Fades can't hit sprinting marine
Creamy Goodness
Join Date: 2010-12-29 Member: 76029Members
Join Date: 2010-12-29 Member: 76029Members
Hi community. I know my first post complaining about a bug how lame... However I want to know if other people are experiencing this.
When attacking a marine as a fade, I have found that when they sprint away from you it is impossible to hit them in the back without cutting them off with a TP. In tight hallways this is next to impossible. First time I noticed this I ran up on a solo marine attacking west wing, thought "Okay fade will make short work of this guy." I got in his face to attack and he started running. I was within 2 feet of the marine and began hitting his back, it sounded like the hits were registering as I chased and hit him all the way back to marine spawn before retreating.
So now whenever I run into a fade solo as a marine I will just turn and sprint, works every time and the only way I get killed is from a Skulk biting my ass. Usually I will get a response from the fade player saying "Fade is SO broken" or "wtf?"
Anyone else experiencing this problem or is it intentional and I'm just a big fat forum noob?
When attacking a marine as a fade, I have found that when they sprint away from you it is impossible to hit them in the back without cutting them off with a TP. In tight hallways this is next to impossible. First time I noticed this I ran up on a solo marine attacking west wing, thought "Okay fade will make short work of this guy." I got in his face to attack and he started running. I was within 2 feet of the marine and began hitting his back, it sounded like the hits were registering as I chased and hit him all the way back to marine spawn before retreating.
So now whenever I run into a fade solo as a marine I will just turn and sprint, works every time and the only way I get killed is from a Skulk biting my ass. Usually I will get a response from the fade player saying "Fade is SO broken" or "wtf?"
Anyone else experiencing this problem or is it intentional and I'm just a big fat forum noob?
Comments
It will get noticed and will not spam up the forums.
Thanks.
On a serious note though, I agree that a Fade needs a better way to catch marines. Back in NS marines couldn't even sprint, but now they can and leave the Fade in the dust (feel like Coyote trying to kill Road Runner :D)
But you could teleport in front of him, blocking his way of escape and start hitting him. Melee is currently pretty weird though. Even the marine Axe seems to hit targets from FPS view and sounds you hear, while you are actually just out of reach and not doing any damage... Quite annoying bug, but hey it's beta!
OT but while we are at it: Extend the distance gorges can spit hydras, just a smidge. And for the love of FSM, do something about skulks... They are so unwieldy. The leap is a joke, the running leap is too powerful (in that you jump too far, not that it is OP) and sticking to walls is nigh impossible.
1. you can't catch moving targets, very slow reaction times
2. you can't blink into vents
3. poor aiming system, constantly blinking blindly
blink clicking needs to be reduced, or adding second form of blink, the one we had in ns1.
Right now blink offers only special effects, its sad being fade now, they are really slow.
I've stopped fading, and just lerk mostly, feels only playable class, imo.
I still haven't seen this issue addressed since fade made its reveal, i seriously hope its really looked into.
gettign close to moving targets is indeed troublesome sometimes. you have always to cut the marine off isntead of blinking behind and hitting in the back. because you'd still be outta range.
and getting blinded by the blink itself is very disorientating. (but I guess that's on purpose xxD )
but the new blink gives you so many more possibilites.
e.g. today on rockdown I blinked through the open space from the expansion hive to eastwing on a ledge over the ressource node. a marine heard me and looked around but I was above him. you should've seen his face (which was a bit lifeless short after) =)
But I agree. an ability like the old fade blink on top would be great. or a sprint like skill.
btw: the blink doesn't work that smooth either.-..but it's beta and it will be sorted out for sure.
Actually, Fade's weapon #2 has double the range, and can one-shot a marine. The catch is, it stops the Fade's movement completely for a second, which makes it easy for marines to dodge the attack.
Blink's fastidious aiming system is the Fade's biggest weakness IMO.
i die to shotguns as a fade ALL the time. and i rage about the lag that caused my death ALL the time.
seems balanced.
I didnt know its range was like that. Might try to use it more now. Dunno if its due to hit boxes or whatever you call it but i find it so hard to tell when playing a fade if i actually hit a marine (or an object) successfully.
There is some sort of bug or lag-correction inconsistency or something going on here. If a marine is sprinting away from you in a preditcable manner(such as straight down a corridor) you can follow them as fade you can in fact keep up. If you swipe repeatedly at them you will land what looks like a hit and sounds like a hit, but rarely do damage.
It could be the case that you shouldn't hit them because you're a bit too far away and the client is falsely predicting that you will. It could be that you should hit and the server does not correctly apply lag-correction to swipe.
if ns1 blink was still in-game no marine will easily just sprint away to safety. Fade's blink is seriously seriously slow, and while blinking you are blinded for split second each blink.
blink is nothing more than amazing special effects right now. I can't stress this enough, this issue needs to be looked into.
blink is nothing more than amazing special effects right now. I can't stress this enough, this issue needs to be looked into.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Different games, different abilities.
