<!--quoteo(post=1864780:date=Jul 29 2011, 04:49 PM:name=Gh0ti)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gh0ti @ Jul 29 2011, 04:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1864780"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think we need to disregard the obvious K/D ratio and look at something akin to kills per minute instead. The fade can go into a group, take out a marine and escape, yes, but after that he has quite a bit of downtime, running to the hive, healing up (unless he has a gorge-buddy or crags nearby, but those can be dealt with with gls), then going back, taking out another marine or two... repeat.
Now take a good skulk player. He'll go in, take out a marine or two, get shot up, respawn, repeat. He'll obviously have a much higher death ratio than the fade, but his effectiveness over time might not be drastically different from the fade's.
Think of the Sniper class in some more common FPS and how they usually have ridiculous K/D ratios. I think the perceived problem might be of the same nature. Of course, it's extremely annoying to get taken out by the same player over and over again and feeling like there's little you can do, but that's another question entirely.
Now the problem to me is that a single unit could go against 5 well equipped marines and survive. This, however, doesn't take player skill into account. I've had experiences where I, a rather mediocre player, and someone whom I could only call well-above-average (great, perhaps) managed to fend off two fades using only our shotguns. Does that make fades underpowered? These anecdotal arguments can usually be turned on their heads by another, equally anecdotal, opposing argument and are pretty much worthless.
I'm not saying that there isn't a problem. I haven't played enough matches with the current fade implementation to be a fair judge of that, but staring ourselves blind at K/D ratios will get us nowhere in a game with wildly diverse classes. That would, for example, make the Gorge who heals his mates and structures, builds defenses around the map and fixes up the cyst chain with a K/D ratio of 1:10 horribly underpowered.
We all know better than that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
what is this rational thought? We don't want any of that here!
<!--quoteo(post=1864599:date=Jul 29 2011, 08:48 AM:name=Hapika)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hapika @ Jul 29 2011, 08:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1864599"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Fade is OP now and need a nerf. This is not a question.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is your opinion, in my opinion a few of you think it is op because you are not good at the game yet. As I stated earlier I have no issues killing them with a flamethrower or sg.
<!--quoteo(post=1864627:date=Jul 29 2011, 10:21 AM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Jul 29 2011, 10:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1864627"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The one thing I would like to see is for fades to be able to take damage while blinking. The insta-invulnerability system they have right now makes it very difficult to kill retreating fades.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is the entire point of blink really lol, they are supposed to be hard to kill and be able to retreat easily. They use guerrilla like tactics to kill a marine or two at a time, but as someone above said their downtime is long.
<!--quoteo(post=1864627:date=Jul 29 2011, 03:21 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Jul 29 2011, 03:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1864627"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The one thing I would like to see is for fades to be able to take damage while blinking. The insta-invulnerability system they have right now makes it very difficult to kill retreating fades.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't know. The more we go that way, the more it becomes like an adren limited NS1 fade with less dynamic blink mechanics and more blind shooting and guessing involved. The last thing I want out of anything in NS2 is that it's 'like NS1, but inferior'.
Not that I have any better solutions at this point though.
Fades are not OP at all, i get crazy good KD ratios all the time as fade but you know what happens when i play 1-2 marines that can use a shotgun well or a FL? It's even, you will generally have to blink out and come another day ^^. Like it was stated above K/D is irrelevant.
You are forgetting T3 that will be implemented that will make fade not as "OP" as you think. Good marines CAN and WILL tackle fades, period.
To the OP, don't kid yourself, I was in that game. First off, it has nothing to do with "Newbies" and everything to do with the fact that Marines are held back from players performance. If a player is programmed to only move the way the developers want you to move, meaning, you can't run and gun, sprinting is sluggish and slow with the lack of any movement enjoyment mixed in with the fact that if you hold down "s" you walk super slow, this only makes it even easier for a fade to kill somebody.
I was in that game, the player wasn't doing anything "different" then any other fade in a game where they have a healer. He came in, he 1 shot everyone the way any person does. I mean how hard is it to play a fade? you hold down right click and aim in a direction and appear behind the guy and hit him. Where is the skill? no where, because movement has been taken away like in all games now a days.
Bad Company 2, can't sprint strafe, Call of Duty it has the movement, but they implement perks and radar hacks, you may aswell just install cheats. World of Warcraft, this game doesn't even have movement, like all the other corporation sell out take over games. I don't know about you guys, but I am seriously getting sick and tired of playing the same game to watch the same story over and over again. If you DO NOT GIVE THE PLAYER room to EVOLVE, the game dithers relatively quick.
Look at games like Quake, Unreal, CS, HL, TF2 - Why do these games not die? because it's endless when it comes to becoming good. Movement, aim, positioning, teamwork, individual skill. Every time a game developer removes aspects of these elements, the game becomes newbier, dumber and boring fairly quick.
I took my friend in to cs 1.6, he claimed he was great at shooters(nexgen shooters). The guy couldn't even shoot teh ak if his life depended on it. He expected to pick up a gun that had no recoil, rip around a map and just hold down a trigger and shoot kids. When he shot the ak, it went straight in to the sky and it was eye opening to see how many players who think they're hardcore at "fps" that are in reality, softcore. They don't even know what the gaming industry has to offer.
In my eyes, the FPS industry is devolving, not evolving. The only thing that has gone forward is the graphics, the rest of the industry is just pure fail. They blow at gameplay mechanics, teamwork, map creation and the biggest thing of, the feel/fluid movement that allows an individual player to express his will in the game. If you can't move in a game the way you want, then your already capped off at being great, because the games mechanics lock you in one place.
I love NS2, as I siad before the game has great potential, but the more they sell out for this "mainstream market" the more it's going to steerr away long term customers. I really hope they throw some skill back in to the game and clean up the games movement.
