I think its fair that if your team is full of newbies or your commander is an idiot that your team loses.
I think its fair that if you make a tactical mistake you lose.
I think its fair that if you get 'unlucky' you lose.
Sometimes I don't think its fair that sometimes marines gain a huge advantage by rushing on the aliens or vice versa, but it only really pisses me off when I'm a commander for the marines when aliens rush.
I think its fair that if you know more about the game than the other team you win.
I think its fair that if you take the time to understand how to fight with your char, you win.
I think an exceptionally experienced player can make up for the newbs on the team.
The losing team never thinks its fair <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Sure, a lot of things that happen early in the game are important. However it sounds like the author of this thread wants to give the team that got thrown off balance some concessions to help them come back. Well guess what, thats not fair to the team that gained the good attack or tactical advantage. Its like Deus Ex Machina for computer games.
Well sadly only a couple people actually read the main post in full and understand where I am coming from.
This isn't about handicaps, it's about BALANCE. The game is INHERANTLY unbalanced by nature.
How many time do you find yourselves saying "It's over" when the game has hardly started? How many times have you left games because you knew that you were going to lose anyway? Now be HONEST here.
The problem seems to be that some people are so short-sighted that they refuse to look at the big picture and see how painfully unbalanced the game is in PRINCIPLE.
To El Mariachi:
I don't think it's fair that a team should be penalized because NSPlayer decided that it would be a good time to learn how to play comm in a 16v16 game when he never played the game once in his life.
I don't think it's fair that selfish individuals choose to go gorge regardless of whether the 8 man team has 3 gorges already.
I don't think it's fair that the game can become unbalanced by ONE SINGLE PLAYER doing something that they shouldn't do, and because of that the other 31 players have to suffer through an unsatisfying game.
Before you say "well if you don't the way the game is going, just change servers" my point is that you SHOULDN'T HAVE TO. In principle, a person should be able to get a good game on a MAJORITY of the servers regardless of the skill of the people playing. That is the hallmark of a balanced game.
matsoMaster of PatchesJoin Date: 2002-11-05Member: 7000Members, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, Squad Five Gold, Reinforced - Shadow, NS2 Community Developer
<!--QuoteBegin--MMZ>Torak+Dec 11 2002, 03:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MMZ>Torak @ Dec 11 2002, 03:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Once it becomes obvious that the marines are taking a hive, the aliens need to ALL go to ONE have and take it back. Anything less (N00b: I will keep attacking their main base so they are distracted!!!11) will not work. They only person that is distracted by one skulk attacking the marine Main base is that skulk.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Right. And 8 skulks attacking 6 prepared marines means ... what? Hell, this is the same as the opening rush, isn't it? And that fails 90% of the time, about...
And once that attempt fails, it will take three minutes before the aliens have their full strength again. Plenty of time to push aggressivly with the marines to their hive, killing the 1-2 skulks that managed to spawn, then having a shooting gallery as the skulks spawn, every 20 seconds.
No, early games good marines runs RIGHT over the aliens, and there is very little the aliens can do about it.
Spawn rate must be adjusted. I for one like the idea that no alien ever stays dead more than 40 sec.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This isn't about handicaps, it's about BALANCE. The game is INHERANTLY unbalanced by nature.
How many time do you find yourselves saying "It's over" when the game has hardly started? How many times have you left games because you knew that you were going to lose anyway? Now be HONEST here.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your point is moot. The only time games are "over before they begin" is if newbie players are going to ruin the game anyways.
Any RTS will have its Rushes, its O/T, and its Containment strategies that will cripple or outright kill a team in the very beginning. That's not an imbalance, it's called RTS gameplay. Take that away, and NS becomes just another FPS, instead of the very innovative and fun RTS/FPS it is now.
And the game is very, <b>very rarely</b> imbalanced by a single idiot. Although good players will yell and scream, fact is that having one more Gorge doesn't really decrease your resources that much. The only time a single idiot can screw up your whole game is if he's Commander - and this will be largely fixed in the next few patches, as the NS team adds more tutorials. Most of the time a "game is over before it begins" is because one team has vastly higher skill level than the other. And in games where this is true, it doesn't matter whether you're playing Counter-Strike, Unreal Tournament 2003, or Quake 3 - the game will be painfully imbalanced anyways.
