It's a demanding reflex game with a "strategy" labeled pasted on top.
You try and make the game more accesible to the public and people here scream "YOO SUX AT NS" as a retort. Since the game is demanding, there's a huge skill gap between players. This leads to games where you have 2-3 guys with 50-5 scores and the rest on the borderline of mediocrity. The 2-3 pros generate 90% of the res, therefore determine the outcome of the game. The other players who don't have this skill are pushed to passive roles such as rt/chamber making.
I don't see the strategy in this game. Base relocations, outposts, whatever, you can't do this without skill. If you can't aim at a flying fade, you won't get anywhere. So it's not as simple as moving a piece in chess, no, you have to be ABLE to do it in NS in order to do it. Physical reactions are rewarded immensely here. If you kill a player, you remove a player temporarily, you gain territory and you also get resources. Other than getting your gear as a marine and building res, all you have to do is aim (and control movement with jps).
So that's NS. A game for pros, for a public that's slowly withering. It doesn't welcome new players. You learn it the hard way by getting your face smashed. Oh and yes, "I MUST SUX AT NS".
<!--quoteo(post=1615517:date=Mar 19 2007, 12:00 AM:name=the_x5)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_x5 @ Mar 19 2007, 12:00 AM) [snapback]1615517[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Second, I feel much of the player base is horribly rude and hostile towards newbies. This is a huge problem which admins are completely ignoring on large NS servers. <BAD>, [I AM], G4B2S, KcK, etc. You never do anything about cracking down on players not being tolerant to newbies. This is destroying our community just as much in my opinion as any balance issue, if not more.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As was pointed-out to me earlier, this has virtually NOTHING to do with the competitive community, who are usually too busy making gnome voices or dante-laughs in vent to be typing insults at players who are clearly terrible.
Unfortunately you're going to get that in any game (like CS) that has a heavy skill emphasis and a deep chasm of anonymity. And like you said, it's the admins' problem to deal with, and they just don't.
But you see, CS has a larger server base and games in CS only last minutes. You can play for 1 or 20 rounds. You don't have to commit.
NS has longer rounds and fewer servers, forcing you to endure games determined by a handful of elite players. That and aiming at a human in CS versus a moving fade in NS - there's a large difference.
<!--quoteo(post=1615560:date=Mar 19 2007, 04:01 AM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Mar 19 2007, 04:01 AM) [snapback]1615560[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That and aiming at a human in CS versus a moving fade in NS - there's a large difference.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're right - CS is harder.
To address your point of "omg the pros are dominating", I'm gonna turn your attention briefly to Quake3 - arguably one of the most popular online games ever, in which a player only a limited amount more skilled than another can rack up scores of 25-1. Yet it's one of the most popular games ever. Do the math.
As for "reflex game with a strategy label" I'm not even going to bother writing an essay to explain why you are wrong, because basically it isn't worth my time - suffice to say you are wrong and other people will explain why in like 5 posts time.
ChocolateThe Team MascotJoin Date: 2006-10-31Member: 58123Members
edited March 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1615511:date=Mar 18 2007, 11:11 PM:name=SpaceJesus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SpaceJesus @ Mar 18 2007, 11:11 PM) [snapback]1615511[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Personally I think the game would be vastly improved if <b>all</b> static defences were simply removed from the game. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I personally think that they shouldn't be removed, but be more powerful (and more expensive) or more economical so they can actually be used in effective numbers.
OC's are useful, an example is that on ns_nothing, our hive was viaduct and it was no more than an 8 vs 8 game. We went for cargo hive, and eventually dropped it. Me as a gorge placed 1 OC in every hall near that hive, making a continuous line of fire to any passing marine. When the marines tried to rambo their way to their to get a PG up near the hive, my OC's picked off 2 or 3 of their best players (the ones who actually listened) and prevented that hive from going down.
In that game I knew as well that they make good early detection chambers. They leave the marines with 3 choices: run past it and die, go around it and potentially never make it there or carefully shoot them down and alert the aliens. They also pick off the JP'ers much easier than a fade or even Lerk usually could and detered the marines from ever going near that hive (they rushed viaduct plenty of times, cargo only 1 time.
Siege turrets should <b>NEVER</b> (unless the siege turrent becomes overpowered or something) be removed because that would simply make taking down a hive <b>much</b> harder .
Turrets are the only things that are really pointless these days. They need to be built near a TF, stops working if a TF isn't in range, does almost no damage to anything but a 1 hive skulk usually and cost a whopping 10 res (1 shotgun, 1 pack of mines, 1 JP, 2 welders or 1/2 a HMG/GL/HA equivalent) per turret. An investment in these are usless because the TF goes down very easily and quickly almost anywhere it is placed.
I'm definetely with Chocolate on this one. NS is not meant to be a game just about fighting skill and reflexes but also about planning and strategy. The less emphasis there is on structures, the more NS becomes like the 10,000 other shooters out there. Maybe that would gain more players, but it would do so at the expense of the spirit of NS.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
Making OCs more practical would change the way NS is played, since aliens would then be able to defend better, possibly winning themselves more time against marine tech.
<!--quoteo(post=1615665:date=Mar 19 2007, 04:16 PM:name=Chocolate)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Chocolate @ Mar 19 2007, 04:16 PM) [snapback]1615665[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Siege turrets should <b>NEVER</b> (unless the siege turrent becomes overpowered or something) be removed because that would simply make taking down a hive <b>much</b> harder .<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> siege turrets are static offense, not static defense.