King CowJoin Date: 2011-07-28Member: 112663Members
The problem is when the good fade player is the only player on both sides that has a great k/d. When he has 40 kills and every single other player on both other teams is below 10 or only just above 10 then there is a problem. Yes I have seen this happen a few times and its just the tip of the iceberg because who says they only have one fade and the rest of the team is doing nothing? Trust me the down time for a fade is very small when he can teleport around back to get health at base or another player around the corner. The idea that a fade can only take on one marine at a time is quiet ridiculous.
I would say when you are rewarded for killing and take a loss when you die by the game (with upgrades) K/D does become very important. BF/TF2 and many other fps games k/d is not important in NS2 it is.
But as I said before I think aliens need OP fades anyway until they get Onos.
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
<!--quoteo(post=1864775:date=Jul 30 2011, 01:16 AM:name=Jow)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jow @ Jul 30 2011, 01:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1864775"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I was playing against a fade I think yesterday who eventually got a score of something like 70-6 being around 20-3 when I joined.
At times he blinked in against 5 marines with 2+ flamethrowers, killed a couple of us and then just blinked out, they're ridiculous.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
FT don't kill fades. You never want more than one guy with a FT on your team, it has a piddly 50 dps or so vs a shotguns 420 or a rifles 200.
FT keeps YOU alive, because as soon as the fade is on fire, he has retreat or risk dying. If he keeps on attacking, your shotgun/rifle buddies will kill him .... but chances are, you won't. You are just there to keep the fade ineffective, not to kill him.
<!--quoteo(post=1864847:date=Jul 30 2011, 03:38 AM:name=Slithers)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Slithers @ Jul 30 2011, 03:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1864847"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To the OP, don't kid yourself, I was in that game. First off, it has nothing to do with "Newbies" and everything to do with the fact that Marines are held back from players performance. If a player is programmed to only move the way the developers want you to move, meaning, you can't run and gun, sprinting is sluggish and slow with the lack of any movement enjoyment mixed in with the fact that if you hold down "s" you walk super slow, this only makes it even easier for a fade to kill somebody.
I was in that game, the player wasn't doing anything "different" then any other fade in a game where they have a healer. He came in, he 1 shot everyone the way any person does. I mean how hard is it to play a fade? you hold down right click and aim in a direction and appear behind the guy and hit him. Where is the skill? no where, because movement has been taken away like in all games now a days.
Bad Company 2, can't sprint strafe, Call of Duty it has the movement, but they implement perks and radar hacks, you may aswell just install cheats. World of Warcraft, this game doesn't even have movement, like all the other corporation sell out take over games. I don't know about you guys, but I am seriously getting sick and tired of playing the same game to watch the same story over and over again. If you DO NOT GIVE THE PLAYER room to EVOLVE, the game dithers relatively quick.
Look at games like Quake, Unreal, CS, HL, TF2 - Why do these games not die? because it's endless when it comes to becoming good. Movement, aim, positioning, teamwork, individual skill. Every time a game developer removes aspects of these elements, the game becomes newbier, dumber and boring fairly quick.
I took my friend in to cs 1.6, he claimed he was great at shooters(nexgen shooters). The guy couldn't even shoot teh ak if his life depended on it. He expected to pick up a gun that had no recoil, rip around a map and just hold down a trigger and shoot kids. When he shot the ak, it went straight in to the sky and it was eye opening to see how many players who think they're hardcore at "fps" that are in reality, softcore. They don't even know what the gaming industry has to offer.
In my eyes, the FPS industry is devolving, not evolving. The only thing that has gone forward is the graphics, the rest of the industry is just pure fail. They blow at gameplay mechanics, teamwork, map creation and the biggest thing of, the feel/fluid movement that allows an individual player to express his will in the game. If you can't move in a game the way you want, then your already capped off at being great, because the games mechanics lock you in one place.
I love NS2, as I siad before the game has great potential, but the more they sell out for this "mainstream market" the more it's going to steerr away long term customers. I really hope they throw some skill back in to the game and clean up the games movement.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This x 2. Well said and definitely something that has bothered me but i couldnt put my finger on it.
(i remember practicing in that one player made desert map with the crates endlessly to control the AK kick lol)
<!--quoteo(post=1864847:date=Jul 30 2011, 09:38 AM:name=Slithers)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Slithers @ Jul 30 2011, 09:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1864847"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To the OP, don't kid yourself, I was in that game. First off, it has nothing to do with "Newbies" and everything to do with the fact that Marines are held back from players performance. If a player is programmed to only move the way the developers want you to move, meaning, you can't run and gun, sprinting is sluggish and slow with the lack of any movement enjoyment mixed in with the fact that if you hold down "s" you walk super slow, this only makes it even easier for a fade to kill somebody.
I was in that game, the player wasn't doing anything "different" then any other fade in a game where they have a healer. He came in, he 1 shot everyone the way any person does. I mean how hard is it to play a fade? you hold down right click and aim in a direction and appear behind the guy and hit him. Where is the skill? no where, because movement has been taken away like in all games now a days.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with you Slithers. I feel like taking away control from the player is very bad for an FPS and just leads to frustrating gameplay. All the old FPSs are super responsive and you always have control of your player. If you want to shoot, you can, if you want to stop running you can....you never get stuck in these canned animations or have control taken away from you.
A perfect example of what not to do is Brink. I remember before that game came out there was quite a number of people looking forward to it and thinking it could have a big competitive scene. Now, only a few months later it's completely dead. The gameplay was just so bad. You got stuck in canned animations all the time. Buffing other players even took control of your mouse! In general the movement in that game felt very clunky and unresponsive (despite the claim of it having "freedom of movement").
I would like it if they removed the backwards speed penalty. I don't really see any need for it.
I also think the fade right now is boring to play. I hardly ever play fade now. It's easy to get kills but it's no fun. I never feel like I outplayed the marine when I kill him.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I love NS2, as I siad before the game has great potential, but the more they sell out for this "mainstream market" the more it's going to steerr away long term customers. I really hope they throw some skill back in to the game and clean up the games movement.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think this is a little unfair. I don't think unknown worlds are selling out for a mainstream market. I think they want their game to successful and popular on the PC, and they want people to keep playing it for a long time. I think most of the things you mention are going to be changed before 1.0, the game is still early beta and all of these things are getting tweaked. Your points are valid, but I think you need to give UWE a chance to make the game.
