I dislike any notion of a system that makes a style of play impossible.
Why punish the player? Especially the good players.
I honestly like to, well, do whatever. Sure, I stick with people, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy attacking the alien hive on my own with a suicidal charge for the lulz.
It's a game. Let have people have fun by playing their way.
And besides, I've seen games where a single "rambo" brought his team to victory.
However, the benifits of sticking with a group outweigh the benifits of going it alone. Thus, squads naturally form as people don't want to die and hope following someone with increase their chances of survival.
<!--quoteo(post=1696222:date=Dec 16 2008, 09:02 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Dec 16 2008, 09:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696222"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Funny, I don't remember ever suggesting we mandate that marines travel in packs of 5+ at all times. People moving in pairs is cool with me. The devs have already discussed enhancing the squad system so if most marine teams are divided into squads of 2-4 operating separately I think that would be great.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because 5 wasn't an arbitrary number at all.
Let me rephrase: It's okay guys. It's common knowledge that teamwork is cluster######ing in as tight of a group as possible. If your view isn't being obscured by <u><b>3</b></u> other backpedaling marines you're not doing it right.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, having high dependence on your teammates for survival leading to a stronger sense of teamwork is more fun.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No actually playing the game to reach a common goal (victory) and having each player use his or her own talents to the best of his or her ability is more fun <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> Thanks again!
Quick question for you Zek. If a squad of 5 that is going to the opposite hive that the commander wants them to go to (i.e. comm wants squad to go to eclipse; squad goes to maintenance hive), are they using teamwork?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There are a number of pubs out there with a relatively high average skill level among regulars, and if you want a really good team you can play scrims. Bad teammates make for a bad game no matter how you slice it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would disagree with this statement entirely, I usually go aliens when I pub because marines are SO BAD. Even when I am commanding, pubbies cannot early pressure on the alien squads so we have to settle for a 2 hive LOLdown. Its amazing how many marines will sit in an empty hive when I am telling them that the 2nd hive is going up and we need to attack NOW. So I don't bother playing marines really, unless I have two or three guys that I know will listen and play well. I have yet to see that high average skill players that were not competitive play pubs anymore. Scrims really do not exist anymore, and PUGS are a roll of the dice concerning what team you get on. If bad teammates make for a bad game, why not allow a player who can contribute to the team a slight distance away go off on his or her own
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->At the same time, Empires allows the 'rambo'. There's a class dedicated to sneaking in alone and disabling the enemy's buildings. It's also not a bad idea for a solo jeep or tank to disorient the enemy team. Of course, if they're ineffective, good players will quickly re-join the main force.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> "Oh there you go bringing class into the game" <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> I hope you know that quote.
Probably it should be possible for a commander to reinforce a squad with new members that died, so for example that the dead member respawns near the squad, but slower and some other disadvantages, or you need to tech to make it able to let your marines respawn next to the core squad (via Droppods like in Dawn of War ... okay its a little hard to do if you are running around in a building all the time but ... <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> some teleporting might work)
The further the Squad is away from an IP the slower it will respawn to his squad (if the marine or the commander chooses him to ofc.) Otherwise it would be too overpowered. The Squad should contain of a certain number of marines to make it possible to respawn next to your squad members, so you shouldn't be allowed to teleport your marines across the map ... it feels to me that this problem of splitting up isn't easy to fix ... probably it will be enough to automatically add a waypoint for the dead member where he has to go, to meet with his squad again.
In general it is a much better idea not to force people to squad up by just give them huge disadvantages, instead make it easier to act as a squad, make it easier to find your way back to your squad, if you get lost or killed and so on. And do not try to make it like L4D, that you just use one button to kill a single marine, feels very lame to me. Basically the problem is that a rambo marine shouldn't survive a rambo-ambushing skulk, or what was it ?
I believe this whole argument isn't really about teamwork or strategy. EVERYONE who plays NS can agree that strategy/teamwork is important to the game, otherwise they would be playing CS. What Zek & friends are arguing is that players should only be limited to having teammates within sight range, AKA the squad play mechanic. More reasonable/experienced* at NS forum users are suggesting that teamwork/strategy isn't limited to sight range, but can occur at radar range. This is basically an argument concerning squad size, sight range squads vs a single map sized squad. The latter made NS what it is due to more strategic freedom.
*I'm not being condescending, firewater is really more experienced than you and it would be rude to suggest otherwise.
I would also like to add that mainstream developers aren't known for their creativity, therefore don't take any mainstream unoriginal games as examples of what NS2 should be. Original games have the potential to be very popular, look at spore and little big planet.
L4D developers went for an intimate feel for their characters where nobody is ever more than one meter away from anyone else. This isn't the most limiting way of implementing strategy possible. Wait what is anytime saying? Can you really have strategy that doesn't involve touching (sorry for the pun) your teammates? Have a scenario:
Let's say you need to protect a marine who is building a resource node.
This is how L4D would handle it and how anti-rambo proponents want NS2 to be: Four people huddle around the capper, praying that the team doesn't get bdropped by buggy skulks.
This is how NS2 should handle it, with extrapolation from the original: Capper is on the far side of the map. Pressure team of three players is shooting a node and covering one of the two fast routes on the hive side. Pressure set up sentries on the other fast route, moments prior, blocking skulks from passing. John Rambo is crouching behind some wall waiting to ambush the gorge that's inevitably going to come up to spit the low hp, but relatively high damage sentries down. Commander listens to the vents and informs the capper that he has a lerk and two skulks coming from the vent next to him. Lerk gets pistoled down. Two skulks kill capper and desperately attack base. Marines walk into the hive unopposed and end the game.
<!--quoteo(post=1696222:date=Dec 16 2008, 06:02 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Dec 16 2008, 06:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696222"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So you're telling me that no marine team ever sends out players alone for any reason during an evenly-matched scrim? It certainly happens all the time in evenly matched pub games of respectable skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The last time I can recall any competitive team opening up with a solo capper was Reflect, who sent Mustang out to solo cap. They quickly stopped doing that because Mustang would die while capping. There's a multitude of ways to take out a marine building a RT alone, you could ambush him, you could rush in while he's building and exploit the delay it takes to get your weapon out, you could parasite him and wait for another alien to come by then attack together, you could get a Lerk to spore and bite, etc. It only really works when the aliens are just individually at a much lower level than the marines, or when the rest of the marine team is keeping them too busy to devote attention to the solo capper (And of course, the irony here is being able to successfully solo cap actually depends on TEAMWORK, just not in the form of placing all your eggs in one basket)
<!--quoteo(post=1696350:date=Dec 18 2008, 09:16 PM:name=SgtHydra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SgtHydra @ Dec 18 2008, 09:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696350"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I dislike any notion of a system that makes a style of play impossible.
Why punish the player? Especially the good players.
...
