NS2 Design FAQ
TremanN
Join Date: 2002-11-13 Member: 8471Members
Join Date: 2002-11-13 Member: 8471Members
<div class="IPBDescription">"...skill-based, diverse and atmospheric"</div>I'll quote it here so everyone knows what I am talking about...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->“You should remove XYZ because it obscures my view or removes control from the playerâ€
We generally agree that abilities that prevent players from doing things by blocking their vision, making their camera shake, stunning them, slow them down, lose control etc. should be used judiciously. However, this is a strategy game and an asymmetric one. We don’t want a whole bunch of simple numeric changes where everyone is shooting a slight variant of the same weapon. We want every unit to have a purity of purpose (see above) so this means we need different roles for each alien, ability, weapon, etc. The Fade isn’t a big Skulk, nor should the Onos be a killing machine that obsoletes Fades. That’s not us and that’s not NS.
We also want a game where it’s possible for marines to go flying when an Onos gores them, or to really feel like you’re vulnerable when you’re on infestation. We want players to exclaim “Oh %*#(&â€, the first time they see the power go out and realize they are alone in the dark. We want this flavor and immersion and we think you ultimately do too.
So we’re all ears for suggestions here, but we will certainly need to have some disruption/slowing effects in the game. Every time we add something like this, we will try to remove or tone down another effect to compensate.
Just tell us when it’s too much and we’ll do our best to keep the game simultaneously skill-based, diverse and atmospheric.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I appreciate the atmosphere UWE is trying to create. I can just imagine the amount of poop-my-pants moments that new players will experience. The first time an onos came at me in NS2 and stomped/gored I had to immediately dry my tears and change my tighty whiteys. Probably the 10th time also. What about the 100th time? I don't know. My guess will be it won't be anything more than an annoyance to have my view locked and unable to move or shoot. It already is getting tedious.
NS2 teters between being a skill-based shooter and an immersive and atmospheric shooter. They overlap in the wrong places. Leave the atmospherics and immersion up to the art directors and mappers. The gameplay mechanics should focus on being skill-based. The first few hours for a new player will be incredibly immersive. After that, what's left? Irritating gameplay mechanics that wrestle the control from the player? I don't think so.
No one is going to CONTINUE to play NS2 because of the atmosphere the game creates. People WILL play if there gameplay is skill-based and diverse. This isn't a single player game. That's really where immersive gameplay really shines. A multiplayer game is about different things (DON'T BRING UP MMOs!).
NS2 is diverse and it will be that way until we are playing NS3. The game is built that way from the core. For NS2s sake and all the players, I hope UWE decides they want longevity out of their game instead of a quick romp through an atmospheric multiplayer game. UWE deserves to have people playing the new NS for the next ten years.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->“You should remove XYZ because it obscures my view or removes control from the playerâ€
We generally agree that abilities that prevent players from doing things by blocking their vision, making their camera shake, stunning them, slow them down, lose control etc. should be used judiciously. However, this is a strategy game and an asymmetric one. We don’t want a whole bunch of simple numeric changes where everyone is shooting a slight variant of the same weapon. We want every unit to have a purity of purpose (see above) so this means we need different roles for each alien, ability, weapon, etc. The Fade isn’t a big Skulk, nor should the Onos be a killing machine that obsoletes Fades. That’s not us and that’s not NS.
We also want a game where it’s possible for marines to go flying when an Onos gores them, or to really feel like you’re vulnerable when you’re on infestation. We want players to exclaim “Oh %*#(&â€, the first time they see the power go out and realize they are alone in the dark. We want this flavor and immersion and we think you ultimately do too.
So we’re all ears for suggestions here, but we will certainly need to have some disruption/slowing effects in the game. Every time we add something like this, we will try to remove or tone down another effect to compensate.
Just tell us when it’s too much and we’ll do our best to keep the game simultaneously skill-based, diverse and atmospheric.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I appreciate the atmosphere UWE is trying to create. I can just imagine the amount of poop-my-pants moments that new players will experience. The first time an onos came at me in NS2 and stomped/gored I had to immediately dry my tears and change my tighty whiteys. Probably the 10th time also. What about the 100th time? I don't know. My guess will be it won't be anything more than an annoyance to have my view locked and unable to move or shoot. It already is getting tedious.
