I'd say that's part of the problem, because I have always seen NS as a thinking player's choise, why I would rather see fraggers gone and NS2 slowed down quite a bit. NS simply isn't "supposed" to be a mindless game, because there are so many other brands that do it so much better. E.g: Counter-Strike, Unreal Tournament, Enemy Territory, Quake, whatever, to name the tip of the iceberg. IMO, it's better to do something well and reach a small audience rather than do something mediocry for brief fame.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Only if you give too much health to offensive towers and turret farms, as opposed to tougher "core" buildings.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't see why stationary warfare has to be a negative thing, since it certainly makes playing a gorge and lerk (spores) enjoyable. Yes, it can lead to a stalemate, but only because the enemy team failed to act during the building phase. That should, naturally, lead to defeat. Just not by acid rocket spam >.>
@ noncomposmentis
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->--a reasonable person can only conclude that you think it's "fail" simply because you're bad at it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thank you for pointing this out for the second time. No, name calling doesn't elevate discussion, so I'm adding you to my ignore list with great joy. I might even dance a little dance in front of my desk. Too bad you will never see it :)
<!--quoteo(post=1738090:date=Nov 18 2009, 08:30 AM:name=Wirhe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wirhe @ Nov 18 2009, 08:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738090"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd say that's part of the problem, because I have always seen NS as a thinking player's choise, why I would rather see fraggers gone and NS2 slowed down quite a bit. NS simply isn't "supposed" to be a mindless game, because there are so many other brands that do it so much better. E.g: Counter-Strike, Unreal Tournament, Enemy Territory, Quake, whatever, to name the tip of the iceberg. IMO, it's better to do something well and reach a small audience rather than do something mediocry for brief fame.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> NS has been unique because it's fast, mobile, team based and still something else than CTF. Slowing down would make it a lot more mainstream and change the way of thinking more similar to some of the titles you mentioned. Right now it picks the best from both ends: Strict team code and coordination from slower shooters while still capturing a lot of mobility and quick dynamic situations from deathmatch games.
Also I wouldn't recommend completely ignoring the depth of games like Quake just because it's fast: The good players win their games by timing, map control and psychology, not only by twich aiming.
Actually speeding up gameplay is more mainstream (case in point TF2), given half that audience has ADD. Anything that involves slow deliberately unfolding events and strategy attracts the true dedicated gamers. Quite frankly I can't tell you how disappointed I am to hear it will be further shortened since going from NS 1.04 to 2.xx already brought to a halt those long epic battles upwards of 45 min we used to have hera style.
<!--quoteo(post=1738317:date=Nov 19 2009, 06:53 PM:name=R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e @ Nov 19 2009, 06:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738317"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actually speeding up gameplay is more mainstream (case in point TF2), given half that audience has ADD. Anything that involves slow deliberately unfolding events and strategy attracts the true dedicated gamers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I find this utterly hilarious given how many times I've had to sit through some TFC prima-donnas complaining about TF2 being "slowed down to a crawl"... Primarily through the absence of extreme-horizontal-speed explosive jumps, bunny-hopping, and instakill grenades for all classes.
The major advantage longer rounds have is that they can help ensure the game remains fresh.
If the rounds are 15 minutes, this implies fairly fast tech-up. In addition, if you end the game 'early', you're looking at maybe an 8 minute game. That's not very long, but also not much faster than the 'normal' length - especially given that you could assume you've got the full tech tree unlocked at the 12 minute mark.
Exactly what about short rounds makes a game memorable? Counter-Strike with its 2 minute rounds of complete inane forgettableness, utterly bores me for that reason.
NS1 had the advantage that games could vary between 2 minutes and hell, two hours. In addition, because maxing out the tech tree and exploring most valid options took a significant amount of time, it was very possible to end a round when you hadn't even gotten Heavy Armor yet. The advantage to this is that every round simply feels that much different than the last.
<!--quoteo(post=1738082:date=Nov 18 2009, 07:00 AM:name=blitz_krieg001)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blitz_krieg001 @ Nov 18 2009, 07:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738082"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think it probably had less effect of "butchering" the classic player population, simply because if they weren't playing combat they would have been playing something else that still wasn't NS (DoD, CS, etc.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't doubt that this is true for many Combat players, but simply having seen the changing in server populations, it's also true that instead of playing NS Classic, many people instead went to Combat.
Combat may have attracted more players to NS, but it was Combat to which they were attracted, not Classic, which entirely defeats the point of the whole thing.
<!--quoteo(post=1738328:date=Nov 20 2009, 12:46 AM:name=Terr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Terr @ Nov 20 2009, 12:46 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738328"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I find this utterly hilarious given how many times I've had to sit through some TFC prima-donnas complaining about TF2 being "slowed down to a crawl"... Primarily through the absence of extreme-horizontal-speed explosive jumps, bunny-hopping, and instakill grenades for all classes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're confusing <u>game-speed</u> and <u>game-time</u>. One pertains to generally how quickly you must react to events in the game (i.e. the speed required to time a conc-jump vs. time an uber) and the other, the one I am referring to, is how quickly events and strategies in the game unfold. Although not completely unrelated, they are distinct. I enjoy medium-to-high game-speed (i.e. between NS and Q3), but also medium-to-slow game-times when it comes to NS and other FPSRTS hybrids. It's the entire point of the RTS element in the first place - you need time to let tech trees fully realize themselves and battles should have weight behind them, not just "oh well, if we lose this one, we'll just try again in five minutes". Fifteen minutes is already short-changing this feeling, let alone proposing that we cut it down further. What's next NS battles that end quicker than CO? No thanks.
renegade...if i could vote for coolest and most intelligent person on this forum...you'd get my vote,
you truly understand the game. I agree with everything you have said thus far, in all the posts I have read, and you explain it clearly and concisely. I really hope the Devs read and reread your posts, and make sure to completely understand them.
