Very well, I understand what you're saying. To be honest I mistook you for a player who always trolls and ruins games when he plays on the Australian server because your names were really similar and went over the top a bit. Apologies :p.
Personally I don't think having multiple weak points is a big problem for the marines, because unorganized aliens often spread between them and are less effective as a result. Actually if the aliens spread uniformly between three different weak points it's like having one with triple the hp.
Also I don't mind having unfair differences between the teams, like eggs vs. ips. Starcraft if full of those and it's probably the most balanced game ever.
I also think that the marines dont have to complain. The placement of the powernodes and vents should be revisited. There should be no savespot for gorge/lerk to kill a the powernode or CC without putting himself in theoretical danger. If the marines dont put up defenses, or dont defend their base it's their fault. A single gorge takes quite some time atm to destroy the powernode with bilebomb. If the comm doesnt beacon, the marines arent checking the map or respawning marines dont see that the powernode/cc/ip is under attack its their fault.
Also it's easier to camp the marine spawn, the ip, then to camp the alien spawn. But even when a alien respawns it is a skulk and has to get close to the marine which is at the hive. Who most likely has several upgrades and can shoot the skulk before it even reachs him. Marines spawn with upgrades and have a ranged weapon. Everytime i die, i check the map to see if a alien is close to our base or even in it. I killed many skulks who were trying to destroy the powernode after respawning.
The premise that I think elodea and myself are reacting to is that the number of "ways of losing" is the single determinant factor for "how easy it is to lose". They may correlate but they are not inherently equatable. It's this starting point that leads to ironhorse's instinctive claim that things are imbalanced and harimau's insistence on trying to mathematically model this imbalance. In reality, ironhorse appears to have complaints with a number of things, including the effectiveness of bilebomb and map geometry and so on. Yes; reducing the "ways of losing" is one way of strengthening marines but it's one of many. I would sooner see greater fps performance as an answer to this problem than a manipulation of king-pieces, for example.
It's a theme of your arguments, Harimau, that you try and condense balance into numbers. It's quite ludicrous to afford numerical parity between win conditions in order to afford "how easy it is to lose" parity, <i>especially</i> when your numbers are confined to one specific area (king-piece hitpoints). I appreciate the logic of most of your points but only in isolation. Your argument is not just "limited" by other factors, it is obliterated by them.
For instance, your numbers don't consider: 1) damage outputs 2) defense options 3) maneuverability 4) repairing/rebuilding conditions 5) ... n) basically, all the different ways in which aliens and marines operate.
What value does your model have if they can only be considered <i>ceteris paribus</i>? None, because there's no such thing as "all other things being equal" in NS2. Lay your mathematical brain down until such a time as its big enough to be of any use!
The IPs are generally only attacked in the very beginning of the game...for the easy skulk rush victory. This works mostly if a commander is not quick to lay them down ...or all his marines ran off. This is a KNOWN problem they are working on. The next patch will probably see a starting IP to try address this.
The CC is generally attacked like any other structure... ...I bite it while moving ...until the marine goes to reload...then i dash out of there. This is the same as any other structure that i might harass for whatever reason.
Most coordination on taking down an area focuses on the power node.
If you really want to improve the marine's ability to win...ask for another performance bump.
<!--quoteo(post=1903794:date=Feb 16 2012, 10:20 AM:name=NurEinMensch)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NurEinMensch @ Feb 16 2012, 10:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1903794"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Bump up CC health (structure health in general maybe) a bit. Let CCs power IPs and let PGs work without power or something like that. Tadaa, balance!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or just teach the marines to watch the f**** map and protect their base....
kharaa have many ways to lose. harvesters are incredibly important. 1 or 2 down early game is the end. the thing is, aliens hive only coutns as 1 loss condition early game. after 2nd hive, aliens have two loss conditions, with 3rd hive they have 3. Because if the game progresses to that point, you have to assume that the marines have an equal tech level. But as soon as one hive dies, the aliens lose their tech, which means a slow spiral of death.
<!--quoteo(post=1903757:date=Feb 16 2012, 09:48 PM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Feb 16 2012, 09:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1903757"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The premise that I think elodea and myself are reacting to is that the number of "ways of losing" is the single determinant factor for "how easy it is to lose". They may correlate but they are not inherently equatable. It's this starting point that leads to ironhorse's instinctive claim that things are imbalanced and harimau's insistence on trying to mathematically model this imbalance. In reality, ironhorse appears to have complaints with a number of things, including the effectiveness of bilebomb and map geometry and so on.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You start off well, but then...