The true imbalance in NS is in the Alien class system, the game pacing, and the relative ease of defending Resource Nodes. It has nothing to do with the prevalence of losses due to Early Game Newbie Mistakes, something which <b>you cannot fix in any game that is supposed to be a "RTS"</b>.
<!--QuoteBegin--Savant+Dec 12 2002, 12:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Savant @ Dec 12 2002, 12:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To El Mariachi:
I don't think it's fair that a team should be penalized because NSPlayer decided that it would be a good time to learn how to play comm in a 16v16 game when he never played the game once in his life.
I don't think it's fair that selfish individuals choose to go gorge regardless of whether the 8 man team has 3 gorges already.
I don't think it's fair that the game can become unbalanced by ONE SINGLE PLAYER doing something that they shouldn't do, and because of that the other 31 players have to suffer through an unsatisfying game.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Bad crap is gonna happen in pub games. Thems the breaks. Sure, I get upset when a dumb commander takes over, but hey, we lose the map and get to play another one.
Bad crap is gonna happen in pub games. Those are the breaks. Its not fair that you have a teammate who doesn't know what he's doing? What next? When everyone knows what they are doing in 5 months are going to complain that its not fair that one team is better than the other?
If you don't think its fair that a bad player can change the balance of the game... THEN DON'T PLAY PUBS.
Hey, don't get me wrong, it upsets me too- but I don't think its not fair. I just realize that not everyone in the game plays at the same level as everyone else.
Not every game hinges on just ONE BAD PLAYER making it bad for everyone. I understand when that bad players are commanders, it makes it worse- but hey thats just for one map. But again, if you're going to blame the outcome of the game on ONE BAD PLAYER then perhaps you need to re-examine things.
Its fair. Its a pub.
I mean, if you think its unfair that bad players on your team will make your team lose..... what's fair?
<!--QuoteBegin--BoddoZerg+Dec 12 2002, 01:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BoddoZerg @ Dec 12 2002, 01:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your point is moot. The only time games are "over before they begin" is if newbie players are going to ruin the game anyways.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->I disagree. There are many other ways games can be "over before they begin" and noobs are just one aspect. (see 'rushing' below) <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Any RTS will have its Rushes, its O/T, and its Containment strategies that will cripple or outright kill a team in the very beginning. That's not an imbalance, it's called RTS gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->No offense, but I think that's a load of you-know-what.
If these 'rushes' are so a part of the game, then why continue to play after a rush? Why not just see who does the best rush, and then 5 minutes later we restart and try again. No need for end games in YOUR version of "RTS gameplay" since we can turn NS into CS with 5 minute rounds with all these 'important rush strategies'. <rolls eyes>
Gimme a break. Rushes are meant to be the exception and not the rule.
If you allow this kind of 'balance' to remain then you undermine the entire game down to the lowest common denominator. If one tactic allows a team to so imbalance the game in their favour early on, then why use other strategies?
I haven't seen this kind of game imbalance in any of the RTS titles I've tested, and I've beta tested nearly a hundred commercial games. They are successful because they keep balance in check and discourage any tactic that will allow one side an early advantage that decides the game.
El Mariachi, lemme try my point again, you seem to have missed it. I acknowledge that bad players WILL have an impact on a team's performance. I don't deny that. Skill will always be part of the game, that is not in dispute.
What I'm saying is that it doesn't take very much 'poor skill' on either team to doom the team to failure. In an NS 12v12 all it takes is ONE bad player to screw over a team. Alternately in other mods you can have 25% of the team as poor players and the impact on the game is minimal since other players can pull up the slack.
That's called BALANCE. The game is designed in such a way as it doesn't allow itself to be thrown out of balance very easily. (which is one reason why CS is so popular)
Your point about not playing on pubs is irrelevant. A good game needs to be FLEXIBLE and allow different skill-sets the ability to play a good game. Pub or clan servers should NOT have an impact on gameplay. What percentage of the NS servers are not pubs? 1-2%? How does that help the other 98% of servers?