However, the benifits of sticking with a group outweigh the benifits of going it alone. Thus, squads naturally form as people don't want to die and hope following someone with increase their chances of survival.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sigh. See my previous post. Correct me if I'm wrong, Zek, but I don't think either one of us is arguing that squad play is forced. I've continually said so, and yet people seem fixated on this, so I'll clarify once again.
Lets take an undesireable marine strategy. Technically a player should be able to do anything, even if it is not the right style of play, right? So lets say my marine strategy is to ignore all alien encounters so I can get to the hive faster, and once I arrive, I'll knife the hive to death. In likely probability, I won't even make it to the hive. I might even get lucky and get to the hive room but I likely wouldn't be able to knife the hive more than once before getting a bitegun in the rear end.
Nobody is stopping me to play that way by game rules or otherwise (though you might frustrate your teammates for playing badly). Now what's the difference between this an ramboing? Difference is that one is obviously a bad strategy while the other in a team-oriented game *should* but isn't necessarily a bad strategy. I fail to see why just because you *can* rambo with relative success in natural selection that should imply nothing should change for natural selection 2.
It's like finding a bug in a program which causes it to crash hitting alt + F, and when the creators of this program apologize and insist on correcting it immediately, all the users send e-mails of complaint insisting that hitting alt + F is a great way to exit the program without saving and should be left alone. Ramboing is NOT a positive aspect. You should be able to play it, but you should get little to no success.
<!--quoteo(post=1696364:date=Dec 19 2008, 07:40 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Dec 19 2008, 07:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696364"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Quick question for you Zek. If a squad of 5 that is going to the opposite hive that the commander wants them to go to (i.e. comm wants squad to go to eclipse; squad goes to maintenance hive), are they using teamwork?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, it wouldn't. Teamwork is more than clustering. I don't think Zek nor myself has refuted this fact. The fact that clustering doesn't always signify teamwork doesn't imply the opposite, that solo play can still be teamwork. That's faulty logic.
<!--quoteo(post=1696396:date=Dec 19 2008, 07:04 PM:name=1mannARMEE)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(1mannARMEE @ Dec 19 2008, 07:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696396"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In general it is a much better idea not to force people to squad up by just give them huge disadvantages, instead make it easier to act as a squad, make it easier to find your way back to your squad, if you get lost or killed and so on. And do not try to make it like L4D, that you just use one button to kill a single marine, feels very lame to me. Basically the problem is that a rambo marine shouldn't survive a rambo-ambushing skulk, or what was it ?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> See above. A) No strategy is forced. There are only winning strategies and losing strategies. B) If I were playing CS and wanted to separate from my group, I could do so. Nothing would stop me. However what are the odds that I'd accomplish any of the objectives? I'd die quickly, and rightly so.
<!--quoteo(post=1696434:date=Dec 20 2008, 03:12 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Dec 20 2008, 03:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696434"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I believe this whole argument isn't really about teamwork or strategy. EVERYONE who plays NS can agree that strategy/teamwork is important to the game, otherwise they would be playing CS. What Zek & friends are arguing is that players should only be limited to having teammates within sight range, AKA the squad play mechanic. More reasonable/experienced* at NS forum users are suggesting that teamwork/strategy isn't limited to sight range, but can occur at radar range. This is basically an argument concerning squad size, sight range squads vs a single map sized squad. The latter made NS what it is due to more strategic freedom.
*I'm not being condescending, firewater is really more experienced than you and it would be rude to suggest otherwise.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Working towards a common goal without working in teams is better than doing your own thing, however playing in teams should be even better, wouldn't you agree?
And incidentally, I'm not being condescending either. By the way, condescending means "talk down to."
<!--quoteo(post=1696436:date=Dec 20 2008, 03:39 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Dec 20 2008, 03:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696436"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Let's say you need to protect a marine who is building a resource node.
This is how L4D would handle it and how anti-rambo proponents want NS2 to be: Four people huddle around the capper, praying that the team doesn't get bdropped by buggy skulks.
This is how NS2 should handle it, with extrapolation from the original: Capper is on the far side of the map. Pressure team of three players is shooting a node and covering one of the two fast routes on the hive side. Pressure set up sentries on the other fast route, moments prior, blocking skulks from passing. John Rambo is crouching behind some wall waiting to ambush the gorge that's inevitably going to come up to spit the low hp, but relatively high damage sentries down. Commander listens to the vents and informs the capper that he has a lerk and two skulks coming from the vent next to him. Lerk gets pistoled down. Two skulks kill capper and desperately attack base. Marines walk into the hive unopposed and end the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your scenario of how NS2 should handle it is a demonstration of teamwork and squad play. If this is what you wish in NS2, then whatever your name for this is our name for teamwork. However, one thing this scenario is not is a rambo system. I invite you to say otherwise.
Rambo system for me is not having everyone on vent and organizing marine pressure point squads while a single marine takes out nodes with little worry of having incoming hostiles. Rambo system for me is spawning, getting ammo, running off into the deepest darkest parts of the map and trying to piss off a few aliens because it's fun playing deathmatch. If you play as such, you should NEVER do well unless you were just extremely lucky or your comm was stupid enough to equip you well before you left base.
If you're alone because the rest of your team has you covered, in a way you're not alone at all. That's not "rambo" style. That's teamwork. If all this time you thought we meant that players should be forced into 4-man teams no farther than 1 meter apart, it's apparent to me at least that you've poorly understood our argument. I recommend you reread this thread from page one and not jump past the pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 before arriving at page 7 this time.
Basically my argument can be neatly summarized in one sentence:
If a single marine acting by himself is ambushed by a single skulk of respectable skill, that marine should die almost every time.
Whether or not you choose to stick with your teammates to counter that is your choice, but IMHO that fear of prowling skulks is the most basic tenet of the marine concept. In NS that is not the case at all. If you watch the vents and know the ambush spots it's very difficult for a hive 1 skulk to get the jump on you in the first place - yes there's a delay in taking your gun out while building, but most nodes aren't close enough to a vent or corner for that to be enough. Even if they do bite you it's very possible to get back to range and finish them off thanks to bite knockback and glidejumping, and even in point blank range you have a decent chance of out-DPSing the skulk if you can aim. Marines shouldn't be able to beat skulks at their own game so easily. I feel that this was the intent from the beginning but it just wasn't executed properly in NS, and now NS2 is our chance to get it right.
<!--quoteo(post=1696561:date=Dec 22 2008, 05:39 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Dec 22 2008, 05:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696561"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Basically my argument can be neatly summarized in one sentence:
If a single marine acting by himself is ambushed by a single skulk of respectable skill, that marine should die almost every time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is why your argument is flawed.
You are not taking into consideration the skill of the marine.
<!--quoteo(post=1696567:date=Dec 22 2008, 07:13 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Dec 22 2008, 07:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696567"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Which is why your argument is flawed.
