<!--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-->I'm sick of classic in the current version. Very sick of it. I loved playing early versions of NS because the games were seriously dynamic, even down to a noob vs noob level. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think nostalgia is more responsible for your enjoyment than anything else. Wow JP/HMG rush. Wow aliens got 2 hives and an army of fades /w rockets gg. O wait don't forget the massive marine vs alien imbalance so it was very rare for scenario 2 to even happen. Don't forget the dwindling number of players at the end of 1.0's life.
<!--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-->Really? Winning is always fun? That's why the most popular "strategy" right now is to turret farm as many key locations as possible until you have enough res from rfk and the 2/3 rts you hold to kill the last hive? Yeah....fun.... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, you probably just proved his point by saying that. Pubbers realize they can win just by turret farming so therefore it becomes popular among commanders. If they didn't think it was fun it wouldn't be popular would it.
<!--QuoteBegin-5kyh16h91+Sep 16 2004, 02:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (5kyh16h91 @ Sep 16 2004, 02:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Really? Winning is always fun? That's why the most popular "strategy" right now is to turret farm as many key locations as possible until you have enough res from rfk and the 2/3 rts you hold to kill the last hive? Yeah....fun.... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Reminds me of 1.04 before the JP rush caught on in pubs. Except that there wasn't RfK, just the RTs, and there was no prospect of reclaiming a hive.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure he meant winning in games <i>that aren't crap and drawn out</i>.
Ok, this is the last time I am going to say this...I am not experiencing nostalgia. The gameplay of earlier versions of NS was better than it is today. Bring up the JP/HMG rush all you want, I was around before then and stopped playing NS 1.0x before that became a popular strategy. Every version has had its flaws, and certainly in terms of looks NS 3 takes the cake. However, the fun factor of the game has dropped like a rock. The first game of NS 3b3 I played (my first NS 3 game ever) I remember thinking "wow, this is not as fun as it used to be."
15 minutes of marine slaughter is not fun, no matter how you put it. If the aliens do not do everything perfect in the first few minutes, you might as well call it "GG." Combat is so much more dynamic and interesting than classic right now, and that bothers me, because when the "quickie" of Natural Selection is better than what is supposed to be the real "hardcore" part of Natural Selection, there is definitely a problem.
This is the first NS version I've played where a game that had no skulk rush can be ended in 15 minutes. That really, really sucks.
Hey devs, the game looks amazing; now it is time to work on making it fun!
NarfwakJoin Date: 2002-11-02Member: 5258Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead, Forum Moderators, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Gold, Reinforced - Diamond, Reinforced - Shadow, Subnautica PT Lead, NS2 Community Developer
<!--QuoteBegin-NemesisZorro+Sep 14 2004, 08:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NemesisZorro @ Sep 14 2004, 08:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The perfect game length for NS is around 15 minutes, which is pretty close to what it is now. The current length is perfect for both public and clan play. I would never want public games to be longer than they are now, and it would be impracticable to have clan matches longer than they are now.
There are a few considerations I've made in forming this opinion.
First off, the technology tree (and by this I mean not just the Frontiersman upgrades but also the Kharaa evolutions) serves as a tool for measurement of the relative game length. In the strategy games that I enjoy--Starcraft Brood War and Warcraft 3, principally--the average game length is less than the time in which it takes to complete the tech tree. The top tier technologies (for example Carriers, Defilers with Dark Swarm, Battlecruisers, Chimeras, Taurens with bloodlust, etc.) are meant to bring the game to a swift conclusion. That's not to say that whoever gets these technologies first wins the game, but rather that these top tier units are so powerful in relation to static defenses and bottom tier units that they allow the team with the clear economic upper hand to quickly convert that advantage into a win. Think Onos vs. turrets/light marines and Ultralisks vs. marines/medics.
This type of technology tree in which the top level units are disproportionately powerful creates an excellent game dynamic, where both teams are moving toward the ultimate goal of attaining the top tier units. Both teams are <i>always making progress toward a certain end</i>, regardless of whether the top tier units are actually required to end the game. In the games I mentioned (SCBW and WC3), about half of the games end before the top tier technologies are reached. In the games that do see the top tier units, most of them end shortly thereafter and only a few games are 45 minutes or more.
Comebacks should be possible in NS but not probable, because a game should be won by the team that plays better and makes better strategic decisisions than the other team. Yes, there should be a margin of error, and one small slipup should not mean certain loss for a team. However, once a team gains a decisive economic advantage, that team should be able to convert that advantage into a win by getting top tier units.
The problem with making NS games longer is that once the technology tree is exhausted, there's no longer an underlying strategical current pushing the game toward its end, and so the game becomes a back-and-forth slugfest deathmatch without a sense of grand strategy. The worst part of this is that players tend to feel like what they do has no real effect on the game. That's when players start leaving. A lot of the comebacks you hear about aren't actually comebacks. What they actually are are games in which the skilled players on the winning team have felt they can't break through the deadlock even though they have the advantage and so they start leaving and being replaced by weaker players. This may be fun for the players on the team that ends up winning the game, but trust me that, for the other team, games like that simply aren't fun to play. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What he said.
<!--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-->The worst part of this is that players tend to feel like what they do has no real effect on the game. That's when players start leaving. A lot of the comebacks you hear about aren't actually comebacks. What they actually are are games in which the skilled players on the winning team have felt they can't break through the deadlock even though they have the advantage and so they start leaving and being replaced by weaker players. This may be fun for the players on the team that ends up winning the game, but trust me that, for the other team, games like that simply aren't fun to play.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny how this paragraph coincides so well what I said ealier...
<!--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-->ou basically have a bunch of incompetetant pubbers on both teams, with the exception of a good fade and a good commander.
The commander can't hold jack squat because his marines don't follow orders, and the aliens all run around like bumbling idoits building whatever they can find open ground, meanwhile there is a good fade who is kicking butt but is unable to hold ground because he simply cannot overpower 9 marines who bumrush a hive.
