<!--quoteo(post=1718350:date=Jul 20 2009, 08:42 PM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sirot @ Jul 20 2009, 08:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718350"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This was a jab at DarkFrost's "Between consoles and forum posters, we aren't going to have any games worth playing eventually. (although I expect consoles will advance at some point)" comment. I should have been more obvious with the sarcasm. I apologize.
There is overreacting on both sides, maybe in attempt to neutralize the opposing side's argument. I am going to try to dodge that with following...
NS2 does not have to be dumbed down to be more accessible, not does it have to be inaccessible to satisfy the more hardcore player base. You can both the new and veteran players happy with a bit in ingenuity. There is no point in arguing whether or not NS1 was accessible because each of us had a different experience when learning the game. However, since there are players who speak out that the first game had learning curve issues, it seems that there are problems which should be fixed. It's great that you can quickly learn the game, but playing NS2 shouldn't be exclusively for good players. Like you said, many people who play video games aren't necessarily good at them. That's a big market. The developers seem to be coming from this view point.
I don't see the point of designing a game to be aggressively complex. Even a simple game will have hidden complexities emerge as players play it. Something like Pac-Man, a very simple game, has a lot of depth to it. Small stuff like each ghost having it's own AI patterns brought a lot of depth to the game, where the professional players can predict how the ghosts can act to maximize their score. NS2 should be designed as a simple game. The depth will emerge on its own. As much as I hate the word Starcraft thrown around here, it was never designed to be as deep as it is. It was pure accident that such a straight forward game was given so much complexity.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with everything that you said. Also I agree even more with what you said about Starcraft and the whole philosophy behind that kind of "luck" (is there a word for such a situation? perhaps "dumb luck", if there is i would like to know it), and i don't say this like that, I've witnessed first hand how straight forward games can accidentally have deep and complex gameplay that were not thought of when the game was designed. A while back, I made a Warcraft 3 map (which some call mods) that is similar to HOSK or Dota, and although i designed it to be rather plain and simple, after spending a good amount of time playing the map i came across rather deep and complex strategies (stuff that would have never crossed my mind when i was developing the map) that so happened to fall in place ever so nicely due to the design of the game, however this was not in mind when i was designing the game, it was mere chance that things worked out this way. For those who are interested here's a link to the map, it might seem rather simple and plain at first, but as you play more and more you begin to see its depth.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1718305:date=Jul 20 2009, 05:41 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Firewater @ Jul 20 2009, 05:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718305"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I am always a firm believer that the community can either welcome or shun the new player (depending on what circle the new player has attempted to join). If the game creates a system that panders to new players for whatever reason, that will indeed sacrifice depth/skill on other competent players part. I believe that it should be up to the game designers to educate the basics to new players, and the community to help players learn advanced techniques. Help the new players reach the standard, don't drop it down for the rest of the players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This isn't about dumbing down content, it's about making it more accessible. There doesn't need to be a skill cap on a feature, just that it's easy to learn at low levels. Not providing the instructions for a feature doesn't immediately make it "depth".
<!--quoteo(post=1718410:date=Jul 21 2009, 07:36 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Jul 21 2009, 07:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718410"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This isn't about dumbing down content, it's about making it more accessible. There doesn't need to be a skill cap on a feature, just that it's easy to learn at low levels. Not providing the instructions for a feature doesn't immediately make it "depth".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats why it is up to the community to educate lesser skilled players (i.e. NSlearn, NSDojo, etc....). There are going to be tactics and tricks that cannot be shared by the developers because they may not know about them when the game comes out (i.e. killer strats and tactics that can be only found through playing the game extensively in a non-testing enviornment).
These are the tips and tricks that cannot be explained in an in game tutorial.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1718518:date=Jul 21 2009, 05:35 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Firewater @ Jul 21 2009, 05:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718518"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thats why it is up to the community to educate lesser skilled players (i.e. NSlearn, NSDojo, etc....). There are going to be tactics and tricks that cannot be shared by the developers because they may not know about them when the game comes out (i.e. killer strats and tactics that can be only found through playing the game extensively in a non-testing enviornment).
These are the tips and tricks that cannot be explained in an in game tutorial.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's why I said there doesn't need to be a skill cap on a feature, just that the basics of the feature should be accessible. Anyone can drop a medpack; it's not easy to drop a medpack <i>well</i>.
<!--quoteo(post=1718520:date=Jul 21 2009, 05:43 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Jul 21 2009, 05:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718520"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's why I said there doesn't need to be a skill cap on a feature, just that the basics of the feature should be accessible. Anyone can drop a medpack; it's not easy to drop a medpack <i>well</i>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But it seems that people in this forum want to make the game easier for the sake of the new players. I say keep the game the way it is, and allow the community to adjust itself skill-wise.
DarkFrost is right. A significant portion of the playerbase is unwilling (or perhaps unable) to learn. Not everybody can be like Makaveli and LMG solo 4 skulks without reloading, and I certainly don't expect them to. But even leaving out the technical aspects of the game, some people just never seem to learn anything. There was a phase when I got good enough at the game to be frustrated by everybody else surrounding me, frustrated enough to try and get my team to play properly, and what I discovered was that, by and large, people already have their own idea of how to play the game, even if that way does involve repeatedly getting ambushed from behind and not doing anything about it, or humping the armory for full ammo while the phase gate is under attack, then promptly dying before they can fire a single round. People don't want to be told that they're doing something wrong, they like to think that they're experienced players. The average level of gameplay in NS has stagnated, if not declined, over the years, which I would attribute mostly to an inability to learn.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Not everybody can be like Makaveli<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ahahahaha
ohh man. *wipes a tear from his eye*
Sorry, just had to get my 2 cents in there.
NS is not hard to learn. My 9 year old brother picked it up inside of 10 minutes with some guidance and made his first fade kill shortly thereafter. If people cant pick this game up quick they may just be idiots. You can sit them down and explain how to bunnyhop, you can show them how to strafe jump. But god, sometimes, it's just impossible for them to learn because it is beyond their capacity.
It's like an old addage i heard long ago. Pythagoras could sit on a tree branch all day and lecture mathmatics to a sparrow till it fell from the branch. The sparrow would not learn and pythagoras would be tired. it cannot learn simply because it is just a sparrow.
So too are some people. Maybe not all people, but some. keep that in mind when you suggest dumbing it down for the new guy. Part of what drew me into this game was the level of depth and skill it took to become good. We need new players, yes. we need lots of new players, yes. What we dont need is "care bear hold your hand did that hurt lemme kiss it better for you does that feel good want me to keep going ohh yes dont stop" attitude, which if we continue with this train of thought will be the end result. We all went through the meat grinder. We're all about to go through it again. I for one am looking forward to re-learning this game. I dont want this to be easy and i certainly dont want it to be dumbed down. I want the gritty, "WTF WAS THAT RHINO" moments i originally had when i first played this game in the internet cafe in temple bar so many years ago.. I want moments like where the proprietor of that same internet cafe has to come over to tell me to shut the ###### up because im scaring the (pretty damn hot) group of 3 polish chicks sitting across from me because im screaming down the microphone "I NEED A ###### WELDER COMM". Moments like this made me love this game. Moments like when your comm drops a med in front of you and you die while trying to strafe jump to it by fade claw in your back. Proposals like commanders not medding make todd a sad boy.