I actually think NS2 could be huge if UWE do things right. I can imagine seeing games cast with the spec camera in a commander style mode, going into first person when a player pulls off some good kills. It could really make FPS games more enjoyable to watch from a spectator standpoint. The key thing is the gameplay though and we just need to wait and see how it evolves in the next few months.
<!--quoteo(post=1864572:date=Jul 29 2011, 02:19 AM:name=RisingSun)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RisingSun @ Jul 29 2011, 02:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1864572"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why do these threads keep popping up? Balance should not be done until we have the complete game. Imagine critiquing a big mac when all UWE gave you was meat and bread (no special sauce, no lettuce, no pickles, and no sesame seeds). Sounds silly right?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not if UW says "please critique this big mac." No it doesn't sound silly. This idea that somehow once everything is complete balance can be done is far more ridiculous than the other way around. Balance is ongoing and shapes the new game play just as much as the new game play shapes balance. They make new things based off of balance reports in game to make the game function better, it doesn't matter if everything is in play or not, the point is to make it known.
Are fades overpowered? Maybe. So what does this mean: A: Fades are only overpowered because there isn't another tier of stuff. B: Fades are overpowered because they're too good for what they are." Answer: Either, it could be both, it could be a mixture of both. You have to balance as you go because that drives what new updates are and what things need to be addressed. The game won't be complete until balance is done, not the other way around.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My point is this: If at this point in the game it is a stalemate that means balance is near perfect.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not necessarily. Is the gameplay a stalemate because balance is perfect, or is the ability to make stalemates making balance appear perfect. If a fade is overpowered, but so are sentry guns, you'll still have stalemates but balance will not be perfect. Every issue has to be addressed with the game in mind, not with narrow little sections.
fades are NOT overpowered at all if anything they are much weaker than they were in ns1. Learn to travel in groups and current fades will go down very quickly, and if you have good commander you should be fine.
Let them add skill based movement back into the game, maybe then we can complain but current fades are just blinking forward no skill needed class. The fade needs better movement, and much more smoother blink. Blink should work based on small taps to conserve energy, not holding blink constantly. I've explained already how this might work, but will say it again here.
1.blink will work as it currently does, holding blink fade would enter his blink state - this burns energy rather quickly 2.tapping blink, would push the fade forward as it did in ns1 to conserve energy but during this blink the fade is exposed to damage
for this system to work skill based movement must be brought back for better agile movement.
<!--quoteo(post=1864902:date=Jul 30 2011, 09:58 AM:name=azimaith)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (azimaith @ Jul 30 2011, 09:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1864902"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Not if UW says "please critique this big mac." No it doesn't sound silly. This idea that somehow once everything is complete balance can be done is far more ridiculous than the other way around. Balance is ongoing and shapes the new game play just as much as the new game play shapes balance. They make new things based off of balance reports in game to make the game function better, it doesn't matter if everything is in play or not, the point is to make it known.
Are fades overpowered? Maybe. So what does this mean: A: Fades are only overpowered because there isn't another tier of stuff. B: Fades are overpowered because they're too good for what they are." Answer: Either, it could be both, it could be a mixture of both. You have to balance as you go because that drives what new updates are and what things need to be addressed. The game won't be complete until balance is done, not the other way around.
Not necessarily. Is the gameplay a stalemate because balance is perfect, or is the ability to make stalemates making balance appear perfect. If a fade is overpowered, but so are sentry guns, you'll still have stalemates but balance will not be perfect. Every issue has to be addressed with the game in mind, not with narrow little sections.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you think you are clever for speaking in contradictions? You make absolute no sense when you say it would be better to balance now when the game is incomplete and performance is poor on a mass scale then balance when the game has everything in it and tweaked to be playable (Graphics wise).
Also i am not saying my word is fact. It is my opinion and of course there are holes you can riddle through it as with anything. I mean... "Is the gameplay a stalemate because balance is perfect, or is the ability to make stalemates making balance appear perfect." Did you really just say that? Your entire post adds nothing and only trolls mine. You take no stance on anything and when you come close, you say it could be the opposite. Thank god you aren't making the game. Would have to entitle it "Natural De-Re-Selection 2".
I could defend my argument more but i think others have said it better. So i will quit wasting forum space which i wish you had done.
<!--quoteo(post=1864938:date=Jul 30 2011, 08:44 AM:name=RisingSun)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RisingSun @ Jul 30 2011, 08:44 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1864938"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you think you are clever for speaking in contradictions?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why are you wasting your time getting offended at nothing?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You make absolute no sense when you say it would be better to balance now when the game is incomplete and performance is poor on a mass scale then balance when the game has everything in it and tweaked to be playable (Graphics wise).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm saying balance occurs as the game develops, that's just the way it works. If the game has everything in it, then they find out they really don't like DI spreading everywhere and they need cysts, they would have to go back and change absolutely everything that pertained to DI which is a great deal more work than putting it in piece by piece. Game balance is going to go through phases as the game progresses and with each tier and balance is achieved, they move on up, in the very end, they'll make a balance pass over everything as a whole. The idea of not doing any balancing would first, make the game unplayable, and thus untestable, and second, would mean any balance change later would require a reworking of everything previous. Better to nip a problem in the bud than wait until its a sprawling mess.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also i am not saying my word is fact. It is my opinion and of course there are holes you can riddle through it as with anything. I mean... "Is the gameplay a stalemate because balance is perfect, or is the ability to make stalemates making balance appear perfect." Did you really just say that? Your entire post adds nothing and only trolls mine. You take no stance on anything and when you come close, you say it could be the opposite. Thank god you aren't making the game. Would have to entitle it "Natural De-Re-Selection 2".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Uh, I said that because it's a logical other option. To make an analogy, if we were talking about global warming as a concept, you couldn't accurately say (without evidence) increased carbon levels causes global warming, because you would also have to accept that perhaps warming causes increased carbon levels.