NS2 teters between being a skill-based shooter and an immersive and atmospheric shooter. They overlap in the wrong places. Leave the atmospherics and immersion up to the art directors and mappers. The gameplay mechanics should focus on being skill-based. The first few hours for a new player will be incredibly immersive. After that, what's left? Irritating gameplay mechanics that wrestle the control from the player? I don't think so.
No one is going to CONTINUE to play NS2 because of the atmosphere the game creates. People WILL play if there gameplay is skill-based and diverse. This isn't a single player game. That's really where immersive gameplay really shines. A multiplayer game is about different things (DON'T BRING UP MMOs!).
NS2 is diverse and it will be that way until we are playing NS3. The game is built that way from the core. For NS2s sake and all the players, I hope UWE decides they want longevity out of their game instead of a quick romp through an atmospheric multiplayer game. UWE deserves to have people playing the new NS for the next ten years.
Comments
It's an over-used example, but since I'm using it to demonstrate the meaning of a word than anything, I think I'm justified in saying that we can look to TF2 for an excellent distinction. TF2 has no atmosphere beyond anything approximating "lol kill" in amusing ways, but the TF2 Style has always been (pre-manconnomy, anyway) a consistent game experience that defines it, describes it, and makes it stand out from anything its peers can offer.
Things like <b>this thing is scary</b> or <b>this thing is powerful</b> or <b>this place is spooky</b> never appear once, and the even the deadliest of rare event bosses just elicits a chuckle and suicidal charge. That doesn't make TF2 any less of a fun game; in fact, it makes it more fun. That <b>chuckle and charge into death</b> is TF2's <i>style</i>. Things like <b>consistently readable silhouettes</b>, <b>easy enemy identification</b>, <b>over the top deaths</b>, <b>allowing unexpected comebacks</b>, and <b>strong team dependence</b> define TF2 and stick with its players game after game.
Analogously, NS2's <b>big knockdown monsters</b> and <b>dark spooky places</b> will stop impressing players after a week at most of play, and if these things become annoying it just detracts from the experience. Things like <b>uniquely defined lifeforms</b>, <b>deep, complex technology trees</b>, <b>asymmetric gameplay</b>, and <b>changing territory</b> will never go out of style. Notice I listed one feature twice; dark places and changing territory are just two interpretations of the same in-game effect. After a few dozen sessions people will stop caring that the lights in a room changed colour, but that doesn't mean you can't also design interesting and enjoyable game mechanics around that concept to pick up what atmosphere leaves in its wake.
And let's be honest here. "Immersively", NS2 is a pretty ###### place to be. You're constantly murdered again and again in a fight you don't fully understand for a cause you're not really sure about, separating your frequent deaths only with the murder of creatures you probably relate to even more than your own shadowy leader due to the sheer amount of time you've spent locked in never-ending immortal combat with them. I don't think really <b>feeling</b> like you're a part of that experience is going to lead to a lot of enjoyable play.
At least Devour only inconvenienced one person at a time. Every time I see an Onos walk into the room I know I'm going to be stun-locked and murdered.
***
The reason why players where commenting about negative abilities is because there were to many being brought into ns2. Powerful negative abilities like 0 vision or stun should not be very common in the gameplay since its very frustrating for the player(he can't do anything no matter how well he maneuvers). They just need be careful when adding these kind of abilities and it will be fine.
However well made negative abilities are always welcome, since these kind of abilities can give great value if done correctly.
however THIS made me worried about ns2:
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Flayra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Flayra)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->“You should add resources for kills (RFK)â€
I've tried testing with this many times and there are pluses and minuses on both sides. In the end, there are some compelling reasons that make me not want to include this:
1 As stated in the Resource Model above, <u><b>“Lifeforms and upgrades show up at predictable times, so stages of the game (and game length) are consistent.â€</b></u>. With RFK, this is no longer the case: more players equals more player death equals more resources equals different timings for lifeforms.