The fade, most likely a good player, will eventually grow very very tired of the boring repetetive pub play and stop pubbing. Meanwhile the commander is like "OMG WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU MORONS!!!! EUUUUGHHGHGH!!" He won't comm pubs for awhile after that.
However, the other 18 players will be like 'OMG liek this is so kewl we killed teh hive!! again!! and again! OMG there it goes another hive!!!"
It won't be long untill the pubbers grow tired of games that play themselves out because no one has any idea of how to finish it quickly.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->You guys are missing my point:
- The 2 people are the best players on the team. The ONLY reason the 18 other noobs had fun was preciously because they had the 1 good player on each team WHO MADE IT FUN, by PLAYING GOOD, and bothering to get GOOD at the game.
Without those two good players, the game would be this:
- Skulks and marines slaughter each other. Both have hard time to hold ground. Within the first 3 minutes, you can tell who is going to win just by juding the general suckiness of each team - the team that actually remembers to cap more nodes, or does something out of the random like get armor 1 upgrade, is going to win.
The #1 pub games have degraded, is preciously because the game now drives itself away from the good players who previously made it fun to play. Remove those 2 good players, whose feelings couldn't possibly matter in the big scheme of things, and you have a game that doesn't have comebacks or any sort of fun to it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What people seem to ignore is that, while yes I may be a clanner, that doens't make you not a pubber.
Remember, a pubber = pub experiences
Whereas a clanner = pub experiences and clan experiences
Therefore the clanner sees more of what the game has to offer. And to say the clanner wants to change the game for clanplay and not pub play -
That's rediculous. It's very safe to assume the average clanner spends just as much time in pub play as they do in clan play.
Even the best CS players in the world still pub it up.
<span style='font-family:Times'>Sorta rambling but important thoughts of mine:</span>
Hey, just because it is a very long game doesn't mean it is drawn out! By drawn out you mean a boring stalemate I assume? Well yes but then make the defenses less and the offenses more and you'll see that with effort you can shatter an enemy's defenses. (or if you suck because they countered your attack and they'll kick your arse hehe)
Stronger defense abilities on both mean a sharper line of contolled territory and thus a stalemate-like situation occurs.
real example: World War One trench warefare (defense much greater than offense for both sides)
Thus a stronger offensive capabilites would mean territory contol could fluctuate a great deal. Aliens move faster & bite harder, marine's gun huuurt a great deal.
real example: modern warefare (started really changing in WWII), in which there is always a weapon that can overcome a defense.
Thus the secret is to make sure while making other efforts to make the game longer (via extensive, massive tech trees and various structures), to just remember to keep offense > defense. The structure HP's are fine, could be raised a little, but make pvp combat such where killing the enemy is easier.
It is a balance: increase offense abilities too much (esp. against structures) you may find it really easy to bring down the enemy's base resulting in a very quick game (unless structure cost is low enough they can relocate). Turret farming up hives is evil because it allows the marines to prevent aliens from relocating. (why having more than 3 hive sites would solve this instantly; but not more than three hives at same time) If you increase the defense too much it can take ages to kill the enemy resulting in a stalemate which can be fun for some and not for others.
things to consider when balancing: player offense player defense player HP up player HP down structure offense structure defense structure HP up structure HP down
the one thing which can <i>always</i> increase is the size and linking of the tech trees. Tech tree size and linking doesn't affect balance, only what the technologies/adaptations do.
There was a working balance model in 2.0 and especially 1.0 that people loved. So old balance with new progressive technology and coolness = BUS
Longer games are my goal here and by that I mean game that <i>can</i> (a key word) with more regularity than they do now last up to an hour or more. Quick 15 min games = combat; excellent for training n00bs or giving those fun clan scrimmages. But the heart and soul of the Natural-Selection style maps, FPS & RTS hybrid 50:50, is the long, strategic war between the ranger marines and the melee aliens. If you fail to rush the enemy for a quick victory then you can expect a long battle to ensue one that will ultimately be decided by hard teamwork and contol over the RT's. Not who kills more. The "player units" are really just pawn in the real battle between the Kharaa and the Frontiersmen.
If you are wondering what (based on how much time you have to play in the real world) game you should play, it should be as simple as this:
co_ = different rules, very high offense, most res come from killing enemies typical game length: 1-20 min
ns_ = different rules, good offenses but much closer to being balnace with defenses, structures and technology matter more, most res (or all res) comes from killing enemies, unchained chamber maybe? typical game length: 45-120+ min
I would imagine we will debate how to make the ns_ longer for a long time, but the community agrees (~75% is a landslide victory unless you are one of those who doesn't ever vote in poltics because you are stupid) that short scrims are domain of co_ and long strat "wars" are the domain of ns_. And *gasp* it <i>is</i> possible to have different numeric values for various things in each type being determined by the mapper though a world-entitiy. This requires makeing two types of number valuse for everything, but ultimately it will satisfy everyone. If you think it is too much work, I have already offered to help so stop biznitching bizitches. Flayra your community was happy when you split the engine into a new type of gameplay but by keeping the numbers attached together you are making it impossible to satisfy the long gameplay in ns and short gameplay in co. You claim you are being progressive and abhor reverting to the good ideas from older versions and yet you are holding onto the past yourself by refusing to sever co numbers from ns numbers and the solution of just make it all faster and more efficient is clearly not making the community happy. Yes I admire you and your mod very very much but on this one little thing you have ignore the issue and the skeleton from the closet will not leave you alone until you deal with it and now it is a rather large issue.
There is a way to have short games for co and long games for ns. There is a way to keep the game balanced and have the ns games be longer. There is a way to seperate co numbers from ns numberts and have independent balances for both. There is a way to communicate with the developers and volunteer to help There is a way to get that unchained chambers 75.3% of you wanted to work. We do have an Idea&Suggestions forum
"Actions speak louder than words" <-- the Gordon Freeman way
So let's get some action going. Have some fun, do your best.