It could be the case that you shouldn't hit them because you're a bit too far away and the client is falsely predicting that you will. It could be that you should hit and the server does not correctly apply lag-correction to swipe.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ya Soylent green is spot on with this problem. Exactly what I'm talking about. Anyone complaining about the blink being too slow or stuttering has to realize that these problems are directly related to the connection/performance issues. NOT the way the fade's abilities are set up.
however i'd be pretty annoyed if marines would just sprint back and let the other one shoot whilst taking turns at doing that to "kite" a fade to death or retreat, there does seem to be a problem with that, fade should have an ability to catch up or something i donno maybe a short movement speed boost after a blink
Marines absolutely can not out run a fade. I believe the marine sprint speed is the same as the fade's base speed. You can be right up touching a marine while he sprints but just because he is sprinting, his back becomes an impenetrable shield. Its easy to chase them down if they forget to sprint and then their back can be hit.
I always have massive kill/death ratio when I'm playing the fade..
Altough I have the admin the sprinting is a bit to fast..
I use it as a rine to even outrun skulks...
You shudnt be able to "run" from a battle as a marine..
Just going to put this here for you...
<!--quoteo(post=1820212:date=Dec 30 2010, 01:45 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Dec 30 2010, 01:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1820212"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Everyone uses this excuse. Using "more resources = more firepower" as the only balancing factor will make for a <b>mediocre <i>RTS</i></b> maybe, but for an RTS/<b>FPS</b> (or even any RTS that wants to be decent), it's a terrible, terrible idea. That reasoning justifies a high-resource-cost game-ending nuke.
When you're considering costs, the thing you have to consider is <b>not</b> the <u>flat cost</u> of the object of interest, but its <u>opportunity cost</u>. <b>Resources mean nothing if you don't use them.</b> At some point in time, any unspent resources represent wasted resources. So then you must assume that resources will always be spent - on a lifeform or upgrades.
What's the likelihood that a player will be able to gather 60 plasma (two lerk "lives")? Very high. Then, will the player be unable to go Lerk again if it goes Lerk now? No. If more expensive is better, why doesn't the player play a higher lifeform? He chooses not to. If the player only has 30 plasma, what can't he additionally do, or get, if he evolves into a Lerk? Nothing. What does the team lose by the player choosing to go Lerk? Nothing. Then, what does a player <b>forego</b> by (what is the <b>opportunity cost</b> of) going Lerk? <u>Nothing.</u>
Then, is having the resource cost of the object of interest as the <u>primary balancing factor</u> <i>reasonable</i> in this case (and many others)? <u>No.</u><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When you're considering costs, the thing you have to consider is <b>not</b> the <u>flat cost</u> of the object of interest, but its <u>opportunity cost</u>. <b>Resources mean nothing if you don't use them.</b> At some point in time, any unspent resources represent wasted resources. So then you must assume that resources will always be spent - on a lifeform or upgrades.
What's the likelihood that a player will be able to gather 60 plasma (two lerk "lives")? Very high. Then, will the player be unable to go Lerk again if it goes Lerk now? No. If more expensive is better, why doesn't the player play a higher lifeform? He chooses not to. If the player only has 30 plasma, what can't he additionally do, or get, if he evolves into a Lerk? Nothing. What does the team lose by the player choosing to go Lerk? Nothing. Then, what does a player <b>forego</b> by (what is the <b>opportunity cost</b> of) going Lerk? <u>Nothing.</u>
Then, is having the resource cost of the object of interest as the <u>primary balancing factor</u> <i>reasonable</i> in this case (and many others)? <u>No.</u><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's actually pretty smart.
However, if no cost something can beat a high cost something.... say a skulk has a 50/50 chance to kill any marine that is not Tier 3 fully equipped and upgraded (even GL, shotgun, or flamethrower which can cost 30 plasma), then if that skulk goes lerk/fade to match the Shotgun/GL/Flamethrower, they will be 100% murdering every single Tier 2 and below marine.
Meaning the alien team can do more with equal resources.... meaning they are overpowered on a fundamental and basic level.
It is best to assume both teams will be spending all plasma on equipment and personal upgrades (like you said). But if one team has less resource harvesters (because they have lost the entire map) or is saving up plasma (gambling on saving up until Tier 2 weapons are unlocked), they should be penalized for not buying better equipment.
Spending plasma should make one better than not spending plasma.
What you are advocating is plasma being only cosmetic. Which is retarded. If I wanted to spend resources on new meaningless outfits instead of managing resources to pick correct tactical advantages, I'd be playing Gaia Online, not NS2. If spending plasma doesn't improve something, it is meaningless. For reasons I thought were obvious, this is bad.