Originally NS1 was designed to be a 6 VS 6 and by the sounds of it there trying to balance out larger games like 12 VS 12 so multiple commanders works so that one person dosnt have to deal with 11 random little ants running around everywhere you can have 2 comms and have a little less to stress being a comm of 6 again and even if there not "GOOD" comms theres 2 or more one of them will get you your med pack eventually :P
Please understand this very simple premise: <!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro-->A game becoming easier to learn <b>DOES NOT EQUAL</b> a game with less depth.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
If you can explain to me, right now, how a <!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro-->game becoming easier to learn while keeping the same level of general depth<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> is <b>bad</b>, I will gladly admit that I am a lowly peon that should expect the more experienced players to teach me how to play a game because it is heresy to admit that entertainment should be intuitive. Only through the hard work can the unpure ever hope to enjoy this strange thing called "fun".
EDIT: I am dripping with venom here, so I apologize in retrospect.
If I'm to be honest the reason I fell in digital love with Natural - Selection was because it was quite deep. In 2002 there was nothing other than Counter-Strike and Team Fortress Classic which harvested my attention and Natural - Selection was a breath of fresh air which took time and effort to learn, which I loved - as I enjoy learning and getting better at something. I realise that a lot of people don't wish to spend hours learning the ins and out's of a game like Natural - Selection but what can you do apart from try and help the newer people learn the game? Unfortunately, as posted previously by a few, some were very unwilling to heed advice and felt that they knew better. Which is very frustrating when you want them to enjoy the game when they go about making it difficult for themselves.
I am also going to throw a spanner in the works now and say that Bunny hopping is not difficult to learn any more.
<!--quoteo(post=1718601:date=Jul 22 2009, 05:52 AM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sirot @ Jul 22 2009, 05:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718601"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Please understand this very simple premise: <!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro-->A game becoming easier to learn <b>DOES NOT EQUAL</b> a game with less depth.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
With the definition of depth being intellectually complex (in the case of entertainment) I honesly fail to see how this statement can be fact. However I have high suspicions that you are trying to get into a fight with people on this subject.
(I'm still trying to find out who or what you are replying to)
<!--quoteo(post=1718603:date=Jul 22 2009, 02:29 AM:name=DarkFrost)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DarkFrost @ Jul 22 2009, 02:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718603"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->With the definition of depth being intellectually complex (in the case of entertainment) I honesly fail to see how this statement can be fact. However I have high suspicions that you are trying to get into a fight with people on this subject.
(I'm still trying to find out who or what you are replying to)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A smooth learning curve. That's what I want. You should not be required to know every aspect of the game to be useful. The person who does know what he is doing because he has played for many months, is of course much more useful than the fella who played for a day. But the guy who played for a day can contribute to the team without being a liability.
Easy to Learn. Hard to Master. That sort of thing. Chess can't be real though. Something with easy to grasp rules can't be intellectually complex.
My comment was directed at: Darkfrost, Firewater and todd1Ok.
I don't expect anyone to convince the other party that they are wrong. People are going to fight tooth and nail to prove their point. I am just representing the opposition so people who are reading this can get multiple view points on the matter.
EDIT: Sorry Whiskey for your thread being hi-jacked.
<!--quoteo(post=1718603:date=Jul 22 2009, 12:29 AM:name=DarkFrost)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DarkFrost @ Jul 22 2009, 12:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718603"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->With the definition of depth being intellectually complex (in the case of entertainment) I honesly fail to see how this statement can be fact. However I have high suspicions that you are trying to get into a fight with people on this subject.
(I'm still trying to find out who or what you are replying to)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> And with the definition of depth being meters below the surface, it can't be fact there either.
Amazing what you can do when you provide your own definitions.
The definition of depth is not intellectually complex. We could make the game very intellectually complex by requiring commanders to create meds or stims based on the intended character's DNA (as shown by the game) and requiring they mathmatically figure out proportions of different types of nanite to properly match it. And then not give them the formula but rather a couple of examples showing what proportions work for certain genetic types. More complex? Definitely. More depth? No.
For NS, a more rasonable defintition of depth is characters having a wide variety of viable options and tactics that can be used in a given situation, with the best course of action dependant in large part on the individual player's skill at executing certain actions. This does not mean that anything in the game needs to be hard to learn, but rather that there be a lot of things that can be learned.
The problem isn't so much that heels are dug in, its more the (gaming) "generation" gap between participants of this debate.
There are those of us who started out in proper multiplay gaming with quake.
There are those of us who started out in proper multiplay gaming with half-life.
There are those of us who started out in proper multiplay gaming with counter-strike.
And so on.
As the "generations" go on, the more expectations from developers come, and less acceptance of unexpected "features".
Depending on the perspective of the gamer, these situations have become worse (my personal perspective) or better (pretty much everyone who started after the HLDM lot).
Words like exploit began being thrown about at every possible piece of abnormality, where previously those who didn't know how to do such things strived to find out how.
Team fortress classic is actually a fantasic example that probably everyone here knows. It is, like NS, an easy game to learn. But a difficult game to be very good at.
Its almost routine, even with brand new games, that I'll first of all see what movement "ability" the game allows for. Perhaps its just my perspective that makes it hard for me to believe that NS is a hard game to learn. I suppose when you hold it up against the likes of counter-strike, then it is hard. But with my particular game progression, it wasn't all that different to what I played previously, except being slower.
Kwil, you are nit picking. The use of depth for entertainment is usually for complexity. For example a novel can be deep, or a film.
Its ironic you then back up my supplied definition by your more reasonable one. Which does make sense, and explains what I missunderstood from sirot's statement, to an extent.
As long as the skulk skill based movement is intuitive/easy to pick up and not easily mastered then I'll be happy. Obscure and unintuitive controls != depth
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1718527:date=Jul 21 2009, 05:53 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Firewater @ Jul 21 2009, 05:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718527"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But it seems that people in this forum want to make the game easier for the sake of the new players. I say keep the game the way it is, and allow the community to adjust itself skill-wise.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> There are some that want that, just as there are some, such as yourself, who want to keep it the way it is. NS2 isn't trying to be Warsow though; they want a lot more players than that. That's why there's been a push to make the game easier to learn; they want lots of new players to strengthen the casual and competitive scenes. <!--quoteo(post=1718603:date=Jul 22 2009, 02:29 AM:name=DarkFrost)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DarkFrost @ Jul 22 2009, 02:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718603"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->With the definition of depth being intellectually complex (in the case of entertainment) I honestly fail to see how this statement can be fact. However I have high suspicions that you are trying to get into a fight with people on this subject.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's one aspect of depth, one I enjoy and many games are based on. The best multiplayer games don't rely on this though, they focus on the player based actions providing intellectual challenges.