I don't think a stalemate is the epitome of balance, the end game should not be a stalemate, that's a problem.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I could defend my argument more but i think others have said it better. So i will quit wasting forum space which i wish you had done.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You have no reason to get hostile because I disagreed with your post.
<!--quoteo(post=1864944:date=Jul 30 2011, 01:11 PM:name=azimaith)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (azimaith @ Jul 30 2011, 01:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1864944"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why are you wasting your time getting offended at nothing?
I'm saying balance occurs as the game develops, that's just the way it works. If the game has everything in it, then they find out they really don't like DI spreading everywhere and they need cysts, they would have to go back and change absolutely everything that pertained to DI which is a great deal more work than putting it in piece by piece. Game balance is going to go through phases as the game progresses and with each tier and balance is achieved, they move on up, in the very end, they'll make a balance pass over everything as a whole. The idea of not doing any balancing would first, make the game unplayable, and thus untestable, and second, would mean any balance change later would require a reworking of everything previous. Better to nip a problem in the bud than wait until its a sprawling mess.
Uh, I said that because it's a logical other option. To make an analogy, if we were talking about global warming as a concept, you couldn't accurately say (without evidence) increased carbon levels causes global warming, because you would also have to accept that perhaps warming causes increased carbon levels.
I don't think a stalemate is the epitome of balance, the end game should not be a stalemate, that's a problem.
You have no reason to get hostile because I disagreed with your post.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It isnt that you disagreed but the way you went about it.
I wasnt saying END GAME should be a stalemate. The game as it is now is a good balance which causes a stalemate and requires the teams to expand out to increase their ability to combat the opposite team.
About balance, i am saying to balance <i>heavily</i> now would be a mistake. Altering easy numerical values is appreciated some times. What i am talking about is basing whole topics on "This class is OP" when their counters havent been introduced yet. To use an analogy as we both are so found of, it would be like beta testing Rock Paper Scissors without having the ability to use Paper. Is this over simplified to absurdity? Yes. But it is how i see it. Leave the fade as is and i guarantee you if heavy armor, heavy weapons, and jet packs are added we will see a lot of "Fades Suck" threads.
The game is fine as is. More stuff needs to be added but i enjoy what we have now till both teams are tech'd up and no one is budging (bring in T3).
I've seen a similar (and shared) sentiment in another thread. It went something like this: "Are fades overpowered right now?" "Yes, but the aliens wouldn't be competitive right now if they weren't." I expect Fade killers to be showing up eventually, but at 2 hives, where were at, I do think the Fades need a slight tone down in their ability to survive damage. Its going to depend on whether Fades are supposed to be a midgame weapon or a weapon that forces you to hit end game.
I think it's more that they're midgame weapons, not weapons that determine when its time to get end game, and as such they shouldn't be quite as effective against normal soldiers as they are.
AsranielJoin Date: 2002-06-03Member: 724Members, Playtest Lead, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow, Subnautica Playtester, Retired Community Developer
i think fades are actually pretty fragile. You really have to get in and out very fast.
As soon as the marines work as a group with at least one flamethrower, the fade is dead. Actually even a group of fades has no chance then.
So, i think the fade is very powerful, he might be overpowered in some situations, but making him weaker, could very well make him wortheless (he costs tons of resources).
Lol , I was about to come and claim Fades were too tanky to be honest.
Its not a problem when a Fade blinks behind you and finishes you off with a few swipes, its a real issue though when the Fade blinks to near your face ... eats a clip of LMG fire and just walks about swiping about you while you reload. I agree the LMG shouldnt be a major Fade killer, but at the same time it shouldnt be so ineffective the Fade can practically ignore a LMG user and tank the LMG fire... getting to a point that you can simple just throw your LMG down and wait for the Fade to finish you.
... a Onos is a Oh no, RUUUUNNN!!! A Fade you cant run from, and if you have a LMG you cant even hope to damage it enough to scare it off anymore. That to me is a major issue, a player should never feel that they cant do a thing, even fleeing as thats just frustrating. NS 1 Fades didnt soak up LMG fire if I recall correctly , they relied on confusing the Marines and taking out a target.
I would say ...
Up the Damage a LMG can do to a Fade so that a Fade will drop relatively quickly under sustained LMG fire Drop the cost of Blink Increase Swipe damage
Its far more easier to acept a death when the Fade out manouvered you and got you, than it is to empty clips into the target ineffectively and die while reloading.
If two marines empty an entire clip into a fade, they'll force it to retreat. Therefore, whenever you see a fade, at least two people have to be shooting it at all times.
<!--quoteo(post=1864969:date=Jul 30 2011, 11:23 AM:name=kaffaljidhma)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kaffaljidhma @ Jul 30 2011, 11:23 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1864969"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If two marines empty an entire clip into a fade, they'll force it to retreat. Therefore, whenever you see a fade, at least two people have to be shooting it at all times.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The problem is that they force it to retreat, not kill it. I typically see fades attacking groups of 3 marines sometimes even when one has a flame thrower, at worst they typically just run for it after swiping a few times, which is great, but shouldn't attacking three heavily armed marines be a tactical decision you wouldn't want to make? Typically the fade will run but you can't follow because it moves so much faster and its typically got skulks who are respawning ready to eat you if you chase.
Two marines emptying a hundred rounds into a Fade as it blinks around and is actively attempting to kill one is really very difficult in the end, the truth of the matter is, to kill Fades, you really should have a flame thrower and you really need to <b>chase that sucker down and make sure he eats it.</b>
<!--quoteo(post=1864998:date=Jul 30 2011, 01:53 PM:name=kaffaljidhma)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kaffaljidhma @ Jul 30 2011, 01:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1864998"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->flamethrowers prevent the fade from escaping because they suck away charge<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> They can still blink, it just doesn't take them very far, but they can spam it instantly over and over again. I've seen it a million times, pop-flash, pop-flash, pop-flash around a corner.
The flame thrower makes them retreat it doesn't really kill them often because they can still blink away.