<!--quoteo(post=1903757:date=Feb 16 2012, 09:48 PM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Feb 16 2012, 09:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1903757"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes; reducing the "ways of losing" is one way of strengthening marines but it's one of many. I would sooner see greater fps performance as an answer to this problem than a manipulation of king-pieces, for example.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is a very narrow point of view. You're too focused on the walls and the facade, and don't place enough importance on the foundation. Anything can be "balanced", and you could account for every issue and dependency, but in the end you would just have a hack-job that isn't robust enough to deal with any future issues that may crop up (which you would then have to patch up again).
<!--quoteo(post=1903757:date=Feb 16 2012, 09:48 PM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Feb 16 2012, 09:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1903757"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's a theme of your arguments, Harimau, that you try and condense balance into numbers. It's quite ludicrous to afford numerical parity between win conditions in order to afford "how easy it is to lose" parity, <i>especially</i> when your numbers are confined to one specific area (king-piece hitpoints). I appreciate the logic of most of your points but only in isolation. Your argument is not just "limited" by other factors, it is obliterated by them.
For instance, your numbers don't consider: 1) damage outputs 2) defense options 3) maneuverability 4) repairing/rebuilding conditions 5) ... n) basically, all the different ways in which aliens and marines operate.
What value does your model have if they can only be considered <i>ceteris paribus</i>? None, because there's no such thing as "all other things being equal" in NS2. Lay your mathematical brain down until such a time as its big enough to be of any use!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> 1) I had previously already used "relative" health - that is, health that is scaled by the damage outputs of each team. You know, if team 2 does twice as much damage over time as team 1, then team 1's analogous structures have to have twice as much health to be balanced. 2/3/4) I had previously already considered an arbitrary "dispersal weighting" - attacking and defending options, the likelihood of forces being split, etc. etc. 5/etc.) It is a <b>simplification</b>. Additionally, I had previously already <u>stated</u> that this model doesn't seek to <b>solve</b> anything, but it helps to <b>illustrate</b> the problem.
And then, finally, I had previously already given a suggestion for a "real" solution (devoid of numbers!): Let power nodes disable everything except the CC and IPs. Re-direct all damage from the <b>last</b> attached IP to the CC. You could still destroy all but the one IP to <b>reduce</b> spawning, and you could still disable all the defenses by destroying the power node, and the two sides wouldn't play the same, but the game would be a lot more balanced.
And did you really just make a comment on the size of my brain? That's just sad. It was a good, somewhat objective post until then.
@Wheeee: We're talking about losing in the context of win conditions, i.e. preventing the enemy team from spawning, survival of the fittest, Natural Selection. The marines would lose with no res as well.
Also, 2nd hive, 3rd hive aren't win conditions because taking them down doesn't "end the game" (literally). They may "end the game" practically, but that's a problem with other elements in the game design: Slow spirals of death may be balanced, but they certainly aren't fun. Tech being tied to hives should be reconsidered, but that's another issue.
So, in conclusion, the current statistical win imbalance is <b>symptomatic</b> of issues in the overall design of the game (the foundation), so this discussion is not so much about fixing the <b>current</b> imbalance, but considering it from a more forward-looking perspective (a robust foundation). Less temp-fixes, more perma-fixes.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
edited February 2012
^ i do love his articulation, saves me a lot of work :)
@Nakorson: i'm pretty sure you're not being serious when you posted that. why would you suggest players "learn" around fundamental imbalances instead of just fixing them??
@Tweadle: yes, "in reality" I do have some complaints with other issues besides the ones focused in this thread...(who doesnt?) but those have not been the premise nor the cause of my creation of this topic! The repeated, bold and underlined parts which follow the name of this topic are really, "in reality" the point i wish to get across. do not get distracted. Those other issues, as I've stated previously, are not what i am here to point out: <!--quoteo(post=1903717:date=Feb 16 2012, 02:35 AM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Feb 16 2012, 02:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1903717"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->once again, it is imbalanced on paper. not accounting for the many many factors in game which could occur. hydras, pgs, beacons, skill, etc etc etc... player skill level accounts for balancing at a very different and more specific level than the one we are referring to = basic parity or asymmetry in methods to cease spawning.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> /end reign of the straw man. :)
<i>"I would sooner see greater fps performance as an answer to this problem than a manipulation of king-pieces, for example. </i>" so let me ask you a question similar to what i asked Elodea: While i agree greater performance would obviously change a lot in regards to balance, why would you argue <u><b>against</b></u> "manipulating" the king pieces to be asymmetrical and balanced? i get that you would sooner want performance increase, so would I. <i><b>But what is your argument against what i propose?</i></b>
because i dont see a counter argument coming from you.. just focusing on specific, detailed areas which Harimau and myself have explained come <u>after</u> the fundamental balancing we are suggesting.
