and turrents do what? dont answer taht cos quite offtan they have taken me out as a sulk jstu for trying ot zip by and thats with cel and regen or cara
why dont oc's just cost 2 res? they die so fast and arent able to actually hit marines anyways that i dont think having 5 or so at the start is a big deal.
<!--quoteo(post=1601253:date=Jan 23 2007, 10:51 PM:name=MrBananaMan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MrBananaMan @ Jan 23 2007, 10:51 PM) [snapback]1601253[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->why dont oc's just cost 2 res? they die so fast and arent able to actually hit marines anyways that i dont think having 5 or so at the start is a big deal.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1601426:date=Jan 24 2007, 12:42 PM:name=SpaceJesus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SpaceJesus @ Jan 24 2007, 12:42 PM) [snapback]1601426[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Stop crying about OC's they're already better than turrets for <b>what they were intended to do</b>. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Back that statement up - where's your proof of dev intent?
In small games, the higher lifeforms show up quicker and make turrets worse than a questionable choice. In large games, turrets are quite effective at holding the really lame and boring two hive lockdowns - especially when coupled with eletricity. Skulks can't survive them long enough to do any real damage and they weaken lifeforms enough to put them in real jeapordy of being killed by a single non-lmg. They also never have to reload - unlike marines - and upper lifeforms (save the onos) rely on the fact that they can drain marines of ammo and commit to an attack durring the reload. Durring those initial borring two hive lockdowns, they supplement the lack of upgrades on lmgs. For the marines, it's like having automatic level 3 guns on skulks and level 1 or 2 guns on lerks - because of the initial damage it does. They show up long before fades gestate and remain effective even after that point coupled with a phasegate. The only reason they're so effective is because NS was never ballanced because it does not scale - an issue all to itself.
<!--quoteo(post=1601705:date=Jan 25 2007, 02:25 PM:name=ultranewb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ultranewb @ Jan 25 2007, 02:25 PM) [snapback]1601705[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Back that statement up - where's your proof of dev intent?
In small games, the higher lifeforms show up quicker and make turrets worse than a questionable choice. In large games, turrets are quite effective at holding the really lame and boring two hive lockdowns - especially when coupled with eletricity. Skulks can't survive them long enough to do any real damage and they weaken lifeforms enough to put them in real jeapordy of being killed by a single non-lmg. They also never have to reload - unlike marines - and upper lifeforms (save the onos) rely on the fact that they can drain marines of ammo and commit to an attack durring the reload. Durring those initial borring two hive lockdowns, they supplement the lack of upgrades on lmgs. For the marines, it's like having automatic level 3 guns on skulks and level 1 or 2 guns on lerks - because of the initial damage it does. They show up long before fades gestate and remain effective even after that point coupled with a phasegate. The only reason they're so effective is because NS was never ballanced because it does not scale - an issue all to itself. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fact that the game is balanced for 6v6 play just negated your entire argument.
<!--quoteo(post=1601368:date=Jan 24 2007, 05:21 AM:name=TerRaKanE)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TerRaKanE @ Jan 24 2007, 05:21 AM) [snapback]1601368[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> <!--quoteo(post=1601253:date=Jan 23 2007, 04:51 PM:name=MrBananaMan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MrBananaMan @ Jan 23 2007, 04:51 PM) [snapback]1601253[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> why dont oc's just cost 2 res? they die so fast and arent able to actually hit marines anyways that i dont think having 5 or so at the start is a big deal. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> sarcasm for teh win!!1 <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> i think he was serious
well I suppose at a stretch (and god is it a stretch lol) you might consider using a couple of turrets to stop a lerk from coming over and sporing the crap out of you. But thats weaksauce <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1601728:date=Jan 25 2007, 10:44 PM:name=SpaceJesus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SpaceJesus @ Jan 25 2007, 10:44 PM) [snapback]1601728[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The fact that the game is balanced for 6v6 play just negated your entire argument. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, but this entire argument is negated by the fact that there are only about 6-7 servers with max. 12 people in Natural Selection.