Are you saying that NS shouldn't be played on pubs becuase it is 'over their heads' or are you saying that NS should be a 'clan' game only?
Okay first off the reason noone is agreeing with you is because you are using the wrong word, balance means that with equally skilled players both sides have an equal chance to win or lose.
There are two things you are talking about
a) slippery-slope effect, this is when once a team starts losing its hard to come back. This has plauged RTS since they were introduced and I seriously don't think there is a solution to it.
b) the "one player can unbalance" effect is simply NS requires more teamwork then any other mod out there. The reason one bad player doesn't hurt a team is becuase CS is TDM, no teamwork. The simple fact of the matter is NS has such an advanced level of gameplay that having some new players on a team can sink it. This is a good thing, it means that there is plenty of room for teamwork and advanced tactics in the mod and it will keep growing simply from people learning new ways to play it. The only way you could possibly fix this is to dumb the game down, sorry but its not gonna happen, the teamwork and complexity is what makes NS so good.
<!--QuoteBegin--Snake13+Dec 12 2002, 04:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snake13 @ Dec 12 2002, 04:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Okay first off the reason noone is agreeing with you is because you are using the wrong word, balance means that with equally skilled players both sides have an equal chance to win or lose.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not using the wrong word at all. Please tell me when the last time you played NS where both teams had <b>exactly</b> the same skill levels? It <b>NEVER</b> happens.
My use of the word 'balance' applies on a more 'global' scale where in a given game you do not need an exactly equal set of skilled players on both teams to get a good game. If one side has a bit more of the skilled players, the game should be flexible so that the game can stay balanced.
Let me give people an example of what I am proposing.
First the resource system is changed. Each team is given a set amount of resources per minute regardless of the number of resource nozzles they control. Of course the amount given would have to be calculated so as to allow the game to progress at a 'comfortable' pace. (optionally this variable could be changed by server ops)
Now since teams no longer have to depend on income from resource nozzles, a few things will happen:
-A winning team will still need to 'work' for a win since control of the map wouldn't mean copious recources. -A losing team would still be able to make a comeback because if they get boxed in their respawn they would not be spending resources on things outside respawn, and as such should be able to push their way back out with better equipment -Resource nozzles that are not in the base/hive area will have a different role. A team could ignore the nozzles and let the other team control them, but that would restrict movement so the opposing team would have to use an alternate route. If no routes are available then you would need to clear a zone.
A few things will not happen:
-Marines would not be able to rush out and dump phase gates to 'toss bodies' at an alien location. They would need to control the local resource nozzle first which would give the opposing team a chance to fight for the location. -Marines and aliens would be limited (to a certain extent) on where they could build devices. So depending on a map the marines may not be able to siege the hive. Walls of lame would also be limited to the area around a nozzle as well -Teams will not have to endure completely humiliatking defeats on a regular basis. With continuous resources a team would be able to put up a fight at the finish instead of dying with a wimper.
There are other thinkgs that I could think of, but this is a start.
Comments
I think its fair that if you make a tactical mistake you lose.
I think its fair that if you get 'unlucky' you lose.
Sometimes I don't think its fair that sometimes marines gain a huge advantage by rushing on the aliens or vice versa, but it only really pisses me off when I'm a commander for the marines when aliens rush.
I think its fair that if you know more about the game than the other team you win.
I think its fair that if you take the time to understand how to fight with your char, you win.
I think an exceptionally experienced player can make up for the newbs on the team.
The losing team never thinks its fair <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Sure, a lot of things that happen early in the game are important. However it sounds like the author of this thread wants to give the team that got thrown off balance some concessions to help them come back. Well guess what, thats not fair to the team that gained the good attack or tactical advantage. Its like Deus Ex Machina for computer games.
This isn't about handicaps, it's about BALANCE. The game is INHERANTLY unbalanced by nature.
How many time do you find yourselves saying "It's over" when the game has hardly started? How many times have you left games because you knew that you were going to lose anyway? Now be HONEST here.
The problem seems to be that some people are so short-sighted that they refuse to look at the big picture and see how painfully unbalanced the game is in PRINCIPLE.
