<!--quoteo(post=1760206:date=Mar 19 2010, 08:34 PM:name=huhuh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huhuh @ Mar 19 2010, 08:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760206"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Impossible and worthless, NS1 is too dependant on the HL1 engine to be ported correctly onto Spark without majour changes.
Sorry, who are you again for knowing the competitive community as well as the metagame so well ?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I am the face of the great America, the only country on the planet to ever have more than one good NS team.
<!--quoteo(post=1760208:date=Mar 19 2010, 08:07 PM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Mar 19 2010, 08:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760208"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why is it impossible?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I may be really wrong there, but it feels like it would be like CS:S to 1.6. It's pratically "the same game" but the engine makes it different. Or maybe more prcesily, CS:promod and .6 . They still feel different. But well, since we haven't really gotten into that Spark engine (except from videos & editor) I must admit all this is theoretical-fiction :D
<!--quoteo(post=1760208:date=Mar 19 2010, 08:07 PM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Mar 19 2010, 08:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760208"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It sounds worthwhile to me. Although I probably don't have enough experience of <i>metagame</i> and competitive play to comment.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The comment on my post above was not linked to your post. But as you may have noticed, I hate people who sound like they know the comp community, when all they've known of it was 1 clan in 1.04 and a clanbase cup ... or less.
<!--quoteo(post=1760100:date=Mar 19 2010, 01:36 PM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Mar 19 2010, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760100"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem with the 'we don't know' viewpoint is that almost every discussion becomes irrelevant.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course, I was never against discussion and speculation. Just against people who think they can predict the future.
<!--quoteo(post=1760206:date=Mar 19 2010, 08:34 PM:name=huhuh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huhuh @ Mar 19 2010, 08:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760206"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Impossible and worthless, NS1 is too dependant on the HL1 engine to be ported correctly onto Spark without majour changes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, I wasn't serious, it was just an example to make a point. Still, common sense tells me it would be far from impossible. What is there about the HL1 engine that makes features of NS1 unportable?
huhuh, they cannot directly port the C/C++ code obviously but implementing NS1 with LUA will probably be rather easy apart from missing models. etc assets. However I don't think they are doing any vanilla version, because of history of combat, limited resources and that they want 1 vanilla version and custom versions in another group.
But I think our dear frenchie made a good point here. There's a concern NS2 could be what CS:S is to CS 1.6. Same game but physics don't have such a good feeling and the game won't exceed the popularity of its predecessor. This is a classic example of how genius physics HL1 had. Not only showing up as clanner rants but in sales aswell. But it looks like epic Stracraft is not making the same mistake - indeed, they're listening to competitive players and making the most awaited video game sequel in recent history a huge success.
I'm not gonna bite anytime's obvious flame but he had a good point. In NS1, there's no big strategical decisions compared to some other RTS'es. I've talked about this myself in another topic. MCs are a strong 1st chamber, SCs are strong 2nd chamber. JPs are strongly preferred over HA. You cannot go lategame without AA etc. All credits to commanders like Peach, but anything non-normal is rather risky. Doing usual tactics + medspam + aim is usually the way to victory in NS1. You don't need a commander with tactical brains of best Stracraft commanders if you only get fast meds, aim and usual understanding of the game. Apart from some imba tactics, it's very hard to outsmart a better team with tactics (im talking about competitive) if the difference in raw player skill is enough. Of course this is not the whole story, NS1 is full of situations where a clever commander makes all the difference but it could have more strategical depth. Whether this'd need OPs and strong counters and whether they are good for NS is another story.
The thing is, NS needs careful balancing. If any ability, chamber or upgrade gives a lot better chances of winning (like MCs) compared to alternatives, it gets <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback" target="_blank">a positive feedback loop</a> and you'll have a lot less variety in tactics.
<!--quoteo(post=1760234:date=Mar 19 2010, 10:38 PM:name=Jiriki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jiriki @ Mar 19 2010, 10:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760234"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's a concern NS2 could be what CS:S is to CS 1.6. Same game but physics don't have such a good feeling and the game won't exceed the popularity of its predecessor.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Whoa, whoa, whoa, WHAT????