Saying that cost should roughly scale with utility DOES NOT IMPLY OVERPOWERED BULL###### IS OKAY. That is a completely new, standalone, self-incapsulated argument. No where in the phrase "Cost should roughly scale with utility" is the other phrase "And exorbitant costs paired with exorbitant utility". Look! Check for yourself, Harimau. Do you see it? I sure as hell don't. I'm seeing "Cost should roughly scale with utility". No mention whatsoever of "Really big cost and really big effect" anywhere.
Harimau, you are making fantastic illogical leap when you say "Cost scaling with utility means we will have end-game nukes which destroy everything". There is no gray area here. You are acting without reason.
What I have said, is that the <u>underlying reasoning</u> behind that <b>justifies</b> such an end-game nuke - you came to your own erroneous inference. And so I <b>fight against</b> that reasoning, not advocate it (as you seem to have implied in your final paragraph).
I've also made the comparison with certain mediocre RTSs that, rather than have rock-paper-scissors mechanics or any kind of worthwhile mechanic, simply equate more resources to more firepower. This is not good for a game, ESPECIALLY not a first person shooter. A player in a first-person shooter doesn't see the metagame, he's not the commander, he either sees an OP weapon in his hands, or an OP alien on the other end. Justifying overpoweredness based on resource cost is simply stupid, and bad game design.
You are right that <b>teams</b> should be penalised for not spending (or having access to) resources, but that should be balanced on a team vs team level. This is a team game.
Things must be balanced less on a numerical level but more thoughtfully: based upon opportunity costs instead. In the case of saving up plasma, the opportunity cost is obvious: they're stuck as a lower lifeform and cannot be more effective than they already are. As it is, however, in most cases people have an overabundance (simply meaning more than what can be spent) of plasma, thereby rendering the opportunity cost moot. There is no real cost to going lerk, or fade, or purchasing a flamethrower, because they were going to do that anyway, and they will always be able to do that.
Both teams at the moment gain res, and equally gain weapons that equal one another in power. Bash, bash, bash... boring.
Example:
Beta 159 - Flame thrower blinds alien team, impossible to take down. Games is always handed to marines.
Beta 160 - Much easier for aliens to take down = longer games = very boring unexciting game play. Usually ends up with marines winning (sentry abuse).
Granted, the flame thrower shouldn't blind the alien team as much as it did, and it is a lot better now. But why not make it:
# More powerful (Takes down structures a lot quicker)
# Increased Range
# Less accessible (1/2 max at any time)
# Reduce aim/movement speed whilst firing
# Effects view of player
# Be a drain on resources (a considered buy for commander not players)
This would mean anyone with a flame thrower would have to be supported by players in the rear. They would have to be letting rip before they even enter the room, save skulks getting near their feet or from behind.
Whilst they are 'that much more' dangerous, the risked cost of successful hive destruction vs opportunity would not only support team play - but create a more interesting equation to balance.
There is no way you can balance this game by just saying "oh the fade should be as powerful as the flame thrower" because the result just ends in a draw. The teams should play differently in strengths and weaknesses - and know how to take advantage of them.
Take most RTS games - there are always units that are better at attacking the weaknesses of other units. Be that speed or damage or otherwise. You sometimes save up and buy 'the nuke' because of the opportunity it brings.
This is the same with Sentries, they are spammed when they should be less accessible but more powerful. But in placing them, they should stop pretty much anything getting down a corridor. Loud with big muzzle flash.
What I have said, is that the <u>underlying reasoning</u> behind that <b>justifies</b> such an end-game nuke - you came to your own erroneous inference. And so I <b>fight against</b> that reasoning, not advocate it (as you seem to have implied in your final paragraph).
I've also made the comparison with certain mediocre RTSs that, rather than have rock-paper-scissors mechanics or any kind of worthwhile mechanic, simply equate more resources to more firepower. This is not good for a game, ESPECIALLY not a first person shooter. A player in a first-person shooter doesn't see the metagame, he's not the commander, he either sees an OP weapon in his hands, or an OP alien on the other end. Justifying overpoweredness based on resource cost is simply stupid, and bad game design.
You are right that <b>teams</b> should be penalised for not spending (or having access to) resources, but that should be balanced on a team vs team level. This is a team game.
Things must be balanced less on a numerical level but more thoughtfully: based upon opportunity costs instead. In the case of saving up plasma, the opportunity cost is obvious: they're stuck as a lower lifeform and cannot be more effective than they already are. As it is, however, in most cases people have an overabundance (simply meaning more than what can be spent) of plasma, thereby rendering the opportunity cost moot. There is no real cost to going lerk, or fade, or purchasing a flamethrower, because they were going to do that anyway, and they will always be able to do that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey, you know what, fair enough. For some reason, I was remembering an old post (probably misremembering) and also not reading your post either because I find all your nomenclature about opportunity costs and otherwise arcane ( Ah, I'm imagining that last bit read with an english accent ). So I will bow out of the discussion since I know nothing about it.