<!--quoteo(post=1864969:date=Jul 30 2011, 10:23 PM:name=kaffaljidhma)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kaffaljidhma @ Jul 30 2011, 10:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1864969"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If two marines empty an entire clip into a fade, they'll force it to retreat. Therefore, whenever you see a fade, at least two people have to be shooting it at all times.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except that doesn't work because they will miss most of the time because any half intelligent fade can spend most of their time invisible and invincible.
<!--quoteo(post=1865009:date=Jul 31 2011, 02:10 AM:name=Schimmel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Schimmel @ Jul 31 2011, 02:10 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1865009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->the problem is that you can spam blink. Im experimenting with activation costs, and it plays out much better<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But if you limit blink the problem then becomes that the fade is now a pretty boring class. It only has the one gimmick, if they can't blink around a lot then it's a slow-ish class that has one melee attack.
It becomes like the skulk, only without the possibility of ambushing people because it's a giant space monkey-bat.
If you limit blink enough to make it not annoying for marines, you're going to make it very annoying for aliens, just as lerk hitboxes have done and skulk leap removal has done, you need something else adding to counterbalance it.
I'd suggest either bringing the health back up (but that comes with its own problems of scaling poorly against lighter lifeforms) or adding some new attack functionality so that they don't have to expose themselves to fire as much.
Although, I suppose if you add more health to lerks which you'll have to do given how easily you can shoot them now, and to skulks given that the lack of leap makes them kind of crap at the start, then you might be OK adding some to fades too.
<!--quoteo(post=1864996:date=Jul 31 2011, 09:49 AM:name=azimaith)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (azimaith @ Jul 31 2011, 09:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1864996"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem is that they force it to retreat, not kill it. I typically see fades attacking groups of 3 marines sometimes even when one has a flame thrower, at worst they typically just run for it after swiping a few times, which is great, but shouldn't attacking three heavily armed marines be a tactical decision you wouldn't want to make? Typically the fade will run but you can't follow because it moves so much faster and its typically got skulks who are respawning ready to eat you if you chase.
Two marines emptying a hundred rounds into a Fade as it blinks around and is actively attempting to kill one is really very difficult in the end, the truth of the matter is, to kill Fades, you really should have a flame thrower and you really need to <b>chase that sucker down and make sure he eats it.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I totally agree with this post. As this is my experience most of the time.
I reckon next beta they should inrease the energy/adrenalin cost of blink by a small margin say 10%??!?
Also they should increase the damage to structures from the fade 2nd swipe to make it more useful as I hardly ever see anyone use it .
I wish the secondary strike could take the role it was apparently meant for, stabbing infantry to death. Its just so slow and clunky though with the wind up and noise, it doesn't one shot them or anything either.
I don't think the answer is increasing blink cost, we already effectively do increase blink cost by setting fades on fire, they still get away just fine, the answer is to lower fade health and armor so that attacking groups of marines is a deadly proposition without support or some kind of serious advantage. I'd honestly really like to get rid of the fade blink noise, lower their health, and increase their secondary fire damage, to slay instantly at equal melee vs armor, and slow down blink traveling. This means fades would be able to more easily reach ambush positions, and also silently appear behind a marine before eviscerating someone and ditching, very much in the same way the trailer showed, but if he tried a frontal assault or just blinked at the enemy and then at the corner, he'd get gunned down.
The fade would essentially become a resource leech to the enemy, appearing, slaying someone, and vanishing before retribution could be brought if he did it right, so that suddenly those 5 marines heading to your base become four, then three, then two, and then one, before getting overwhelmed, being forced to retreat, or being stalked and killed by the hunting fade.
Comments
Now take a good skulk player. He'll go in, take out a marine or two, get shot up, respawn, repeat. He'll obviously have a much higher death ratio than the fade, but his effectiveness over time might not be drastically different from the fade's.
Think of the Sniper class in some more common FPS and how they usually have ridiculous K/D ratios. I think the perceived problem might be of the same nature. Of course, it's extremely annoying to get taken out by the same player over and over again and feeling like there's little you can do, but that's another question entirely.
Now the problem to me is that a single unit could go against 5 well equipped marines and survive. This, however, doesn't take player skill into account. I've had experiences where I, a rather mediocre player, and someone whom I could only call well-above-average (great, perhaps) managed to fend off two fades using only our shotguns. Does that make fades underpowered? These anecdotal arguments can usually be turned on their heads by another, equally anecdotal, opposing argument and are pretty much worthless.
I'm not saying that there isn't a problem. I haven't played enough matches with the current fade implementation to be a fair judge of that, but staring ourselves blind at K/D ratios will get us nowhere in a game with wildly diverse classes. That would, for example, make the Gorge who heals his mates and structures, builds defenses around the map and fixes up the cyst chain with a K/D ratio of 1:10 horribly underpowered.
We all know better than that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
what is this rational thought? We don't want any of that here!
wait til minigun.
That is your opinion, in my opinion a few of you think it is op because you are not good at the game yet. As I stated earlier I have no issues killing them with a flamethrower or sg.
<!--quoteo(post=1864627:date=Jul 29 2011, 10:21 AM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Jul 29 2011, 10:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1864627"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The one thing I would like to see is for fades to be able to take damage while blinking. The insta-invulnerability system they have right now makes it very difficult to kill retreating fades.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is the entire point of blink really lol, they are supposed to be hard to kill and be able to retreat easily. They use guerrilla like tactics to kill a marine or two at a time, but as someone above said their downtime is long.
I don't know. The more we go that way, the more it becomes like an adren limited NS1 fade with less dynamic blink mechanics and more blind shooting and guessing involved. The last thing I want out of anything in NS2 is that it's 'like NS1, but inferior'.
Not that I have any better solutions at this point though.
You are forgetting T3 that will be implemented that will make fade not as "OP" as you think.
Good marines CAN and WILL tackle fades, period.
Just my two cents.
Cheers!