Steam Stats says you're wrong. CSS has more players. Both currently and Peak.
Current Peak 26,116 87,207 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Multiplayer 19,713 84,363 Counter-Strike: Source 17,558 22,437 Team Fortress 2 15,419 72,054 Counter-Strike 14,770 20,848 Battlefield: Bad Company 2
<!--quoteo(post=1760214:date=Mar 20 2010, 02:49 AM:name=Donner & Blitzen)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Donner & Blitzen @ Mar 20 2010, 02:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760214"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Of course, I was never against discussion and speculation. Just against people who think they can predict the future.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Some people have got a huge amount of gaming experience. Nobody has got the chrystal ball here, but some people certainly have got experience on what works and what doesn't. I've seen both completely unnecessary critisism and understandable worries. The problem is that even those decent points get counterargumented like they were just something that is completely unpredictable and impossible to understand at this point.
According <a href="http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=21319" target="_blank">to Gamasutra</a> CS sold 2.1 million units more and of course a lot more in hidden HL1 sales (cos its a free game). This excluding CS:S xBox sales.
Yes, and that's a fair estimate considering CS1.6 xbox sales were probably excluded as well. Sometimes I forget there are more examples of tragedy than TFC->TF2, there's also CS->CS:S and DoD->DoD:S. Like movies, the potential for games to go fail-mode in sequels is immense. Starcraft 2 seems to be saving itself from this demise because they are <b>listening to their comp. community</b>. A while ago (and now) if you searched <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7k3ZM6bQx4" target="_blank">"what's wrong with SC2"</a> you would have found valid gripes from their community; however many have since been addressed and fixed in response to these problems.
Threads like these happen in every community, there will always be those who say "pish you can't predict the future" vs. those who try to build and analyze constructive points of criticism. If we are to take any examples from past games, it pays to listen to your community.
<!--quoteo(post=1760272:date=Mar 20 2010, 12:07 PM:name=R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e @ Mar 20 2010, 12:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760272"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Starcraft 2 seems to be saving itself from this demise because they are <b>listening to their comp. community</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not all about the competitive community. I think people need to learn give and take. You can't have it all your way.
Listening =/= obeying. We've already given up on "having it our way", NS2 isn't going to be the high-skill hardcore no-nonsense comp. game we had hoped for, however that's not to say we won't try to salvage it as much as possible and by listening to us, hopefully UWE can strike that balance they're hoping to achieve between nub-friendly and competitively challenging.
There are a lot of factors to why CS:S may have been less successful than CS. Part of the reason because it was more or less a straight port. Who wants to pay money for a game they already have?
As for DoD:S, the main complaint in that game was about the adjusted CoF for all weapons taking away from the skill factor of shooting. What players didn't realize is that it takes no more skill in DoD 1.3 than in DoD:S, because in the end, you have no control over where the bullets land within that CoF. The skill only comes from knowing where to be to ensure that you're most effective. That never changed.
And neither of these are issues when it comes to NS2.
The point is, UWE is going to make *their* game. Even if it means making (what some players would consider) sacrifices. But I think it's a given that UWE is going to try to make it appeal as diverse an audience (casual and competitive alike).
nadyliJoin Date: 2007-11-01Member: 62791Members, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1760291:date=Mar 20 2010, 06:01 PM:name=Donner & Blitzen)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Donner & Blitzen @ Mar 20 2010, 06:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760291"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There are a lot of factors to why CS:S may have been less successful than CS. Part of the reason because it was more or less a straight port. Who wants to pay money for a game they already have?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1760291:date=Mar 20 2010, 08:01 PM:name=Donner & Blitzen)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Donner & Blitzen @ Mar 20 2010, 08:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760291"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But I think it's a given that UWE is going to try to make it appeal as diverse an audience (casual and competitive alike).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So far I dont see improvements in competitive side but a whole load in the casual side. This does make sense granted, casuals > competitive in numbers but is it worth sacrificing the very good parts of NS. For example if the movement is not as good as it was in NS1 I doubt Ill stick with this too long.