<span style='font-family:Times'>Thanks for reading and flame away Forlorn.</span>
I'd also like to make a plea to anyone unsure of their position: please, consider both of the sides on this issue before voting. We both make good points, and the reason we are so entrenched is because it is a simple matter of the aspects in the game that matter more to different people. Some people like the shorter game for some very good reasons. Some of us like games that are longer for some very good reasons. Please, weigh both sides before you vote <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
<!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Sep 16 2004, 05:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Sep 16 2004, 05:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Some people like the shorter game for some very good reasons. Some of us like games that are longer for some very good reasons. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's not really a matter of choosing. Yes please vote which you prefer and listen to all arguments, but...
The game code should bend to our will, not the other way arround. co_ can remain quick for those who love it, and ns_ can get longer for those who love that. The poll I think needs some re-wording.
<!--QuoteBegin-x5+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (x5)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is a way to have short games for co and long games for ns. There is a way to keep the game balanced and have the ns games be longer. There is a way to seperate co numbers from ns numberts and have independent balances for both.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-ZERG!!+Sep 16 2004, 03:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ZERG!! @ Sep 16 2004, 03:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--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-->Really? Winning is always fun? That's why the most popular "strategy" right now is to turret farm as many key locations as possible until you have enough res from rfk and the 2/3 rts you hold to kill the last hive? Yeah....fun.... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, you probably just proved his point by saying that. Pubbers realize they can win just by turret farming so therefore it becomes popular among commanders. If they didn't think it was fun it wouldn't be popular would it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't see it that way. From what I can tell, there's a group of people who only get enjoyment from winning, raping pub players, etc. This group will always use this strategy, because they just want to win, and if they win they're happy. Unfortuanately, they often make everyone else's lives miserable....
Another group is the new/lazy commander group. Turrets are the absolute EASIEST way to win. Therefore, new commanders will see turret-farming strats win, figure that that is the best and/or only way to command, and they will turret farm. Lazy coms who know better will also turret farm, just because they don't have to do much, the turrets will basically strangle the aliens until it's an easy win. Now notice that I'm arguing here that winning isn't always fun. Can you honestly tell me that a turret-farmed game is fun for anyone? (except **** who just enjoy ruining someone else's game, I could honestly not care less about people like that) The problem is unexperienced or just plain bad commanders reaching for turrets as a way to salvage their commanding experience, at the expense of everyone else's enjoyment. THAT is why coms turret farm; I've seen marines yell at coms who turret farm, then the very next round when they com they do the <u>exact same thing.</u> No one likes it, it's just that when you're in that chair, you're on the spot. You don't want to be embarrased(spelling....) by crappy commanding, so you do what's easiest, what will work. Too proud to be original.....it's sad <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--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-->First off, the technology tree (and by this I mean not just the Frontiersman upgrades but also the Kharaa evolutions) serves as a tool for measurement of the relative game length. In the strategy games that I enjoy--Starcraft Brood War and Warcraft 3, principally--the average game length is less than the time in which it takes to complete the tech tree. The top tier technologies (for example Carriers, Defilers with Dark Swarm, Battlecruisers, Chimeras, Taurens with bloodlust, etc.) are meant to bring the game to a swift conclusion. That's not to say that whoever gets these technologies first wins the game, but rather that these top tier units are so powerful in relation to static defenses and bottom tier units that they allow the team with the clear economic upper hand to quickly convert that advantage into a win. Think Onos vs. turrets/light marines and Ultralisks vs. marines/medics.
This type of technology tree in which the top level units are disproportionately powerful creates an excellent game dynamic, where both teams are moving toward the ultimate goal of attaining the top tier units. Both teams are always making progress toward a certain end, regardless of whether the top tier units are actually required to end the game. In the games I mentioned (SCBW and WC3), about half of the games end before the top tier technologies are reached. In the games that do see the top tier units, most of them end shortly thereafter and only a few games are 45 minutes or more. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like your point here, except for one thing. As it stands now, the alien's top "technology" - Onos - can still be taken down by the lowest tier of marine units. I don't know exactly what this means in relation to your argument about 15 minute games, but I felt it should be pointed out <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> . The fact that the top tech of one side is unable to end the game quickly while the top tech of the other CAN definitely points to an imbalance, though I'm unsure if I'd want a buff to the onos to make it a game-ender....or if HA should be nerfed so they AREN'T a game ender <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--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-->- The 2 people are the best players on the team. The ONLY reason the 18 other noobs had fun was preciously because they had the 1 good player on each team WHO MADE IT FUN, by PLAYING GOOD, and bothering to get GOOD at the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I join a random pub and the other players have fun because I own them *lol* I am a clan player, kneel down and kiss my feet.
<!--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-->Winning is always fun, whereas losing is only sometimes fun. Most of the time though the reason people play games is to win. Enough with "Play to have fun, not win" garbage because you ignoring truth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Winning is not always fun. Some clan matches you win are stale and in no way fun because you just own the enemy team. Sometimes players of BOTH teams leave the server. Obviously they DID NOT have fun.
<!--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-->It may be fun for the fools who think they are doing something for the larger effort, when in reality the kills are going to one player who will by the end of the game have over 70 kills. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are right. The kills should be evenly distributed between all players. Now you know why playing pubs is no fun anymore. You just described what happens on pubs in 3.0. One or two good players dominate the game and kill the enemy team all alone. Anyway this is what happens in clan matches ALL the time. Some people really seem to believe in a clan match every player is important. This maybe goes for those one or two clans consisting of the best players from a few countries but the majority of clans has one or two very good players which decide the game. It's just not possible that every players has the same skill level. Some players are better than others. Five marines shoot a skulk but only one of them can kill it. Maybe the same marine gets the kill everytime. Does this remove the fun for the other players just because they don't have the top score?
<!--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-->It's very safe to assume the average clanner spends just as much time in pub play as they do in clan play.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To tell the truth I don't know any good clan player who plays pub anymore (talking about TFC and CS). I haven't played TFC on a pub for half a year but I still play ~5 clan matches every weak.
This is because clan match rulesets never ever work on a pub server. Pubbers play the game to have fun not to win. Clanners play the game solely to win. You can go offense and cap flag after flag but random pub player Joe will not care. He spams the bridge with mirvs and shoots every enemy player he spots. He has fun but the clan players doesn't have fun because noone else cares about winning or losing. Luckily most games are not balanced for clan matches so every pubber can still have fun.