I was in that game, the player wasn't doing anything "different" then any other fade in a game where they have a healer. He came in, he 1 shot everyone the way any person does. I mean how hard is it to play a fade? you hold down right click and aim in a direction and appear behind the guy and hit him. Where is the skill? no where, because movement has been taken away like in all games now a days.
Bad Company 2, can't sprint strafe, Call of Duty it has the movement, but they implement perks and radar hacks, you may aswell just install cheats. World of Warcraft, this game doesn't even have movement, like all the other corporation sell out take over games. I don't know about you guys, but I am seriously getting sick and tired of playing the same game to watch the same story over and over again. If you DO NOT GIVE THE PLAYER room to EVOLVE, the game dithers relatively quick.
Look at games like Quake, Unreal, CS, HL, TF2 - Why do these games not die? because it's endless when it comes to becoming good. Movement, aim, positioning, teamwork, individual skill. Every time a game developer removes aspects of these elements, the game becomes newbier, dumber and boring fairly quick.
I took my friend in to cs 1.6, he claimed he was great at shooters(nexgen shooters). The guy couldn't even shoot teh ak if his life depended on it. He expected to pick up a gun that had no recoil, rip around a map and just hold down a trigger and shoot kids. When he shot the ak, it went straight in to the sky and it was eye opening to see how many players who think they're hardcore at "fps" that are in reality, softcore. They don't even know what the gaming industry has to offer.
In my eyes, the FPS industry is devolving, not evolving. The only thing that has gone forward is the graphics, the rest of the industry is just pure fail. They blow at gameplay mechanics, teamwork, map creation and the biggest thing of, the feel/fluid movement that allows an individual player to express his will in the game. If you can't move in a game the way you want, then your already capped off at being great, because the games mechanics lock you in one place.
I love NS2, as I siad before the game has great potential, but the more they sell out for this "mainstream market" the more it's going to steerr away long term customers. I really hope they throw some skill back in to the game and clean up the games movement.
The idea that a fade can only take on one marine at a time is quiet ridiculous.
I would say when you are rewarded for killing and take a loss when you die by the game (with upgrades) K/D does become very important. BF/TF2 and many other fps games k/d is not important in NS2 it is.
But as I said before I think aliens need OP fades anyway until they get Onos.
At times he blinked in against 5 marines with 2+ flamethrowers, killed a couple of us and then just blinked out, they're ridiculous.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
FT don't kill fades. You never want more than one guy with a FT on your team, it has a piddly 50 dps or so vs a shotguns 420 or a rifles 200.
FT keeps YOU alive, because as soon as the fade is on fire, he has retreat or risk dying. If he keeps on attacking, your shotgun/rifle buddies will kill him .... but chances are, you won't. You are just there to keep the fade ineffective, not to kill him.
I was in that game, the player wasn't doing anything "different" then any other fade in a game where they have a healer. He came in, he 1 shot everyone the way any person does. I mean how hard is it to play a fade? you hold down right click and aim in a direction and appear behind the guy and hit him. Where is the skill? no where, because movement has been taken away like in all games now a days.
Bad Company 2, can't sprint strafe, Call of Duty it has the movement, but they implement perks and radar hacks, you may aswell just install cheats. World of Warcraft, this game doesn't even have movement, like all the other corporation sell out take over games. I don't know about you guys, but I am seriously getting sick and tired of playing the same game to watch the same story over and over again. If you DO NOT GIVE THE PLAYER room to EVOLVE, the game dithers relatively quick.
Look at games like Quake, Unreal, CS, HL, TF2 - Why do these games not die? because it's endless when it comes to becoming good. Movement, aim, positioning, teamwork, individual skill. Every time a game developer removes aspects of these elements, the game becomes newbier, dumber and boring fairly quick.
I took my friend in to cs 1.6, he claimed he was great at shooters(nexgen shooters). The guy couldn't even shoot teh ak if his life depended on it. He expected to pick up a gun that had no recoil, rip around a map and just hold down a trigger and shoot kids. When he shot the ak, it went straight in to the sky and it was eye opening to see how many players who think they're hardcore at "fps" that are in reality, softcore. They don't even know what the gaming industry has to offer.
In my eyes, the FPS industry is devolving, not evolving. The only thing that has gone forward is the graphics, the rest of the industry is just pure fail. They blow at gameplay mechanics, teamwork, map creation and the biggest thing of, the feel/fluid movement that allows an individual player to express his will in the game. If you can't move in a game the way you want, then your already capped off at being great, because the games mechanics lock you in one place.
I love NS2, as I siad before the game has great potential, but the more they sell out for this "mainstream market" the more it's going to steerr away long term customers. I really hope they throw some skill back in to the game and clean up the games movement.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This x 2. Well said and definitely something that has bothered me but i couldnt put my finger on it.
(i remember practicing in that one player made desert map with the crates endlessly to control the AK kick lol)
I was in that game, the player wasn't doing anything "different" then any other fade in a game where they have a healer. He came in, he 1 shot everyone the way any person does. I mean how hard is it to play a fade? you hold down right click and aim in a direction and appear behind the guy and hit him. Where is the skill? no where, because movement has been taken away like in all games now a days.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with you Slithers. I feel like taking away control from the player is very bad for an FPS and just leads to frustrating gameplay. All the old FPSs are super responsive and you always have control of your player. If you want to shoot, you can, if you want to stop running you can....you never get stuck in these canned animations or have control taken away from you.
A perfect example of what not to do is Brink. I remember before that game came out there was quite a number of people looking forward to it and thinking it could have a big competitive scene. Now, only a few months later it's completely dead. The gameplay was just so bad. You got stuck in canned animations all the time. Buffing other players even took control of your mouse! In general the movement in that game felt very clunky and unresponsive (despite the claim of it having "freedom of movement").
I would like it if they removed the backwards speed penalty. I don't really see any need for it.