<!--quoteo(post=1760291:date=Mar 20 2010, 05:01 PM:name=Donner & Blitzen)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Donner & Blitzen @ Mar 20 2010, 05:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760291"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for DoD:S, the main complaint in that game was about the adjusted CoF for all weapons taking away from the skill factor of shooting. What players didn't realize is that it takes no more skill in DoD 1.3 than in DoD:S, because in the end, you have no control over where the bullets land within that CoF. The skill only comes from knowing where to be to ensure that you're most effective. That never changed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wait, what?
I haven't played DoD:s, but in 1.3 you've got almost exact control over your cone of fire granted that you can control the recoil. If it's changed, it changes quite a bit in the nature of game. With inaccurate cone of fire you're leaving far more time for your opponent to react, giving the weapon choise more importance.
Knowing where you're effective is interesting to some extend, but it shouldn't be the same position all round long. In DoD, I'd picture the effective spots getting rather repetetive if the guns aren't deadly enough all around.
pSyk0mAnNerdish by NatureGermanyJoin Date: 2003-08-07Member: 19166Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Silver, NS2 Community Developer
I think they overrate lua as a solution to please everyone in the long run. Of course you can make a pro mod and whatever, but then you'll split the community again and make it harder for leagues to recruit new players. And the possibility of different leagues using different kind of mods doesn't help either.
<!--quoteo(post=1760293:date=Mar 20 2010, 12:22 PM:name=zh`)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (zh` @ Mar 20 2010, 12:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760293"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Where do you get your facts?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not a fact, just an opinion. I don't think there's any hard factual answer to the reason why CS:S was less popular than CS during its early days. As far as I know it was essentially the same game (minus the FPS-based CoF bug which was fixed IIRC), but I may be wrong.
At least for a game as popular as CS, it can afford to make the same game over again. Same with Starcraft. Look how many people play NS now. I don't think UWE has that luxury, even if they wanted to.
I haven't played DoD:s, but in 1.3 you've got almost exact control over your cone of fire granted that you can control the recoil. If it's changed, it changes quite a bit in the nature of game. With inaccurate cone of fire you're leaving far more time for your opponent to react, giving the weapon choise more importance.
Knowing where you're effective is interesting to some extend, but it shouldn't be the same position all round long. In DoD, I'd picture the effective spots getting rather repetetive if the guns aren't deadly enough all around.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm saying that when it comes to aiming with automatic weapons in DoD, there was never really any skill to be needed. Rifles are very accurate. If your aim is off by a pixel, you will miss your target. You have precise control over where your bullets land. Automatic weapons have a CoF. It doesn't require you to be precise, you just need to keep your crosshair within the region of your enemy, and control recoil. Outside of this, you have no control over where exactly the bullet will land. The only thing that changed in DoD:S was the degree of certainty at which you could say most of your bullets would hit, but the mechanics of shooting never changed.
<!--quoteo(post=1760295:date=Mar 20 2010, 12:30 PM:name=TrC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TrC @ Mar 20 2010, 12:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760295"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So far I dont see improvements in competitive side but a whole load in the casual side. This does make sense granted, casuals > competitive in numbers but is it worth sacrificing the very good parts of NS. For example if the movement is not as good as it was in NS1 I doubt Ill stick with this too long.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If UWE does succeed in keeping the skill dimensions, I would think they would at least take a different form. In NS1, a lot of the skill in movement seems to be in a players ability to execute obscure movement exploits. Not that this isn't legitimate, but in principle, it's a poor way to add dimensions of skill to the game.
For example, now that skulks have leap by default, the skill involved might change from being able to bunnyhop, wall jump, etc. to adrenaline management, or something like that. In this way, the required skill to be effective is easily apparent to all players. It's just a matter of being able to master said skill.