2 When you kill something, it’s hard to portray both score and resources received. Because it’s a team game, I think score important (not just kills), so I don’t want to remove score, and thus this remains a problem.
3 Simplicity is a big goal. So when in doubt about whether something is needed or not, it should be removed (Occam’s Razor).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
this goes against everything I believe in!!!
what made ns1 so magical and deep is its DIVERSITY (amongst others), games could be wildly different!
why even have tech trees and resources? just put everything on an unlock-timer and make it free...then you'd have consistency (and boredom)
point #2 what???
point #3 to cater to consolers in the future?
I have full respect that you don't want to make a cluttery overly complicated game, but some stuff I personally don't like vs ns1.
Like the armory is now a one-stop-auto-fast-heal-armor-ammo-refill-station. I started playing ns1 now again - much more harsh, slow healing and, no welders no armor.
I apologize for alot of negativity from me lately, in spite of that, NS2 is by far better than anything other out there to me. But please, keep the consolitis off of it! :)
Halo is simple, gow is simple, farmville is simple, ns2 is the sequel to ns1!
I am not an expert, your mileage may vary, etc. This was just my experience working on my project. I'm not saying I've experienced anything similar to NS2, or anything even on a remotely similar scale, but what I have seen is that good game mechanics have a sort of "sense" about them; players and developers alike can just feel that they're right for the style of the game, and that feeling can take you closer to a game's ideal than any amount of shoehorning.
this goes against everything I believe in!!!
what made ns1 so magical and deep is its DIVERSITY (amongst others), games could be wildly different!
why even have tech trees and resources? just put everything on an unlock-timer and make it free...then you'd have consistency (and boredom)
point #2 what???
point #3 to cater to consolers in the future?
I have full respect that you don't want to make a cluttery overly complicated game, but some stuff I personally don't like vs ns1.
Like the armory is now a one-stop-auto-fast-heal-armor-ammo-refill-station. I started playing ns1 now again - much more harsh, slow healing and, no welders no armor.
I apologize for alot of negativity from me lately, in spite of that, NS2 is by far better than anything other out there to me. But please, keep the consolitis off of it! :)
Halo is simple, gow is simple, farmville is simple, ns2 is the sequel to ns1!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, I don't even like RFK or think it should be in the final game, but I have to say those arguments make no sense at all.
Predictable games are boring games, and one of the reasons people all over the forums are clamoring for tougher-to-obtain evolutions, deeper decisions, and powerful upgrades are because they want those things to make games different.
The issue of conveying to a player that he has acquired both score and Pres is a purely technical one with multiple UI solutions. Displaying Pres gain as a floating number of the counter, and score above the reticule, for instance.
Occam's Razor is an often misused concept. The same argument shown here could be used to turn NS2 into a combat-mode knock off with no commander or research, which would certainly be simpler than what we have now.
By the way, Occam's Razor is a principle stating that assumptions should be minimized in the creation of scientific hypothesis. It's unlikely to do much for game design.
Biggest turn offs to me are the reasonings why ns2 is going to keep energy as resources and the negative abilities
I feel that i've already said everything there's to be said about negative abilities. But I don't play games because of immersion or flavor. I play them because i want to compete with other people. Unfortunately competition doesn't really work if the game is full of features that make the player unable to play, see or hear anything. Well, maybe I should just start playing soccer or something where this kind of actions are forbidden.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->“You should remove the concept of energy (Commander), to make it simplerâ€
I’m all for simplicity, but having the concept of energy allows multiple structures to have more of an effect (as noted in Structures above). Otherwise you would just build one Crag and could just pay pres for umbra whenever you needed it there.
Energy also allows abilities to be delayed for an amount of time - a structure can start with X energy and then slowly gain it over time. It also adds drama to the game: “The team already beaconed twice and so they won’t be able to do it a third timeâ€.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I see absolutely no bad effects on building a crag where you need it and using your pres to cast the umbra at that location. I fail to see how building 8 Crags on every hive is any more fun. I also find it very plain and boring that the commander only has to choose between scanning and distress beacon instead of scan, distress beacon, nano shield, medpack, ammo pack, etc.
It's also quite annoying that building couple of extra buildings you don't need to do any tradeoffs but just spam the abilities as much as you can.