To El Mariachi:
I don't think it's fair that a team should be penalized because NSPlayer decided that it would be a good time to learn how to play comm in a 16v16 game when he never played the game once in his life.
I don't think it's fair that selfish individuals choose to go gorge regardless of whether the 8 man team has 3 gorges already.
I don't think it's fair that the game can become unbalanced by ONE SINGLE PLAYER doing something that they shouldn't do, and because of that the other 31 players have to suffer through an unsatisfying game.
Before you say "well if you don't the way the game is going, just change servers" my point is that you SHOULDN'T HAVE TO. In principle, a person should be able to get a good game on a MAJORITY of the servers regardless of the skill of the people playing. That is the hallmark of a balanced game.
A point that some people refuse to accept.
Regards,
Savant
Right. And 8 skulks attacking 6 prepared marines means ... what? Hell, this is the same as the opening rush, isn't it? And that fails 90% of the time, about...
And once that attempt fails, it will take three minutes before the aliens have their full strength again. Plenty of time to push aggressivly with the marines to their hive, killing the 1-2 skulks that managed to spawn, then having a shooting gallery as the skulks spawn, every 20 seconds.
No, early games good marines runs RIGHT over the aliens, and there is very little the aliens can do about it.
Spawn rate must be adjusted. I for one like the idea that no alien ever stays dead more than 40 sec.
How many time do you find yourselves saying "It's over" when the game has hardly started? How many times have you left games because you knew that you were going to lose anyway? Now be HONEST here.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your point is moot. The only time games are "over before they begin" is if newbie players are going to ruin the game anyways.
Any RTS will have its Rushes, its O/T, and its Containment strategies that will cripple or outright kill a team in the very beginning. That's not an imbalance, it's called RTS gameplay. Take that away, and NS becomes just another FPS, instead of the very innovative and fun RTS/FPS it is now.
And the game is very, <b>very rarely</b> imbalanced by a single idiot. Although good players will yell and scream, fact is that having one more Gorge doesn't really decrease your resources that much. The only time a single idiot can screw up your whole game is if he's Commander - and this will be largely fixed in the next few patches, as the NS team adds more tutorials. Most of the time a "game is over before it begins" is because one team has vastly higher skill level than the other. And in games where this is true, it doesn't matter whether you're playing Counter-Strike, Unreal Tournament 2003, or Quake 3 - the game will be painfully imbalanced anyways.
The true imbalance in NS is in the Alien class system, the game pacing, and the relative ease of defending Resource Nodes. It has nothing to do with the prevalence of losses due to Early Game Newbie Mistakes, something which <b>you cannot fix in any game that is supposed to be a "RTS"</b>.
To El Mariachi:
I don't think it's fair that a team should be penalized because NSPlayer decided that it would be a good time to learn how to play comm in a 16v16 game when he never played the game once in his life.
I don't think it's fair that selfish individuals choose to go gorge regardless of whether the 8 man team has 3 gorges already.
I don't think it's fair that the game can become unbalanced by ONE SINGLE PLAYER doing something that they shouldn't do, and because of that the other 31 players have to suffer through an unsatisfying game.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bad crap is gonna happen in pub games. Thems the breaks. Sure, I get upset when a dumb commander takes over, but hey, we lose the map and get to play another one.
Bad crap is gonna happen in pub games. Those are the breaks. Its not fair that you have a teammate who doesn't know what he's doing? What next? When everyone knows what they are doing in 5 months are going to complain that its not fair that one team is better than the other?
If you don't think its fair that a bad player can change the balance of the game... THEN DON'T PLAY PUBS.
Hey, don't get me wrong, it upsets me too- but I don't think its not fair. I just realize that not everyone in the game plays at the same level as everyone else.
Not every game hinges on just ONE BAD PLAYER making it bad for everyone. I understand when that bad players are commanders, it makes it worse- but hey thats just for one map. But again, if you're going to blame the outcome of the game on ONE BAD PLAYER then perhaps you need to re-examine things.
Its fair. Its a pub.
I mean, if you think its unfair that bad players on your team will make your team lose..... what's fair?