And of course, given enough time and practice, players will <i>always</i> find ways here and there to give them an edge here or there. The Spark engine may come with its own sets of quirks that players can take advantage of.
<!--quoteo(post=1760284:date=Mar 20 2010, 02:37 PM:name=R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e @ Mar 20 2010, 02:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760284"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Listening =/= obeying. We've already given up on "having it our way", NS2 isn't going to be the high-skill hardcore no-nonsense comp. game we had hoped for, however that's not to say we won't try to salvage it as much as possible and by listening to us, hopefully UWE can strike that balance they're hoping to achieve between nub-friendly and competitively challenging.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't know that until you play. Patience is a virtue.
(I wish I had the ability to lock this thread KFDM style now I've said that last sentence)
<!--quoteo(post=1760291:date=Mar 20 2010, 11:01 AM:name=Donner & Blitzen)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Donner & Blitzen @ Mar 20 2010, 11:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760291"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There are a lot of factors to why CS:S may have been less successful than CS. Part of the reason because it was more or less a straight port. Who wants to pay money for a game they already have? As for DoD:S, the main complaint in that game was about the adjusted CoF for all weapons taking away from the skill factor of shooting.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Incorrect, it's exactly the opposite. <i>Had</i> it been a straight port it would have been much more successful. The reason it wasn't was because as you can see from the stats yourself, most prefer the raw rugged feel of CS1.6. I speak for myself and many comp. CS players who have expressed this sentiments. As for DoD, yes there are specific problems, but again it all contributes to an overall "feel". Rather than discuss the failings of each sequel, the important thing to take away from this is that NS2 is subjected to such a fate in a very real way, and so far as we express here, there are some things it will have to address before these fears are calmed.
<!--quoteo(post=1760313:date=Mar 20 2010, 12:41 PM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Mar 20 2010, 12:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760313"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You don't know that until you play. Patience is a virtue. (I wish I had the ability to lock this thread KFDM style now I've said that last sentence)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Patience is a virtue, Ignorance is bliss. We have no use here for willful blindness, if you do not wish to participate in constructive criticism feel free to ignore this thread.
<!--quoteo(post=1760309:date=Mar 20 2010, 09:34 PM:name=Donner & Blitzen)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Donner & Blitzen @ Mar 20 2010, 09:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760309"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For example, now that skulks have leap by default, the skill involved might change from being able to bunnyhop, wall jump, etc. to adrenaline management, or something like that. In this way, the required skill to be effective is easily apparent to all players. It's just a matter of being able to master said skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Adreline management was always present in NS1, although it did not seem relevant for skulk until second hive ability it was there for every other lifeform. Slower and bulkier skulk suggests that camping or ambush from corners are much more effective due lesser damage time and I dont like the idea of that. My theory is that the leap is very slow and short at the 1 hive gaining more speed and length from second and third hive. Although it is unknown how often can you leap worst case scenario it is only used to leap toward marine. If we are lucky enough it is something that is "spammable" that would allow floor-wall-ceiling type of hobbing which would be much more interesting. The real problem is that it is already possible in NS1 and changing it perhaps to worse is very questinable even if its easier.
<!--quoteo(post=1760321:date=Mar 21 2010, 04:04 AM:name=TrC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TrC @ Mar 21 2010, 04:04 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760321"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Adreline management was always present in NS1, although it did not seem relevant for skulk until second hive ability it was there for every other lifeform. Slower and bulkier skulk suggests that camping or ambush from corners are much more effective due lesser damage time and I dont like the idea of that. My theory is that the leap is very slow and short at the 1 hive gaining more speed and length from second and third hive. Although it is unknown how often can you leap worst case scenario it is only used to leap toward marine. If we are lucky enough it is something that is "spammable" that would allow floor-wall-ceiling type of hobbing which would be much more interesting. The real problem is that it is already possible in NS1 and changing it perhaps to worse is very questinable even if its easier.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The comments about the slower and bulkier skulk were made how long ago?