You are not taking into consideration the skill of the marine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I didn't say it doesn't matter, but it shouldn't be possible to be good enough to trump 90% of skulks in a normally disadvantageous situation. Putting it in numbers, let's say a person's skill can be measured from 1 to 10. In a totally neutral game, the person with higher skill number almost always wins. Suppose in NS2, a skulk successfully executing an ambush adds a +5 modifier. So if the skulk is of skill 6(say, an experienced pubber), a good ambush puts him at 11 so even a base skill 10 marine would rarely win. But if the skulk ambushes poorly it's only a +3 and a really good marine can beat him. Other examples of things that act as "skill modifiers" are higher lifeforms, better guns, etc. Don't read into the numbers too much, the point is that skill is a prerequisite to use the tools and opportunities available to you, but it's not the sole determining factor in a fight.
Having other factors beyond raw twitch skill and experience is appropriate because this is an FPS/RTS - the RTS aspect affects everybody, not just the commander. Walking into an alien trap is an RTS blunder which trumps your FPS skill. If the marine is soloing and he runs into an Onos, his skill means zilch - how come you're not complaining about that?
<!--quoteo(post=1696569:date=Dec 22 2008, 07:34 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Dec 22 2008, 07:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696569"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I didn't say it doesn't matter, but it shouldn't be possible to be good enough to trump 90% of skulks in a normally disadvantageous situation. Putting it in numbers, let's say a person's skill can be measured from 1 to 10. In a totally neutral game, the person with higher skill number almost always wins. Suppose in NS2, a skulk successfully executing an ambush adds a +5 modifier. So if the skulk is of skill 6(say, an experienced pubber), a good ambush puts him at 11 so even a base skill 10 marine would rarely win. But if the skulk ambushes poorly it's only a +3 and a really good marine can beat him. Other examples of things that act as "skill modifiers" are higher lifeforms, better guns, etc. Don't read into the numbers too much, the point is that skill is a prerequisite to use the tools and opportunities available to you, but it's not the sole determining factor in a fight.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You didn't say it did matter either. Basically your sentence edges towards a "hard counter" at first look (i.e. Firebat vs. Mutalisk). Why shouldn't skill be the overwhelming decider of who wins an encounter?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Having other factors beyond raw twitch skill and experience is appropriate because this is an FPS/RTS - the RTS aspect affects everybody, not just the commander. Walking into an alien trap is an RTS blunder which trumps your FPS skill. If the marine is soloing and he runs into an Onos, his skill means zilch - how come you're not complaining about that?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Including the aliens. If the commander decides to med spam or pay more attention to the solo player who is doing well, he or she will most likely last longer due to that commander attention. Yet you have never mentioned the commander in any of your arguments as if it is a passive/unimportant role in the solo marine's life span. I've always said that the Onos takes no skill to play/defeat, allow me to reference a post I created called framework for design <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=98671&hl=" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...c=98671&hl=</a>
Why you are bringing up an Onos in a discussion about skulks is beyond me.
<!--quoteo(post=1696576:date=Dec 22 2008, 09:06 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Dec 22 2008, 09:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696576"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You didn't say it did matter either. Basically your sentence edges towards a "hard counter" at first look (i.e. Firebat vs. Mutalisk). Why shouldn't skill be the overwhelming decider of who wins an encounter?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well I just said it matters. "Situational advantage" != "hard counter." Don't forget that the inverse is also true - a marine standing in the open is basically impervious to a hive 1 skulk no matter how it tries to attack. No amount of skill will allow it to close that distance if the marine can aim. Same should go in reverse for an ambushing skulk.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Including the aliens. If the commander decides to med spam or pay more attention to the solo player who is doing well, he or she will most likely last longer due to that commander attention. Yet you have never mentioned the commander in any of your arguments as if it is a passive/unimportant role in the solo marine's life span.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because thus far we've been talking about how the marines should interact with eachother on the field, the commander is a separate entity. Certainly medspamming is teamwork on the part of the comm but it doesn't reflect anything on the marine. A lone marine being maintained by an IV of miracle drugs from the sky still isn't at all the same thing as them actually sticking together.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I've always said that the Onos takes no skill to play/defeat, allow me to reference a post I created called framework for design <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=98671&hl=" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...c=98671&hl=</a>
Why you are bringing up an Onos in a discussion about skulks is beyond me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because an Onos is the most obvious example of a unit that overrides twitch skills in favor of the RTS aspect of the game. You need the basic skills to know how to play/fight one and from that point on it's all in the strategy and tactics. The point being that twitch skills not being the sole determinant of a fight is a defining characteristic of NS - sometimes your mistake has already happened by the time the fight starts and all that's left is to die.
<!--quoteo(post=1696567:date=Dec 22 2008, 07:13 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Dec 22 2008, 07:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696567"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Which is why your argument is flawed.
You are not taking into consideration the skill of the marine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> To clarify things, I think it should be said that there is a scale with two extremes here.
One which says that a player could own any lifeform if they were skilled enough. That is to say, take a marine with no equipment and no weapon and put him in an environment in which he's got a fade to his rear, an onos to his front, and while he may not kill them both, he could perhaps put enough bullets in the fade all to send him retreating, all the while dodging onos attacks, and then outrun the onos to retreat to base. Seems ludicrious, but this is one extreme.
The other says that a marine and skulk should have a death to kill ratio of 1 to 1, and that any higher lifeform should kill a marine with no armor or weapon upgrade as if the game were starcraft and that battles could almost be simulated. Firstly, I don't even think that's possible with human players, but even if it were, it trashes the concept of skill in a player.
I think the model we would want is somewhere in the middle. That is to say, while a player couldn't storm into a hive and effectively clear out the room and spawn camp until he runs out of ammo, he isn't owned by the first skulk which comes along as determined by straight statistics either. Zek's example was simply trying to demonstrate that if skill were a number which demonstrated the capability of a player and a greater number than another means one player could overcome the other, being in a advantageous position should augment that number, enough so that even a veteran player would have difficulty overcoming (thus making a veteran player more cautious to never put himself in such situations to begin with).
Obviously a player's skill cannot be measured by a number, or if it could, it'd have way too many factors to know at any given time what that number would be. However in this way, both the skill of the player and the positioning of that player should play a factor in being able to overcome another. In this respect, if a skulk in ambush doesn't help his chances of overcoming a player, it means there's no position (at least for the Kharaa) which helps increase the skill of a skulk as the skill of a marine player skilled enough can easily overcome any advantage in position the skulk might warrant.
I think if a player is so good that he can overcome most any ambush he could encounter, there's something wrong with the gameplay. On the contrary, I think the rest of you are leaning a lot towards the rambo extreme. Zek and I simply want something in the middle of this scale.