i'll leave with what i wrote last night: <!--quoteo(post=1903717:date=Feb 16 2012, 02:35 AM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Feb 16 2012, 02:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1903717"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->great discussion? thanks for the in depth responses and i totally get your concerns, but believe you are considering immeasurable variables too much instead of the founding, basic, core asymmetry that can be measured on paper.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--coloro:#808080--><span style="color:#808080"><!--/coloro--><!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->edit: psst.. i count 3 logical fallacies in your response just off the top of my head: ad hominem (harimau), straw man, ("in reality" etc) red herring (the reference to what we don't consider, which might just be a misunderstanding from you of their need for inclusion at the level we are referring to) just thought i'd point out their unnecessary usage :)<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->this model doesn't seek to solve anything, but it helps to illustrate the problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's the fact that you feel like your model illustrate <b>the</b> problem that I reject. It's not necessarily a problem at all and I really think that it's a little bit pointless making suggestions to fix it. You perceive a problem in one area and have only proposed ways in that same area to address it. Ironically, you feel that my suggestion that there are answers outside that box is me being narrow-minded.
I never meant to question your intelligence. I only meant to say that the topic requires a HUGE amount of maths if you're wanting to take that approach. If you're going to brute-force an answer your force needs to be brutish. As it stands, you've only skimmed the surface by talking about dispersal weighting and scaling hitpoints according to damage outputs. Both are ideas that I dislike.
Your cc-ip hitpoint sharing isn't the worst idea in the world and could have some value but it doesn't sit well with me that suddenly there's a super-IP, irrespective of your nanites or whatever.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But what is your argument against what i propose?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> My argument is that it's not necessary and that I would much rather see balance gains from other areas like mapping, performance or even some entirely different strategy being buffed. I think manipulating hitpoints carries with it the burden of making aliens have to spend even more time eating crap. They do too much of it as it is.
Anyway, I think I'll steer clear of this thread from now on because I'm just disrupting both of your ideas and not putting forth any of my own. I would just warn against relying too much on 'paper balance'.
I played yesterday (still 195) 4 games in a row where the marines lost because they didnt defend their base. None of the games was lost because of a bile bombing their base. The just didnt watch the map, their comm didnt beacon. Okay 1 of these games shouldnt be counted in since the marines "rage? rushed" our hive, failed and lost their base while doing this.
I just dont see the point of removing the power node, giving the ip and cc more health because the marines dont defend their base. It's just like in any other game, you have to defend (or atleast watch your base) while your attacking.
In half of the games i play as a gorge i have nearly no problem destroying marine structures or even their base, but thats because i'm left alone there without anyone to defend or beaconing the marines. In the other games, there are turrets which stop me from directly attacking the vital structures directly, or there are marines around which arent blind/deaf or a commander who's watching the own base and beacons or leaves the CC and attacks me.
In my eyes there are currently nearly no games where the marines lose where they didn't make a mistake. If the marines work together and defend their base well during the whole game, especially while attacking hives, they don't lose.
When a marine base is attacked with several aliens and one of them is a gorge, the gorge is being ignored mostly. The gorge should be focused since he either heals or bilebombs. That's a mistake i see everyday.
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
<!--quoteo(post=1904231:date=Feb 17 2012, 04:03 PM:name=Nakorson)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nakorson @ Feb 17 2012, 04:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1904231"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I was partly serious when posting this.
I played yesterday (still 195) 4 games in a row where the marines lost because they didnt defend their base. None of the games was lost because of a bile bombing their base. The just didnt watch the map, their comm didnt beacon. Okay 1 of these games shouldnt be counted in since the marines "rage? rushed" our hive, failed and lost their base while doing this.
I just dont see the point of removing the power node, giving the ip and cc more health because the marines dont defend their base. It's just like in any other game, you have to defend (or atleast watch your base) while your attacking.
In half of the games i play as a gorge i have nearly no problem destroying marine structures or even their base, but thats because i'm left alone there without anyone to defend or beaconing the marines. In the other games, there are turrets which stop me from directly attacking the vital structures directly, or there are marines around which arent blind/deaf or a commander who's watching the own base and beacons or leaves the CC and attacks me.
In my eyes there are currently nearly no games where the marines lose where they didn't make a mistake. If the marines work together and defend their base well during the whole game, especially while attacking hives, they don't lose.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While i agree with the basic idea you have, there is one huge problem. Alien structures heal, and can be healed by the gorge. Marine structures don't heal and you need MACs to heal them, which come quite late in the game usually.
This means, marines have no room for mistakes. If a skulks takes down 10% of your command station, then you are in trouble. even if you kill him quickly, only a few sneak attacks are needed to finish the game.
In comparison, a marine that sneaks into a hive and takes away 20-30% of the HP of a hive, wont be such a big problem, even if the alien ignore the health loss, the hive will heal itself.