From the pre-alpha footage, the skulk seems to be pretty close to just the NS1 version. In the screenshot they posted forever ago, the skulk was massive, but they stated that that was just to make a more interesting screenshot.
<!--quoteo(post=1760315:date=Mar 20 2010, 12:50 PM:name=R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e @ Mar 20 2010, 12:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760315"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Incorrect, it's exactly the opposite. <i>Had</i> it been a straight port it would have been much more successful. The reason it wasn't was because as you can see from the stats yourself, most prefer the raw rugged feel of CS1.6. I speak for myself and many comp. CS players who have expressed this sentiments. As for DoD, yes there are specific problems, but again it all contributes to an overall "feel". Rather than discuss the failings of each sequel, the important thing to take away from this is that NS2 is subjected to such a fate in a very real way, and so far as we express here, there are some things it will have to address before these fears are calmed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What stats are you talking about?
There are a lot of reasons people kept playing 1.6 and I think it's safe to assume that the competitive players offended over the very minor changes were a vocal minority. There were a ton of pub players who didn't switch because it was too similar to be worth buying, or their computers couldn't handle Source, or there weren't enough maps, or they thought the riot shield was just so cool, or they just simply didn't like change. The link between a happy competitive community and the game's popularity among pubs remains tenuous at best.
<!--quoteo(post=1760324:date=Mar 20 2010, 10:17 PM:name=BigText)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BigText @ Mar 20 2010, 10:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760324"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The comments about the slower and bulkier skulk were made how long ago?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Indeed movement speed in the pre-alpha video seemed decent if its not with cele and bunnyhob is faster but for bulkyness I cant help but to compare NS1 and of course it could just mean more hp.
<!--quoteo(post=1760308:date=Mar 20 2010, 06:26 PM:name=Donner & Blitzen)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Donner & Blitzen @ Mar 20 2010, 06:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760308"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm saying that when it comes to aiming with automatic weapons in DoD, there was never really any skill to be needed. Rifles are very accurate. If your aim is off by a pixel, you will miss your target. You have precise control over where your bullets land. Automatic weapons have a CoF. It doesn't require you to be precise, you just need to keep your crosshair within the region of your enemy, and control recoil. Outside of this, you have no control over where exactly the bullet will land. The only thing that changed in DoD:S was the degree of certainty at which you could say most of your bullets would hit, but the mechanics of shooting never changed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Bigger CoF --> Less deadly weapons --> Less focus on acquiring the target before he does target you, more focus on what happens while you're firing at each other, at least on rough logic without being actually familiar with the game.
DoD is a lot about what happens before you've got your target on your crosshair. Who manages to surprise the opponent, who has the better position for shooting, who reacts quicker? Bigger CoF reduces the importance of that and shifts it to what happens after you/your opponent has got something in the crosshair, which arguably isn't equally interesting with DoD mechanics.
As you mentioned, the mechanic of shooting never changed, but the whole idea of what you can do on the map and how you can play the game changes depending on the CoF. The less accurate you are, the more you're forced to stick to close quarters. The more you're dependand on the close quarters, the less options you've got within the game. The less options you've got, the less depth you've got in general.
<!--quoteo(post=1760325:date=Mar 20 2010, 01:19 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zek @ Mar 20 2010, 01:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760325"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What stats are you talking about?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> See Thaldrin's post or <a href="http://store.steampowered.com/stats/" target="_blank">here</a>. Contrary to what he may imply: a) it is only a momentary snapshot of the userbase, and not indicative of total stats which (CS1.6) have been claimed to surpass those of CS:S b) @Thaldrin's naivety: yes, successful is having only <b>15%</b> more players for a sequel that was 4+ years in the making.
Comments
Sorry, who are you again for knowing the competitive community as well as the metagame so well ?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am the face of the great America, the only country on the planet to ever have more than one good NS team.