Thank you Hawkeye. Player skill should be a factor, not pure equipment. We aren't actually RTS units with stats that dictate everything we do. However, we should be limited by the stats we are given due to gameplay flow.
I don't know what game you guys are playing but in my game, if you rambo off I will yell at you because you will die to the next one or two skulks around the corner. If that won't get you, then the lerk will. I don't think you need to add any more incentive to decrease ramboing.
<!--quoteo(post=1696539:date=Dec 22 2008, 02:03 PM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Dec 22 2008, 02:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696539"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Working towards a common goal without working in teams is better than doing your own thing, however playing in teams should be even better, wouldn't you agree?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You missed/sidestepped the WHOLE point. Being within sight range isn't a prerequisite for being inside of a squad OR playing as a team.
me:<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->*I'm not being condescending, firewater is really more experienced than you and it would be rude to suggest otherwise.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> you:<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And incidentally, I'm not being condescending either. By the way, condescending means "talk down to."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> what
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your scenario of how NS2 should handle it is a demonstration of teamwork and squad play. If this is what you wish in NS2, then whatever your name for this is our name for teamwork. However, one thing this scenario is not is a rambo system. I invite you to say otherwise.
Rambo system for me is not having everyone on vent and organizing marine pressure point squads while a single marine takes out nodes with little worry of having incoming hostiles. Rambo system for me is spawning, getting ammo, running off into the deepest darkest parts of the map and trying to piss off a few aliens because it's fun playing deathmatch. If you play as such, you should NEVER do well unless you were just extremely lucky or your comm was stupid enough to equip you well before you left base.
If you're alone because the rest of your team has you covered, in a way you're not alone at all. That's not "rambo" style. That's teamwork. If all this time you thought we meant that players should be forced into 4-man teams no farther than 1 meter apart, it's apparent to me at least that you've poorly understood our argument. I recommend you reread this thread from page one and not jump past the pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 before arriving at page 7 this time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Heh I don't know what you've been reading but in my story, I had one rambo solo a gorge and another one solo a lerk. Fade knifing is coming next. The three marines are shooting the RT together because there is no way in hell that they would be able to do that with any less people due to NS gameplay.
Furthermore, your description of ramboing as doing nothing but shooting skulks is actually a completely different topic. Instead of saying that we should ban all players that are somewhere by themselves, isn't it better to say that we should ban players that have the prime directive to kill skulks and nothing else? I am not going to agree with you on that topic either, but it seems like what you should be pushing that instead.
<!--quoteo(post=1696603:date=Dec 23 2008, 11:00 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Dec 23 2008, 11:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696603"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To clarify things, I think it should be said that there is a scale with two extremes here.
One which says that a player could own any lifeform if they were skilled enough. That is to say, take a marine with no equipment and no weapon and put him in an environment in which he's got a fade to his rear, an onos to his front, and while he may not kill them both, he could perhaps put enough bullets in the fade all to send him retreating, all the while dodging onos attacks, and then outrun the onos to retreat to base. Seems ludicrious, but this is one extreme.
The other says that a marine and skulk should have a death to kill ratio of 1 to 1, and that any higher lifeform should kill a marine with no armor or weapon upgrade as if the game were starcraft and that battles could almost be simulated. Firstly, I don't even think that's possible with human players, but even if it were, it trashes the concept of skill in a player.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're wrong. One extreme would be to say that a marine with the rough equivalent skill level of god will kill any amount of any lifeform with any weapon and upgrade level at any point in time. Starcraft is the other extreme. NS1 is the middle.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think if a player is so good that he can overcome most any ambush he could encounter, there's something wrong with the gameplay. On the contrary, I think the rest of you are leaning a lot towards the rambo extreme. Zek and I simply want something in the middle of this scale.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree with that first sentence there. Of course in NS, no marine can overcome most any ambush he can encounter at his skill level.
<!--quoteo(post=1696603:date=Dec 23 2008, 06:00 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Dec 23 2008, 06:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696603"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To clarify things, I think it should be said that there is a scale with two extremes here.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->One which says that a player could own any lifeform if they were skilled enough. That is to say, take a marine with no equipment and no weapon and put him in an environment in which he's got a fade to his rear, an onos to his front, and while he may not kill them both, he could perhaps put enough bullets in the fade all to send him retreating, all the while dodging onos attacks, and then outrun the onos to retreat to base. Seems ludicrious, but this is one extreme.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your assessment of the argument is incorrect. We are saying that skill against the basic unit (i.e. skulk) in solo play should be as least likely as possible to be determined by anything other than skill. When fades lerks and even gorges come into the mix, its an entirely different ball game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The other says that a marine and skulk should have a death to kill ratio of 1 to 1, and that any higher lifeform should kill a marine with no armor or weapon upgrade as if the game were starcraft and that battles could almost be simulated. Firstly, I don't even think that's possible with human players, but even if it were, it trashes the concept of skill in a player.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Limiting a player in the early game by anything but skill will collapse the marine side entirely. Aliens will simply out tech the marines in the beginning.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the model we would want is somewhere in the middle. That is to say, while a player couldn't storm into a hive and effectively clear out the room and spawn camp until he runs out of ammo, he isn't owned by the first skulk which comes along as determined by straight statistics either. Zek's example was simply trying to demonstrate that if skill were a number which demonstrated the capability of a player and a greater number than another means one player could overcome the other, being in a advantageous position should augment that number, enough so that even a veteran player would have difficulty overcoming (thus making a veteran player more cautious to never put himself in such situations to begin with).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why are there hard expectations for a player's survivability? Why are the shoulds and should nots even in the equation? WHAT is your expectation based on? The only should that I see that exists is that if a player can use his or her weapons effectively they SHOULD be able to continue until the opposing force stops him or her. Why is this not being addressed? Why are the expectations again based on some poorly constructed concept of teamwork and misguided properties of balance.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think if a player is so good that he can overcome most any ambush he could encounter, there's something wrong with the gameplay. On the contrary, I think the rest of you are leaning a lot towards the rambo extreme. Zek and I simply want something in the middle of this scale.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How is that not skill communism again? The ONLY limiting factor in any respectable traditional game with OpFor should be the player themselves, not an expectation set by people who do not fully understand the game's balance mechanics.
<!--quoteo(post=1696300:date=Dec 17 2008, 11:58 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Dec 17 2008, 11:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696300"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Squad play is more fun than solo fighting.
Oh, hey, look how that works.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just played l4d. I've heard a lot of hype on this forum about the amount of teamwork in that game. Yeah. This is what you can do: Not hurt your teammates. Give meds. Help fallen teammates. Shoot skulks (I'm sorry, ZOMBIES) off of your teammates.
Playing zombies on the other hand has a lot more teamwork potential with positioning/coordinating hunters, smokers and boomers. Of course the NS1 alien team has to have 5000000000000 more strategies than the zombies in order to win.