But after all the game is playable with energy too. I just feel it would be so much better without it. Is anyone up for making a mod to prototype NS2 without building energy? I'm sure there are a number of competitive teams who would like to try it out.
I've tried testing with this many times and there are pluses and minuses on both sides. In the end, there are some compelling reasons that make me not want to include this:
1 As stated in the Resource Model above, “Lifeforms and upgrades show up at predictable times, so stages of the game (and game length) are consistent.â€. With RFK, this is no longer the case: more players equals more player death equals more resources equals different timings for lifeforms.
2 When you kill something, it’s hard to portray both score and resources received. Because it’s a team game, I think score important (not just kills), so I don’t want to remove score, and thus this remains a problem.
3 Simplicity is a big goal. So when in doubt about whether something is needed or not, it should be removed (Occam’s Razor).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) I would argue that the absolute timings are worse than more vague one. I'll be using NS1 examples as they are easily understandable, but before that I would like to say that the sheer amount of variety it adds is huger than most think and the downside of "better players gaining more distance" from RFK is greatly exaggerated. In NS1 the initial combat quite often lead the lerk gaining 2/3 res from kill that allowed him to lerk before first RT push this was huge and added multiple scenarious something that would not happen without rfk. Although not the case anymore hive could be build faster and fade came out differently extra OC could be placed on hive push, these things added variety to the game made it interesting for long time, not just 2-3months. I also strongly believe that playing stupidly or overly agressive should be punished something that the current NS2 lacks completely.
2) I'm probably misunderstanding your point here, cause I dont understand the problem "score" is hardly accurate way count your usefulness, simpletons can keep dreaming if they so please.
3) Simplicity is an excuse when you dont want to go below the surface.
Simplicity is often championed by you Charlie but then you over complicate basic things. Spawn times for the aliens have been changing forever in a effort to try and balance them. I don't understand why you don't just let 1 alien spawn every x amount of seconds and also have 1 egg respawn in the same time. Then give aliens an upgrade to allow multiple aliens to spawn every x seconds (just like marines can build a second IP).
I also don't understand the armour system. If you think that unnecessary things should be removed then this is one of them. I PMed you before in the past about it but you didn't really think it was a problem. It just doesn't make any sense that shooting something in a different order with the weapons takes a different amount of bullets for it to die. It doesn't make any sense that the shotgun can be the worst weapon against an onos when it has 100% hp but when it's at 20% the shotgun does much more damage. There is no way to see the enemies armour and no way to tell if your gun will do large damage or not. When playing as aliens it is unintuitive as your health drops very fast once you run out of armour. I don't know what it adds to the game at all. There are simpler ways to make bigger targets take more bullets, and for weapons to deal different amounts of damage to different classes than the current system.
I also don't understand the flame-thrower as a weapon. Since the skill ceiling is so low, it either needs to be poor, since most players will be able to aim it easily or else it will be over powered. OR it needs to be some sort of utility weapon that is required for group combat but doesn't actually deal big damage. Again though, it can't be TOO disabling for aliens or else it will break the balance since aiming it is so easy. I just can't see it being a fun weapon to use either way. Personally I want to be killing the enemies, not just scaring them away or depleting their energy.
I also don't understand the GL. There is no down side to this weapon. It is just a straight up upgrade from the LMG. This goes against what you have said in the design docs.
I agree with the other posters on the immersion aspect. In a multiplayer title the immersion of seeing an onos or the power going out will only last for the first time or two it happens. After that the only thing that is important is the gameplay and fun of the mechanics. I played L4D and it had a spooky atmosphere etc. but after seeing a tank a few times and blowing up the gas station it really wasn't a big deal. The thing that kept me and my friends playing was the gameplay, the fun. Immersion should come last for a multiplayer title IMO. I think it's cool to have sort of wow moments to draw in new players and intrigue them, but that is all it is. If the gameplay is made worse for the sake of having the power go out for immersion or for players to feel vulnerable on infestation, that is the wrong way to design a fun game imo.