Whereas there are about 35 servers with more than 18 people maximum.
What does this tell you? To me, this tells that the whole argument of "Balanced in 6vs6" should be scrapped and tossed away and re-assess the whole situation according to how the game is played. Making a game for a specific scenario is moot if this scenario only happens once every blue moon.
<!--quoteo(post=1602010:date=Jan 26 2007, 02:16 PM:name=Khaze)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Khaze @ Jan 26 2007, 02:16 PM) [snapback]1602010[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Sorry, but this entire argument is negated by the fact that there are only about 6-7 servers with max. 12 people in Natural Selection.
Whereas there are about 35 servers with more than 18 people maximum.
What does this tell you? To me, this tells that the whole argument of "Balanced in 6vs6" should be scrapped and tossed away and re-assess the whole situation according to how the game is played. Making a game for a specific scenario is moot if this scenario only happens once every blue moon. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Theres also an abundance of 40 man CSS servers, yet the game is played 5v5 at LAN tournaments. Are you seeing the point ?
I mean obviously the developers should make the game based on how the players want to play it, not how they want it to be played. Right?
<!--quoteo(post=1602010:date=Jan 26 2007, 02:16 PM:name=Khaze)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Khaze @ Jan 26 2007, 02:16 PM) [snapback]1602010[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Sorry, but this entire argument is negated by the fact that there are only about 6-7 servers with max. 12 people in Natural Selection.
Whereas there are about 35 servers with more than 18 people maximum.
What does this tell you? To me, this tells that the whole argument of "Balanced in 6vs6" should be scrapped and tossed away and re-assess the whole situation according to how the game is played. Making a game for a specific scenario is moot if this scenario only happens once every blue moon. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That argument is flawed or would you like the game balanced around 10vs10 co xmenu? but i do agree it should be balanced for bigger and smaller servers too.
<!--quoteo(post=1602055:date=Jan 26 2007, 10:19 PM:name=vms)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vms @ Jan 26 2007, 10:19 PM) [snapback]1602055[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> That argument is flawed or would you like the game balanced around 10vs10 co xmenu? but i do agree it should be balanced for bigger and smaller servers too. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't see why it's not possible accomidate for both, using dynamic balance.
Obviously they're going to need to pull this off if NS Source is supposed to be a success. Might as well start figuring things out sooner than later.
_
Just ignore CO balance. Most server operators tweak the hell out of it anyways. So there's not much point in trying to balance it.
Especially when it comes at the price of sacrificing NS balance.
The fact that you're referring to NS2 as NS:Source really shows how much of a grip you have on the situation <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> if you know hwo to make the ns team balance scale with team size - I'm sure they'd like to hear it.
maybe the game should be dynamically balanced so that if the aliens have a really good fade, marine guns will do more damage to him so that his fading isnt unbalancing anymore
<!--quoteo(post=1602099:date=Jan 27 2007, 12:42 AM:name=SpaceJesus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SpaceJesus @ Jan 27 2007, 12:42 AM) [snapback]1602099[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> if you know hwo to make the ns team balance scale with team size - I'm sure they'd like to hear it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well they've already dabbled in it a little by altering the alien spawn rate based on player count. However there's a lot more they could do. It's more just a matter of heading in that direction with development.
<!--quoteo(post=1602099:date=Jan 27 2007, 12:42 AM:name=SpaceJesus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SpaceJesus @ Jan 27 2007, 12:42 AM) [snapback]1602099[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The fact that you're referring to NS2 as NS:Source really shows how much of a grip you have on the situation <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I just disagree with the NS2 model, thats all. Redesigning NS to be entirely different from the original would leave Fine Tuning, such as this, as the least of our worries.
<!--quoteo(post=1602131:date=Jan 27 2007, 04:55 AM:name=SpaceJesus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SpaceJesus @ Jan 27 2007, 04:55 AM) [snapback]1602131[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Nobody said you have to play NS2 instead of NS ....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> True, however NS1's engine is rather old.
Only reason I'm here is because I like strategy based FPS games.