<!--quoteo(post=1615665:date=Mar 19 2007, 04:16 PM:name=Chocolate)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Chocolate @ Mar 19 2007, 04:16 PM) [snapback]1615665[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Turrets are the only things that are really pointless these days. They need to be built near a TF, stops working if a TF isn't in range, does almost no damage to anything but a 1 hive skulk usually and cost a whopping 10 res (1 shotgun, 1 pack of mines, 1 JP, 2 welders or 1/2 a HMG/GL/HA equivalent) per turret. An investment in these are usless because the TF goes down very easily and quickly almost anywhere it is placed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> /sign
<!--quoteo(post=1615667:date=Mar 19 2007, 04:24 PM:name=KainTSA)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KainTSA @ Mar 19 2007, 04:24 PM) [snapback]1615667[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm definetely with Chocolate on this one. NS is not meant to be a game just about fighting skill and reflexes<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> And you became a developer when again? And exactly how are you qualified to state what NS was "meant to be" ?
<!--quoteo(post=1615687:date=Mar 19 2007, 06:13 PM:name=SpaceJesus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SpaceJesus @ Mar 19 2007, 06:13 PM) [snapback]1615687[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> And you became a developer when again? And exactly how are you qualified to state what NS was "meant to be" ? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't have to be a developer to see that NS was meant to be about more than just PvP fighting. Why else would flayra put so much effort into defensive/offense buildings? He would have just made CO probably.
x5 with your knownledge of ns i see why you actually want to slow down game, heavy or jp there is always some counter, onos fades etc. and in the meantime the rest of your team have to chew nodes which is obvious so marine won't get all those stuff requied to win, ns is all about team play if you lose it's cause your team did not work as they should(some players go high life forms other build and kill nodes). About 1.04 i don't really remember games standing for 2-3 hours ,in that time everything was about to get hmg,jp asap and marines were dominating, it requied you to have only decent aim cause skulks were slow and lerks couldn't fly properly. In 2.0 you res######d for an onos and you were unstopable with redemption(yes you could get moved to hive with ha's or some less heavy marine in your stomach) fades were tanks with regen, hitboxes were ###### up, it was alien domination time, with the newest ns versions it started to be less easy for aliens till now, as for 3.2 it's very balanced version, as aliens you still have a chance to win even when your opponent has ha's and locked down hives, all you have to do is chew nodes cut them from resuplies and build your own rt's and defend them and get as many fades as possible and get back some hive i guess it's all about experience.
<!--quoteo(post=1615624:date=Mar 19 2007, 10:07 AM:name=SpaceJesus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SpaceJesus @ Mar 19 2007, 10:07 AM) [snapback]1615624[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> You're right - CS is harder.
To address your point of "omg the pros are dominating", I'm gonna turn your attention briefly to Quake3 - arguably one of the most popular online games ever, in which a player only a limited amount more skilled than another can rack up scores of 25-1. Yet it's one of the most popular games ever. Do the math.
As for "reflex game with a strategy label" I'm not even going to bother writing an essay to explain why you are wrong, because basically it isn't worth my time - suffice to say you are wrong and other people will explain why in like 5 posts time. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nope, CS is easier.
<!--quoteo(post=1615744:date=Mar 19 2007, 11:45 PM:name=enigma)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(enigma @ Mar 19 2007, 11:45 PM) [snapback]1615744[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> <!--coloro:#FF6600--><span style="color:#FF6600"><!--/coloro-->Disrespect that has been removed. -Digz<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So don't bite eachothers heads off. I apologize for a stupidly long post, but, just.. talk. And don't flame. ><;<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd say some rude stuff but that'd probably make me a hippo-crit, so I'm going to sum up my feelings on your general disregard for another person's opinion with two words: frilly laces. I think I've proven my point.
When I was younger, and I'd get really into a game, I'd hold off going to the bathroom. This didn't start with NS; it started with C&C Red Alert, where I'd get into these long drawn out skirmishes for three hours and afterwards charge into the bathroom. Sure, I could've paused, but I was "in the zone".
With NS, it used to be the same; the three hours of adrenaline, "we're winning!" "we're losing <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />" "winning!" "losing <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />" etc etc. Sure, I'd get up and go to the bathroom, but I'd "rush it", if you know what I mean. ("intermission" for #2, as I call it).
Anyway, bottom line is it would be nice to see some sort of extended version of ns_, but I can't really think of the practicality of it.
Since I was rambling last time I posted, let me try again in a more concise fashion:
--Some games are balanced, some games are unbalanced, strictly due to which players are on which teams and how well they are playing today.
--Unbalanced games <i>don't need to be slowed down</i>, as they arent much fun anyway. Slowing them down just drags out the pain, without changing anything.
--Balanced games are already longer than average, and the more balanced they are, the longer they are.
--The really epic perfectly balanced games currently last 30-90 minutes. 30-90 minutes is a GOOD time period. They don't need to be any longer than that. So they don't need to be slowed down either.