If these 'rushes' are so a part of the game, then why continue to play after a rush? Why not just see who does the best rush, and then 5 minutes later we restart and try again. No need for end games in YOUR version of "RTS gameplay" since we can turn NS into CS with 5 minute rounds with all these 'important rush strategies'. <rolls eyes>
Gimme a break. Rushes are meant to be the exception and not the rule.
If you allow this kind of 'balance' to remain then you undermine the entire game down to the lowest common denominator. If one tactic allows a team to so imbalance the game in their favour early on, then why use other strategies?
I haven't seen this kind of game imbalance in any of the RTS titles I've tested, and I've beta tested nearly a hundred commercial games. They are successful because they keep balance in check and discourage any tactic that will allow one side an early advantage that decides the game.
El Mariachi, lemme try my point again, you seem to have missed it. I acknowledge that bad players WILL have an impact on a team's performance. I don't deny that. Skill will always be part of the game, that is not in dispute.
What I'm saying is that it doesn't take very much 'poor skill' on either team to doom the team to failure. In an NS 12v12 all it takes is ONE bad player to screw over a team. Alternately in other mods you can have 25% of the team as poor players and the impact on the game is minimal since other players can pull up the slack.
That's called BALANCE. The game is designed in such a way as it doesn't allow itself to be thrown out of balance very easily. (which is one reason why CS is so popular)
Your point about not playing on pubs is irrelevant. A good game needs to be FLEXIBLE and allow different skill-sets the ability to play a good game. Pub or clan servers should NOT have an impact on gameplay. What percentage of the NS servers are not pubs? 1-2%? How does that help the other 98% of servers?
Are you saying that NS shouldn't be played on pubs becuase it is 'over their heads' or are you saying that NS should be a 'clan' game only?
Regards,
Savant
There are two things you are talking about
a) slippery-slope effect, this is when once a team starts losing its hard to come back. This has plauged RTS since they were introduced and I seriously don't think there is a solution to it.
b) the "one player can unbalance" effect is simply NS requires more teamwork then any other mod out there. The reason one bad player doesn't hurt a team is becuase CS is TDM, no teamwork. The simple fact of the matter is NS has such an advanced level of gameplay that having some new players on a team can sink it. This is a good thing, it means that there is plenty of room for teamwork and advanced tactics in the mod and it will keep growing simply from people learning new ways to play it. The only way you could possibly fix this is to dumb the game down, sorry but its not gonna happen, the teamwork and complexity is what makes NS so good.
I'm not using the wrong word at all. Please tell me when the last time you played NS where both teams had <b>exactly</b> the same skill levels? It <b>NEVER</b> happens.
My use of the word 'balance' applies on a more 'global' scale where in a given game you do not need an exactly equal set of skilled players on both teams to get a good game. If one side has a bit more of the skilled players, the game should be flexible so that the game can stay balanced.
Let me give people an example of what I am proposing.
First the resource system is changed. Each team is given a set amount of resources per minute regardless of the number of resource nozzles they control. Of course the amount given would have to be calculated so as to allow the game to progress at a 'comfortable' pace. (optionally this variable could be changed by server ops)
Now since teams no longer have to depend on income from resource nozzles, a few things will happen:
-A winning team will still need to 'work' for a win since control of the map wouldn't mean copious recources.
-A losing team would still be able to make a comeback because if they get boxed in their respawn they would not be spending resources on things outside respawn, and as such should be able to push their way back out with better equipment
-Resource nozzles that are not in the base/hive area will have a different role. A team could ignore the nozzles and let the other team control them, but that would restrict movement so the opposing team would have to use an alternate route. If no routes are available then you would need to clear a zone.
A few things will not happen:
-Marines would not be able to rush out and dump phase gates to 'toss bodies' at an alien location. They would need to control the local resource nozzle first which would give the opposing team a chance to fight for the location.
-Marines and aliens would be limited (to a certain extent) on where they could build devices. So depending on a map the marines may not be able to siege the hive. Walls of lame would also be limited to the area around a nozzle as well
-Teams will not have to endure completely humiliatking defeats on a regular basis. With continuous resources a team would be able to put up a fight at the finish instead of dying with a wimper.
There are other thinkgs that I could think of, but this is a start.
Regards,
Savant