<!--quoteo(post=1718605:date=Jul 22 2009, 02:54 AM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sirot @ Jul 22 2009, 02:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718605"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A smooth learning curve. That's what I want. You should not be required to know every aspect of the game to be useful. The person who does know what he is doing because he has played for many months, is of course much more useful than the fella who played for a day. But the guy who played for a day can contribute to the team without being a liability.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't need to learn every aspect of the game to be useful. There are many great players and good players that cannot command, or fade properly, but can contribute greatly to their team by doing other things that are very important. There are some players however, that how matter how easy the game is to learn, will get destroyed.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Easy to Learn. Hard to Master. That sort of thing. Chess can't be real though. Something with easy to grasp rules can't be intellectually complex.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Truth. Though for some people the rules of Chess are complex. You are kind of skirting around your own point. For some people, NS was VERY easy to pick up. For some people it was frustrating to the point where they never played it again. This happens with EVERY game (Sports; Cards; Board Games; Video Games). It comes to again, a skill-balance. If I were just learning chess and I wanted to play for fun would I play against Kasparov, an obvious master who would dismantle me? When I am beaten should I say the game was "not accessible enough" so I should quit. OR perhaps if I found the game interesting enough, I should play with players around my skill level, and develop from there. Which is why I strongly recommend using server labeling to allow players which type of servers they wish to play on (i.e. Casual vs. Competitive).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My comment was directed at: Darkfrost, Firewater and todd1Ok.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll take your sarcasm in this thread as a sense of frustration. Sorry about that =/
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't expect anyone to convince the other party that they are wrong. People are going to fight tooth and nail to prove their point. I am just representing the opposition so people who are reading this can get multiple view points on the matter.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not fighting tooth and nail, just using your own logic against you. Given NS/NS2's innovation, there has to be a certain amount of complexity to account for the RTS and FPS aspects of this game. I agree the developers should provide tutorials on the basics but then it is the responsibility of the player to learn the rest. I am sure there will be community sites that will aide the players that want to learn how to play better, and those that do not will either stay at their level or quit. If lower level players can have fun on casual servers without worrying about the wins or losses but whether or not he or she had fun playing the game. Seperate those players from those who want to learn and get better then NS2 will have a good player base.
<!--quoteo(post=1718656:date=Jul 22 2009, 03:03 PM:name=Opprobrious)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Opprobrious @ Jul 22 2009, 03:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718656"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Unitary res pool and multiple spenders?
THAT'S GOING TO WORK REAL WELL.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
YES VERY MUCH. I'M SURE COMM WILL HAVE A MUCH BETTER TIME HAVING SOMEONE WITH HIM TO SHARE THE RESPONSIBILTY OF GOING DOWN WITH THE SHIP WHEN EVERYTHING AROUND THEM STARTS FALLING TO PIECES.
CAPSLOCK = CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL. BUT REAL PEOPLE USE SHIFT.
Also, everyone forgot one vitally important feature I believe was mentioned at one point, but I can't locate a source without that "We know everything about NS/NS2" list from that Australian site;
Commanders no longer drop weapons etc. It's up to the Marines themselves to buy that.
So taking that monetary drain out of the system, how could one dozen turrets or building more infantry spawns/badly placed PGs be a complete waste of money? Sure they can still grief, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out which of the two did it if they communicate with the team.
And as a last resort, you can just recycle. You couldn't recycle weapons and medkits etc, but now you don't have to worry about that.
I'm personally more interested in seeing some sort of integrated multiple callvote system that can allow any admin-less community to self-mod against griefers etc.
PS. Actually, isn't it now a hybrid resource system for both sides? Marines get resources to buy weaps etc while Kharaa get commanders to place structures etc? Guess that's one way to solve balancing issues.
<!--quoteo(post=1718601:date=Jul 22 2009, 06:52 AM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sirot @ Jul 22 2009, 06:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718601"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Please understand this very simple premise: <!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro-->A game becoming easier to learn <b>DOES NOT EQUAL</b> a game with less depth.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
If you can explain to me, right now, how a <!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro-->game becoming easier to learn while keeping the same level of general depth<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> is <b>bad</b>, I will gladly admit that I am a lowly peon that should expect the more experienced players to teach me how to play a game because it is heresy to admit that entertainment should be intuitive. Only through the hard work can the unpure ever hope to enjoy this strange thing called "fun".
EDIT: I am dripping with venom here, so I apologize in retrospect.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Just ignore the sparrows, they're not going to get it no matter how straightforward you make the concept. Eventually, out of frustration or just confusion, they will leave the thread to talk about something they understand.
<!--quoteo(post=1717931:date=Jul 18 2009, 03:52 PM:name=Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot @ Jul 18 2009, 03:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717931"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This issues doesn't even require a long discourse on game design theory.
Finding one good commander is hard enough on public servers; if it is necessary to find one for each team or multiple commanders for each team, the game could be lost before anyone is spawned.
It concerns me as a longtime NS pubber that you guys don't immediately see the flaw considering it was one of the major challenges with NS1 and the commander concept in general.
If I am missing something please let me know. From where I stand this looks like a problem you will not see in game testing with veteran clanners and experienced pubbers, but only once you have released it to the masses.
Think of it this way: It was hard trying to find one commander from one half of all the players playing on a given server.
Now, there will be two commanders to be found from two halves of all the players playing on a given server. The ratios of "how many comms needed : how players you pick them" from are the same.
If you are going purely by the numbers, which your complaint is based off of, it will be just as difficult in NS2 to find comms as it is in NS1.
Also, I don't really remember an announcement saying that there will be more than two commanders, one for the marines and one for the aliens.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just ignore the sparrows, they're not going to get it no matter how straightforward you make the concept. Eventually, out of frustration or just confusion, they will leave the thread to talk about something they understand.
Ignoring your massive condescension, the concept we are debating is simplification of the game. Not intuitive tutorials or intuitive control schemes or anything to make the game more accessable, but simplification of the game in regards to removal of skill based movement systems and general "slowing down" of the game, as well as simplification for simplifications sake. This has been mentioned multiple times already. Kinda hard to sound magnanimous when you dont even know what we're talking about, eh?
<!--quoteo(post=1719222:date=Jul 24 2009, 06:37 PM:name=todd1Ok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (todd1Ok @ Jul 24 2009, 06:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1719222"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ignoring your massive condescension, the concept we are debating is simplification of the game. Not intuitive tutorials or intuitive control schemes or anything to make the game more accessable, but simplification of the game in regards to removal of skill based movement systems and general "slowing down" of the game, as well as simplification for simplifications sake. This has been mentioned multiple times already. Kinda hard to sound magnanimous when you dont even know what we're talking about, eh?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You...you are aware that the original topic of the thread is about having multiple commanders, right? The debate centered around if having multiple commanders would help teach more players how to command and if it was worth it to decentralize leadership. It then devolved into an argument into whether or not NS1 was an easy to learn game to warrant a tool or change to have more commanders learning the skills.