--Conclusion: <b>NS doesn't need to be slowed down.</b> We just need to do more to fight team-stacking.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1615797:date=Mar 20 2007, 10:20 AM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Mar 20 2007, 10:20 AM) [snapback]1615797[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> --Some games are balanced, some games are unbalanced, strictly due to which players are on which teams and how well they are playing today.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is not technically correct. Game balance should not depend on which players are on which teams. That is the topic of server and player balance, which is independent of game balance.
<!--quoteo(post=1615797:date=Mar 20 2007, 10:20 AM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Mar 20 2007, 10:20 AM) [snapback]1615797[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> --Unbalanced games <i>don't need to be slowed down</i>, as they arent much fun anyway. Slowing them down just drags out the pain, without changing anything.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The process of slowing down an unbalanced game may involve changes that make it more balanced. In no way is it suggested that NS be scaled to be longer with all else held equal.
<!--quoteo(post=1615797:date=Mar 20 2007, 10:20 AM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Mar 20 2007, 10:20 AM) [snapback]1615797[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> --Balanced games are already longer than average, and the more balanced they are, the longer they are. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They are not longer, unless by "average' you mean 5 mins. If you pit the best clans against each other, you will see that the rounds will take ~15 mins. Pubs are not a good indicator of game balance, unless by "balanced" you mean that both sides make plenty of mistakes that allow the game to drag on longer than it should. The epic games are caused by poor players and poor teamwork. They may be related to game balance, but due to the ambiguity in what causes these epic events (i.e. different sequences of mistakes), you cannot really extract any useful information from them about game balance.
<!--quoteo(post=1615797:date=Mar 20 2007, 10:20 AM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Mar 20 2007, 10:20 AM) [snapback]1615797[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> --Conclusion: <b>NS doesn't need to be slowed down.</b> We just need to do more to fight team-stacking. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've played since the first day, and I'll tell you one thing, by 1.04 there were a lot of people who knew exactly how to play the game well. I used to feel like part of a team before 2.0, now its just a rush and see who can get the most kills. The reason they took long, or could, is because there were chances to recover from a loss and the games would swing back and fourth. I can remember games where all hives were lost and aliens came back, sure they were rare, but it could happen. Part of the problem is R4K, once one side starts winning it becomes easier and easier since res is flowing faster. This makes 1 or 2 really good players on a team too valuable, especially on marines where they all share in the res. 30 minutes to an hour would be a good average play time.
If R4K was a server setting I bet disabling this would slow games down quite a bit, and allow more comebacks.
RFK is fine. In a perfect game with players that have the same skill, RFK will help both teams equally.
The problem is when you are in a pub and you have a 50-5 score pro who generates 90% of the res for his team.
So yes, it is a problem due to the players involved and their skill.
You can't have a balanced game in chess if you have 1 queen and the other team has 4 queens. (queen being good players for those who don't know)
But they deserve to play.
So the goal is games with balanced skills on both sides. Either you tone the players, either buffing the weak or nerfing the strong, or you do something that forces the game to be played similarly - making it easier.
Look, I'm not parading making the game easier as the end-of solution that solves NS. If anyone has a way to keep teams balanced in skill I'm all for it. The best way I've found is to make the game easier.
A pro can't build res faster than a noob if they both hold the use key. With this logic, by making the game easier, skill has less of an impact than player amount.
So again, the goal is keeping teams balanced, so I'm for any methods to do this. But making the game easier is one way.
ChocolateThe Team MascotJoin Date: 2006-10-31Member: 58123Members
edited March 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1615914:date=Mar 20 2007, 10:02 PM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Mar 20 2007, 10:02 PM) [snapback]1615914[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> RFK is fine. In a Look, I'm not parading making the game easier as the end-of solution that solves NS. If anyone has a way to keep teams balanced in skill I'm all for it. The best way I've found is to make the game easier. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I remember seeing that there was some ranking system suggestion somewhere on the forums which could help with balance. Maybe it could be made so that team 1 has an average skill of x, and team 2 can only have a maximum of x +2 skill average or something like that. I very, really, much doubt that would fit in with NS, but it's a random solution.
On a side note: I think R4K should be removed because its this thing that makes comebacks a heck of a lot harder, especially when the marines are winning (they can tech up always, the aliens have a more limited amount of tech up). It might swing the favor either way, but i doubt it would be anything dramatic because it advantages both teams I think equally (correct me if I'm wrong).
Not having R4K also affects the teamwork aspect I was talking about, in that there would be less emphasis on skill and individual players because of many reasons (the one I'm thinking is that there would be more emphasis on RT's, which require teamwork to defend them, but there are many other reasons too). Stacked teams would be less of a factor with this removed too.
Not much to say really today, meh. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1615914:date=Mar 20 2007, 09:02 PM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Mar 20 2007, 09:02 PM) [snapback]1615914[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The problem is when you are in a pub and you have a 50-5 score pro who generates 90% of the res for his team. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But shouldn't that player be rewarded? And isn't your team going to lose anyway if that player is good? So what's wrong with just helping the situation along (with RFK)?