<!--quoteo(post=1697165:date=Jan 5 2009, 12:02 PM:name=Opprobrious)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Opprobrious @ Jan 5 2009, 12:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697165"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There isn't a rambo problem in NS.
In any event, using anecdotes from particular games is not evidence.
Obviously, a fps shooter will reward people with the highest situational awareness and twitch skill.
Rambo marines are easily put down by a competent alien team. Higher lifeforms are available, lerks should be up in the first 2 minutes.
If you are being dominated by an lmg, you are simply being out-played. That is all there is to it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Word. Putting a player that can dominate others in a group will just make that group dominate. If you really want to bring down solo play, buff skulks, or get better at the game.
<!--quoteo(post=1697250:date=Jan 6 2009, 04:54 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 6 2009, 04:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697250"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Word. Putting a player that can dominate others in a group will just make that group dominate. If you really want to bring down solo play, <b>buff skulks,</b> or get better at the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I haven't been in the thread in a while and this striked me. Weren't you against the change of the current status quo? Increasing the strength of skulk means the equivalent weakening of the marine in early game, which curbs the rambo behavior you are advocating to a great degree since once fade comes in, that anti-rambo torch is carried.
<!--quoteo(post=1697259:date=Jan 6 2009, 09:38 PM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sirot @ Jan 6 2009, 09:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697259"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I haven't been in the thread in a while and this striked me. Weren't you against the change of the current status quo? Increasing the strength of skulk means the equivalent weakening of the marine in early game, which curbs the rambo behavior you are advocating to a great degree since once fade comes in, that anti-rambo torch is carried.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I'm not for any system that restricts play based on a silly notion of "ridiculous" or "its not supposed to be that way". I always felt that the early game skulks needed a buff, as you can read in my post frame work for design.
<!--quoteo(post=1697277:date=Jan 7 2009, 01:15 PM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sirot @ Jan 7 2009, 01:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697277"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just checking. I am jumping into this argument again.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Certainly with not the current logic which was presented.
<!--quoteo(post=1697270:date=Jan 7 2009, 11:02 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 7 2009, 11:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697270"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, I'm not for any system that restricts play based on a silly notion of "ridiculous" or "its not supposed to be that way". I always felt that the early game skulks needed a buff, as you can read in my post frame work for design.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Then what's your basis for buffing skulks?
The whole NS system is deeply flawed and there isn't one gameplay element you can change to fix it. I'd say that the problem lies just past the early game. Resupply LMG vs Celerity skulk is well balanced.
<!--quoteo(post=1697285:date=Jan 7 2009, 02:47 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 7 2009, 02:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697285"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Then what's your basis for buffing skulks?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I always just felt that the skulk just needed a little buff considering they are a defensive class at hive 1. What I mean by buff is simply some more armor or HP, and just a slight amount to increase the skulk value. Another way to buff skulks are to increase respawn times, but I think that would be too drastic.
Comments
Why punish the player? Especially the good players.
I honestly like to, well, do whatever. Sure, I stick with people, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy attacking the alien hive on my own with a suicidal charge for the lulz.
It's a game. Let have people have fun by playing their way.
And besides, I've seen games where a single "rambo" brought his team to victory.
However, the benifits of sticking with a group outweigh the benifits of going it alone. Thus, squads naturally form as people don't want to die and hope following someone with increase their chances of survival.
Because 5 wasn't an arbitrary number at all.
Let me rephrase:
It's okay guys. It's common knowledge that teamwork is cluster######ing in as tight of a group as possible. If your view isn't being obscured by <u><b>3</b></u> other backpedaling marines you're not doing it right.
No actually playing the game to reach a common goal (victory) and having each player use his or her own talents to the best of his or her ability is more fun <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> Thanks again!
Quick question for you Zek. If a squad of 5 that is going to the opposite hive that the commander wants them to go to (i.e. comm wants squad to go to eclipse; squad goes to maintenance hive), are they using teamwork?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There are a number of pubs out there with a relatively high average skill level among regulars, and if you want a really good team you can play scrims. Bad teammates make for a bad game no matter how you slice it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would disagree with this statement entirely, I usually go aliens when I pub because marines are SO BAD. Even when I am commanding, pubbies cannot early pressure on the alien squads so we have to settle for a 2 hive LOLdown. Its amazing how many marines will sit in an empty hive when I am telling them that the 2nd hive is going up and we need to attack NOW. So I don't bother playing marines really, unless I have two or three guys that I know will listen and play well. I have yet to see that high average skill players that were not competitive play pubs anymore. Scrims really do not exist anymore, and PUGS are a roll of the dice concerning what team you get on. If bad teammates make for a bad game, why not allow a player who can contribute to the team a slight distance away go off on his or her own
Probably it should be possible for a commander to reinforce a squad with new members that died, so for example that the dead member respawns near the squad, but slower and some other disadvantages, or you need to tech to make it able to let your marines respawn next to the core squad (via Droppods like in Dawn of War ... okay its a little hard to do if you are running around in a building all the time but ... <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> some teleporting might work)
The further the Squad is away from an IP the slower it will respawn to his squad (if the marine or the commander chooses him to ofc.) Otherwise it would be too overpowered. The Squad should contain of a certain number of marines to make it possible to respawn next to your squad members, so you shouldn't be allowed to teleport your marines across the map ... it feels to me that this problem of splitting up isn't easy to fix ... probably it will be enough to automatically add a waypoint for the dead member where he has to go, to meet with his squad again.
In general it is a much better idea not to force people to squad up by just give them huge disadvantages, instead make it easier to act as a squad, make it easier to find your way back to your squad, if you get lost or killed and so on. And do not try to make it like L4D, that you just use one button to kill a single marine, feels very lame to me. Basically the problem is that a rambo marine shouldn't survive a rambo-ambushing skulk, or what was it ?
*I'm not being condescending, firewater is really more experienced than you and it would be rude to suggest otherwise.
L4D developers went for an intimate feel for their characters where nobody is ever more than one meter away from anyone else. This isn't the most limiting way of implementing strategy possible. Wait what is anytime saying? Can you really have strategy that doesn't involve touching (sorry for the pun) your teammates? Have a scenario:
Let's say you need to protect a marine who is building a resource node.
This is how L4D would handle it and how anti-rambo proponents want NS2 to be:
Four people huddle around the capper, praying that the team doesn't get bdropped by buggy skulks.
This is how NS2 should handle it, with extrapolation from the original:
Capper is on the far side of the map. Pressure team of three players is shooting a node and covering one of the two fast routes on the hive side. Pressure set up sentries on the other fast route, moments prior, blocking skulks from passing. John Rambo is crouching behind some wall waiting to ambush the gorge that's inevitably going to come up to spit the low hp, but relatively high damage sentries down. Commander listens to the vents and informs the capper that he has a lerk and two skulks coming from the vent next to him. Lerk gets pistoled down. Two skulks kill capper and desperately attack base. Marines walk into the hive unopposed and end the game.