When I join a game in the evening after work I want to play ONE long epic game. Not TEN short games. The problem with NS is the straight forward game play. It's like a race between aliens and marines. You don't have any choices, crossroads or loops. Once a team gets the advantage they will win (and own the enemy team). Nothing can stop them. This makes for boring tedious game play.
<!--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-->Some days ago I had a 2+ hour game of awesomeness. It was on an unchained server tho... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly. For a long time since 3.0 began, I didn't have any games that could be called memorable. Once I started playing on unchained servers though, it was like playing a whole new version of NS. Wonderful epic games where the balance of power shifted dozens of times. Fantastic new combos like focus - silence Fades adding a ton of atmosphere and unpredictability to the game. These are the games that have stuck in my memory and made me think fondly of classic. This is how Classic is supposed to feel.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Sep 17 2004, 10:50 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Sep 17 2004, 10:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You know the other side has lost their argument when they start to re-use their old arguments. Good bye <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You know the other side has run out of arguments when they attempt to leave the discussion on the moral high ground...
Personally I think people who rant on about the excellent long games from 1.04 are just running off of nostalgia and don't have an accurate viewpoint of that build anymore. Certainly 1.04 had the occasionally long game that was really fun. So does 3.0. The difference, in my mind, is that in 1.04 games lasted forever all the time even if one team wasn't really ever accomplishing anything, but in 3.0 the games that would be crappy and drawn out are ended quickly. Playing 3.0 I very rarely experience a game above 30 minutes that wasn't fun because the only way a game generally lasts that long is if it's dead even. In 1.04, there were a lot of long games, but many more of them were just slow and incredibly drawn out, as opposed to 3.0 where that doesn't usually happen.
Simply put, you guys are thinking back to 1.04, recalling a small handful of long games that really stand out in your mind, and comparing that idealistic version to what we actually have with 3.0. 1.04 was a year and a half ago, but you will just have to trust us when we tell you that those long games were NOT all fun. I'd rather play four decent 15 minute games than an hour-long one that ultimately just makes me feel like I wasted my time.
Agreed, 1.04 was as much like 3.0b5 than anything else...the old long game, but mostly boring shortness with a marine slant. I quit at 1.04 though, I haven't given up on 3b5 yet, so that says something about how better this build is than 1.04. Pre 1.04 there were plenty of long games (yay for 3 hour server crashes) but very buggy, and 2.01 had plenty of long games, but they tended to go to stalemates a lot more and were still buggy.
We now have a fairly (in comparison to those versions) bugless game, so if the stalemate issue can be solved so that those teams that are significantly better DO finish a side off in no more than 20 minutes, then I don't see why anyone has a real argument against trying to balance it so generally even teams have longer games to play.
i enjoy long games <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--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-->Ok, this is the last time I am going to say this...I am not experiencing nostalgia. The gameplay of earlier versions of NS was better than it is today. Bring up the JP/HMG rush all you want, I was around before then and stopped playing NS 1.04 before that became a popular strategy. Every version has had its flaws, and certainly in terms of looks NS 3 takes the cake. However, the fun factor of the game has dropped like a rock. The first game of NS 3b3 I played (my first NS 3 game ever) I remember thinking "wow, this is not as fun as it used to be." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought I'd quote myself, just to make my point ever clearer.
<!--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-->You know the other side has lost their argument when they start to re-use their old arguments. Good bye <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong again! Arguments are brought up again when the other side just isn't getting it, or avoids giving a serious rebuttle. Nice try though.
Anyways Zek, my experiences of Natural Selection were that previous versions (including 1.04, before the JP/HMG rush was a popular tactic) utilized a formula that allowed the games a far more dynamic ebb and flow, whetheras Version 3 uses a "rush" formula that decides the game. Only when both teams are able to have an equal rush, or the aliens rush better than marines, is the game able to include that sort of dynamism.
While I see the point of the rush formula, I also note that it takes away the fun factor, and often ends up in a game where the marines have a half hour slaughter of the alien team. That is, of course, the problem with this version of NS. Our plea to Flayra and the other members of the Dev team is to use a better, more balanced version of the older formula to allow for an average game length of around 40 minutes or so, instead of 15 minutes. This means that the tech rush of the first 5 minutes is to be slowed down, as well as having the beginning classes more evenly matched and balanced.
I quit playing NS halfway through the horrible mutation Flayra shoved NS through called 2.0. I have absolutely no desire to play now. A game is a game. I like the action, the tense moments, the anticipation of building a lucky base all alone and hoping the enemy doesn't notice. I don't like building the same buildings I already built 15 minutes ago on a 'new' map. I don't like gorging just to wait to fade. If I wanted to 'start over' every 5 minutes I'd probably hate counter-strike a lot less.
I voted yes, but really I'd only like to see an approximate 10 minute raise on average game length.
As has been said countless times throughout the thread, I too would like to see the slippery slope less slippery. Especially in the early minutes.
You can litterally watch the slippery slope form if, say, within the first 90 seconds one or the other sides loses between 1/2-3/4 of their forces on the field, in the time it takes them respawn and catch back up their economy will be crippled for at least 1-3 minutes, and the other team will have a healthy lead as well as a boosted economy from the RFK. Thus leading to faster fades appearing/more powerful marine's ninja phasing/marching through your hives.
I truly hate this aspect. While I can certainly agree with Nemesis Zero's logic that once a team has gained a significant upper-hand, they should have an easier path to victory. I agree with that wholly, that's how it should be in an RTS game.
My only gripe is the fact that the significant upper-hand can be taken sometimes as swiftly 90 seconds, although, admittedly that is not always the case. Very minute balance tweaks is all thats really needed to fix this; NS is probably the closest its been to a very solid balance in a long time. Number tweaks, bug fixes and the like are that are truly needed.