I also think the fade right now is boring to play. I hardly ever play fade now. It's easy to get kills but it's no fun. I never feel like I outplayed the marine when I kill him.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I love NS2, as I siad before the game has great potential, but the more they sell out for this "mainstream market" the more it's going to steerr away long term customers. I really hope they throw some skill back in to the game and clean up the games movement.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think this is a little unfair. I don't think unknown worlds are selling out for a mainstream market. I think they want their game to successful and popular on the PC, and they want people to keep playing it for a long time. I think most of the things you mention are going to be changed before 1.0, the game is still early beta and all of these things are getting tweaked. Your points are valid, but I think you need to give UWE a chance to make the game.
I actually think NS2 could be huge if UWE do things right. I can imagine seeing games cast with the spec camera in a commander style mode, going into first person when a player pulls off some good kills. It could really make FPS games more enjoyable to watch from a spectator standpoint. The key thing is the gameplay though and we just need to wait and see how it evolves in the next few months.
Not if UW says "please critique this big mac." No it doesn't sound silly. This idea that somehow once everything is complete balance can be done is far more ridiculous than the other way around. Balance is ongoing and shapes the new game play just as much as the new game play shapes balance. They make new things based off of balance reports in game to make the game function better, it doesn't matter if everything is in play or not, the point is to make it known.
Are fades overpowered? Maybe. So what does this mean:
A: Fades are only overpowered because there isn't another tier of stuff.
B: Fades are overpowered because they're too good for what they are."
Answer: Either, it could be both, it could be a mixture of both. You have to balance as you go because that drives what new updates are and what things need to be addressed. The game won't be complete until balance is done, not the other way around.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My point is this: If at this point in the game it is a stalemate that means balance is near perfect.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not necessarily. Is the gameplay a stalemate because balance is perfect, or is the ability to make stalemates making balance appear perfect. If a fade is overpowered, but so are sentry guns, you'll still have stalemates but balance will not be perfect. Every issue has to be addressed with the game in mind, not with narrow little sections.
Let them add skill based movement back into the game, maybe then we can complain but current fades are just blinking forward no skill needed class. The fade needs better movement, and much more smoother blink. Blink should work based on small taps to conserve energy, not holding blink constantly. I've explained already how this might work, but will say it again here.
1.blink will work as it currently does, holding blink fade would enter his blink state - this burns energy rather quickly
2.tapping blink, would push the fade forward as it did in ns1 to conserve energy but during this blink the fade is exposed to damage
for this system to work skill based movement must be brought back for better agile movement.
Are fades overpowered? Maybe. So what does this mean:
A: Fades are only overpowered because there isn't another tier of stuff.
B: Fades are overpowered because they're too good for what they are."
Answer: Either, it could be both, it could be a mixture of both. You have to balance as you go because that drives what new updates are and what things need to be addressed. The game won't be complete until balance is done, not the other way around.
Not necessarily. Is the gameplay a stalemate because balance is perfect, or is the ability to make stalemates making balance appear perfect. If a fade is overpowered, but so are sentry guns, you'll still have stalemates but balance will not be perfect. Every issue has to be addressed with the game in mind, not with narrow little sections.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you think you are clever for speaking in contradictions? You make absolute no sense when you say it would be better to balance now when the game is incomplete and performance is poor on a mass scale then balance when the game has everything in it and tweaked to be playable (Graphics wise).
Also i am not saying my word is fact. It is my opinion and of course there are holes you can riddle through it as with anything. I mean... "Is the gameplay a stalemate because balance is perfect, or is the ability to make stalemates making balance appear perfect." Did you really just say that? Your entire post adds nothing and only trolls mine. You take no stance on anything and when you come close, you say it could be the opposite. Thank god you aren't making the game. Would have to entitle it "Natural De-Re-Selection 2".
I could defend my argument more but i think others have said it better. So i will quit wasting forum space which i wish you had done.
Why are you wasting your time getting offended at nothing?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You make absolute no sense when you say it would be better to balance now when the game is incomplete and performance is poor on a mass scale then balance when the game has everything in it and tweaked to be playable (Graphics wise).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm saying balance occurs as the game develops, that's just the way it works. If the game has everything in it, then they find out they really don't like DI spreading everywhere and they need cysts, they would have to go back and change absolutely everything that pertained to DI which is a great deal more work than putting it in piece by piece. Game balance is going to go through phases as the game progresses and with each tier and balance is achieved, they move on up, in the very end, they'll make a balance pass over everything as a whole. The idea of not doing any balancing would first, make the game unplayable, and thus untestable, and second, would mean any balance change later would require a reworking of everything previous. Better to nip a problem in the bud than wait until its a sprawling mess.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also i am not saying my word is fact. It is my opinion and of course there are holes you can riddle through it as with anything. I mean... "Is the gameplay a stalemate because balance is perfect, or is the ability to make stalemates making balance appear perfect." Did you really just say that? Your entire post adds nothing and only trolls mine. You take no stance on anything and when you come close, you say it could be the opposite. Thank god you aren't making the game. Would have to entitle it "Natural De-Re-Selection 2".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh, I said that because it's a logical other option. To make an analogy, if we were talking about global warming as a concept, you couldn't accurately say (without evidence) increased carbon levels causes global warming, because you would also have to accept that perhaps warming causes increased carbon levels.
I don't think a stalemate is the epitome of balance, the end game should not be a stalemate, that's a problem.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I could defend my argument more but i think others have said it better. So i will quit wasting forum space which i wish you had done.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have no reason to get hostile because I disagreed with your post.
I'm saying balance occurs as the game develops, that's just the way it works. If the game has everything in it, then they find out they really don't like DI spreading everywhere and they need cysts, they would have to go back and change absolutely everything that pertained to DI which is a great deal more work than putting it in piece by piece. Game balance is going to go through phases as the game progresses and with each tier and balance is achieved, they move on up, in the very end, they'll make a balance pass over everything as a whole. The idea of not doing any balancing would first, make the game unplayable, and thus untestable, and second, would mean any balance change later would require a reworking of everything previous. Better to nip a problem in the bud than wait until its a sprawling mess.
Uh, I said that because it's a logical other option. To make an analogy, if we were talking about global warming as a concept, you couldn't accurately say (without evidence) increased carbon levels causes global warming, because you would also have to accept that perhaps warming causes increased carbon levels.