Devil is definitely in the details.
The last time I can recall any competitive team opening up with a solo capper was Reflect, who sent Mustang out to solo cap. They quickly stopped doing that because Mustang would die while capping. There's a multitude of ways to take out a marine building a RT alone, you could ambush him, you could rush in while he's building and exploit the delay it takes to get your weapon out, you could parasite him and wait for another alien to come by then attack together, you could get a Lerk to spore and bite, etc. It only really works when the aliens are just individually at a much lower level than the marines, or when the rest of the marine team is keeping them too busy to devote attention to the solo capper (And of course, the irony here is being able to successfully solo cap actually depends on TEAMWORK, just not in the form of placing all your eggs in one basket)
Why punish the player? Especially the good players.
...
However, the benifits of sticking with a group outweigh the benifits of going it alone. Thus, squads naturally form as people don't want to die and hope following someone with increase their chances of survival.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sigh. See my previous post. Correct me if I'm wrong, Zek, but I don't think either one of us is arguing that squad play is forced. I've continually said so, and yet people seem fixated on this, so I'll clarify once again.
Lets take an undesireable marine strategy. Technically a player should be able to do anything, even if it is not the right style of play, right? So lets say my marine strategy is to ignore all alien encounters so I can get to the hive faster, and once I arrive, I'll knife the hive to death. In likely probability, I won't even make it to the hive. I might even get lucky and get to the hive room but I likely wouldn't be able to knife the hive more than once before getting a bitegun in the rear end.
Nobody is stopping me to play that way by game rules or otherwise (though you might frustrate your teammates for playing badly). Now what's the difference between this an ramboing? Difference is that one is obviously a bad strategy while the other in a team-oriented game *should* but isn't necessarily a bad strategy. I fail to see why just because you *can* rambo with relative success in natural selection that should imply nothing should change for natural selection 2.
It's like finding a bug in a program which causes it to crash hitting alt + F, and when the creators of this program apologize and insist on correcting it immediately, all the users send e-mails of complaint insisting that hitting alt + F is a great way to exit the program without saving and should be left alone. Ramboing is NOT a positive aspect. You should be able to play it, but you should get little to no success.
<!--quoteo(post=1696364:date=Dec 19 2008, 07:40 AM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Dec 19 2008, 07:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696364"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Quick question for you Zek. If a squad of 5 that is going to the opposite hive that the commander wants them to go to (i.e. comm wants squad to go to eclipse; squad goes to maintenance hive), are they using teamwork?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, it wouldn't. Teamwork is more than clustering. I don't think Zek nor myself has refuted this fact. The fact that clustering doesn't always signify teamwork doesn't imply the opposite, that solo play can still be teamwork. That's faulty logic.
<!--quoteo(post=1696396:date=Dec 19 2008, 07:04 PM:name=1mannARMEE)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(1mannARMEE @ Dec 19 2008, 07:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696396"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In general it is a much better idea not to force people to squad up by just give them huge disadvantages, instead make it easier to act as a squad, make it easier to find your way back to your squad, if you get lost or killed and so on. And do not try to make it like L4D, that you just use one button to kill a single marine, feels very lame to me. Basically the problem is that a rambo marine shouldn't survive a rambo-ambushing skulk, or what was it ?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See above.
A) No strategy is forced. There are only winning strategies and losing strategies.
B) If I were playing CS and wanted to separate from my group, I could do so. Nothing would stop me. However what are the odds that I'd accomplish any of the objectives? I'd die quickly, and rightly so.
<!--quoteo(post=1696434:date=Dec 20 2008, 03:12 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Dec 20 2008, 03:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696434"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I believe this whole argument isn't really about teamwork or strategy. EVERYONE who plays NS can agree that strategy/teamwork is important to the game, otherwise they would be playing CS. What Zek & friends are arguing is that players should only be limited to having teammates within sight range, AKA the squad play mechanic. More reasonable/experienced* at NS forum users are suggesting that teamwork/strategy isn't limited to sight range, but can occur at radar range. This is basically an argument concerning squad size, sight range squads vs a single map sized squad. The latter made NS what it is due to more strategic freedom.
*I'm not being condescending, firewater is really more experienced than you and it would be rude to suggest otherwise.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Working towards a common goal without working in teams is better than doing your own thing, however playing in teams should be even better, wouldn't you agree?
And incidentally, I'm not being condescending either. By the way, condescending means "talk down to."
<!--quoteo(post=1696436:date=Dec 20 2008, 03:39 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Dec 20 2008, 03:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696436"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Let's say you need to protect a marine who is building a resource node.
This is how L4D would handle it and how anti-rambo proponents want NS2 to be:
Four people huddle around the capper, praying that the team doesn't get bdropped by buggy skulks.
This is how NS2 should handle it, with extrapolation from the original:
Capper is on the far side of the map. Pressure team of three players is shooting a node and covering one of the two fast routes on the hive side. Pressure set up sentries on the other fast route, moments prior, blocking skulks from passing. John Rambo is crouching behind some wall waiting to ambush the gorge that's inevitably going to come up to spit the low hp, but relatively high damage sentries down. Commander listens to the vents and informs the capper that he has a lerk and two skulks coming from the vent next to him. Lerk gets pistoled down. Two skulks kill capper and desperately attack base. Marines walk into the hive unopposed and end the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your scenario of how NS2 should handle it is a demonstration of teamwork and squad play. If this is what you wish in NS2, then whatever your name for this is our name for teamwork. However, one thing this scenario is not is a rambo system. I invite you to say otherwise.
Rambo system for me is not having everyone on vent and organizing marine pressure point squads while a single marine takes out nodes with little worry of having incoming hostiles. Rambo system for me is spawning, getting ammo, running off into the deepest darkest parts of the map and trying to piss off a few aliens because it's fun playing deathmatch. If you play as such, you should NEVER do well unless you were just extremely lucky or your comm was stupid enough to equip you well before you left base.
If you're alone because the rest of your team has you covered, in a way you're not alone at all. That's not "rambo" style. That's teamwork. If all this time you thought we meant that players should be forced into 4-man teams no farther than 1 meter apart, it's apparent to me at least that you've poorly understood our argument. I recommend you reread this thread from page one and not jump past the pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 before arriving at page 7 this time.
If a single marine acting by himself is ambushed by a single skulk of respectable skill, that marine should die almost every time.