The answers to those questions pretty much reveal your philosophy (if it can be called that) on team games.
douchebagatronCustom member titleJoin Date: 2003-12-20Member: 24581Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
well a game based on teamwork shouldnt be decided by one exceptional player. that just promotes ramboing.
theres not really any one simple solution to make games longer. the reason they are shorter now is because flayras vision for ns was to make it shorter. he has put into effect many changes to shorten games. not just a few that can be easily reversed to make longer more epic games, but many small things like aliens have self regen, or marines getting two handgrenades instead of just one. if ns, or ns2, has a lot of epic games its because flayra made lots and lots of changes to the current style. and flayra knows that most people in the community loved the longer games. if anyone remembers the ns survey that flayra put out one of the results he posted was "Longer games, more game modes"
he knows we want longer games. now its up to him to decide whether or not to give it to us. but im not expecting these longer games to come in ns, most likely it will be in ns2.
<!--quoteo(post=1615927:date=Mar 20 2007, 06:59 PM:name=Dogg)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dogg @ Mar 20 2007, 06:59 PM) [snapback]1615927[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> But shouldn't that player be rewarded? And isn't your team going to lose anyway if that player is good? So what's wrong with just helping the situation along (with RFK)? The answers to those questions pretty much reveal your philosophy (if it can be called that) on team games. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->It's fun and all for the player to rack the kills, but it's rather boring for aliens, if you can't get out of the hive and not as fun for marines when you realize that you're not doing anything.
Strategy is ideally on equal grounds. You start with the same resources in starcraft. You start with the same units in chess. But when you start in chess with 4 queens (good players) and the other side has 1 queen, there's going to be a problem.
I just played a couple games today on bad. Games were going back and forth. Some games aliens would win through fades, but that changed when a few other marines came in. A guy named Romano, Makalevi I presume walked out of every game with a 30-5 score and with that, the aliens couldn't even get out of the hive. On Tanith, he alone locked the alien waste hive because his aim was superb and the com was there to spam him. On lost, he alone went to alpha hive that aliens started with and pretty soon locked it with his team. And later on eclipse, he locked us in eclipse hive and later on maintenance, all thanks to his aim.
Yes, we all strive to be better, but you have to wonder what happens to the game. None of our players could get out of the hive. We tried going through vents only to be met by marines outside. We tried lerking, but they still kept on pushing with turrets. And it takes forever to get to a fade when you have scores like 1-12, while marines are more like 10-1.
There needs to be a way to reduce the effectiveness of a marine rambo, so these situations don't happen by 1 player and a com. At the same time, a lot of people also have a hard time aiming. This creates a giant rift between those extremely skilled and those casual players.
get cloaking and kill makaveli a few times and he will leave. either that or own you even harder than before <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1615797:date=Mar 20 2007, 10:20 AM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Mar 20 2007, 10:20 AM) [snapback]1615797[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> --The really epic perfectly balanced games currently last 30-90 minutes. 30-90 minutes is a GOOD time period. They don't need to be any longer than that. So they don't need to be slowed down either.
--Conclusion: <b>NS doesn't need to be slowed down.</b> We just need to do more to fight team-stacking. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree quite strongly. 30-90 min should be the norm, NOT the exception. Yes make it strongly team oriented, but my point is that you never get time to develop complex strategies because it's all over too soon. So does that mean NS should be "slowed" down somehow? Yes I think so. For a long time I've felt RFK was one of the problems. That would also prevent teams from turtling forever since no RTs would mean no resources at all.
DRagon, sorry to have been snappy. I just get so tired of people posting without thinking or reading. Just try to pay attention to what kind of thread it is. Most of us have posted longer discussions and not the typical simplistic chatter you see in other threads like the ones in the Off-Topic forum.
And leave comparisons to CS out of this, all of you. That's way off-topic. We are talking about a Combat mode and what is supposed to be an RTS in an FPS field of play. (although sometime I feel it has become more of a FPS with an unworthy dose of RTS)
<!--quoteo(post=1615877:date=Mar 20 2007, 04:48 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Mar 20 2007, 04:48 PM) [snapback]1615877[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> This is not technically correct. Game balance should not depend on which players are on which teams. That is the topic of server and player balance, which is independent of game balance. The process of slowing down an unbalanced game may involve changes that make it more balanced. In no way is it suggested that NS be scaled to be longer with all else held equal. They are not longer, unless by "average' you mean 5 mins. If you pit the best clans against each other, you will see that the rounds will take ~15 mins. Pubs are not a good indicator of game balance, unless by "balanced" you mean that both sides make plenty of mistakes that allow the game to drag on longer than it should. The epic games are caused by poor players and poor teamwork. They may be related to game balance, but due to the ambiguity in what causes these epic events (i.e. different sequences of mistakes), you cannot really extract any useful information from them about game balance. Team stacking is the least of NS's worries. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Suppose I take your words as given, that long epic games are caused by bad players, and good players will have short games (which I dont think is true, but just for the sake of argument).
In that case, why are you arguing for more epic games to begin with? According to you, the epic games are really just bad games in disguise.
Just in case this is causing confusion: When I say "balanced games", the word "game" is not referring to "NS in general", but "one particular round of NS in which one team will win". That particular game was balanced if the two teams played to about the same level of performance. Its not terribly important whether they are good or bad, just that they are the same level of good or bad. A game is unbalanced if one team plays noticeably better than the other, whether thats because they are just more skilled in general, or because they happened to pull off a lot of really good teamwork even without a ton of individual skill, or whatever.