I suggest, move MACs back to the command station, that way marines have a way to repair stuff from the start.
Well the welder is going to be added. I personally dont get it why its not being added to game, a dummy mesh would be enough. Which will propably cost the same as evolving to a gorge or even be cheaper.
Alos, the marines dont have to get close to the buildings to destroy them, they can shoot them from the distance if needed. Aliens have in early game to get close to destroy the buildings. And when they have bilebomb the marines should have macs.
Now lets just think about this for a minute, What are the problems? What is the reason marines seem to lose games even though they got the advantage...
Lets start about the basics. Marines Are slow but have range weapons. They get more powerful as the game goes on and the speed of their growth depends on how many RT's they hold. A single marine defending a area can be pain to deal with. Even if 2 skulks try attacking that marine there is still a high chance he will simply kill them both ,if he is not building anything at the same time. The main marine weakness is their mobility and limited ammunition.
Aliens however have amazing mobility. Even though the skulk is not good at dealing with marines in 1v1 he makes up for it for amazing mobility. They can easly sneak passed marines to attack key locations(rt's, powernodes) and at the same time go back to defend an rt/hive before the marines get there. As the game goes on aliens rely heavily on comboing advance lifeforms such and lerk and fades with skulk to take marines down. In most games aliens are forced to play defensively because marines are such a powerhouse but if they manage to get the upper hand they can usally end the game pretty quickly by picking off all the marines rt's. The main weakness of aliens is their range, also they have to outnumber the marines most of the time to overpower them. Also they depend on their adv lifeforms staying alive.
I could write more about this but I think this is the basic of the basics. Before I go on I want players to relize how valuble res is. When you place an RT for 10 res he starts giving you 1 team res every 8 sec. That means it takes 80 sec for the rt to get it's value back, if you lose the rt before then you lost material. Now with that in mind just think how much res you are wasting when you build a robo factory + turrets. That is the reason they are not viable, this is the same reason why mines are not viable as cheap defence atm. The main reason turrets are used atm is when the marine commander has already upgraded all the weapons/upgrade the marine team needs and has extra res to spend.
Now with this in mind lets go back to topic. The reason why marines are having trouble is because aliens can easily take over the map by forcing marines into defence. The problem here lies in the power node placement in maps(if the commander can't defend it himself) and the vunurability of the command chair. If marines don't beacon the marines back to base on the same sec 1-2 skulk enter they will lose eather the command chair or the power node. Also when marines are forced back to base it takes them alot of time to start pressuring the alien team again with lack of mobility. This would be a diffrent story if they just lost 1-2 ip's or an arms lab because marines would just lose material but not the game and it can be rebuild. However since they simply lose the game they must always have marines to defend base.
Most of the responces I have got to this issue is that hive is weak as well and marines should have more map awareness.
About the map awareness, with aliens amazing mobility it's so easy for them to simply sneak passed marines, you will never be able to prevent all skulks to enter your base. Since marines have no viable cheap defence(like mines) to help the commander defend the base by himself(only talking about 1-2 skulks entering the base, not a rush). You will never be able to completly prevent skulks from entering your base. This should make the alien hive vunerable but it doesn't since it takes less time to bite the CC down than to kill the hive. Also you can't forget that aliens are more powerful inside their hive with hiveheal, infestation and umbra. Marines are quite weak inside their base since aliens can hide behind their structures. Even if their structures are place in corners they can still hide behind the command chair or force marines to vunurable spots by attacking the power node(depending on the map).
Now about hive being just as weak as the marine base. It's true that hive dies really fast if there is no one defending it, however aliens have so much mobility that they will always be able to go back to hive in time. Infestation also spot marines right away so aliens always know when they are comming, even without the infestion aliens have much easier time scouting with their extra mobility. This is not the same for marines, marines cant pressure the aliens while defending marine start at the same time. Even with phase gates it's still hard. Aliens are so powerful close to their hive they need most of their team to be able to bring it down. They can't afford to keep 1-2 marines in base to defend.(note Im not talking about 16vs16 games, Im talking about 6v6-9v9).
The main reason for marine start being so weak atm is so aliens can end the game when they are winning. This however is hurting all the early game. The solution is simple, aliens should be able to overpower marines when they have 3 hives while marines don't have overwhelming reacource advandage. They can add powerful upgrades to help with that or powerful 3 hive abilities + onos ofc. It should not be instant win but aliens should have a clear advantage. Also if the aliens team play they can end the game quite easily with bilebomb + adv lifeforms. They don't have to kill the powernode or the cc, just the arms lab and the ip's, marines can't rebuild them with only 1 rt.
Marines are defensively superior. End of story. Which would you rather be?