100 max players... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That would be teh pwn, but I dont think any server can run that =D
I liked the long games that werent lame in 1.04 (skipped 2.0 and 3.0 cause steam was a ****) then got to 3.4a and thought, "what happened to NS? This isnt how I remembered it. There was actually time to think then, now its rushes and CS talk ='(" that how I remember it happening
<!--QuoteBegin-Zek+Sep 17 2004, 10:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zek @ Sep 17 2004, 10:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Sep 17 2004, 10:50 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Sep 17 2004, 10:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You know the other side has lost their argument when they start to re-use their old arguments. Good bye <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You know the other side has run out of arguments when they attempt to leave the discussion on the moral high ground... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> There is no internet moral high ground here, but it's just when I feel the dicussion starts to waste my time I leave. And trust me, coming from a dude who has almost 6Kposts, you can take this as a burn.
I think that longer games are boring and difficult for clan matches. It becomes inevitably the same pattern of attack and defend every time. These brilliant strategies you talk of that are employed in these long arse games are clearly not that brilliant or they would effectivly end the game.
Long games are monotonous and irritating; fun once in a long while, but other than that, irritating.
I didn't read all the arguments (12 pages!) but I want to add my input. If this is already repeated, sry.
Yes, longer games, but only to spread out the intensity of the gameplay.
One of the problems back in 1.04 when I quit playing a few months before 2.0 release was the monotone pattern of the beginning of fending off skulk rushes, expand a bit, fending off some more skulk rushes, expand and tech, etc, etc.
But the feel of the game was less intense and better in my opinion. Plus, you had the territory feel with WoLs around. We've moved away from this to a more pack intensive game. In other words, you're pushing from the getgo like a SWAT team raiding a building instead of police team sent out to investigate the building.
I think extending the gameplay a bit longer would allievate this 'rush rush rush be perfect skilled player' problem, but it really doesn't solve the problem.
There needs to be a change in gameplay again, somehow. Dunno how at the moment, since any change made probably will have to be radical.
I was pretty surprised by this. Nearly 300 votes, and over 75% hate the horrible short games that get shorter every patch.
I want to know what Flayra will respond to this with <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Looks like his idea for shorter = better wasn't... as well recieved as he might have thought.
Well, the emphasis of shorter games have been sastified by NS:Combat. It was originally something to pass the time until more people filled up in the server. What most people want here is to make NS:Classic back to it's more relax atmosphere and leave the action-filled pack experience to NS:Combat.
I would really like to see this. It then gives the player the choice to play an action-pack game where RTS is really not needed versus the less action-pack base building/RTS game.
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Sep 18 2004, 02:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Sep 18 2004, 02:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I was pretty surprised by this. Nearly 300 votes, and over 75% hate the horrible short games that get shorter every patch.
I want to know what Flayra will respond to this with <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Looks like his idea for shorter = better wasn't... as well recieved as he might have thought. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> These results aren't surprising at all - the poll the poll has an ambigious question with two equally meaningless answers.
Comments
I think nostalgia is more responsible for your enjoyment than anything else. Wow JP/HMG rush. Wow aliens got 2 hives and an army of fades /w rockets gg. O wait don't forget the massive marine vs alien imbalance so it was very rare for scenario 2 to even happen. Don't forget the dwindling number of players at the end of 1.0's life.
<!--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-->Really? Winning is always fun? That's why the most popular "strategy" right now is to turret farm as many key locations as possible until you have enough res from rfk and the 2/3 rts you hold to kill the last hive? Yeah....fun.... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, you probably just proved his point by saying that. Pubbers realize they can win just by turret farming so therefore it becomes popular among commanders. If they didn't think it was fun it wouldn't be popular would it.
Reminds me of 1.04 before the JP rush caught on in pubs. Except that there wasn't RfK, just the RTs, and there was no prospect of reclaiming a hive.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure he meant winning in games <i>that aren't crap and drawn out</i>.
15 minutes of marine slaughter is not fun, no matter how you put it. If the aliens do not do everything perfect in the first few minutes, you might as well call it "GG." Combat is so much more dynamic and interesting than classic right now, and that bothers me, because when the "quickie" of Natural Selection is better than what is supposed to be the real "hardcore" part of Natural Selection, there is definitely a problem.
This is the first NS version I've played where a game that had no skulk rush can be ended in 15 minutes. That really, really sucks.
Hey devs, the game looks amazing; now it is time to work on making it fun!
There are a few considerations I've made in forming this opinion.
First off, the technology tree (and by this I mean not just the Frontiersman upgrades but also the Kharaa evolutions) serves as a tool for measurement of the relative game length. In the strategy games that I enjoy--Starcraft Brood War and Warcraft 3, principally--the average game length is less than the time in which it takes to complete the tech tree. The top tier technologies (for example Carriers, Defilers with Dark Swarm, Battlecruisers, Chimeras, Taurens with bloodlust, etc.) are meant to bring the game to a swift conclusion. That's not to say that whoever gets these technologies first wins the game, but rather that these top tier units are so powerful in relation to static defenses and bottom tier units that they allow the team with the clear economic upper hand to quickly convert that advantage into a win. Think Onos vs. turrets/light marines and Ultralisks vs. marines/medics.
This type of technology tree in which the top level units are disproportionately powerful creates an excellent game dynamic, where both teams are moving toward the ultimate goal of attaining the top tier units. Both teams are <i>always making progress toward a certain end</i>, regardless of whether the top tier units are actually required to end the game. In the games I mentioned (SCBW and WC3), about half of the games end before the top tier technologies are reached. In the games that do see the top tier units, most of them end shortly thereafter and only a few games are 45 minutes or more.
Comebacks should be possible in NS but not probable, because a game should be won by the team that plays better and makes better strategic decisisions than the other team. Yes, there should be a margin of error, and one small slipup should not mean certain loss for a team. However, once a team gains a decisive economic advantage, that team should be able to convert that advantage into a win by getting top tier units.