<!--quoteo(post=1615937:date=Mar 20 2007, 11:02 PM:name=the_x5)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_x5 @ Mar 20 2007, 11:02 PM) [snapback]1615937[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I disagree quite strongly. 30-90 min should be the norm, NOT the exception. Yes make it strongly team oriented, but my point is that you never get time to develop complex strategies because it's all over too soon. So does that mean NS should be "slowed" down somehow? Yes I think so. For a long time I've felt RFK was one of the problems. That would also prevent teams from turtling forever since no RTs would mean no resources at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The way I've stated it is that the closely balanced games already reach that threshold, and the unbalanced games do not and should not. Is it your desire that unbalanced games in which one team is clearly winning should still drag out to 30 minutes every time? Or are you disagreeing with some part of my model, but forgot to mention it?
<!--quoteo(post=1615936:date=Mar 20 2007, 07:58 PM:name=Leon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Leon @ Mar 20 2007, 07:58 PM) [snapback]1615936[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> get cloaking and kill makaveli a few times and he will leave. either that or own you even harder than before <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" /> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->He's a good player no doubt. But it gets to a point where he needs to be in his own class. Something like how they have light and heavyweights in boxing.
But NS is a game that bunches everyone together...
Saying "learn to play" to solve an issue of an issue of skill differences just doesn't make sense. A lot of people aren't going to get great no matter how much they play. Also, as long as NS is alive there will always be new players coming in. Does that mean we should just completely ignore these two groups of players? Not if you want enough players to keep NS alive. Unless you are talking about clan matches, saying everyone should just learn to play doesn't answer the problems brought about by team stacking.
Saying "learn to play" to solve an issue of an issue of skill differences just doesn't make sense. A lot of people aren't going to get great no matter how much they play. Also, as long as NS is alive there will always be new players coming in. Does that mean we should just completely ignore these two groups of players? Not if you want enough players to keep NS alive. Unless you are talking about clan matches, saying everyone should just learn to play doesn't answer the problems brought about by team stacking. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> There's tactical skill, and then there's knowledge. Not everybody can bhop down 3 marines from the end of a hallway, but it doesn't take much to chew on nodes and heal teammates.
Comments
You try and make the game more accesible to the public and people here scream "YOO SUX AT NS" as a retort. Since the game is demanding, there's a huge skill gap between players. This leads to games where you have 2-3 guys with 50-5 scores and the rest on the borderline of mediocrity. The 2-3 pros generate 90% of the res, therefore determine the outcome of the game. The other players who don't have this skill are pushed to passive roles such as rt/chamber making.
I don't see the strategy in this game. Base relocations, outposts, whatever, you can't do this without skill. If you can't aim at a flying fade, you won't get anywhere. So it's not as simple as moving a piece in chess, no, you have to be ABLE to do it in NS in order to do it. Physical reactions are rewarded immensely here. If you kill a player, you remove a player temporarily, you gain territory and you also get resources. Other than getting your gear as a marine and building res, all you have to do is aim (and control movement with jps).
So that's NS. A game for pros, for a public that's slowly withering. It doesn't welcome new players. You learn it the hard way by getting your face smashed. Oh and yes, "I MUST SUX AT NS".
As was pointed-out to me earlier, this has virtually NOTHING to do with the competitive community, who are usually too busy making gnome voices or dante-laughs in vent to be typing insults at players who are clearly terrible.
Unfortunately you're going to get that in any game (like CS) that has a heavy skill emphasis and a deep chasm of anonymity. And like you said, it's the admins' problem to deal with, and they just don't.
NS has longer rounds and fewer servers, forcing you to endure games determined by a handful of elite players. That and aiming at a human in CS versus a moving fade in NS - there's a large difference.
You're right - CS is harder.
To address your point of "omg the pros are dominating", I'm gonna turn your attention briefly to Quake3 - arguably one of the most popular online games ever, in which a player only a limited amount more skilled than another can rack up scores of 25-1. Yet it's one of the most popular games ever. Do the math.
As for "reflex game with a strategy label" I'm not even going to bother writing an essay to explain why you are wrong, because basically it isn't worth my time - suffice to say you are wrong and other people will explain why in like 5 posts time.
I personally think that they shouldn't be removed, but be more powerful (and more expensive) or more economical so they can actually be used in effective numbers.
OC's are useful, an example is that on ns_nothing, our hive was viaduct and it was no more than an 8 vs 8 game. We went for cargo hive, and eventually dropped it. Me as a gorge placed 1 OC in every hall near that hive, making a continuous line of fire to any passing marine. When the marines tried to rambo their way to their to get a PG up near the hive, my OC's picked off 2 or 3 of their best players (the ones who actually listened) and prevented that hive from going down.
In that game I knew as well that they make good early detection chambers. They leave the marines with 3 choices: run past it and die, go around it and potentially never make it there or carefully shoot them down and alert the aliens. They also pick off the JP'ers much easier than a fade or even Lerk usually could and detered the marines from ever going near that hive (they rushed viaduct plenty of times, cargo only 1 time.
Siege turrets should <b>NEVER</b> (unless the siege turrent becomes overpowered or something) be removed because that would simply make taking down a hive <b>much</b> harder .
Turrets are the only things that are really pointless these days. They need to be built near a TF, stops working if a TF isn't in range, does almost no damage to anything but a 1 hive skulk usually and cost a whopping 10 res (1 shotgun, 1 pack of mines, 1 JP, 2 welders or 1/2 a HMG/GL/HA equivalent) per turret. An investment in these are usless because the TF goes down very easily and quickly almost anywhere it is placed.
siege turrets are static offense, not static defense.