6 fully-upgraded vanilla (rifle) marines defending a base from 2 onos and 4 skulks? 6 skulks defending a hive vs 6 marines with 150 res worth of guns + jetpacks?
Keep in mind, the likelyhood of getting the whole alien team to defend a hive is laughable.
<!--quoteo(post=1904233:date=Feb 17 2012, 09:15 AM:name=Nakorson)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nakorson @ Feb 17 2012, 09:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1904233"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well the welder is going to be added. I personally dont get it why its not being added to game, a dummy mesh would be enough. Which will propably cost the same as evolving to a gorge or even be cheaper.
Alos, the marines dont have to get close to the buildings to destroy them, they can shoot them from the distance if needed. Aliens have in early game to get close to destroy the buildings. And when they have bilebomb the marines should have macs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This.
Right now, power nodes are probably the easiest to protect (before the aliens have a stranglehold of course, i.e. marines w/ 1 RT holed up in main) since they are so easy to repair. Once welders are in, marines can take the initiative to repair the CC, IPs, and SGs. This will no doubt be a game changer since I'm probably the world's worst to suicide skulk rush the CC/MACs+Robo/Power Node/IPs often resulting in an alien victory.
As a marine, however, I hold down pretty good score and KDR even though I rarely buy shotguns and oftentimes amass 100 PRes. A welder would be a great way to prevent an early, perhaps unexpected, loss while not even putting a dent in my PRes.
I hate to be the guy to just say "It's not finished" since the game would be so much more enjoyable fully balanced, but I think welders will be a BIG game changer. So... Beta. It's not finished.
Comments
Very well, I understand what you're saying. To be honest I mistook you for a player who always trolls and ruins games when he plays on the Australian server because your names were really similar and went over the top a bit. Apologies :p.
*edit* fixed for spelling and capital letters.
Also I don't mind having unfair differences between the teams, like eggs vs. ips. Starcraft if full of those and it's probably the most balanced game ever.
Also it's easier to camp the marine spawn, the ip, then to camp the alien spawn. But even when a alien respawns it is a skulk and has to get close to the marine which is at the hive. Who most likely has several upgrades and can shoot the skulk before it even reachs him. Marines spawn with upgrades and have a ranged weapon. Everytime i die, i check the map to see if a alien is close to our base or even in it. I killed many skulks who were trying to destroy the powernode after respawning.
It's a theme of your arguments, Harimau, that you try and condense balance into numbers. It's quite ludicrous to afford numerical parity between win conditions in order to afford "how easy it is to lose" parity, <i>especially</i> when your numbers are confined to one specific area (king-piece hitpoints). I appreciate the logic of most of your points but only in isolation. Your argument is not just "limited" by other factors, it is obliterated by them.
For instance, your numbers don't consider:
1) damage outputs
2) defense options
3) maneuverability
4) repairing/rebuilding conditions
5) ...
n) basically, all the different ways in which aliens and marines operate.
What value does your model have if they can only be considered <i>ceteris paribus</i>? None, because there's no such thing as "all other things being equal" in NS2. Lay your mathematical brain down until such a time as its big enough to be of any use!
The marines have 1 key weak point ....power nodes
The IPs are generally only attacked in the very beginning of the game...for the easy skulk rush victory.
This works mostly if a commander is not quick to lay them down ...or all his marines ran off.
This is a KNOWN problem they are working on.
The next patch will probably see a starting IP to try address this.
The CC is generally attacked like any other structure...
...I bite it while moving ...until the marine goes to reload...then i dash out of there.
This is the same as any other structure that i might harass for whatever reason.
Most coordination on taking down an area focuses on the power node.
If you really want to improve the marine's ability to win...ask for another performance bump.
Or just teach the marines to watch the f**** map and protect their base....
You start off well, but then...
<!--quoteo(post=1903757:date=Feb 16 2012, 09:48 PM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Feb 16 2012, 09:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1903757"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes; reducing the "ways of losing" is one way of strengthening marines but it's one of many. I would sooner see greater fps performance as an answer to this problem than a manipulation of king-pieces, for example.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a very narrow point of view. You're too focused on the walls and the facade, and don't place enough importance on the foundation. Anything can be "balanced", and you could account for every issue and dependency, but in the end you would just have a hack-job that isn't robust enough to deal with any future issues that may crop up (which you would then have to patch up again).
<!--quoteo(post=1903757:date=Feb 16 2012, 09:48 PM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Feb 16 2012, 09:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1903757"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's a theme of your arguments, Harimau, that you try and condense balance into numbers. It's quite ludicrous to afford numerical parity between win conditions in order to afford "how easy it is to lose" parity, <i>especially</i> when your numbers are confined to one specific area (king-piece hitpoints). I appreciate the logic of most of your points but only in isolation. Your argument is not just "limited" by other factors, it is obliterated by them.