I think having energy can work for some things, but I like the idea that forcing a beacon means the com won't be able to drop as many med kits and killing RTs means they won't be able to beacon as much. Of course there needs to be a cool down as well so that you can't spam it when you have lots of res. I also don't think you should encourage spamming of structures completley. At least if each building ability had a cool down as well as a res costs then perhaps building 2 or 3 would be worth it but after that you wouldn't be able to afford the res for the abilities anyway.
I think I might be in the minority here, but I am actually pretty enthusiastic about the atmospheric goals, and 150 hours later they're still a big part of what I enjoy about the game. Of course the experience is never the same as it was the first time, but I don't think it's ever "gone" either. Noticing an Onos a ways down the hall smashing a power node will probably never be scary again, but I think there's still potential for "moments" when the element of surprise and the lighting come together just right to make it terrifying again.
<!--quoteo(post=1929798:date=Apr 25 2012, 05:36 PM:name=TremanN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TremanN @ Apr 25 2012, 05:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1929798"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->People WILL play if there gameplay is skill-based and diverse.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is true, but I don't think UWE really has to choose one or the other, and for both of our sakes, I hope they don't.
The only negative ability that currently really bothers me is the stun on gore and stomp, and that's because it makes me play a waiting game, which the other negative abilities don't. If you could shoot while you were down (L4D anyone?), even with lowered accuracy or a wobbly crosshair, it would be a lot more tolerable IMO.
If the atmosphere was good but the gameplay sucked would you still play?
Sure atmosphere is cool but gameplay > atmosphere.
This is true, but I don't think UWE really has to choose one or the other, and for both of our sakes, I hope they don't.
The only negative ability that currently really bothers me is the stun on gore and stomp, and that's because it makes me play a waiting game, which the other negative abilities don't. If you could shoot while you were down (L4D anyone?), even with lowered accuracy or a wobbly crosshair, it would be a lot more tolerable IMO.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think most of us want awesome atmospherics, we just don't want to damage the gameplay in any way.
It sure looks like it.
Edit: Screw it, gonna post my rant here. I'm sick and tired of people posting these existential sadness threads about the game. If you have a problem with a mechanic, talk about the mechanic. This stuff is polluting the forums and driving down legitimate, useful discussions.
I for one am still in love with the darkness and infestation effects and i've got almost 300 hours played.
I actually wish there was more of the dynamic infestation (make an entire hive-room "mature" i.e: after long enough there is maybe an increased range of effect for buildings, or a room-wide effect that buffed aliens or nerfed marines, perhaps based on the type of hive).
I honestly think my coolest gaming moment ever has been already on this beta..
Over twenty examples suggests that judiciously is not judicious enough!
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->However, this is a strategy game and an asymmetric one.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Makes me :sadface: to see this as a justification because aliens are already so asymmetric with their abilities. If anything, lerk-spikes as replacement for bite is a step towards <b>more</b> symmetry. We don't need further differentiation between aliens and marines and if we did, the first thing to go would be the khamm. Strategy, as I've argued many times now, is not dependent on negative abilities and there are almost always preferable alternatives. Yes, blinding someone is strategic but so is healspray, so is metabolise, so is parasite, so is nano-shield - all non-impairing abilities (although nano-shield needlessly pulses the screen!). Disruption/slowing strategy elements fall down well on the commander side of things but terribly on the field. Invisible aliens, silent aliens and hallucination etc. don't yield very interesting strategic decisions from the marine or the alien. People will argue that standing still and cloaked is actually highly strategic but it isn't for anyone but the commander really.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We don’t want a whole bunch of simple numeric changes where everyone is shooting a slight variant of the same weapon.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Show me where this ever happened in NS1. Besides the very first hive0 ability (providing a nice solid core ranged/melee dynamic), <b>every</b> hive1/2/3 ability was differentiated without succumbing to preventative solutions. How can this be used as justification when such an obvious example of why it's moot is the very legacy of what you created!