<!--quoteo(post=1615665:date=Mar 19 2007, 04:16 PM:name=Chocolate)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Chocolate @ Mar 19 2007, 04:16 PM) [snapback]1615665[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Turrets are the only things that are really pointless these days. They need to be built near a TF, stops working if a TF isn't in range, does almost no damage to anything but a 1 hive skulk usually and cost a whopping 10 res (1 shotgun, 1 pack of mines, 1 JP, 2 welders or 1/2 a HMG/GL/HA equivalent) per turret. An investment in these are usless because the TF goes down very easily and quickly almost anywhere it is placed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
/sign
<!--quoteo(post=1615667:date=Mar 19 2007, 04:24 PM:name=KainTSA)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KainTSA @ Mar 19 2007, 04:24 PM) [snapback]1615667[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm definetely with Chocolate on this one. NS is not meant to be a game just about fighting skill and reflexes<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And you became a developer when again? And exactly how are you qualified to state what NS was "meant to be" ?
And you became a developer when again? And exactly how are you qualified to state what NS was "meant to be" ?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't have to be a developer to see that NS was meant to be about more than just PvP fighting. Why else would flayra put so much effort into defensive/offense buildings? He would have just made CO probably.
In 2.0 you res######d for an onos and you were unstopable with redemption(yes you could get moved to hive with ha's or some less heavy marine in your stomach) fades were tanks with regen, hitboxes were ###### up, it was alien domination time, with the newest ns versions it started to be less easy for aliens till now, as for 3.2 it's very balanced version, as aliens you still have a chance to win even when your opponent has ha's and locked down hives, all you have to do is chew nodes cut them from resuplies and build your own rt's and defend them and get as many fades as possible and get back some hive i guess it's all about experience.
You're right - CS is harder.
To address your point of "omg the pros are dominating", I'm gonna turn your attention briefly to Quake3 - arguably one of the most popular online games ever, in which a player only a limited amount more skilled than another can rack up scores of 25-1. Yet it's one of the most popular games ever. Do the math.
As for "reflex game with a strategy label" I'm not even going to bother writing an essay to explain why you are wrong, because basically it isn't worth my time - suffice to say you are wrong and other people will explain why in like 5 posts time.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope, CS is easier.
Don't bring up the crap that is Quake3.
And don't be lazy and defend your own arguments.
Nope, CS is easier.
Don't bring up the crap that is Quake3.
And don't be lazy and defend your own arguments.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you attempting to be ironic?
<!--coloro:#FF6600--><span style="color:#FF6600"><!--/coloro-->Disrespect that has been removed. -Digz<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So don't bite eachothers heads off. I apologize for a stupidly long post, but, just.. talk. And don't flame. ><;<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd say some rude stuff but that'd probably make me a hippo-crit, so I'm going to sum up my feelings on your general disregard for another person's opinion with two words: frilly laces. I think I've proven my point.
When I was younger, and I'd get really into a game, I'd hold off going to the bathroom. This didn't start with NS; it started with C&C Red Alert, where I'd get into these long drawn out skirmishes for three hours and afterwards charge into the bathroom. Sure, I could've paused, but I was "in the zone".
With NS, it used to be the same; the three hours of adrenaline, "we're winning!" "we're losing <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />" "winning!" "losing <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />" etc etc. Sure, I'd get up and go to the bathroom, but I'd "rush it", if you know what I mean. ("intermission" for #2, as I call it).
Anyway, bottom line is it would be nice to see some sort of extended version of ns_, but I can't really think of the practicality of it.
Ontopic:
Is there any way to see statistics on how long ns_ games actually take?
To slow down the game, what about making upgrades available after a certain amount of time?
Removing turrets/oc's, interesting idea, perhaps making a plugin for it, so the effect can be tested?
--Some games are balanced, some games are unbalanced, strictly due to which players are on which teams and how well they are playing today.
--Unbalanced games <i>don't need to be slowed down</i>, as they arent much fun anyway. Slowing them down just drags out the pain, without changing anything.
--Balanced games are already longer than average, and the more balanced they are, the longer they are.
--The really epic perfectly balanced games currently last 30-90 minutes. 30-90 minutes is a GOOD time period. They don't need to be any longer than that. So they don't need to be slowed down either.
--Conclusion: <b>NS doesn't need to be slowed down.</b> We just need to do more to fight team-stacking.
--Some games are balanced, some games are unbalanced, strictly due to which players are on which teams and how well they are playing today.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is not technically correct. Game balance should not depend on which players are on which teams. That is the topic of server and player balance, which is independent of game balance.
<!--quoteo(post=1615797:date=Mar 20 2007, 10:20 AM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Mar 20 2007, 10:20 AM) [snapback]1615797[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
--Unbalanced games <i>don't need to be slowed down</i>, as they arent much fun anyway. Slowing them down just drags out the pain, without changing anything.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The process of slowing down an unbalanced game may involve changes that make it more balanced. In no way is it suggested that NS be scaled to be longer with all else held equal.