I may be really wrong there, but it feels like it would be like CS:S to 1.6. It's pratically "the same game" but the engine makes it different. Or maybe more prcesily, CS:promod and .6 . They still feel different.
But well, since we haven't really gotten into that Spark engine (except from videos & editor) I must admit all this is theoretical-fiction :D
<!--quoteo(post=1760208:date=Mar 19 2010, 08:07 PM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Mar 19 2010, 08:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760208"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It sounds worthwhile to me. Although I probably don't have enough experience of <i>metagame</i> and competitive play to comment.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The comment on my post above was not linked to your post. But as you may have noticed, I hate people who sound like they know the comp community, when all they've known of it was 1 clan in 1.04 and a clanbase cup ... or less.
Of course, I was never against discussion and speculation. Just against people who think they can predict the future.
<!--quoteo(post=1760206:date=Mar 19 2010, 08:34 PM:name=huhuh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huhuh @ Mar 19 2010, 08:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760206"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Impossible and worthless, NS1 is too dependant on the HL1 engine to be ported correctly onto Spark without majour changes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, I wasn't serious, it was just an example to make a point. Still, common sense tells me it would be far from impossible. What is there about the HL1 engine that makes features of NS1 unportable?
But I think our dear frenchie made a good point here. There's a concern NS2 could be what CS:S is to CS 1.6. Same game but physics don't have such a good feeling and the game won't exceed the popularity of its predecessor. This is a classic example of how genius physics HL1 had. Not only showing up as clanner rants but in sales aswell. But it looks like epic Stracraft is not making the same mistake - indeed, they're listening to competitive players and making the most awaited video game sequel in recent history a huge success.
I'm not gonna bite anytime's obvious flame but he had a good point. In NS1, there's no big strategical decisions compared to some other RTS'es. I've talked about this myself in another topic. MCs are a strong 1st chamber, SCs are strong 2nd chamber. JPs are strongly preferred over HA. You cannot go lategame without AA etc. All credits to commanders like Peach, but anything non-normal is rather risky. Doing usual tactics + medspam + aim is usually the way to victory in NS1. You don't need a commander with tactical brains of best Stracraft commanders if you only get fast meds, aim and usual understanding of the game. Apart from some imba tactics, it's very hard to outsmart a better team with tactics (im talking about competitive) if the difference in raw player skill is enough. Of course this is not the whole story, NS1 is full of situations where a clever commander makes all the difference but it could have more strategical depth. Whether this'd need OPs and strong counters and whether they are good for NS is another story.
The thing is, NS needs careful balancing. If any ability, chamber or upgrade gives a lot better chances of winning (like MCs) compared to alternatives, it gets <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback" target="_blank">a positive feedback loop</a> and you'll have a lot less variety in tactics.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, WHAT????
Steam Stats says you're wrong. CSS has more players. Both currently and Peak.
Current Peak
26,116 87,207 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Multiplayer
19,713 84,363 Counter-Strike: Source
17,558 22,437 Team Fortress 2
15,419 72,054 Counter-Strike
14,770 20,848 Battlefield: Bad Company 2
Some people have got a huge amount of gaming experience. Nobody has got the chrystal ball here, but some people certainly have got experience on what works and what doesn't. I've seen both completely unnecessary critisism and understandable worries. The problem is that even those decent points get counterargumented like they were just something that is completely unpredictable and impossible to understand at this point.
Sometimes I forget there are more examples of tragedy than TFC->TF2, there's also CS->CS:S and DoD->DoD:S. Like movies, the potential for games to go fail-mode in sequels is immense.
Starcraft 2 seems to be saving itself from this demise because they are <b>listening to their comp. community</b>. A while ago (and now) if you searched <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7k3ZM6bQx4" target="_blank">"what's wrong with SC2"</a> you would have found valid gripes from their community; however many have since been addressed and fixed in response to these problems.
Threads like these happen in every community, there will always be those who say "pish you can't predict the future" vs. those who try to build and analyze constructive points of criticism. If we are to take any examples from past games, it pays to listen to your community.