So, this thread's direction isn't about simplifying, slowing down the game or simplification for simplification's sake. That's just exaggeration by people who assume making the game easier for new players is to remove all depth from it and already think NS1 was accessible enough.
Regarding NS1's accessibility, a little something (actually a long read) from my personal experience. It concerns mostly mechanics, pace, etc.:
When I first picked up NS1, I joined a game having no previous knowledge of the specific mechanics or tactics. I joined marines (I thought the ready-room was sweet). I did just fine. I shadowed team mates who looked like they knew what was up (or had good scores) and followed orders. I had basic FPS skills and was not a liability to the team. When they asked me to do things I did not understand, I pointed out that I was new and they either assigned the task at hand to someone else, or gave me explanations, or both. After about a day's worth of playing, I had a pretty good grasp on both Marine and Alien sides, and I became a valuable part of the team. Was I elite? Hell no. But I was decent.
Learned by watching others, a monkey can do it. Then again, I'd been playing games for a while by then.
So I had my older brother try it out. He had insignificant gaming experience (outside of Grand Turismo) and pretty poor FPS skills. I told him to try out Marines first and gave him a quick overview of what was up. He followed his team, followed orders, he did fine. He'd get killed by skulks from time to time, but being around the team prevented his lack of skill from truly being a problem. After a few games he had a pretty good grasp on the marine side and tried Aliens. He did terrible, and recognized he simply wasn't the Alien type. He's stuck to marines since then and enjoyed the hell out of the game. He's a decent marine, he won't be stomping the entire Alien team single-handedly anytime soon, but he'll cover his team mates with his life and weld that objective at all costs. All it took was a little "you shouldn't do X because Y" from time to time (i.e: humping the armory for ammo => you could die without using that ammo) and he quickly became someone I wouldn't mind having on my team.
And some say NS1 was too hard to learn?
Fine, third example, my little sister. She's from the "Wii" generation, and definitely not an FPS'er. I put her on Marines, showed her the controls and told her to follow her team and kill aliens. Whenever a new lifeform showed up I'd tell her what it was and it's role. Her first order from the Comm was "move to waypoint", pretty straightforward, (She asked me:"What's the map again?". "C") she brought up the map and made her way to the objective. Then she built a RT, later she welded a structure... Perfectly usable soldier. Her aim was pretty terrible of course, but she had the right idea. I told her to avoid hogging big guns, so the pros could use them. After one game she was already not a big liability anymore. Like my brother, she stuck with her team and played her part, and like him, she was having a blast, even when an Onos decided to make a meal of her.
For her next game, she tried Aliens, since she'd seen me "eat marines" and thought that was hilarious. Once again, quick overview of the controls and a little heads up regarding the more "ambush'ish" gameplay of the Alien side, and she was set. Followed her fellow skulks and assisted in the attacks. She actually killed a few marines. I let her skulk around like that for a while before I told her more about the Aliens tech tree etc. Stuff she would have found out just by hovering over the lifeforms and buildings in the right-click menu, if she wasn't a 13 years old girl with no online gaming experience.
That concludes my examples. Are my brother and sister elite NS'ers ? Hell no. Are they viable team mates capable of standard performance ? Yes. The time they invested in learning the game was very short and you can't get much more "casual" gamers than they are.
Sure it takes a while to get really good, to figure out which life form, which gun, which role suits you best. It takes a while to master more advanced techniques, but that's just what they are: advanced. I think NS1 was already damned fine in terms of learning curve. You can't expect everyone to instantly grasp all of the finer aspects of a game, that's just not realistic. But I was surprised at how easily my family and friends picked up NS1.
Can beginners' tips help make it even smoother? Sure ! Should the game mechanics be changed so my little sister can kill pro skulks? No. (Yes I'm exaggerating)
Tutorials and first-time tips, Yes! Dumbing down and "console'ing", No!
As for the 2 commanders deal? I haven't tried it yet and won't judge a feature I haven't seen in action. Let's save that for Alpha shall we?
<!--quoteo(post=1720448:date=Aug 3 2009, 11:02 AM:name=LethalShadow)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (LethalShadow @ Aug 3 2009, 11:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1720448"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Tutorials and first-time tips, Yes! Dumbing down and "console'ing", No!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I only read the first 3 pages, but I'm pretty sure no one mentioned the tutorial there, glad someone finally did. People that didn't start playing NS1 from the start and didn't have friends to help them practice commanding, had absolutely no clue what they were doing when they got in an NS1 command chair. Depending on the quality of the NS2 command tutorial, most people will at least be a bit familiar with the basic controls and commands. This should make it easier to find a sufficient (sub)commander on pub servers.
Again, NS2 is not NS1 so don't try and retro-fit all new features into NS1 and say that wouldn't work. If you just want NS1 with upgraded graphics and a few new maps, just say so. I for one do like some new gameplay features, if it doesn't work it can always be tweaked or removed completely.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1720448:date=Aug 3 2009, 05:02 AM:name=LethalShadow)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (LethalShadow @ Aug 3 2009, 05:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1720448"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Regarding NS1's accessibility, a little something (actually a long read) from my personal experience. It concerns mostly mechanics, pace, etc.:<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You do realize most people don't have the benefit of an older relative explaining aspects of the game to them the first time they play right? <i>You</i> were the tutorial is your stories.
<!--quoteo(post=1720481:date=Aug 3 2009, 03:03 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Aug 3 2009, 03:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1720481"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You do realize most people don't have the benefit of an older relative explaining aspects of the game to them the first time they play right? <i>You</i> were the tutorial is your stories.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
QFT.
I've tried teaching a whole room @ a LAN, and even with more hardcore players and plenty of vets shouldering people it can be tough.
As with any game, even DotA, if you have someone introduce it to you and explain everything as they go, they will most likely figure it out and maybe even enjoy it. For most of us, though, we have to learn the hard way, and most people don't like learning the hard way and researching forums and checking the key bindings menu every time they want to do something.
<!--quoteo(post=1720481:date=Aug 3 2009, 11:03 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Aug 3 2009, 11:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1720481"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You do realize most people don't have the benefit of an older relative explaining aspects of the game to them the first time they play right? <i>You</i> were the tutorial is your stories.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-'lethalshadow'+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ('lethalshadow')</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When I first picked up NS1, I joined a game having no previous knowledge of the specific mechanics or tactics. I joined marines (I thought the ready-room was sweet). I did just fine. I shadowed team mates who looked like they knew what was up (or had good scores) and followed orders. I had basic FPS skills and was not a liability to the team. When they asked me to do things I did not understand, I pointed out that I was new and they either assigned the task at hand to someone else, or gave me explanations, or both. After about a day's worth of playing, I had a pretty good grasp on both Marine and Alien sides, and I became a valuable part of the team. Was I elite? Hell no. But I was decent.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
----
I'd have to agree with Letalshadow. Yes, NS has some complexities however the core game isn't difficult too understand. If you're the kind of person who doesn't want to learn, and doesn't care about learning, you can play it like a TDM or Counter-Strike and so long as you can maintain an equal or positive K:D you're an asset to the team and you're probably having fun. In this scenario the player will eventually learn the game whether they want to or not, and when that time comes it would be their choice as to whether they'll contribute to the team or not.