I don't think a stalemate is the epitome of balance, the end game should not be a stalemate, that's a problem.
You have no reason to get hostile because I disagreed with your post.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It isnt that you disagreed but the way you went about it.
I wasnt saying END GAME should be a stalemate. The game as it is now is a good balance which causes a stalemate and requires the teams to expand out to increase their ability to combat the opposite team.
About balance, i am saying to balance <i>heavily</i> now would be a mistake. Altering easy numerical values is appreciated some times. What i am talking about is basing whole topics on "This class is OP" when their counters havent been introduced yet. To use an analogy as we both are so found of, it would be like beta testing Rock Paper Scissors without having the ability to use Paper. Is this over simplified to absurdity? Yes. But it is how i see it. Leave the fade as is and i guarantee you if heavy armor, heavy weapons, and jet packs are added we will see a lot of "Fades Suck" threads.
The game is fine as is. More stuff needs to be added but i enjoy what we have now till both teams are tech'd up and no one is budging (bring in T3).
"Are fades overpowered right now?"
"Yes, but the aliens wouldn't be competitive right now if they weren't."
I expect Fade killers to be showing up eventually, but at 2 hives, where were at, I do think the Fades need a slight tone down in their ability to survive damage. Its going to depend on whether Fades are supposed to be a midgame weapon or a weapon that forces you to hit end game.
I think it's more that they're midgame weapons, not weapons that determine when its time to get end game, and as such they shouldn't be quite as effective against normal soldiers as they are.
As soon as the marines work as a group with at least one flamethrower, the fade is dead. Actually even a group of fades has no chance then.
So, i think the fade is very powerful, he might be overpowered in some situations, but making him weaker, could very well make him wortheless (he costs tons of resources).
Its not a problem when a Fade blinks behind you and finishes you off with a few swipes, its a real issue though when the Fade blinks to near your face ... eats a clip of LMG fire and just walks about swiping about you while you reload.
I agree the LMG shouldnt be a major Fade killer, but at the same time it shouldnt be so ineffective the Fade can practically ignore a LMG user and tank the LMG fire... getting to a point that you can simple just throw your LMG down and wait for the Fade to finish you.
... a Onos is a Oh no, RUUUUNNN!!! A Fade you cant run from, and if you have a LMG you cant even hope to damage it enough to scare it off anymore.
That to me is a major issue, a player should never feel that they cant do a thing, even fleeing as thats just frustrating. NS 1 Fades didnt soak up LMG fire if I recall correctly , they relied on confusing the Marines and taking out a target.
I would say ...
Up the Damage a LMG can do to a Fade so that a Fade will drop relatively quickly under sustained LMG fire
Drop the cost of Blink
Increase Swipe damage
Its far more easier to acept a death when the Fade out manouvered you and got you, than it is to empty clips into the target ineffectively and die while reloading.
The problem is that they force it to retreat, not kill it. I typically see fades attacking groups of 3 marines sometimes even when one has a flame thrower, at worst they typically just run for it after swiping a few times, which is great, but shouldn't attacking three heavily armed marines be a tactical decision you wouldn't want to make? Typically the fade will run but you can't follow because it moves so much faster and its typically got skulks who are respawning ready to eat you if you chase.
Two marines emptying a hundred rounds into a Fade as it blinks around and is actively attempting to kill one is really very difficult in the end, the truth of the matter is, to kill Fades, you really should have a flame thrower and you really need to <b>chase that sucker down and make sure he eats it.</b>
They can still blink, it just doesn't take them very far, but they can spam it instantly over and over again. I've seen it a million times, pop-flash, pop-flash, pop-flash around a corner.
The flame thrower makes them retreat it doesn't really kill them often because they can still blink away.
Except that doesn't work because they will miss most of the time because any half intelligent fade can spend most of their time invisible and invincible.
But if you limit blink the problem then becomes that the fade is now a pretty boring class. It only has the one gimmick, if they can't blink around a lot then it's a slow-ish class that has one melee attack.
It becomes like the skulk, only without the possibility of ambushing people because it's a giant space monkey-bat.
If you limit blink enough to make it not annoying for marines, you're going to make it very annoying for aliens, just as lerk hitboxes have done and skulk leap removal has done, you need something else adding to counterbalance it.
I'd suggest either bringing the health back up (but that comes with its own problems of scaling poorly against lighter lifeforms) or adding some new attack functionality so that they don't have to expose themselves to fire as much.
Although, I suppose if you add more health to lerks which you'll have to do given how easily you can shoot them now, and to skulks given that the lack of leap makes them kind of crap at the start, then you might be OK adding some to fades too.
Two marines emptying a hundred rounds into a Fade as it blinks around and is actively attempting to kill one is really very difficult in the end, the truth of the matter is, to kill Fades, you really should have a flame thrower and you really need to <b>chase that sucker down and make sure he eats it.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I totally agree with this post. As this is my experience most of the time.
I reckon next beta they should inrease the energy/adrenalin cost of blink by a small margin say 10%??!?
Also they should increase the damage to structures from the fade 2nd swipe to make it more useful as I hardly ever see anyone use it .
I don't think the answer is increasing blink cost, we already effectively do increase blink cost by setting fades on fire, they still get away just fine, the answer is to lower fade health and armor so that attacking groups of marines is a deadly proposition without support or some kind of serious advantage. I'd honestly really like to get rid of the fade blink noise, lower their health, and increase their secondary fire damage, to slay instantly at equal melee vs armor, and slow down blink traveling. This means fades would be able to more easily reach ambush positions, and also silently appear behind a marine before eviscerating someone and ditching, very much in the same way the trailer showed, but if he tried a frontal assault or just blinked at the enemy and then at the corner, he'd get gunned down.
The fade would essentially become a resource leech to the enemy, appearing, slaying someone, and vanishing before retribution could be brought if he did it right, so that suddenly those 5 marines heading to your base become four, then three, then two, and then one, before getting overwhelmed, being forced to retreat, or being stalked and killed by the hunting fade.