It's not all about the competitive community. I think people need to learn give and take. You can't have it all your way.
As for DoD:S, the main complaint in that game was about the adjusted CoF for all weapons taking away from the skill factor of shooting. What players didn't realize is that it takes no more skill in DoD 1.3 than in DoD:S, because in the end, you have no control over where the bullets land within that CoF. The skill only comes from knowing where to be to ensure that you're most effective. That never changed.
And neither of these are issues when it comes to NS2.
The point is, UWE is going to make *their* game. Even if it means making (what some players would consider) sacrifices. But I think it's a given that UWE is going to try to make it appeal as diverse an audience (casual and competitive alike).
Where do you get your facts?
So far I dont see improvements in competitive side but a whole load in the casual side. This does make sense granted, casuals > competitive in numbers but is it worth sacrificing the very good parts of NS. For example if the movement is not as good as it was in NS1 I doubt Ill stick with this too long.
Wait, what?
I haven't played DoD:s, but in 1.3 you've got almost exact control over your cone of fire granted that you can control the recoil. If it's changed, it changes quite a bit in the nature of game. With inaccurate cone of fire you're leaving far more time for your opponent to react, giving the weapon choise more importance.
Knowing where you're effective is interesting to some extend, but it shouldn't be the same position all round long. In DoD, I'd picture the effective spots getting rather repetetive if the guns aren't deadly enough all around.
Of course you can make a pro mod and whatever, but then you'll split the community again and make it harder for leagues to recruit new players.
And the possibility of different leagues using different kind of mods doesn't help either.
No they won't it's not hardcore enough!
Not a fact, just an opinion. I don't think there's any hard factual answer to the reason why CS:S was less popular than CS during its early days. As far as I know it was essentially the same game (minus the FPS-based CoF bug which was fixed IIRC), but I may be wrong.
At least for a game as popular as CS, it can afford to make the same game over again. Same with Starcraft. Look how many people play NS now. I don't think UWE has that luxury, even if they wanted to.
<!--quoteo(post=1760298:date=Mar 20 2010, 12:46 PM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Mar 20 2010, 12:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760298"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wait, what?
I haven't played DoD:s, but in 1.3 you've got almost exact control over your cone of fire granted that you can control the recoil. If it's changed, it changes quite a bit in the nature of game. With inaccurate cone of fire you're leaving far more time for your opponent to react, giving the weapon choise more importance.
Knowing where you're effective is interesting to some extend, but it shouldn't be the same position all round long. In DoD, I'd picture the effective spots getting rather repetetive if the guns aren't deadly enough all around.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm saying that when it comes to aiming with automatic weapons in DoD, there was never really any skill to be needed. Rifles are very accurate. If your aim is off by a pixel, you will miss your target. You have precise control over where your bullets land. Automatic weapons have a CoF. It doesn't require you to be precise, you just need to keep your crosshair within the region of your enemy, and control recoil. Outside of this, you have no control over where exactly the bullet will land. The only thing that changed in DoD:S was the degree of certainty at which you could say most of your bullets would hit, but the mechanics of shooting never changed.
If UWE does succeed in keeping the skill dimensions, I would think they would at least take a different form. In NS1, a lot of the skill in movement seems to be in a players ability to execute obscure movement exploits. Not that this isn't legitimate, but in principle, it's a poor way to add dimensions of skill to the game.
For example, now that skulks have leap by default, the skill involved might change from being able to bunnyhop, wall jump, etc. to adrenaline management, or something like that. In this way, the required skill to be effective is easily apparent to all players. It's just a matter of being able to master said skill.
And of course, given enough time and practice, players will <i>always</i> find ways here and there to give them an edge here or there. The Spark engine may come with its own sets of quirks that players can take advantage of.
You don't know that until you play. Patience is a virtue.