I'm not saying to make NS2 really hard to learn, or to not include any tutorials or trainings, but I can't see anyone who knows NS calling it difficult to learn.
I'd have to agree with Letalshadow. Yes, NS has some complexities however the core game isn't difficult too understand. If you're the kind of person who doesn't want to learn, and doesn't care about learning, you can play it like a TDM or Counter-Strike and so long as you can maintain an equal or positive K:D you're an asset to the team and you're probably having fun. In this scenario the player will eventually learn the game whether they want to or not, and when that time comes it would be their choice as to whether they'll contribute to the team or not.
I'm not saying to make NS2 really hard to learn, or to not include any tutorials or trainings, but I can't see anyone who knows NS calling it difficult to learn.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Although both you and Letalshadow seem to forgetting that most of this discussion is NOT about how difficult the general/normal gameplay is (because yes it is easily grasped). Its about playing as a Commander being very difficult to get a hang of. Which is absolutely true, I started playing NS as a pretty darn competent FPS player, but I had a friend who already played the game who swore to god I would be an amazing commander. So I hopped in a chair, started playing, realized what a mess it was, and promptly got out. Because I knew there was no way I was gonna learn it on the fly without my team going butt crasy about what a ###### commander I was (because I was trying to get a hang of it), and I would far rather just pass it on to someone who is competent, then make my team lose over and over as I gain experience. And so personally if I had the ability to essentially shadow a commander and make some small choices, I would have gladly done so. Because then I can watch as the commander works his stuff, and I can take more time as I learn to do the same. Frankly its very similar to being an Intern after med school. You are able to take small steps and learn how to do stuff in a practical setting with someone else being in overall charge of you and what you do. And then hell, maybe I would have made as great a commander as my friend thought I would make. Personally I didn't feel too bad about it, but that's possibly because of how good I was in the FPS area. But I still would have liked the chance to learn without crippling my team as I am doing it.
<!--quoteo(post=1720545:date=Aug 3 2009, 09:10 PM:name=Blaise)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Blaise @ Aug 3 2009, 09:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1720545"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Although both you and Letalshadow seem to forgetting that most of this discussion is NOT about how difficult the general/normal gameplay is (because yes it is easily grasped).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This thread touched various topics and one of them was in fact about general/normal gameplay. I understand if you didn't read the entirety of my ridiculously long post, but I am all in favor of a tutorial, especially for commanding. I agree that learning to Comm without ****ing your team over in NS1 essentially required playing with bots.
I simply wanted to give my 2 cents and personal experience regarding general gameplay difficulty and whether making it easier was needed/a good idea. Someone said that in my examples I served as a tutorial to my brother and sister. That is true , but they are also VERY casual players and not FPS'ers. In my own learning experience (a more experienced gamer) I did not require such help, I simply followed the team and watched what others were doing.
I don't think binding commands and such belongs in the argument seeing how those things are hardly necessary for public play, or any play outside of clans really. Had there been a tutorial for NS1, I'm pretty sure those bindings and advanced techniques would not have appeared in it.
What I mean by this is that for casual players, first-time tips would be plenty to get them rolling on non-Comm gameplay. Such tips are basically the same as a relative watching over your shoulder giving you a heads-up from time to time. For commanders, make a tutorial.
Comments
There is overreacting on both sides, maybe in attempt to neutralize the opposing side's argument. I am going to try to dodge that with following...
NS2 does not have to be dumbed down to be more accessible, not does it have to be inaccessible to satisfy the more hardcore player base. You can both the new and veteran players happy with a bit in ingenuity. There is no point in arguing whether or not NS1 was accessible because each of us had a different experience when learning the game. However, since there are players who speak out that the first game had learning curve issues, it seems that there are problems which should be fixed. It's great that you can quickly learn the game, but playing NS2 shouldn't be exclusively for good players. Like you said, many people who play video games aren't necessarily good at them. That's a big market. The developers seem to be coming from this view point.
I don't see the point of designing a game to be aggressively complex. Even a simple game will have hidden complexities emerge as players play it. Something like Pac-Man, a very simple game, has a lot of depth to it. Small stuff like each ghost having it's own AI patterns brought a lot of depth to the game, where the professional players can predict how the ghosts can act to maximize their score. NS2 should be designed as a simple game. The depth will emerge on its own. As much as I hate the word Starcraft thrown around here, it was never designed to be as deep as it is. It was pure accident that such a straight forward game was given so much complexity.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with everything that you said. Also I agree even more with what you said about Starcraft and the whole philosophy behind that kind of "luck" (is there a word for such a situation? perhaps "dumb luck", if there is i would like to know it), and i don't say this like that, I've witnessed first hand how straight forward games can accidentally have deep and complex gameplay that were not thought of when the game was designed. A while back, I made a Warcraft 3 map (which some call mods) that is similar to HOSK or Dota, and although i designed it to be rather plain and simple, after spending a good amount of time playing the map i came across rather deep and complex strategies (stuff that would have never crossed my mind when i was developing the map) that so happened to fall in place ever so nicely due to the design of the game, however this was not in mind when i was designing the game, it was mere chance that things worked out this way. For those who are interested here's a link to the map, it might seem rather simple and plain at first, but as you play more and more you begin to see its depth.
<a href="http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/maps-564/pick-your-abilities-aos-v3-7b-80832/" target="_blank">http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/maps-56...os-v3-7b-80832/</a>
This isn't about dumbing down content, it's about making it more accessible. There doesn't need to be a skill cap on a feature, just that it's easy to learn at low levels. Not providing the instructions for a feature doesn't immediately make it "depth".
Thats why it is up to the community to educate lesser skilled players (i.e. NSlearn, NSDojo, etc....). There are going to be tactics and tricks that cannot be shared by the developers because they may not know about them when the game comes out (i.e. killer strats and tactics that can be only found through playing the game extensively in a non-testing enviornment).
These are the tips and tricks that cannot be explained in an in game tutorial.
These are the tips and tricks that cannot be explained in an in game tutorial.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's why I said there doesn't need to be a skill cap on a feature, just that the basics of the feature should be accessible. Anyone can drop a medpack; it's not easy to drop a medpack <i>well</i>.