The problem with making NS games longer is that once the technology tree is exhausted, there's no longer an underlying strategical current pushing the game toward its end, and so the game becomes a back-and-forth slugfest deathmatch without a sense of grand strategy. The worst part of this is that players tend to feel like what they do has no real effect on the game. That's when players start leaving. A lot of the comebacks you hear about aren't actually comebacks. What they actually are are games in which the skilled players on the winning team have felt they can't break through the deadlock even though they have the advantage and so they start leaving and being replaced by weaker players. This may be fun for the players on the team that ends up winning the game, but trust me that, for the other team, games like that simply aren't fun to play. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What he said.
Funny how this paragraph coincides so well what I said ealier...
<!--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-->ou basically have a bunch of incompetetant pubbers on both teams, with the exception of a good fade and a good commander.
The commander can't hold jack squat because his marines don't follow orders, and the aliens all run around like bumbling idoits building whatever they can find open ground, meanwhile there is a good fade who is kicking butt but is unable to hold ground because he simply cannot overpower 9 marines who bumrush a hive.
The fade, most likely a good player, will eventually grow very very tired of the boring repetetive pub play and stop pubbing. Meanwhile the commander is like "OMG WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU MORONS!!!! EUUUUGHHGHGH!!" He won't comm pubs for awhile after that.
However, the other 18 players will be like 'OMG liek this is so kewl we killed teh hive!! again!! and again! OMG there it goes another hive!!!"
It won't be long untill the pubbers grow tired of games that play themselves out because no one has any idea of how to finish it quickly.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->You guys are missing my point:
- The 2 people are the best players on the team. The ONLY reason the 18 other noobs had fun was preciously because they had the 1 good player on each team WHO MADE IT FUN, by PLAYING GOOD, and bothering to get GOOD at the game.
Without those two good players, the game would be this:
- Skulks and marines slaughter each other. Both have hard time to hold ground. Within the first 3 minutes, you can tell who is going to win just by juding the general suckiness of each team - the team that actually remembers to cap more nodes, or does something out of the random like get armor 1 upgrade, is going to win.
The #1 pub games have degraded, is preciously because the game now drives itself away from the good players who previously made it fun to play. Remove those 2 good players, whose feelings couldn't possibly matter in the big scheme of things, and you have a game that doesn't have comebacks or any sort of fun to it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What people seem to ignore is that, while yes I may be a clanner, that doens't make you not a pubber.
Remember, a pubber = pub experiences
Whereas a clanner = pub experiences and clan experiences
Therefore the clanner sees more of what the game has to offer. And to say the clanner wants to change the game for clanplay and not pub play -
That's rediculous. It's very safe to assume the average clanner spends just as much time in pub play as they do in clan play.
Even the best CS players in the world still pub it up.
Id like to change my vote to 'i like NS as it is!'
Hey, just because it is a very long game doesn't mean it is drawn out! By drawn out you mean a boring stalemate I assume? Well yes but then make the defenses less and the offenses more and you'll see that with effort you can shatter an enemy's defenses. (or if you suck because they countered your attack and they'll kick your arse hehe)
Stronger defense abilities on both mean a sharper line of contolled territory and thus a stalemate-like situation occurs.
real example: World War One trench warefare (defense much greater than offense for both sides)
Thus a stronger offensive capabilites would mean territory contol could fluctuate a great deal. Aliens move faster & bite harder, marine's gun huuurt a great deal.
real example: modern warefare (started really changing in WWII), in which there is always a weapon that can overcome a defense.
Thus the secret is to make sure while making other efforts to make the game longer (via extensive, massive tech trees and various structures), to just remember to keep offense > defense. The structure HP's are fine, could be raised a little, but make pvp combat such where killing the enemy is easier.
It is a balance: increase offense abilities too much (esp. against structures) you may find it really easy to bring down the enemy's base resulting in a very quick game (unless structure cost is low enough they can relocate). Turret farming up hives is evil because it allows the marines to prevent aliens from relocating. (why having more than 3 hive sites would solve this instantly; but not more than three hives at same time) If you increase the defense too much it can take ages to kill the enemy resulting in a stalemate which can be fun for some and not for others.
things to consider when balancing:
player offense
player defense
player HP up
player HP down
structure offense
structure defense
structure HP up
structure HP down
the one thing which can <i>always</i> increase is the size and linking of the tech trees. Tech tree size and linking doesn't affect balance, only what the technologies/adaptations do.
There was a working balance model in 2.0 and especially 1.0 that people loved. So old balance with new progressive technology and coolness = BUS
Longer games are my goal here and by that I mean game that <i>can</i> (a key word) with more regularity than they do now last up to an hour or more. Quick 15 min games = combat; excellent for training n00bs or giving those fun clan scrimmages. But the heart and soul of the Natural-Selection style maps, FPS & RTS hybrid 50:50, is the long, strategic war between the ranger marines and the melee aliens. If you fail to rush the enemy for a quick victory then you can expect a long battle to ensue one that will ultimately be decided by hard teamwork and contol over the RT's. Not who kills more. The "player units" are really just pawn in the real battle between the Kharaa and the Frontiersmen.
If you are wondering what (based on how much time you have to play in the real world) game you should play, it should be as simple as this:
co_ = different rules, very high offense, most res come from killing enemies
typical game length: 1-20 min
ns_ = different rules, good offenses but much closer to being balnace with defenses, structures and technology matter more, most res (or all res) comes from killing enemies, unchained chamber maybe?
typical game length: 45-120+ min
I would imagine we will debate how to make the ns_ longer for a long time, but the community agrees (~75% is a landslide victory unless you are one of those who doesn't ever vote in poltics because you are stupid) that short scrims are domain of co_ and long strat "wars" are the domain of ns_. And *gasp* it <i>is</i> possible to have different numeric values for various things in each type being determined by the mapper though a world-entitiy. This requires makeing two types of number valuse for everything, but ultimately it will satisfy everyone. If you think it is too much work, I have already offered to help so stop biznitching bizitches. Flayra your community was happy when you split the engine into a new type of gameplay but by keeping the numbers attached together you are making it impossible to satisfy the long gameplay in ns and short gameplay in co. You claim you are being progressive and abhor reverting to the good ideas from older versions and yet you are holding onto the past yourself by refusing to sever co numbers from ns numbers and the solution of just make it all faster and more efficient is clearly not making the community happy. Yes I admire you and your mod very very much but on this one little thing you have ignore the issue and the skeleton from the closet will not leave you alone until you deal with it and now it is a rather large issue.