<!--quoteo(post=1738333:date=Nov 19 2009, 09:35 PM:name=R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e @ Nov 19 2009, 09:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738333"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're confusing <u>game-speed</u> and <u>game-time</u>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Think about it for a second. When conc-jumping leads to fast captures, and there's a capture limit, the map therefore ends quickly.
I think Renegade and Terr have said pretty much everything there is to say about the topic and I agree. I can't see myself playing NS2 if it's anything like Combat or other frag'em'ups. It will be interesting to see some actual player footage from the game, but somehow I suspect that the dev.team will do the same to NS2 as they did to NS1.
Well, hope for the best. NS1 was really super for a while. It was really something to be the last survivor in an alien infested Bast.
Comments
I'd say that's part of the problem, because I have always seen NS as a thinking player's choise, why I would rather see fraggers gone and NS2 slowed down quite a bit. NS simply isn't "supposed" to be a mindless game, because there are so many other brands that do it so much better. E.g: Counter-Strike, Unreal Tournament, Enemy Territory, Quake, whatever, to name the tip of the iceberg. IMO, it's better to do something well and reach a small audience rather than do something mediocry for brief fame.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Only if you give too much health to offensive towers and turret farms, as opposed to tougher "core" buildings.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see why stationary warfare has to be a negative thing, since it certainly makes playing a gorge and lerk (spores) enjoyable. Yes, it can lead to a stalemate, but only because the enemy team failed to act during the building phase. That should, naturally, lead to defeat. Just not by acid rocket spam >.>
@ noncomposmentis
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->--a reasonable person can only conclude that you think it's "fail" simply because you're bad at it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you for pointing this out for the second time. No, name calling doesn't elevate discussion, so I'm adding you to my ignore list with great joy. I might even dance a little dance in front of my desk. Too bad you will never see it :)
NS has been unique because it's fast, mobile, team based and still something else than CTF. Slowing down would make it a lot more mainstream and change the way of thinking more similar to some of the titles you mentioned. Right now it picks the best from both ends: Strict team code and coordination from slower shooters while still capturing a lot of mobility and quick dynamic situations from deathmatch games.
Also I wouldn't recommend completely ignoring the depth of games like Quake just because it's fast: The good players win their games by timing, map control and psychology, not only by twich aiming.
I find this utterly hilarious given how many times I've had to sit through some TFC prima-donnas complaining about TF2 being "slowed down to a crawl"... Primarily through the absence of extreme-horizontal-speed explosive jumps, bunny-hopping, and instakill grenades for all classes.
If the rounds are 15 minutes, this implies fairly fast tech-up. In addition, if you end the game 'early', you're looking at maybe an 8 minute game. That's not very long, but also not much faster than the 'normal' length - especially given that you could assume you've got the full tech tree unlocked at the 12 minute mark.
Exactly what about short rounds makes a game memorable? Counter-Strike with its 2 minute rounds of complete inane forgettableness, utterly bores me for that reason.
NS1 had the advantage that games could vary between 2 minutes and hell, two hours. In addition, because maxing out the tech tree and exploring most valid options took a significant amount of time, it was very possible to end a round when you hadn't even gotten Heavy Armor yet. The advantage to this is that every round simply feels that much different than the last.
I don't doubt that this is true for many Combat players, but simply having seen the changing in server populations, it's also true that instead of playing NS Classic, many people instead went to Combat.
Combat may have attracted more players to NS, but it was Combat to which they were attracted, not Classic, which entirely defeats the point of the whole thing.
You're confusing <u>game-speed</u> and <u>game-time</u>. One pertains to generally how quickly you must react to events in the game (i.e. the speed required to time a conc-jump vs. time an uber) and the other, the one I am referring to, is how quickly events and strategies in the game unfold. Although not completely unrelated, they are distinct. I enjoy medium-to-high game-speed (i.e. between NS and Q3), but also medium-to-slow game-times when it comes to NS and other FPSRTS hybrids. It's the entire point of the RTS element in the first place - you need time to let tech trees fully realize themselves and battles should have weight behind them, not just "oh well, if we lose this one, we'll just try again in five minutes". Fifteen minutes is already short-changing this feeling, let alone proposing that we cut it down further. What's next NS battles that end quicker than CO? No thanks.
you truly understand the game. I agree with everything you have said thus far, in all the posts I have read, and you explain it clearly and concisely. I really hope the Devs read and reread your posts, and make sure to completely understand them.
Think about it for a second. When conc-jumping leads to fast captures, and there's a capture limit, the map therefore ends quickly.
Well, hope for the best. NS1 was really super for a while. It was really something to be the last survivor in an alien infested Bast.