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We want every unit to have a purity of purpose (see above) so this means we need different roles for each alien, ability, weapon, etc. The Fade isn’t a big Skulk, nor should the Onos be a killing machine that obsoletes Fades. That’s not us and that’s not NS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As before; aliens only shared one similar ability and the rest were all totally different. Roles are already well differentiated and, once again, we don't need to resort to negative mechanics to achieve this goal. It might be appropriate in some instances, but they are being applied far too liberally. It's a noble goal though. If I thought only that impairments were instrinsically linked to this goal, I would be more worried about it but I don't think it is, at least not nearly as much as is suggested.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We also want a game where it’s possible for marines to go flying when an Onos gores them, or to really feel like you’re vulnerable when you’re on infestation. We want players to exclaim “Oh %*#(&â€, the first time they see the power go out and realize they are alone in the dark. We want this flavor and immersion and we think you ultimately do too.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
People do want immersion but they don't want immersion at the cost of interaction. You need to seriously question the weighting of these aims and focus on whether you can achieve immersion without removing interaction. As for infestation, there are already many reasons to feel vulnerable on it; It grants hive-sight, it aesthetically denotes alien territory, it poses risks for camouflaged entities, it heals aliens faster, it permits alien structures, it signals alien economy strength. This should be far more than enough to create tension on infestation. Immersion should be primarily an artistry goal. Rather than create deliberately immersive game fundamentals, the game fundamentals should be built upon with immersion in mind - substance over style.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So we’re all ears for suggestions here, but we will certainly need to have some disruption/slowing effects in the game. Every time we add something like this, we will try to remove or tone down another effect to compensate.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm glad that at least there is some acknowledgement and I certainly see a role for some disruption effects but I just want to reiterate how important it is to keep these few and far between. Reducing the frequency actually give you that “Oh %*#(&†moment far more effectively than being barraged by it all game. Having those moments truly feel powerful is another way of doing so and this would be better accomplished by making disruption/slowing abilities happen further into the game with higher tier tech. When we were webbed in NS1, it was a serious deal. If we were devoured, it was a genuine "crap!" moment. Why? Because it hardly ever happened!
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just tell us when it’s too much and we’ll do our best to keep the game simultaneously skill-based, diverse and atmospheric.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's too much!
Makes me :sadface: to see this as a justification because aliens are already so asymmetric with their abilities. If anything, lerk-spikes as replacement for bite is a step towards <b>more</b> symmetry. We don't need further differentiation between aliens and marines and if we did, the first thing to go would be the khamm. Strategy, as I've argued many times now, is not dependent on negative abilities and there are almost always preferable alternatives. Yes, blinding someone is strategic but so is healspray, so is metabolise, so is parasite, so is nano-shield - all non-impairing abilities (although nano-shield needlessly pulses the screen!). Disruption/slowing strategy elements fall down well on the commander side of things but terribly on the field. Invisible aliens, silent aliens and hallucination etc. don't yield very interesting strategic decisions from the marine or the alien. People will argue that standing still and cloaked is actually highly strategic but it isn't for anyone but the commander really.
Show me where this ever happened in NS1. Besides the very first hive0 ability (providing a nice solid core ranged/melee dynamic), <b>every</b> hive1/2/3 ability was differentiated without succumbing to preventative solutions. How can this be used as justification when such an obvious example of why it's moot is the very legacy of what you created!
As before; aliens only shared one similar ability and the rest were all totally different. Roles are already well differentiated and, once again, we don't need to resort to negative mechanics to achieve this goal. It might be appropriate in some instances, but they are being applied far too liberally. It's a noble goal though. If I thought only that impairments were instrinsically linked to this goal, I would be more worried about it but I don't think it is, at least not nearly as much as is suggested.
People do want immersion but they don't want immersion at the cost of interaction. You need to seriously question the weighting of these aims and focus on whether you can achieve immersion without removing interaction. As for infestation, there are already many reasons to feel vulnerable on it; It grants hive-sight, it aesthetically denotes alien territory, it poses risks for camouflaged entities, it heals aliens faster, it permits alien structures, it signals alien economy strength. This should be far more than enough to create tension on infestation. Immersion should be primarily an artistry goal. Rather than create deliberately immersive game fundamentals, the game fundamentals should be built upon with immersion in mind - substance over style.