There is a way to have short games for co and long games for ns.
There is a way to keep the game balanced and have the ns games be longer.
There is a way to seperate co numbers from ns numberts and have independent balances for both.
There is a way to communicate with the developers and volunteer to help
There is a way to get that unchained chambers 75.3% of you wanted to work.
We do have an Idea&Suggestions forum
"Actions speak louder than words" <-- the Gordon Freeman way
So let's get some action going. Have some fun, do your best.
<span style='font-family:Times'>Thanks for reading and flame away Forlorn.</span>
It's not really a matter of choosing. Yes please vote which you prefer and listen to all arguments, but...
The game code should bend to our will, not the other way arround. co_ can remain quick for those who love it, and ns_ can get longer for those who love that. The poll I think needs some re-wording.
<!--QuoteBegin-x5+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (x5)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is a way to have short games for co and long games for ns.
There is a way to keep the game balanced and have the ns games be longer.
There is a way to seperate co numbers from ns numberts and have independent balances for both.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
~edit~ reworded
Actually, you probably just proved his point by saying that. Pubbers realize they can win just by turret farming so therefore it becomes popular among commanders. If they didn't think it was fun it wouldn't be popular would it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see it that way. From what I can tell, there's a group of people who only get enjoyment from winning, raping pub players, etc. This group will always use this strategy, because they just want to win, and if they win they're happy. Unfortuanately, they often make everyone else's lives miserable....
Another group is the new/lazy commander group. Turrets are the absolute EASIEST way to win. Therefore, new commanders will see turret-farming strats win, figure that that is the best and/or only way to command, and they will turret farm. Lazy coms who know better will also turret farm, just because they don't have to do much, the turrets will basically strangle the aliens until it's an easy win.
Now notice that I'm arguing here that winning isn't always fun. Can you honestly tell me that a turret-farmed game is fun for anyone? (except **** who just enjoy ruining someone else's game, I could honestly not care less about people like that)
The problem is unexperienced or just plain bad commanders reaching for turrets as a way to salvage their commanding experience, at the expense of everyone else's enjoyment. THAT is why coms turret farm; I've seen marines yell at coms who turret farm, then the very next round when they com they do the <u>exact same thing.</u> No one likes it, it's just that when you're in that chair, you're on the spot. You don't want to be embarrased(spelling....) by crappy commanding, so you do what's easiest, what will work.
Too proud to be original.....it's sad <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--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-->First off, the technology tree (and by this I mean not just the Frontiersman upgrades but also the Kharaa evolutions) serves as a tool for measurement of the relative game length. In the strategy games that I enjoy--Starcraft Brood War and Warcraft 3, principally--the average game length is less than the time in which it takes to complete the tech tree. The top tier technologies (for example Carriers, Defilers with Dark Swarm, Battlecruisers, Chimeras, Taurens with bloodlust, etc.) are meant to bring the game to a swift conclusion. That's not to say that whoever gets these technologies first wins the game, but rather that these top tier units are so powerful in relation to static defenses and bottom tier units that they allow the team with the clear economic upper hand to quickly convert that advantage into a win. Think Onos vs. turrets/light marines and Ultralisks vs. marines/medics.
This type of technology tree in which the top level units are disproportionately powerful creates an excellent game dynamic, where both teams are moving toward the ultimate goal of attaining the top tier units. Both teams are always making progress toward a certain end, regardless of whether the top tier units are actually required to end the game. In the games I mentioned (SCBW and WC3), about half of the games end before the top tier technologies are reached. In the games that do see the top tier units, most of them end shortly thereafter and only a few games are 45 minutes or more. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like your point here, except for one thing. As it stands now, the alien's top "technology" - Onos - can still be taken down by the lowest tier of marine units. I don't know exactly what this means in relation to your argument about 15 minute games, but I felt it should be pointed out <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> . The fact that the top tech of one side is unable to end the game quickly while the top tech of the other CAN definitely points to an imbalance, though I'm unsure if I'd want a buff to the onos to make it a game-ender....or if HA should be nerfed so they AREN'T a game ender <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I join a random pub and the other players have fun because I own them *lol* I am a clan player, kneel down and kiss my feet.
<!--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-->Winning is always fun, whereas losing is only sometimes fun. Most of the time though the reason people play games is to win. Enough with "Play to have fun, not win" garbage because you ignoring truth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Winning is not always fun. Some clan matches you win are stale and in no way fun because you just own the enemy team. Sometimes players of BOTH teams leave the server. Obviously they DID NOT have fun.
<!--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-->It may be fun for the fools who think they are doing something for the larger effort, when in reality the kills are going to one player who will by the end of the game have over 70 kills. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are right. The kills should be evenly distributed between all players. Now you know why playing pubs is no fun anymore. You just described what happens on pubs in 3.0. One or two good players dominate the game and kill the enemy team all alone.
Anyway this is what happens in clan matches ALL the time. Some people really seem to believe in a clan match every player is important. This maybe goes for those one or two clans consisting of the best players from a few countries but the majority of clans has one or two very good players which decide the game.
It's just not possible that every players has the same skill level. Some players are better than others. Five marines shoot a skulk but only one of them can kill it. Maybe the same marine gets the kill everytime. Does this remove the fun for the other players just because they don't have the top score?
<!--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-->It's very safe to assume the average clanner spends just as much time in pub play as they do in clan play.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To tell the truth I don't know any good clan player who plays pub anymore (talking about TFC and CS). I haven't played TFC on a pub for half a year but I still play ~5 clan matches every weak.
This is because clan match rulesets never ever work on a pub server. Pubbers play the game to have fun not to win. Clanners play the game solely to win. You can go offense and cap flag after flag but random pub player Joe will not care. He spams the bridge with mirvs and shoots every enemy player he spots. He has fun but the clan players doesn't have fun because noone else cares about winning or losing. Luckily most games are not balanced for clan matches so every pubber can still have fun.
