The questions are more along the line of broad, to judge what actual percentage of active forum goers think the game should be longer, with a stronger possibility of comebacks. While some of us louder voices in this nicely sized majority are discussing the possibility of how games could be both balanced and lengthens, those discussions are largely in other threads.</span> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
/me looks for burncycle again
It is pretty much common knowledge that there are some balance problems with NS: Classic right now. Some of us believe that part of the balance problem has to do with the target game length. If the Kharaa team can survive an aggressive marine team enough to grab the needed RT's and get a second hive up, there's a chance they can win. Otherwise...well, there is very little chance of a comeback. NS is extremely unforgiving, and unless you're playing on an unchained server, it's DMS4life.
We believe that by increasing the target game length to something around 40 minutes, the balance changes we know the game needs would appear naturally, because a more balanced game is needed for longer average gamelength.
Rines should also have a hard time with bases and outposts.
The best this is now acomplished is by changing tactics midgame, and hoping it works. (if it does, its acomplished)
Rines should also have a hard time with bases and outposts.
The best this is now acomplished is by changing tactics midgame, and hoping it works. (if it does, its acomplished) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh if the aliens have 2 hives... the game is pretty much over... unless the marines have LOTS of nodes and a proto lab.
You're trying to use the results of this poll to prove your point that games should be made longer. Well, the problem is that there's no magic "mp_targetgamelength" variable that fixes everything up that way. The only way to accomplish that objective is with specific balance changes, but all you know from this poll is that people like long games. When the question is so ambiguous, people don't know what they're really voting for and the results just don't mean very much. For example, if you suggest that tech times should be increased to lengthen the games, and say "This idea has a lot of support because longer games are more popular according to the poll," that isn't very credible.
Everyone wants balance to be present, I don't have to justify this and neither does this poll/thread. The veteran program was a good idea, but it unfortunately failed. Perhaps it would be more useful to lock this poll and instead create a different thread for pub and clan players alike to suggest ideas to achieve such balance.
This would resolve the confusion surrounding this poll as both questions are practically the same if you break them down: balance is essential in online fps games ok.
Ya devs you better get right on this...
waiting... waiting... waiting... hmm comfortable chair...*yawn*... zzzzzzz...
Well the overwhelming majority for longer games with easier turnaroudns is speaking for itself.
in clan matches, im sure the clan goes over strategies on who fades, who goes gorge, how many rts you get, what chamber first, yada yada before the game ever starts. thats why you can have "epic games" in such a short time period. everyone is fully prepared.
however, on a pub game, with roughly 10 people per side, its hard to tell whose good at fade or whose going to gorge. you need some time to prepare while in the game. this is especially true for aliens. this time taking to prepare is usually the downfall. a comm is all the marines need. they get waypoints and just shoot whatever comes there way. they have no say on how to spend resources or what upgrades they get. thats why the game should be stretched out. so you arent in a rush to make a battleplan and in turn, have a generally funner game.
Low and behold, around 78% of people want longer games that are not just a drawn out slaughter. They want some time to think and react to the game. The only reason people believe the thread is a joke is because they think it's rediculous to want something like this, because NS has become more an FPS in Version 3, beneficial to super marines and super fades, but bad for everyone else.
Can I get a witness?
If you extend the targetted time game, what I see happening is upgrades being obtained slower, the only way I can see extending games. If this happens, the 2nd hive will take more time to drop, instead of dropping it 4-6 minutes into the game, it'll probably be dropped 9-11 minutes into the game. It'll take longer for fades to appear and lerks as well. On marine side, it'll take longer for weapon 2 and 3 to come but armor 1 will still be pretty fast and SGs can be dropped at any time. This leads to marine domination since marines usually dominate the 'First Phase' of the games unless the alien team has pretty nasty teamwork.
So basically, extending the game just extends the time skulks get murdered by long range weaponry.
The only way to create 'epic' games is with even teams to be honest and it's already happening now, just not as often since teams almost never equal out on public servers. Good and experienced players sometimes are able to rally their team into comebacks because instead of going 'Omg we lost the hive, omg we lost a fade we lose', they look for solutions. They either gather 5 skulks, own the marine base and set them back a bit or take over a hive and redrop it. So in my opinion, the problem with games these days is skill on team 1 vs skill on team 2, not the game length.
To be more precise, about 78% of people agree that long games with comebacks are better. It's important to note that these opinions were mostly formed within the current build; they believe that the long, hard-fought games in 3.0 right now are more fun than the short, pre-determined ones. I think most people can agree with that. Balancing NS for longer games could mean anything, and I guarantee that no matter how you go about it,, it would have side-effects that would result in these games being very different from the long games we have now(and thus the long games people voted in favor of). That's why I said the poll doesn't mean very much in regards to the actual issue of changing the game. Making games longer would change the mechanics of the game, and there is no guarantee that these new games will be the same as the rare long ones we have now.
The reason long games in 3.0 are fun is because they occur almost exclusively in games that are closely matched and have many comebacks. The one-sided games that are actually very common in NS end relatively quickly and aren't all that memorable. So, what happens if we balance the entire game to be longer? We'll still have one-sided games for all the same reasons we do currently, they'll just take a lot longer to unfold and thus will be a lot more agonizing. The good games that you all are reminiscing about will still happen rarely because they will still rely on an uncommon set of circumstances.
That's why the poll doesn't prove anything. You got people to agree on an abstract concept that sounds nice in reality, but hasn't yet been established in the form of an actual idea. For example, go look at the Unchained poll. If it was more like this one, then the poll would say "Should the devs balance the game to make aliens more interesting?" and people would be using the positive results to argue the benefits of unchained chambers. Do you see the distinction?
and rare
And stop going oh looke 80 percent of us or so want this this and this First of all a pure forum poll is not a good way to get unbiased results. Secondly 300 vs 80 is nothing. And finally the wording of the poll makes it worthless as has been pointed out MANY TIMES
I understand you guys would actually like this to happen. I just don't see where these is anything whatsoever useful for a dev to spend his time mucking through this thread to read and then respond to.
They already know the things being posted here that are worthwhile and if they had some magic solution it would probably be done.
Not to mention there will NOT be any significant gameplay changes on the release of 3.0
No thanks, that would be silly.
Yes, research and upgrade time will need to be lengthened, but there needs to be some changes to the alien classes to better match the early game marines.
In any case, details for such things are being discussed in other threads. The likeliness that they will happen is small though.
Zek, games in 3bx are not very fun, hence me not playing classic much anymore. After I came back to NS at 3b3, I found that classic was terrible, but that combat was actually quite a lot of fun. So I spent my time working that. Lately I've been hitting up classic servers, and I've played a few fun games, even one where I actually had fun playing marines. That was a shock.
However, NS3bx is still the worst version of NS I've ever played, and if combat mode didn't exist, I would imagine a fairly good sized portion of the players NS has would be pretty much gone. I'd like to have actual fun in the Classic games I play, instead of waiting around for some mystical "3b5 epic game" that pales in comparison to older versions of NS as far as "epic games" go.
Wow.
You win "Most Pointless Bump 2004"