But it seems that people in this forum want to make the game easier for the sake of the new players. I say keep the game the way it is, and allow the community to adjust itself skill-wise.
ahahahaha
ohh man. *wipes a tear from his eye*
Sorry, just had to get my 2 cents in there.
NS is not hard to learn. My 9 year old brother picked it up inside of 10 minutes with some guidance and made his first fade kill shortly thereafter.
If people cant pick this game up quick they may just be idiots. You can sit them down and explain how to bunnyhop, you can show them how to strafe jump. But god, sometimes, it's just impossible for them to learn because it is beyond their capacity.
It's like an old addage i heard long ago. Pythagoras could sit on a tree branch all day and lecture mathmatics to a sparrow till it fell from the branch. The sparrow would not learn and pythagoras would be tired. it cannot learn simply because it is just a sparrow.
So too are some people. Maybe not all people, but some. keep that in mind when you suggest dumbing it down for the new guy. Part of what drew me into this game was the level of depth and skill it took to become good. We need new players, yes. we need lots of new players, yes. What we dont need is "care bear hold your hand did that hurt lemme kiss it better for you does that feel good want me to keep going ohh yes dont stop" attitude, which if we continue with this train of thought will be the end result. We all went through the meat grinder. We're all about to go through it again. I for one am looking forward to re-learning this game. I dont want this to be easy and i certainly dont want it to be dumbed down. I want the gritty, "WTF WAS THAT RHINO" moments i originally had when i first played this game in the internet cafe in temple bar so many years ago.. I want moments like where the proprietor of that same internet cafe has to come over to tell me to shut the ###### up because im scaring the (pretty damn hot) group of 3 polish chicks sitting across from me because im screaming down the microphone "I NEED A ###### WELDER COMM". Moments like this made me love this game. Moments like when your comm drops a med in front of you and you die while trying to strafe jump to it by fade claw in your back. Proposals like commanders not medding make todd a sad boy.
Anyways, [/rant]
<!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro-->A game becoming easier to learn <b>DOES NOT EQUAL</b> a game with less depth.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
If you can explain to me, right now, how a <!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro-->game becoming easier to learn while keeping the same level of general depth<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> is <b>bad</b>, I will gladly admit that I am a lowly peon that should expect the more experienced players to teach me how to play a game because it is heresy to admit that entertainment should be intuitive. Only through the hard work can the unpure ever hope to enjoy this strange thing called "fun".
EDIT: I am dripping with venom here, so I apologize in retrospect.
I am also going to throw a spanner in the works now and say that Bunny hopping is not difficult to learn any more.
<!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro-->A game becoming easier to learn <b>DOES NOT EQUAL</b> a game with less depth.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
With the definition of depth being intellectually complex (in the case of entertainment) I honesly fail to see how this statement can be fact. However I have high suspicions that you are trying to get into a fight with people on this subject.
(I'm still trying to find out who or what you are replying to)
(I'm still trying to find out who or what you are replying to)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A smooth learning curve. That's what I want. You should not be required to know every aspect of the game to be useful. The person who does know what he is doing because he has played for many months, is of course much more useful than the fella who played for a day. But the guy who played for a day can contribute to the team without being a liability.
Easy to Learn. Hard to Master. That sort of thing. Chess can't be real though. Something with easy to grasp rules can't be intellectually complex.
My comment was directed at: Darkfrost, Firewater and todd1Ok.
I don't expect anyone to convince the other party that they are wrong. People are going to fight tooth and nail to prove their point. I am just representing the opposition so people who are reading this can get multiple view points on the matter.
EDIT: Sorry Whiskey for your thread being hi-jacked.
(I'm still trying to find out who or what you are replying to)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And with the definition of depth being meters below the surface, it can't be fact there either.
Amazing what you can do when you provide your own definitions.
The definition of depth is not intellectually complex. We could make the game very intellectually complex by requiring commanders to create meds or stims based on the intended character's DNA (as shown by the game) and requiring they mathmatically figure out proportions of different types of nanite to properly match it. And then not give them the formula but rather a couple of examples showing what proportions work for certain genetic types. More complex? Definitely. More depth? No.
For NS, a more rasonable defintition of depth is characters having a wide variety of viable options and tactics that can be used in a given situation, with the best course of action dependant in large part on the individual player's skill at executing certain actions. This does not mean that anything in the game needs to be hard to learn, but rather that there be a lot of things that can be learned.
There are those of us who started out in proper multiplay gaming with quake.
There are those of us who started out in proper multiplay gaming with half-life.
There are those of us who started out in proper multiplay gaming with counter-strike.
And so on.
As the "generations" go on, the more expectations from developers come, and less acceptance of unexpected "features".
Depending on the perspective of the gamer, these situations have become worse (my personal perspective) or better (pretty much everyone who started after the HLDM lot).
Words like exploit began being thrown about at every possible piece of abnormality, where previously those who didn't know how to do such things strived to find out how.
Team fortress classic is actually a fantasic example that probably everyone here knows. It is, like NS, an easy game to learn. But a difficult game to be very good at.
Its almost routine, even with brand new games, that I'll first of all see what movement "ability" the game allows for. Perhaps its just my perspective that makes it hard for me to believe that NS is a hard game to learn. I suppose when you hold it up against the likes of counter-strike, then it is hard. But with my particular game progression, it wasn't all that different to what I played previously, except being slower.
Kwil, you are nit picking. The use of depth for entertainment is usually for complexity. For example a novel can be deep, or a film.
Its ironic you then back up my supplied definition by your more reasonable one. Which does make sense, and explains what I missunderstood from sirot's statement, to an extent.
There are some that want that, just as there are some, such as yourself, who want to keep it the way it is. NS2 isn't trying to be Warsow though; they want a lot more players than that. That's why there's been a push to make the game easier to learn; they want lots of new players to strengthen the casual and competitive scenes.
<!--quoteo(post=1718603:date=Jul 22 2009, 02:29 AM:name=DarkFrost)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DarkFrost @ Jul 22 2009, 02:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718603"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->With the definition of depth being intellectually complex (in the case of entertainment) I honestly fail to see how this statement can be fact. However I have high suspicions that you are trying to get into a fight with people on this subject.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's one aspect of depth, one I enjoy and many games are based on. The best multiplayer games don't rely on this though, they focus on the player based actions providing intellectual challenges.