(I wish I had the ability to lock this thread KFDM style now I've said that last sentence)
As for DoD:S, the main complaint in that game was about the adjusted CoF for all weapons taking away from the skill factor of shooting.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Incorrect, it's exactly the opposite. <i>Had</i> it been a straight port it would have been much more successful. The reason it wasn't was because as you can see from the stats yourself, most prefer the raw rugged feel of CS1.6. I speak for myself and many comp. CS players who have expressed this sentiments. As for DoD, yes there are specific problems, but again it all contributes to an overall "feel". Rather than discuss the failings of each sequel, the important thing to take away from this is that NS2 is subjected to such a fate in a very real way, and so far as we express here, there are some things it will have to address before these fears are calmed.
<!--quoteo(post=1760313:date=Mar 20 2010, 12:41 PM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Mar 20 2010, 12:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760313"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You don't know that until you play. Patience is a virtue.
(I wish I had the ability to lock this thread KFDM style now I've said that last sentence)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Patience is a virtue, Ignorance is bliss. We have no use here for willful blindness, if you do not wish to participate in constructive criticism feel free to ignore this thread.
Adreline management was always present in NS1, although it did not seem relevant for skulk until second hive ability it was there for every other lifeform. Slower and bulkier skulk suggests that camping or ambush from corners are much more effective due lesser damage time and I dont like the idea of that. My theory is that the leap is very slow and short at the 1 hive gaining more speed and length from second and third hive. Although it is unknown how often can you leap worst case scenario it is only used to leap toward marine. If we are lucky enough it is something that is "spammable" that would allow floor-wall-ceiling type of hobbing which would be much more interesting. The real problem is that it is already possible in NS1 and changing it perhaps to worse is very questinable even if its easier.
The comments about the slower and bulkier skulk were made how long ago?
From the pre-alpha footage, the skulk seems to be pretty close to just the NS1 version. In the screenshot they posted forever ago, the skulk was massive, but they stated that that was just to make a more interesting screenshot.
Interesting ideas about the leap, though.
What stats are you talking about?
There are a lot of reasons people kept playing 1.6 and I think it's safe to assume that the competitive players offended over the very minor changes were a vocal minority. There were a ton of pub players who didn't switch because it was too similar to be worth buying, or their computers couldn't handle Source, or there weren't enough maps, or they thought the riot shield was just so cool, or they just simply didn't like change. The link between a happy competitive community and the game's popularity among pubs remains tenuous at best.
"More successful". That looks successful to me.
Indeed movement speed in the pre-alpha video seemed decent if its not with cele and bunnyhob is faster but for bulkyness I cant help but to compare NS1 and of course it could just mean more hp.
<a href="http://img441.imageshack.us/i/ownedyz.jpg/" target="_blank">[img=http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/3100/ownedyz.th.jpg]</a>
<a href="http://img340.imageshack.us/i/hugeness.jpg/" target="_blank">[img=http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/4521/hugeness.th.jpg]</a>
Bigger CoF --> Less deadly weapons --> Less focus on acquiring the target before he does target you, more focus on what happens while you're firing at each other, at least on rough logic without being actually familiar with the game.
DoD is a lot about what happens before you've got your target on your crosshair. Who manages to surprise the opponent, who has the better position for shooting, who reacts quicker? Bigger CoF reduces the importance of that and shifts it to what happens after you/your opponent has got something in the crosshair, which arguably isn't equally interesting with DoD mechanics.
As you mentioned, the mechanic of shooting never changed, but the whole idea of what you can do on the map and how you can play the game changes depending on the CoF. The less accurate you are, the more you're forced to stick to close quarters. The more you're dependand on the close quarters, the less options you've got within the game. The less options you've got, the less depth you've got in general.
See Thaldrin's post or <a href="http://store.steampowered.com/stats/" target="_blank">here</a>. Contrary to what he may imply:
a) it is only a momentary snapshot of the userbase, and not indicative of total stats which (CS1.6) have been claimed to surpass those of CS:S
b) @Thaldrin's naivety: yes, successful is having only <b>15%</b> more players for a sequel that was 4+ years in the making.