<!--quoteo(post=1615797:date=Mar 20 2007, 10:20 AM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Mar 20 2007, 10:20 AM) [snapback]1615797[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
--Balanced games are already longer than average, and the more balanced they are, the longer they are.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They are not longer, unless by "average' you mean 5 mins. If you pit the best clans against each other, you will see that the rounds will take ~15 mins. Pubs are not a good indicator of game balance, unless by "balanced" you mean that both sides make plenty of mistakes that allow the game to drag on longer than it should. The epic games are caused by poor players and poor teamwork. They may be related to game balance, but due to the ambiguity in what causes these epic events (i.e. different sequences of mistakes), you cannot really extract any useful information from them about game balance.
<!--quoteo(post=1615797:date=Mar 20 2007, 10:20 AM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Mar 20 2007, 10:20 AM) [snapback]1615797[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
--Conclusion: <b>NS doesn't need to be slowed down.</b> We just need to do more to fight team-stacking.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Team stacking is the least of NS's worries.
I've played since the first day, and I'll tell you one thing, by 1.04 there were a lot of people who knew exactly how to play the game well. I used to feel like part of a team before 2.0, now its just a rush and see who can get the most kills. The reason they took long, or could, is because there were chances to recover from a loss and the games would swing back and fourth. I can remember games where all hives were lost and aliens came back, sure they were rare, but it could happen. Part of the problem is R4K, once one side starts winning it becomes easier and easier since res is flowing faster. This makes 1 or 2 really good players on a team too valuable, especially on marines where they all share in the res. 30 minutes to an hour would be a good average play time.
If R4K was a server setting I bet disabling this would slow games down quite a bit, and allow more comebacks.
The problem is when you are in a pub and you have a 50-5 score pro who generates 90% of the res for his team.
So yes, it is a problem due to the players involved and their skill.
You can't have a balanced game in chess if you have 1 queen and the other team has 4 queens. (queen being good players for those who don't know)
But they deserve to play.
So the goal is games with balanced skills on both sides. Either you tone the players, either buffing the weak or nerfing the strong, or you do something that forces the game to be played similarly - making it easier.
Look, I'm not parading making the game easier as the end-of solution that solves NS. If anyone has a way to keep teams balanced in skill I'm all for it. The best way I've found is to make the game easier.
A pro can't build res faster than a noob if they both hold the use key. With this logic, by making the game easier, skill has less of an impact than player amount.
So again, the goal is keeping teams balanced, so I'm for any methods to do this. But making the game easier is one way.
Look, I'm not parading making the game easier as the end-of solution that solves NS. If anyone has a way to keep teams balanced in skill I'm all for it. The best way I've found is to make the game easier. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I remember seeing that there was some ranking system suggestion somewhere on the forums which could help with balance. Maybe it could be made so that team 1 has an average skill of x, and team 2 can only have a maximum of x +2 skill average or something like that. I very, really, much doubt that would fit in with NS, but it's a random solution.
On a side note:
I think R4K should be removed because its this thing that makes comebacks a heck of a lot harder, especially when the marines are winning (they can tech up always, the aliens have a more limited amount of tech up). It might swing the favor either way, but i doubt it would be anything dramatic because it advantages both teams I think equally (correct me if I'm wrong).
Not having R4K also affects the teamwork aspect I was talking about, in that there would be less emphasis on skill and individual players because of many reasons (the one I'm thinking is that there would be more emphasis on RT's, which require teamwork to defend them, but there are many other reasons too). Stacked teams would be less of a factor with this removed too.
Not much to say really today, meh. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
The problem is when you are in a pub and you have a 50-5 score pro who generates 90% of the res for his team.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But shouldn't that player be rewarded? And isn't your team going to lose anyway if that player is good? So what's wrong with just helping the situation along (with RFK)?
The answers to those questions pretty much reveal your philosophy (if it can be called that) on team games.
theres not really any one simple solution to make games longer. the reason they are shorter now is because flayras vision for ns was to make it shorter. he has put into effect many changes to shorten games. not just a few that can be easily reversed to make longer more epic games, but many small things like aliens have self regen, or marines getting two handgrenades instead of just one. if ns, or ns2, has a lot of epic games its because flayra made lots and lots of changes to the current style. and flayra knows that most people in the community loved the longer games. if anyone remembers the ns survey that flayra put out one of the results he posted was "Longer games, more game modes"
he knows we want longer games. now its up to him to decide whether or not to give it to us. but im not expecting these longer games to come in ns, most likely it will be in ns2.
But shouldn't that player be rewarded? And isn't your team going to lose anyway if that player is good? So what's wrong with just helping the situation along (with RFK)?
The answers to those questions pretty much reveal your philosophy (if it can be called that) on team games.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->It's fun and all for the player to rack the kills, but it's rather boring for aliens, if you can't get out of the hive and not as fun for marines when you realize that you're not doing anything.
Strategy is ideally on equal grounds. You start with the same resources in starcraft. You start with the same units in chess. But when you start in chess with 4 queens (good players) and the other side has 1 queen, there's going to be a problem.
I just played a couple games today on bad. Games were going back and forth. Some games aliens would win through fades, but that changed when a few other marines came in. A guy named Romano, Makalevi I presume walked out of every game with a 30-5 score and with that, the aliens couldn't even get out of the hive. On Tanith, he alone locked the alien waste hive because his aim was superb and the com was there to spam him. On lost, he alone went to alpha hive that aliens started with and pretty soon locked it with his team. And later on eclipse, he locked us in eclipse hive and later on maintenance, all thanks to his aim.