You don't need to learn every aspect of the game to be useful. There are many great players and good players that cannot command, or fade properly, but can contribute greatly to their team by doing other things that are very important. There are some players however, that how matter how easy the game is to learn, will get destroyed.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Easy to Learn. Hard to Master. That sort of thing. Chess can't be real though. Something with easy to grasp rules can't be intellectually complex.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Truth. Though for some people the rules of Chess are complex. You are kind of skirting around your own point. For some people, NS was VERY easy to pick up. For some people it was frustrating to the point where they never played it again. This happens with EVERY game (Sports; Cards; Board Games; Video Games). It comes to again, a skill-balance. If I were just learning chess and I wanted to play for fun would I play against Kasparov, an obvious master who would dismantle me? When I am beaten should I say the game was "not accessible enough" so I should quit. OR perhaps if I found the game interesting enough, I should play with players around my skill level, and develop from there. Which is why I strongly recommend using server labeling to allow players which type of servers they wish to play on (i.e. Casual vs. Competitive).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My comment was directed at: Darkfrost, Firewater and todd1Ok.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll take your sarcasm in this thread as a sense of frustration. Sorry about that =/
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't expect anyone to convince the other party that they are wrong. People are going to fight tooth and nail to prove their point. I am just representing the opposition so people who are reading this can get multiple view points on the matter.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not fighting tooth and nail, just using your own logic against you. Given NS/NS2's innovation, there has to be a certain amount of complexity to account for the RTS and FPS aspects of this game. I agree the developers should provide tutorials on the basics but then it is the responsibility of the player to learn the rest. I am sure there will be community sites that will aide the players that want to learn how to play better, and those that do not will either stay at their level or quit. If lower level players can have fun on casual servers without worrying about the wins or losses but whether or not he or she had fun playing the game. Seperate those players from those who want to learn and get better then NS2 will have a good player base.
THAT'S GOING TO WORK REAL WELL.
THAT'S GOING TO WORK REAL WELL.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
YES VERY MUCH. I'M SURE COMM WILL HAVE A MUCH BETTER TIME HAVING SOMEONE WITH HIM TO SHARE THE RESPONSIBILTY OF GOING DOWN WITH THE SHIP WHEN EVERYTHING AROUND THEM STARTS FALLING TO PIECES.
CAPSLOCK = CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL. BUT REAL PEOPLE USE SHIFT.
Also, everyone forgot one vitally important feature I believe was mentioned at one point, but I can't locate a source without that "We know everything about NS/NS2" list from that Australian site;
Commanders no longer drop weapons etc. It's up to the Marines themselves to buy that.
So taking that monetary drain out of the system, how could one dozen turrets or building more infantry spawns/badly placed PGs be a complete waste of money? Sure they can still grief, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out which of the two did it if they communicate with the team.
And as a last resort, you can just recycle. You couldn't recycle weapons and medkits etc, but now you don't have to worry about that.
I'm personally more interested in seeing some sort of integrated multiple callvote system that can allow any admin-less community to self-mod against griefers etc.
PS. Actually, isn't it now a hybrid resource system for both sides? Marines get resources to buy weaps etc while Kharaa get commanders to place structures etc? Guess that's one way to solve balancing issues.
<!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro-->A game becoming easier to learn <b>DOES NOT EQUAL</b> a game with less depth.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
If you can explain to me, right now, how a <!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro-->game becoming easier to learn while keeping the same level of general depth<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> is <b>bad</b>, I will gladly admit that I am a lowly peon that should expect the more experienced players to teach me how to play a game because it is heresy to admit that entertainment should be intuitive. Only through the hard work can the unpure ever hope to enjoy this strange thing called "fun".
EDIT: I am dripping with venom here, so I apologize in retrospect.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Just ignore the sparrows, they're not going to get it no matter how straightforward you make the concept. Eventually, out of frustration or just confusion, they will leave the thread to talk about something they understand.
<b>Analogy Systems: GO!</b>
Finding one good commander is hard enough on public servers; if it is necessary to find one for each team or multiple commanders for each team, the game could be lost before anyone is spawned.
It concerns me as a longtime NS pubber that you guys don't immediately see the flaw considering it was one of the major challenges with NS1 and the commander concept in general.
If I am missing something please let me know. From where I stand this looks like a problem you will not see in game testing with veteran clanners and experienced pubbers, but only once you have released it to the masses.
Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Think of it this way: It was hard trying to find one commander from one half of all the players playing on a given server.
Now, there will be two commanders to be found from two halves of all the players playing on a given server. The ratios of "how many comms needed : how players you pick them" from are the same.
If you are going purely by the numbers, which your complaint is based off of, it will be just as difficult in NS2 to find comms as it is in NS1.
Also, I don't really remember an announcement saying that there will be more than two commanders, one for the marines and one for the aliens.
Analogy Systems: GO!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ignoring your massive condescension, the concept we are debating is simplification of the game. Not intuitive tutorials or intuitive control schemes or anything to make the game more accessable, but simplification of the game in regards to removal of skill based movement systems and general "slowing down" of the game, as well as simplification for simplifications sake. This has been mentioned multiple times already. Kinda hard to sound magnanimous when you dont even know what we're talking about, eh?
You...you are aware that the original topic of the thread is about having multiple commanders, right? The debate centered around if having multiple commanders would help teach more players how to command and if it was worth it to decentralize leadership. It then devolved into an argument into whether or not NS1 was an easy to learn game to warrant a tool or change to have more commanders learning the skills.
So, this thread's direction isn't about simplifying, slowing down the game or simplification for simplification's sake. That's just exaggeration by people who assume making the game easier for new players is to remove all depth from it and already think NS1 was accessible enough.
When I first picked up NS1, I joined a game having no previous knowledge of the specific mechanics or tactics. I joined marines (I thought the ready-room was sweet). I did just fine. I shadowed team mates who looked like they knew what was up (or had good scores) and followed orders. I had basic FPS skills and was not a liability to the team. When they asked me to do things I did not understand, I pointed out that I was new and they either assigned the task at hand to someone else, or gave me explanations, or both. After about a day's worth of playing, I had a pretty good grasp on both Marine and Alien sides, and I became a valuable part of the team. Was I elite? Hell no. But I was decent.
Learned by watching others, a monkey can do it.
Then again, I'd been playing games for a while by then.
So I had my older brother try it out.
He had insignificant gaming experience (outside of Grand Turismo) and pretty poor FPS skills. I told him to try out Marines first and gave him a quick overview of what was up.
He followed his team, followed orders, he did fine. He'd get killed by skulks from time to time, but being around the team prevented his lack of skill from truly being a problem. After a few games he had a pretty good grasp on the marine side and tried Aliens. He did terrible, and recognized he simply wasn't the Alien type. He's stuck to marines since then and enjoyed the hell out of the game. He's a decent marine, he won't be stomping the entire Alien team single-handedly anytime soon, but he'll cover his team mates with his life and weld that objective at all costs. All it took was a little "you shouldn't do X because Y" from time to time (i.e: humping the armory for ammo => you could die without using that ammo) and he quickly became someone I wouldn't mind having on my team.
And some say NS1 was too hard to learn?
Fine, third example, my little sister.
She's from the "Wii" generation, and definitely not an FPS'er. I put her on Marines, showed her the controls and told her to follow her team and kill aliens. Whenever a new lifeform showed up I'd tell her what it was and it's role. Her first order from the Comm was "move to waypoint", pretty straightforward, (She asked me:"What's the map again?". "C") she brought up the map and made her way to the objective. Then she built a RT, later she welded a structure... Perfectly usable soldier. Her aim was pretty terrible of course, but she had the right idea. I told her to avoid hogging big guns, so the pros could use them. After one game she was already not a big liability anymore. Like my brother, she stuck with her team and played her part, and like him, she was having a blast, even when an Onos decided to make a meal of her.