For instance, your numbers don't consider:
1) damage outputs
2) defense options
3) maneuverability
4) repairing/rebuilding conditions
5) ...
n) basically, all the different ways in which aliens and marines operate.
What value does your model have if they can only be considered <i>ceteris paribus</i>? None, because there's no such thing as "all other things being equal" in NS2. Lay your mathematical brain down until such a time as its big enough to be of any use!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) I had previously already used "relative" health - that is, health that is scaled by the damage outputs of each team. You know, if team 2 does twice as much damage over time as team 1, then team 1's analogous structures have to have twice as much health to be balanced.
2/3/4) I had previously already considered an arbitrary "dispersal weighting" - attacking and defending options, the likelihood of forces being split, etc. etc.
5/etc.) It is a <b>simplification</b>. Additionally, I had previously already <u>stated</u> that this model doesn't seek to <b>solve</b> anything, but it helps to <b>illustrate</b> the problem.
And then, finally, I had previously already given a suggestion for a "real" solution (devoid of numbers!): Let power nodes disable everything except the CC and IPs. Re-direct all damage from the <b>last</b> attached IP to the CC.
You could still destroy all but the one IP to <b>reduce</b> spawning, and you could still disable all the defenses by destroying the power node, and the two sides wouldn't play the same, but the game would be a lot more balanced.
And did you really just make a comment on the size of my brain? That's just sad. It was a good, somewhat objective post until then.
@Wheeee: We're talking about losing in the context of win conditions, i.e. preventing the enemy team from spawning, survival of the fittest, Natural Selection. The marines would lose with no res as well.
Also, 2nd hive, 3rd hive aren't win conditions because taking them down doesn't "end the game" (literally). They may "end the game" practically, but that's a problem with other elements in the game design: Slow spirals of death may be balanced, but they certainly aren't fun. Tech being tied to hives should be reconsidered, but that's another issue.
So, in conclusion, the current statistical win imbalance is <b>symptomatic</b> of issues in the overall design of the game (the foundation), so this discussion is not so much about fixing the <b>current</b> imbalance, but considering it from a more forward-looking perspective (a robust foundation). Less temp-fixes, more perma-fixes.
@Nakorson: i'm pretty sure you're not being serious when you posted that. why would you suggest players "learn" around fundamental imbalances instead of just fixing them??
@Tweadle: yes, "in reality" I do have some complaints with other issues besides the ones focused in this thread...(who doesnt?) but those have not been the premise nor the cause of my creation of this topic! The repeated, bold and underlined parts which follow the name of this topic are really, "in reality" the point i wish to get across. do not get distracted. Those other issues, as I've stated previously, are not what i am here to point out: <!--quoteo(post=1903717:date=Feb 16 2012, 02:35 AM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Feb 16 2012, 02:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1903717"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->once again, it is imbalanced on paper. not accounting for the many many factors in game which could occur. hydras, pgs, beacons, skill, etc etc etc... player skill level accounts for balancing at a very different and more specific level than the one we are referring to = basic parity or asymmetry in methods to cease spawning.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> /end reign of the straw man. :)
<i>"I would sooner see greater fps performance as an answer to this problem than a manipulation of king-pieces, for example. </i>"
so let me ask you a question similar to what i asked Elodea:
While i agree greater performance would obviously change a lot in regards to balance, why would you argue <u><b>against</b></u> "manipulating" the king pieces to be asymmetrical and balanced? i get that you would sooner want performance increase, so would I. <i><b>But what is your argument against what i propose?</i></b>
because i dont see a counter argument coming from you.. just focusing on specific, detailed areas which Harimau and myself have explained come <u>after</u> the fundamental balancing we are suggesting.
i'll leave with what i wrote last night:
<!--quoteo(post=1903717:date=Feb 16 2012, 02:35 AM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Feb 16 2012, 02:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1903717"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->great discussion? thanks for the in depth responses and i totally get your concerns, but believe you are considering immeasurable variables too much instead of the founding, basic, core asymmetry that can be measured on paper.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--coloro:#808080--><span style="color:#808080"><!--/coloro--><!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->edit: psst.. i count 3 logical fallacies in your response just off the top of my head: ad hominem (harimau), straw man, ("in reality" etc) red herring (the reference to what we don't consider, which might just be a misunderstanding from you of their need for inclusion at the level we are referring to)
just thought i'd point out their unnecessary usage :)<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
you dont think we should discourage this as a community? why?
edit: PM me your response if you do, no need to clutter up this topic.