Whether or not you choose to stick with your teammates to counter that is your choice, but IMHO that fear of prowling skulks is the most basic tenet of the marine concept. In NS that is not the case at all. If you watch the vents and know the ambush spots it's very difficult for a hive 1 skulk to get the jump on you in the first place - yes there's a delay in taking your gun out while building, but most nodes aren't close enough to a vent or corner for that to be enough. Even if they do bite you it's very possible to get back to range and finish them off thanks to bite knockback and glidejumping, and even in point blank range you have a decent chance of out-DPSing the skulk if you can aim. Marines shouldn't be able to beat skulks at their own game so easily. I feel that this was the intent from the beginning but it just wasn't executed properly in NS, and now NS2 is our chance to get it right.
If a single marine acting by himself is ambushed by a single skulk of respectable skill, that marine should die almost every time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is why your argument is flawed.
You are not taking into consideration the skill of the marine.
You are not taking into consideration the skill of the marine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say it doesn't matter, but it shouldn't be possible to be good enough to trump 90% of skulks in a normally disadvantageous situation. Putting it in numbers, let's say a person's skill can be measured from 1 to 10. In a totally neutral game, the person with higher skill number almost always wins. Suppose in NS2, a skulk successfully executing an ambush adds a +5 modifier. So if the skulk is of skill 6(say, an experienced pubber), a good ambush puts him at 11 so even a base skill 10 marine would rarely win. But if the skulk ambushes poorly it's only a +3 and a really good marine can beat him. Other examples of things that act as "skill modifiers" are higher lifeforms, better guns, etc. Don't read into the numbers too much, the point is that skill is a prerequisite to use the tools and opportunities available to you, but it's not the sole determining factor in a fight.
Having other factors beyond raw twitch skill and experience is appropriate because this is an FPS/RTS - the RTS aspect affects everybody, not just the commander. Walking into an alien trap is an RTS blunder which trumps your FPS skill. If the marine is soloing and he runs into an Onos, his skill means zilch - how come you're not complaining about that?
You didn't say it did matter either. Basically your sentence edges towards a "hard counter" at first look (i.e. Firebat vs. Mutalisk). Why shouldn't skill be the overwhelming decider of who wins an encounter?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Having other factors beyond raw twitch skill and experience is appropriate because this is an FPS/RTS - the RTS aspect affects everybody, not just the commander. Walking into an alien trap is an RTS blunder which trumps your FPS skill. If the marine is soloing and he runs into an Onos, his skill means zilch - how come you're not complaining about that?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Including the aliens. If the commander decides to med spam or pay more attention to the solo player who is doing well, he or she will most likely last longer due to that commander attention. Yet you have never mentioned the commander in any of your arguments as if it is a passive/unimportant role in the solo marine's life span.
I've always said that the Onos takes no skill to play/defeat, allow me to reference a post I created called framework for design <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=98671&hl=" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...c=98671&hl=</a>
Why you are bringing up an Onos in a discussion about skulks is beyond me.
Well I just said it matters. "Situational advantage" != "hard counter." Don't forget that the inverse is also true - a marine standing in the open is basically impervious to a hive 1 skulk no matter how it tries to attack. No amount of skill will allow it to close that distance if the marine can aim. Same should go in reverse for an ambushing skulk.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Including the aliens. If the commander decides to med spam or pay more attention to the solo player who is doing well, he or she will most likely last longer due to that commander attention. Yet you have never mentioned the commander in any of your arguments as if it is a passive/unimportant role in the solo marine's life span.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because thus far we've been talking about how the marines should interact with eachother on the field, the commander is a separate entity. Certainly medspamming is teamwork on the part of the comm but it doesn't reflect anything on the marine. A lone marine being maintained by an IV of miracle drugs from the sky still isn't at all the same thing as them actually sticking together.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I've always said that the Onos takes no skill to play/defeat, allow me to reference a post I created called framework for design <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=98671&hl=" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...c=98671&hl=</a>
Why you are bringing up an Onos in a discussion about skulks is beyond me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because an Onos is the most obvious example of a unit that overrides twitch skills in favor of the RTS aspect of the game. You need the basic skills to know how to play/fight one and from that point on it's all in the strategy and tactics. The point being that twitch skills not being the sole determinant of a fight is a defining characteristic of NS - sometimes your mistake has already happened by the time the fight starts and all that's left is to die.
You are not taking into consideration the skill of the marine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To clarify things, I think it should be said that there is a scale with two extremes here.
One which says that a player could own any lifeform if they were skilled enough. That is to say, take a marine with no equipment and no weapon and put him in an environment in which he's got a fade to his rear, an onos to his front, and while he may not kill them both, he could perhaps put enough bullets in the fade all to send him retreating, all the while dodging onos attacks, and then outrun the onos to retreat to base. Seems ludicrious, but this is one extreme.
The other says that a marine and skulk should have a death to kill ratio of 1 to 1, and that any higher lifeform should kill a marine with no armor or weapon upgrade as if the game were starcraft and that battles could almost be simulated. Firstly, I don't even think that's possible with human players, but even if it were, it trashes the concept of skill in a player.
I think the model we would want is somewhere in the middle. That is to say, while a player couldn't storm into a hive and effectively clear out the room and spawn camp until he runs out of ammo, he isn't owned by the first skulk which comes along as determined by straight statistics either. Zek's example was simply trying to demonstrate that if skill were a number which demonstrated the capability of a player and a greater number than another means one player could overcome the other, being in a advantageous position should augment that number, enough so that even a veteran player would have difficulty overcoming (thus making a veteran player more cautious to never put himself in such situations to begin with).
Obviously a player's skill cannot be measured by a number, or if it could, it'd have way too many factors to know at any given time what that number would be. However in this way, both the skill of the player and the positioning of that player should play a factor in being able to overcome another. In this respect, if a skulk in ambush doesn't help his chances of overcoming a player, it means there's no position (at least for the Kharaa) which helps increase the skill of a skulk as the skill of a marine player skilled enough can easily overcome any advantage in position the skulk might warrant.
I think if a player is so good that he can overcome most any ambush he could encounter, there's something wrong with the gameplay. On the contrary, I think the rest of you are leaning a lot towards the rambo extreme. Zek and I simply want something in the middle of this scale.
<!--quoteo(post=1696539:date=Dec 22 2008, 02:03 PM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Dec 22 2008, 02:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696539"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Working towards a common goal without working in teams is better than doing your own thing, however playing in teams should be even better, wouldn't you agree?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You missed/sidestepped the WHOLE point. Being within sight range isn't a prerequisite for being inside of a squad OR playing as a team.
me:<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->*I'm not being condescending, firewater is really more experienced than you and it would be rude to suggest otherwise.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
you:<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And incidentally, I'm not being condescending either. By the way, condescending means "talk down to."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
what
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your scenario of how NS2 should handle it is a demonstration of teamwork and squad play. If this is what you wish in NS2, then whatever your name for this is our name for teamwork. However, one thing this scenario is not is a rambo system. I invite you to say otherwise.