Yes, we all strive to be better, but you have to wonder what happens to the game. None of our players could get out of the hive. We tried going through vents only to be met by marines outside. We tried lerking, but they still kept on pushing with turrets. And it takes forever to get to a fade when you have scores like 1-12, while marines are more like 10-1.
There needs to be a way to reduce the effectiveness of a marine rambo, so these situations don't happen by 1 player and a com. At the same time, a lot of people also have a hard time aiming. This creates a giant rift between those extremely skilled and those casual players.
--The really epic perfectly balanced games currently last 30-90 minutes. 30-90 minutes is a GOOD time period. They don't need to be any longer than that. So they don't need to be slowed down either.
--Conclusion: <b>NS doesn't need to be slowed down.</b> We just need to do more to fight team-stacking. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree quite strongly. 30-90 min should be the norm, NOT the exception. Yes make it strongly team oriented, but my point is that you never get time to develop complex strategies because it's all over too soon. So does that mean NS should be "slowed" down somehow? Yes I think so. For a long time I've felt RFK was one of the problems. That would also prevent teams from turtling forever since no RTs would mean no resources at all.
DRagon, sorry to have been snappy. I just get so tired of people posting without thinking or reading. Just try to pay attention to what kind of thread it is. Most of us have posted longer discussions and not the typical simplistic chatter you see in other threads like the ones in the Off-Topic forum.
And leave comparisons to CS out of this, all of you. That's way off-topic. We are talking about a Combat mode and what is supposed to be an RTS in an FPS field of play. (although sometime I feel it has become more of a FPS with an unworthy dose of RTS)
This is not technically correct. Game balance should not depend on which players are on which teams. That is the topic of server and player balance, which is independent of game balance.
The process of slowing down an unbalanced game may involve changes that make it more balanced. In no way is it suggested that NS be scaled to be longer with all else held equal.
They are not longer, unless by "average' you mean 5 mins. If you pit the best clans against each other, you will see that the rounds will take ~15 mins. Pubs are not a good indicator of game balance, unless by "balanced" you mean that both sides make plenty of mistakes that allow the game to drag on longer than it should. The epic games are caused by poor players and poor teamwork. They may be related to game balance, but due to the ambiguity in what causes these epic events (i.e. different sequences of mistakes), you cannot really extract any useful information from them about game balance.
Team stacking is the least of NS's worries.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Suppose I take your words as given, that long epic games are caused by bad players, and good players will have short games (which I dont think is true, but just for the sake of argument).
In that case, why are you arguing for more epic games to begin with? According to you, the epic games are really just bad games in disguise.
Just in case this is causing confusion: When I say "balanced games", the word "game" is not referring to "NS in general", but "one particular round of NS in which one team will win". That particular game was balanced if the two teams played to about the same level of performance. Its not terribly important whether they are good or bad, just that they are the same level of good or bad. A game is unbalanced if one team plays noticeably better than the other, whether thats because they are just more skilled in general, or because they happened to pull off a lot of really good teamwork even without a ton of individual skill, or whatever.
<!--quoteo(post=1615937:date=Mar 20 2007, 11:02 PM:name=the_x5)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_x5 @ Mar 20 2007, 11:02 PM) [snapback]1615937[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I disagree quite strongly. 30-90 min should be the norm, NOT the exception. Yes make it strongly team oriented, but my point is that you never get time to develop complex strategies because it's all over too soon. So does that mean NS should be "slowed" down somehow? Yes I think so. For a long time I've felt RFK was one of the problems. That would also prevent teams from turtling forever since no RTs would mean no resources at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The way I've stated it is that the closely balanced games already reach that threshold, and the unbalanced games do not and should not. Is it your desire that unbalanced games in which one team is clearly winning should still drag out to 30 minutes every time? Or are you disagreeing with some part of my model, but forgot to mention it?
get cloaking and kill makaveli a few times and he will leave. either that or own you even harder than before <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->He's a good player no doubt. But it gets to a point where he needs to be in his own class. Something like how they have light and heavyweights in boxing.
But NS is a game that bunches everyone together...
<insert generic "learn to play" comment here>
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<insert generic "learn to think" comment here>
Saying "learn to play" to solve an issue of an issue of skill differences just doesn't make sense. A lot of people aren't going to get great no matter how much they play. Also, as long as NS is alive there will always be new players coming in. Does that mean we should just completely ignore these two groups of players? Not if you want enough players to keep NS alive. Unless you are talking about clan matches, saying everyone should just learn to play doesn't answer the problems brought about by team stacking.
<insert generic "learn to think" comment here>
Saying "learn to play" to solve an issue of an issue of skill differences just doesn't make sense. A lot of people aren't going to get great no matter how much they play. Also, as long as NS is alive there will always be new players coming in. Does that mean we should just completely ignore these two groups of players? Not if you want enough players to keep NS alive. Unless you are talking about clan matches, saying everyone should just learn to play doesn't answer the problems brought about by team stacking.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's tactical skill, and then there's knowledge. Not everybody can bhop down 3 marines from the end of a hallway, but it doesn't take much to chew on nodes and heal teammates.