It's the fact that you feel like your model illustrate <b>the</b> problem that I reject. It's not necessarily a problem at all and I really think that it's a little bit pointless making suggestions to fix it. You perceive a problem in one area and have only proposed ways in that same area to address it. Ironically, you feel that my suggestion that there are answers outside that box is me being narrow-minded.
I never meant to question your intelligence. I only meant to say that the topic requires a HUGE amount of maths if you're wanting to take that approach. If you're going to brute-force an answer your force needs to be brutish. As it stands, you've only skimmed the surface by talking about dispersal weighting and scaling hitpoints according to damage outputs. Both are ideas that I dislike.
Your cc-ip hitpoint sharing isn't the worst idea in the world and could have some value but it doesn't sit well with me that suddenly there's a super-IP, irrespective of your nanites or whatever.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But what is your argument against what i propose?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My argument is that it's not necessary and that I would much rather see balance gains from other areas like mapping, performance or even some entirely different strategy being buffed. I think manipulating hitpoints carries with it the burden of making aliens have to spend even more time eating crap. They do too much of it as it is.
Anyway, I think I'll steer clear of this thread from now on because I'm just disrupting both of your ideas and not putting forth any of my own. I would just warn against relying too much on 'paper balance'.
I played yesterday (still 195) 4 games in a row where the marines lost because they didnt defend their base. None of the games was lost because of a bile bombing their base. The just didnt watch the map, their comm didnt beacon. Okay 1 of these games shouldnt be counted in since the marines "rage? rushed" our hive, failed and lost their base while doing this.
I just dont see the point of removing the power node, giving the ip and cc more health because the marines dont defend their base. It's just like in any other game, you have to defend (or atleast watch your base) while your attacking.
In half of the games i play as a gorge i have nearly no problem destroying marine structures or even their base, but thats because i'm left alone there without anyone to defend or beaconing the marines. In the other games, there are turrets which stop me from directly attacking the vital structures directly, or there are marines around which arent blind/deaf or a commander who's watching the own base and beacons or leaves the CC and attacks me.
In my eyes there are currently nearly no games where the marines lose where they didn't make a mistake. If the marines work together and defend their base well during the whole game, especially while attacking hives, they don't lose.
When a marine base is attacked with several aliens and one of them is a gorge, the gorge is being ignored mostly. The gorge should be focused since he either heals or bilebombs. That's a mistake i see everyday.
I played yesterday (still 195) 4 games in a row where the marines lost because they didnt defend their base. None of the games was lost because of a bile bombing their base. The just didnt watch the map, their comm didnt beacon. Okay 1 of these games shouldnt be counted in since the marines "rage? rushed" our hive, failed and lost their base while doing this.
I just dont see the point of removing the power node, giving the ip and cc more health because the marines dont defend their base. It's just like in any other game, you have to defend (or atleast watch your base) while your attacking.
In half of the games i play as a gorge i have nearly no problem destroying marine structures or even their base, but thats because i'm left alone there without anyone to defend or beaconing the marines. In the other games, there are turrets which stop me from directly attacking the vital structures directly, or there are marines around which arent blind/deaf or a commander who's watching the own base and beacons or leaves the CC and attacks me.
In my eyes there are currently nearly no games where the marines lose where they didn't make a mistake. If the marines work together and defend their base well during the whole game, especially while attacking hives, they don't lose.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While i agree with the basic idea you have, there is one huge problem. Alien structures heal, and can be healed by the gorge. Marine structures don't heal and you need MACs to heal them, which come quite late in the game usually.
This means, marines have no room for mistakes. If a skulks takes down 10% of your command station, then you are in trouble. even if you kill him quickly, only a few sneak attacks are needed to finish the game.
In comparison, a marine that sneaks into a hive and takes away 20-30% of the HP of a hive, wont be such a big problem, even if the alien ignore the health loss, the hive will heal itself.
I suggest, move MACs back to the command station, that way marines have a way to repair stuff from the start.
Alos, the marines dont have to get close to the buildings to destroy them, they can shoot them from the distance if needed. Aliens have in early game to get close to destroy the buildings. And when they have bilebomb the marines should have macs.
Lets start about the basics. Marines Are slow but have range weapons. They get more powerful as the game goes on and the speed of their growth depends on how many RT's they hold. A single marine defending a area can be pain to deal with. Even if 2 skulks try attacking that marine there is still a high chance he will simply kill them both ,if he is not building anything at the same time.
The main marine weakness is their mobility and limited ammunition.
Aliens however have amazing mobility. Even though the skulk is not good at dealing with marines in 1v1 he makes up for it for amazing mobility. They can easly sneak passed marines to attack key locations(rt's, powernodes) and at the same time go back to defend an rt/hive before the marines get there. As the game goes on aliens rely heavily on comboing advance lifeforms such and lerk and fades with skulk to take marines down. In most games aliens are forced to play defensively because marines are such a powerhouse but if they manage to get the upper hand they can usally end the game pretty quickly by picking off all the marines rt's.