Rambo system for me is not having everyone on vent and organizing marine pressure point squads while a single marine takes out nodes with little worry of having incoming hostiles. Rambo system for me is spawning, getting ammo, running off into the deepest darkest parts of the map and trying to piss off a few aliens because it's fun playing deathmatch. If you play as such, you should NEVER do well unless you were just extremely lucky or your comm was stupid enough to equip you well before you left base.
If you're alone because the rest of your team has you covered, in a way you're not alone at all. That's not "rambo" style. That's teamwork. If all this time you thought we meant that players should be forced into 4-man teams no farther than 1 meter apart, it's apparent to me at least that you've poorly understood our argument. I recommend you reread this thread from page one and not jump past the pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 before arriving at page 7 this time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Heh I don't know what you've been reading but in my story, I had one rambo solo a gorge and another one solo a lerk. Fade knifing is coming next. The three marines are shooting the RT together because there is no way in hell that they would be able to do that with any less people due to NS gameplay.
Furthermore, your description of ramboing as doing nothing but shooting skulks is actually a completely different topic. Instead of saying that we should ban all players that are somewhere by themselves, isn't it better to say that we should ban players that have the prime directive to kill skulks and nothing else? I am not going to agree with you on that topic either, but it seems like what you should be pushing that instead.
<!--quoteo(post=1696603:date=Dec 23 2008, 11:00 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Dec 23 2008, 11:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696603"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To clarify things, I think it should be said that there is a scale with two extremes here.
One which says that a player could own any lifeform if they were skilled enough. That is to say, take a marine with no equipment and no weapon and put him in an environment in which he's got a fade to his rear, an onos to his front, and while he may not kill them both, he could perhaps put enough bullets in the fade all to send him retreating, all the while dodging onos attacks, and then outrun the onos to retreat to base. Seems ludicrious, but this is one extreme.
The other says that a marine and skulk should have a death to kill ratio of 1 to 1, and that any higher lifeform should kill a marine with no armor or weapon upgrade as if the game were starcraft and that battles could almost be simulated. Firstly, I don't even think that's possible with human players, but even if it were, it trashes the concept of skill in a player.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're wrong. One extreme would be to say that a marine with the rough equivalent skill level of god will kill any amount of any lifeform with any weapon and upgrade level at any point in time. Starcraft is the other extreme. NS1 is the middle.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think if a player is so good that he can overcome most any ambush he could encounter, there's something wrong with the gameplay. On the contrary, I think the rest of you are leaning a lot towards the rambo extreme. Zek and I simply want something in the middle of this scale.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with that first sentence there. Of course in NS, no marine can overcome most any ambush he can encounter at his skill level.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->One which says that a player could own any lifeform if they were skilled enough. That is to say, take a marine with no equipment and no weapon and put him in an environment in which he's got a fade to his rear, an onos to his front, and while he may not kill them both, he could perhaps put enough bullets in the fade all to send him retreating, all the while dodging onos attacks, and then outrun the onos to retreat to base. Seems ludicrious, but this is one extreme.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your assessment of the argument is incorrect. We are saying that skill against the basic unit (i.e. skulk) in solo play should be as least likely as possible to be determined by anything other than skill. When fades lerks and even gorges come into the mix, its an entirely different ball game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The other says that a marine and skulk should have a death to kill ratio of 1 to 1, and that any higher lifeform should kill a marine with no armor or weapon upgrade as if the game were starcraft and that battles could almost be simulated. Firstly, I don't even think that's possible with human players, but even if it were, it trashes the concept of skill in a player.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Limiting a player in the early game by anything but skill will collapse the marine side entirely. Aliens will simply out tech the marines in the beginning.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the model we would want is somewhere in the middle. That is to say, while a player couldn't storm into a hive and effectively clear out the room and spawn camp until he runs out of ammo, he isn't owned by the first skulk which comes along as determined by straight statistics either. Zek's example was simply trying to demonstrate that if skill were a number which demonstrated the capability of a player and a greater number than another means one player could overcome the other, being in a advantageous position should augment that number, enough so that even a veteran player would have difficulty overcoming (thus making a veteran player more cautious to never put himself in such situations to begin with).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why are there hard expectations for a player's survivability? Why are the shoulds and should nots even in the equation? WHAT is your expectation based on? The only should that I see that exists is that if a player can use his or her weapons effectively they SHOULD be able to continue until the opposing force stops him or her. Why is this not being addressed? Why are the expectations again based on some poorly constructed concept of teamwork and misguided properties of balance.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think if a player is so good that he can overcome most any ambush he could encounter, there's something wrong with the gameplay. On the contrary, I think the rest of you are leaning a lot towards the rambo extreme. Zek and I simply want something in the middle of this scale.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How is that not skill communism again? The ONLY limiting factor in any respectable traditional game with OpFor should be the player themselves, not an expectation set by people who do not fully understand the game's balance mechanics.
Oh, hey, look how that works.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
About as well as any of your logic.
Not hurt your teammates.
Give meds.
Help fallen teammates.
Shoot skulks (I'm sorry, ZOMBIES) off of your teammates.
Playing zombies on the other hand has a lot more teamwork potential with positioning/coordinating hunters, smokers and boomers. Of course the NS1 alien team has to have 5000000000000 more strategies than the zombies in order to win.
In any event, using anecdotes from particular games is not evidence.
Obviously, a fps shooter will reward people with the highest situational awareness and twitch skill.
Rambo marines are easily put down by a competent alien team. Higher lifeforms are available, lerks should be up in the first 2 minutes.
If you are being dominated by an lmg, you are simply being out-played. That is all there is to it.
In any event, using anecdotes from particular games is not evidence.
Obviously, a fps shooter will reward people with the highest situational awareness and twitch skill.
Rambo marines are easily put down by a competent alien team. Higher lifeforms are available, lerks should be up in the first 2 minutes.
If you are being dominated by an lmg, you are simply being out-played. That is all there is to it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Word. Putting a player that can dominate others in a group will just make that group dominate. If you really want to bring down solo play, buff skulks, or get better at the game.
I haven't been in the thread in a while and this striked me. Weren't you against the change of the current status quo? Increasing the strength of skulk means the equivalent weakening of the marine in early game, which curbs the rambo behavior you are advocating to a great degree since once fade comes in, that anti-rambo torch is carried.
No, I'm not for any system that restricts play based on a silly notion of "ridiculous" or "its not supposed to be that way". I always felt that the early game skulks needed a buff, as you can read in my post frame work for design.
Certainly with not the current logic which was presented.
Then what's your basis for buffing skulks?
However, I don't think just bulking them up would be a satisfactory solution.
I always just felt that the skulk just needed a little buff considering they are a defensive class at hive 1. What I mean by buff is simply some more armor or HP, and just a slight amount to increase the skulk value. Another way to buff skulks are to increase respawn times, but I think that would be too drastic.