I'm glad that at least there is some acknowledgement and I certainly see a role for some disruption effects but I just want to reiterate how important it is to keep these few and far between. Reducing the frequency actually give you that “Oh %*#(&†moment far more effectively than being barraged by it all game. Having those moments truly feel powerful is another way of doing so and this would be better accomplished by making disruption/slowing abilities happen further into the game with higher tier tech. When we were webbed in NS1, it was a serious deal. If we were devoured, it was a genuine "crap!" moment. Why? Because it hardly ever happened!
It's too much!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well written, I agree with most of your points.
On differentiating weapons:
<!--quoteo(post=1930137:date=Apr 26 2012, 01:05 PM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Apr 26 2012, 01:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1930137"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Show me where this ever happened in NS1. Besides the very first hive0 ability (providing a nice solid core ranged/melee dynamic), <b>every</b> hive1/2/3 ability was differentiated without succumbing to preventative solutions. How can this be used as justification when such an obvious example of why it's moot is the very legacy of what you created!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To add further to this: We've got the whole RTS aspect here. In NS1 things costing different amounts of res, having different timings and purposes are more varied than I've seen in almost any other game. Even very similar tracking weapons like HMG and LMG are extremely different through timing, mobility, damage to buildings, res cost and all that. I play with completely different mindset depending on whether I've got LMG or HMG. That's something I can't say for example for most guns in CS.
---
Further on RFK. I don't so much care whether RFK makes it into the game, but I absolutely don't agree with the reasoning on the FAQ.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Design FAQ)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Design FAQ)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As stated in the Resource Model above, “Lifeforms and upgrades show up at predictable times, so stages of the game (and game length) are consistent.â€. With RFK, this is no longer the case: more players equals more player death equals more resources equals different timings for lifeforms.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is something I can accept to an extend. I don't think it's a good idea to chase the scaling ideal too far as a lot of things are going to vary depending on the playercount anyway, but keeping the variation to manageable levels is still good. I don't know if RFK fundamentally breaks anything, but it certainly adds some extra trickery to balancing the playercounts.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When you kill something, it’s hard to portray both score and resources received. Because it’s a team game, I think score important (not just kills), so I don’t want to remove score, and thus this remains a problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Didn't NS1 already do this to a manageable level? The score is shown on scoreboard, the res gain is shown on your HUD, no even need for any massive +numbers floating around.
Also, why such care for score? I do agree that instant feedback is good, but does it need to happen every time a player does something that's generally considered useful? Couldn't some of this be done in the tutorial or authelp, allowing the seasoned players to focus on something else?
Score itself could be even seen as a distraction as it encourages doing a specific score related thing rather than doing the right thing at the right moment.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Simplicity is a big goal. So when in doubt about whether something is needed or not, it should be removed (Occam’s Razor).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think RFK works roughly the opposite to being overly complex. It's more like a chess piece that's basic principle can be explained in a matter of seconds while the interactions may take a lifetime to master.
The basic principle is extremely simple: "You get specific amount of res for every frag". Meanwhile knowing when to hunt for RFK, when to limit your opponent's RFK and how to direct RFK have aspects that can be very deep, interesting and challenging even for a seasoned player or team.
Disagree. League of Legends style "feeding" is not what Natural Selection needs. The impact is not clear to the player, and the mechanic is merciless if skill levels are even marginally unbalanced between teams.
NS3: Revolution!
The two are hardly exclusive.
I don't think the simplicity and team liability necessarily relate. They are two different topics in many cases and even the most simple things can be extremely bad design in terms of team liability.
As for the team liability part:
I think you have to accept some team liability to have anything deep in the game. As long as the res model works, the res nodes are still the main source of income and the RFK is some added finesse to it. A bad player is most likely going to do way more damage to the team by blocking teammates, adding up to the spawn queue, not phasing, spamming voice chat, confusing teammates and all that than he is going to do by feeding RFK. Dying in a game also has a pretty clear feedback on it's own, it's not like people find it meaningful in the first place.
I do agree that in LoL and DotA games the feeding is somewhat of a problem. NS has a bit of a different nature though, I don't think feeding has ever been huge issue anywhere outside combat - not even in 32 player games with broken res model that is way more reliant on RFK than it should.