When I join a game in the evening after work I want to play ONE long epic game. Not TEN short games.
The problem with NS is the straight forward game play. It's like a race between aliens and marines. You don't have any choices, crossroads or loops. Once a team gets the advantage they will win (and own the enemy team). Nothing can stop them. This makes for boring tedious game play.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly. For a long time since 3.0 began, I didn't have any games that could be called memorable. Once I started playing on unchained servers though, it was like playing a whole new version of NS. Wonderful epic games where the balance of power shifted dozens of times. Fantastic new combos like focus - silence Fades adding a ton of atmosphere and unpredictability to the game. These are the games that have stuck in my memory and made me think fondly of classic. This is how Classic is supposed to feel.
You know the other side has run out of arguments when they attempt to leave the discussion on the moral high ground...
Personally I think people who rant on about the excellent long games from 1.04 are just running off of nostalgia and don't have an accurate viewpoint of that build anymore. Certainly 1.04 had the occasionally long game that was really fun. So does 3.0. The difference, in my mind, is that in 1.04 games lasted forever all the time even if one team wasn't really ever accomplishing anything, but in 3.0 the games that would be crappy and drawn out are ended quickly. Playing 3.0 I very rarely experience a game above 30 minutes that wasn't fun because the only way a game generally lasts that long is if it's dead even. In 1.04, there were a lot of long games, but many more of them were just slow and incredibly drawn out, as opposed to 3.0 where that doesn't usually happen.
Simply put, you guys are thinking back to 1.04, recalling a small handful of long games that really stand out in your mind, and comparing that idealistic version to what we actually have with 3.0. 1.04 was a year and a half ago, but you will just have to trust us when we tell you that those long games were NOT all fun. I'd rather play four decent 15 minute games than an hour-long one that ultimately just makes me feel like I wasted my time.
We now have a fairly (in comparison to those versions) bugless game, so if the stalemate issue can be solved so that those teams that are significantly better DO finish a side off in no more than 20 minutes, then I don't see why anyone has a real argument against trying to balance it so generally even teams have longer games to play.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought I'd quote myself, just to make my point ever clearer.
<!--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-->You know the other side has lost their argument when they start to re-use their old arguments. Good bye <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong again! Arguments are brought up again when the other side just isn't getting it, or avoids giving a serious rebuttle. Nice try though.
Anyways Zek, my experiences of Natural Selection were that previous versions (including 1.04, before the JP/HMG rush was a popular tactic) utilized a formula that allowed the games a far more dynamic ebb and flow, whetheras Version 3 uses a "rush" formula that decides the game. Only when both teams are able to have an equal rush, or the aliens rush better than marines, is the game able to include that sort of dynamism.
While I see the point of the rush formula, I also note that it takes away the fun factor, and often ends up in a game where the marines have a half hour slaughter of the alien team. That is, of course, the problem with this version of NS. Our plea to Flayra and the other members of the Dev team is to use a better, more balanced version of the older formula to allow for an average game length of around 40 minutes or so, instead of 15 minutes. This means that the tech rush of the first 5 minutes is to be slowed down, as well as having the beginning classes more evenly matched and balanced.
As has been said countless times throughout the thread, I too would like to see the slippery slope less slippery. Especially in the early minutes.
You can litterally watch the slippery slope form if, say, within the first 90 seconds one or the other sides loses between 1/2-3/4 of their forces on the field, in the time it takes them respawn and catch back up their economy will be crippled for at least 1-3 minutes, and the other team will have a healthy lead as well as a boosted economy from the RFK. Thus leading to faster fades appearing/more powerful marine's ninja phasing/marching through your hives.
I truly hate this aspect. While I can certainly agree with Nemesis Zero's logic that once a team has gained a significant upper-hand, they should have an easier path to victory. I agree with that wholly, that's how it should be in an RTS game.
My only gripe is the fact that the significant upper-hand can be taken sometimes as swiftly 90 seconds, although, admittedly that is not always the case. Very minute balance tweaks is all thats really needed to fix this; NS is probably the closest its been to a very solid balance in a long time. Number tweaks, bug fixes and the like are that are truly needed.
100 max players... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would be teh pwn, but I dont think any server can run that =D
I liked the long games that werent lame in 1.04 (skipped 2.0 and 3.0 cause steam was a ****) then got to 3.4a and thought, "what happened to NS? This isnt how I remembered it. There was actually time to think then, now its rushes and CS talk ='("
that how I remember it happening
You know the other side has run out of arguments when they attempt to leave the discussion on the moral high ground... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no internet moral high ground here, but it's just when I feel the dicussion starts to waste my time I leave. And trust me, coming from a dude who has almost 6Kposts, you can take this as a burn.
Long games are monotonous and irritating; fun once in a long while, but other than that, irritating.
Yes, longer games, but only to spread out the intensity of the gameplay.
One of the problems back in 1.04 when I quit playing a few months before 2.0 release was the monotone pattern of the beginning of fending off skulk rushes, expand a bit, fending off some more skulk rushes, expand and tech, etc, etc.
But the feel of the game was less intense and better in my opinion. Plus, you had the territory feel with WoLs around. We've moved away from this to a more pack intensive game. In other words, you're pushing from the getgo like a SWAT team raiding a building instead of police team sent out to investigate the building.
I think extending the gameplay a bit longer would allievate this 'rush rush rush be perfect skilled player' problem, but it really doesn't solve the problem.
There needs to be a change in gameplay again, somehow. Dunno how at the moment, since any change made probably will have to be radical.
I want to know what Flayra will respond to this with <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Looks like his idea for shorter = better wasn't... as well recieved as he might have thought.
I would really like to see this. It then gives the player the choice to play an action-pack game where RTS is really not needed versus the less action-pack base building/RTS game.
I am still hoping that Flayra will comment on it.
I want to know what Flayra will respond to this with <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Looks like his idea for shorter = better wasn't... as well recieved as he might have thought. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
These results aren't surprising at all - the poll the poll has an ambigious question with two equally meaningless answers.