And frankly, there aren't many options out there when it comes to that genre.
<!--quoteo(post=1602136:date=Jan 27 2007, 12:18 AM:name=GreyFlcn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GreyFlcn @ Jan 27 2007, 12:18 AM) [snapback]1602136[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And frankly, there aren't many options out there when it comes to that genre.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1602198:date=Jan 27 2007, 04:12 PM:name=SpaceJesus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SpaceJesus @ Jan 27 2007, 04:12 PM) [snapback]1602198[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> lol tell me about it, planetside is dead <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Tribes too <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
_
The short of it is, I understand how hard it is to balance games in this genre. (From perhaps too much first hand experience) And right now, they got something that works.
I'm just afraid they are overly confident in figuring they can just toss away "what works" And that the first impression from when this hits mainstream will be "Hey this game sucks" Much like what happened with Tribes 2.
Sure they could fix things later down the road. But thats too little, too late.
When there's money involved, and when it's a sequel - not the original game. People are rather unforgiving.
If anyone remembers, Tribes 1 was essentially free (Even more so than HL1, since there was no copy protection)
And all of the sudden you had Tribes 2 Which costed money, and required beefier hardware.
_
Me, I was a Tribes nut. I bought the game at release. Installed it. Played for about 15 minutes, and then turned back around to T1 and didn't look back until years later.
Difference being, the Tribes 1 engine was only 3 years old at the time. Rather than what we got now, where HL1 is 9 years old
Comments
sarcasm for teh win!!1
A : <b>A LOT</b>
Q : How often do you see turrets used by high level teams ... at all, under any circumstances ?
A : <b>NEVER</b> (I'm talking literally not once, not just very rarely)
Stop crying about OC's they're already better than turrets for <b>what they were intended to do</b>.
Stop crying about OC's they're already better than turrets for <b>what they were intended to do</b>.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Back that statement up - where's your proof of dev intent?
In small games, the higher lifeforms show up quicker and make turrets worse than a questionable choice. In large games, turrets are quite effective at holding the really lame and boring two hive lockdowns - especially when coupled with eletricity. Skulks can't survive them long enough to do any real damage and they weaken lifeforms enough to put them in real jeapordy of being killed by a single non-lmg. They also never have to reload - unlike marines - and upper lifeforms (save the onos) rely on the fact that they can drain marines of ammo and commit to an attack durring the reload. Durring those initial borring two hive lockdowns, they supplement the lack of upgrades on lmgs. For the marines, it's like having automatic level 3 guns on skulks and level 1 or 2 guns on lerks - because of the initial damage it does. They show up long before fades gestate and remain effective even after that point coupled with a phasegate. The only reason they're so effective is because NS was never ballanced because it does not scale - an issue all to itself.
Back that statement up - where's your proof of dev intent?
In small games, the higher lifeforms show up quicker and make turrets worse than a questionable choice. In large games, turrets are quite effective at holding the really lame and boring two hive lockdowns - especially when coupled with eletricity. Skulks can't survive them long enough to do any real damage and they weaken lifeforms enough to put them in real jeapordy of being killed by a single non-lmg. They also never have to reload - unlike marines - and upper lifeforms (save the onos) rely on the fact that they can drain marines of ammo and commit to an attack durring the reload. Durring those initial borring two hive lockdowns, they supplement the lack of upgrades on lmgs. For the marines, it's like having automatic level 3 guns on skulks and level 1 or 2 guns on lerks - because of the initial damage it does. They show up long before fades gestate and remain effective even after that point coupled with a phasegate. The only reason they're so effective is because NS was never ballanced because it does not scale - an issue all to itself.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fact that the game is balanced for 6v6 play just negated your entire argument.
<!--quoteo(post=1601253:date=Jan 23 2007, 04:51 PM:name=MrBananaMan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MrBananaMan @ Jan 23 2007, 04:51 PM) [snapback]1601253[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
why dont oc's just cost 2 res? they die so fast and arent able to actually hit marines anyways that i dont think having 5 or so at the start is a big deal.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
sarcasm for teh win!!1
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i think he was serious
The fact that the game is balanced for 6v6 play just negated your entire argument.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, but this entire argument is negated by the fact that there are only about 6-7 servers with max. 12 people in Natural Selection.