For her next game, she tried Aliens, since she'd seen me "eat marines" and thought that was hilarious. Once again, quick overview of the controls and a little heads up regarding the more "ambush'ish" gameplay of the Alien side, and she was set. Followed her fellow skulks and assisted in the attacks. She actually killed a few marines. I let her skulk around like that for a while before I told her more about the Aliens tech tree etc. Stuff she would have found out just by hovering over the lifeforms and buildings in the right-click menu, if she wasn't a 13 years old girl with no online gaming experience.
That concludes my examples. Are my brother and sister elite NS'ers ? Hell no. Are they viable team mates capable of standard performance ? Yes. The time they invested in learning the game was very short and you can't get much more "casual" gamers than they are.
Sure it takes a while to get really good, to figure out which life form, which gun, which role suits you best. It takes a while to master more advanced techniques, but that's just what they are: advanced. I think NS1 was already damned fine in terms of learning curve. You can't expect everyone to instantly grasp all of the finer aspects of a game, that's just not realistic. But I was surprised at how easily my family and friends picked up NS1.
Can beginners' tips help make it even smoother? Sure !
Should the game mechanics be changed so my little sister can kill pro skulks? No. (Yes I'm exaggerating)
Tutorials and first-time tips, Yes!
Dumbing down and "console'ing", No!
As for the 2 commanders deal? I haven't tried it yet and won't judge a feature I haven't seen in action. Let's save that for Alpha shall we?
Dumbing down and "console'ing", No!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I only read the first 3 pages, but I'm pretty sure no one mentioned the tutorial there, glad someone finally did. People that didn't start playing NS1 from the start and didn't have friends to help them practice commanding, had absolutely no clue what they were doing when they got in an NS1 command chair. Depending on the quality of the NS2 command tutorial, most people will at least be a bit familiar with the basic controls and commands. This should make it easier to find a sufficient (sub)commander on pub servers.
Again, NS2 is not NS1 so don't try and retro-fit all new features into NS1 and say that wouldn't work. If you just want NS1 with upgraded graphics and a few new maps, just say so. I for one do like some new gameplay features, if it doesn't work it can always be tweaked or removed completely.
You do realize most people don't have the benefit of an older relative explaining aspects of the game to them the first time they play right? <i>You</i> were the tutorial is your stories.
QFT.
I've tried teaching a whole room @ a LAN, and even with more hardcore players and plenty of vets shouldering people it can be tough.
As with any game, even DotA, if you have someone introduce it to you and explain everything as they go, they will most likely figure it out and maybe even enjoy it. For most of us, though, we have to learn the hard way, and most people don't like learning the hard way and researching forums and checking the key bindings menu every time they want to do something.
<!--QuoteBegin-'lethalshadow'+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ('lethalshadow')</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When I first picked up NS1, I joined a game having no previous knowledge of the specific mechanics or tactics. I joined marines (I thought the ready-room was sweet). I did just fine. I shadowed team mates who looked like they knew what was up (or had good scores) and followed orders. I had basic FPS skills and was not a liability to the team. When they asked me to do things I did not understand, I pointed out that I was new and they either assigned the task at hand to someone else, or gave me explanations, or both. After about a day's worth of playing, I had a pretty good grasp on both Marine and Alien sides, and I became a valuable part of the team. Was I elite? Hell no. But I was decent.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
----
I'd have to agree with Letalshadow. Yes, NS has some complexities however the core game isn't difficult too understand. If you're the kind of person who doesn't want to learn, and doesn't care about learning, you can play it like a TDM or Counter-Strike and so long as you can maintain an equal or positive K:D you're an asset to the team and you're probably having fun. In this scenario the player will eventually learn the game whether they want to or not, and when that time comes it would be their choice as to whether they'll contribute to the team or not.
I'm not saying to make NS2 really hard to learn, or to not include any tutorials or trainings, but I can't see anyone who knows NS calling it difficult to learn.
I'd have to agree with Letalshadow. Yes, NS has some complexities however the core game isn't difficult too understand. If you're the kind of person who doesn't want to learn, and doesn't care about learning, you can play it like a TDM or Counter-Strike and so long as you can maintain an equal or positive K:D you're an asset to the team and you're probably having fun. In this scenario the player will eventually learn the game whether they want to or not, and when that time comes it would be their choice as to whether they'll contribute to the team or not.
I'm not saying to make NS2 really hard to learn, or to not include any tutorials or trainings, but I can't see anyone who knows NS calling it difficult to learn.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Although both you and Letalshadow seem to forgetting that most of this discussion is NOT about how difficult the general/normal gameplay is (because yes it is easily grasped). Its about playing as a Commander being very difficult to get a hang of. Which is absolutely true, I started playing NS as a pretty darn competent FPS player, but I had a friend who already played the game who swore to god I would be an amazing commander. So I hopped in a chair, started playing, realized what a mess it was, and promptly got out. Because I knew there was no way I was gonna learn it on the fly without my team going butt crasy about what a ###### commander I was (because I was trying to get a hang of it), and I would far rather just pass it on to someone who is competent, then make my team lose over and over as I gain experience. And so personally if I had the ability to essentially shadow a commander and make some small choices, I would have gladly done so. Because then I can watch as the commander works his stuff, and I can take more time as I learn to do the same. Frankly its very similar to being an Intern after med school. You are able to take small steps and learn how to do stuff in a practical setting with someone else being in overall charge of you and what you do. And then hell, maybe I would have made as great a commander as my friend thought I would make. Personally I didn't feel too bad about it, but that's possibly because of how good I was in the FPS area. But I still would have liked the chance to learn without crippling my team as I am doing it.
This thread touched various topics and one of them was in fact about general/normal gameplay. I understand if you didn't read the entirety of my ridiculously long post, but I am all in favor of a tutorial, especially for commanding. I agree that learning to Comm without ****ing your team over in NS1 essentially required playing with bots.
I simply wanted to give my 2 cents and personal experience regarding general gameplay difficulty and whether making it easier was needed/a good idea. Someone said that in my examples I served as a tutorial to my brother and sister. That is true , but they are also VERY casual players and not FPS'ers. In my own learning experience (a more experienced gamer) I did not require such help, I simply followed the team and watched what others were doing.
I don't think binding commands and such belongs in the argument seeing how those things are hardly necessary for public play, or any play outside of clans really. Had there been a tutorial for NS1, I'm pretty sure those bindings and advanced techniques would not have appeared in it.
What I mean by this is that for casual players, first-time tips would be plenty to get them rolling on non-Comm gameplay. Such tips are basically the same as a relative watching over your shoulder giving you a heads-up from time to time. For commanders, make a tutorial.