The main weakness of aliens is their range, also they have to outnumber the marines most of the time to overpower them. Also they depend on their adv lifeforms staying alive.
I could write more about this but I think this is the basic of the basics. Before I go on I want players to relize how valuble res is.
When you place an RT for 10 res he starts giving you 1 team res every 8 sec. That means it takes 80 sec for the rt to get it's value back, if you lose the rt before then you lost material. Now with that in mind just think how much res you are wasting when you build a robo factory + turrets. That is the reason they are not viable, this is the same reason why mines are not viable as cheap defence atm. The main reason turrets are used atm is when the marine commander has already upgraded all the weapons/upgrade the marine team needs and has extra res to spend.
Now with this in mind lets go back to topic. The reason why marines are having trouble is because aliens can easily take over the map by forcing marines into defence. The problem here lies in the power node placement in maps(if the commander can't defend it himself) and the vunurability of the command chair. If marines don't beacon the marines back to base on the same sec 1-2 skulk enter they will lose eather the command chair or the power node. Also when marines are forced back to base it takes them alot of time to start pressuring the alien team again with lack of mobility. This would be a diffrent story if they just lost 1-2 ip's or an arms lab because marines would just lose material but not the game and it can be rebuild. However since they simply lose the game they must always have marines to defend base.
Most of the responces I have got to this issue is that hive is weak as well and marines should have more map awareness.
About the map awareness, with aliens amazing mobility it's so easy for them to simply sneak passed marines, you will never be able to prevent all skulks to enter your base. Since marines have no viable cheap defence(like mines) to help the commander defend the base by himself(only talking about 1-2 skulks entering the base, not a rush). You will never be able to completly prevent skulks from entering your base. This should make the alien hive vunerable but it doesn't since it takes less time to bite the CC down than to kill the hive.
Also you can't forget that aliens are more powerful inside their hive with hiveheal, infestation and umbra. Marines are quite weak inside their base since aliens can hide behind their structures. Even if their structures are place in corners they can still hide behind the command chair or force marines to vunurable spots by attacking the power node(depending on the map).
Now about hive being just as weak as the marine base. It's true that hive dies really fast if there is no one defending it, however aliens have so much mobility that they will always be able to go back to hive in time. Infestation also spot marines right away so aliens always know when they are comming, even without the infestion aliens have much easier time scouting with their extra mobility. This is not the same for marines, marines cant pressure the aliens while defending marine start at the same time. Even with phase gates it's still hard.
Aliens are so powerful close to their hive they need most of their team to be able to bring it down. They can't afford to keep 1-2 marines in base to defend.(note Im not talking about 16vs16 games, Im talking about 6v6-9v9).
The main reason for marine start being so weak atm is so aliens can end the game when they are winning. This however is hurting all the early game. The solution is simple, aliens should be able to overpower marines when they have 3 hives while marines don't have overwhelming reacource advandage. They can add powerful upgrades to help with that or powerful 3 hive abilities + onos ofc.
It should not be instant win but aliens should have a clear advantage. Also if the aliens team play they can end the game quite easily with bilebomb + adv lifeforms. They don't have to kill the powernode or the cc, just the arms lab and the ip's, marines can't rebuild them with only 1 rt.
Hope this is helpful, please discuss.
6 fully-upgraded vanilla (rifle) marines defending a base from 2 onos and 4 skulks?
6 skulks defending a hive vs 6 marines with 150 res worth of guns + jetpacks?
Keep in mind, the likelyhood of getting the whole alien team to defend a hive is laughable.
Alos, the marines dont have to get close to the buildings to destroy them, they can shoot them from the distance if needed. Aliens have in early game to get close to destroy the buildings. And when they have bilebomb the marines should have macs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This.
Right now, power nodes are probably the easiest to protect (before the aliens have a stranglehold of course, i.e. marines w/ 1 RT holed up in main) since they are so easy to repair. Once welders are in, marines can take the initiative to repair the CC, IPs, and SGs. This will no doubt be a game changer since I'm probably the world's worst to suicide skulk rush the CC/MACs+Robo/Power Node/IPs often resulting in an alien victory.
As a marine, however, I hold down pretty good score and KDR even though I rarely buy shotguns and oftentimes amass 100 PRes. A welder would be a great way to prevent an early, perhaps unexpected, loss while not even putting a dent in my PRes.
I hate to be the guy to just say "It's not finished" since the game would be so much more enjoyable fully balanced, but I think welders will be a BIG game changer. So... Beta. It's not finished.