Whereas there are about 35 servers with more than 18 people maximum.
What does this tell you? To me, this tells that the whole argument of "Balanced in 6vs6" should be scrapped and tossed away and re-assess the whole situation according to how the game is played. Making a game for a specific scenario is moot if this scenario only happens once every blue moon.
Sorry, but this entire argument is negated by the fact that there are only about 6-7 servers with max. 12 people in Natural Selection.
Whereas there are about 35 servers with more than 18 people maximum.
What does this tell you? To me, this tells that the whole argument of "Balanced in 6vs6" should be scrapped and tossed away and re-assess the whole situation according to how the game is played. Making a game for a specific scenario is moot if this scenario only happens once every blue moon.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Theres also an abundance of 40 man CSS servers, yet the game is played 5v5 at LAN tournaments. Are you seeing the point ?
I mean obviously the developers should make the game based on how the players want to play it, not how they want it to be played. Right?
Sorry, but this entire argument is negated by the fact that there are only about 6-7 servers with max. 12 people in Natural Selection.
Whereas there are about 35 servers with more than 18 people maximum.
What does this tell you? To me, this tells that the whole argument of "Balanced in 6vs6" should be scrapped and tossed away and re-assess the whole situation according to how the game is played. Making a game for a specific scenario is moot if this scenario only happens once every blue moon.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That argument is flawed or would you like the game balanced around 10vs10 co xmenu? but i do agree it should be balanced for bigger and smaller servers too.
That argument is flawed or would you like the game balanced around 10vs10 co xmenu? but i do agree it should be balanced for bigger and smaller servers too.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see why it's not possible accomidate for both, using dynamic balance.
Obviously they're going to need to pull this off if NS Source is supposed to be a success.
Might as well start figuring things out sooner than later.
_
Just ignore CO balance.
Most server operators tweak the hell out of it anyways.
So there's not much point in trying to balance it.
Especially when it comes at the price of sacrificing NS balance.
great idea
if you know hwo to make the ns team balance scale with team size - I'm sure they'd like to hear it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well they've already dabbled in it a little by altering the alien spawn rate based on player count.
However there's a lot more they could do.
It's more just a matter of heading in that direction with development.
<!--quoteo(post=1602099:date=Jan 27 2007, 12:42 AM:name=SpaceJesus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SpaceJesus @ Jan 27 2007, 12:42 AM) [snapback]1602099[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
The fact that you're referring to NS2 as NS:Source really shows how much of a grip you have on the situation <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just disagree with the NS2 model, thats all.
Redesigning NS to be entirely different from the original
would leave Fine Tuning, such as this, as the least of our worries.
Nobody said you have to play NS2 instead of NS ....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, however NS1's engine is rather old.
Only reason I'm here is because I like strategy based FPS games.
And frankly, there aren't many options out there when it comes to that genre.
lol tell me about it, planetside is dead
lol tell me about it, planetside is dead
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tribes too <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
_
The short of it is, I understand how hard it is to balance games in this genre.
(From perhaps too much first hand experience)
And right now, they got something that works.
I'm just afraid they are overly confident in figuring they can just toss away "what works"
And that the first impression from when this hits mainstream will be "Hey this game sucks"
Much like what happened with Tribes 2.
Sure they could fix things later down the road.
But thats too little, too late.
When there's money involved, and when it's a sequel - not the original game.
People are rather unforgiving.
If anyone remembers,
Tribes 1 was essentially free (Even more so than HL1, since there was no copy protection)
And all of the sudden you had Tribes 2
Which costed money, and required beefier hardware.
_
Me, I was a Tribes nut.
I bought the game at release. Installed it.
Played for about 15 minutes,
and then turned back around to T1
and didn't look back until years later.
Difference being, the Tribes 1 engine was only 3 years old at the time.
Rather than what we got now, where HL1 is 9 years old