<!--quoteo(post=1949022:date=Jul 4 2012, 05:55 PM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Jul 4 2012, 05:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949022"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You keep listing your high KDR and subsequent loss as if it proves that there is a problem with a shooter's dependence on the commander. There are many parts to the game considering this is a team based game. I don't see anything wrong with bad commanders losing the game for good marines. Get a better commander.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fact that it was a competitive match severely lowers the odds that they had an incompetent commander.
<!--quoteo(post=1948987:date=Jul 4 2012, 09:51 PM:name=1dominator1)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (1dominator1 @ Jul 4 2012, 09:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948987"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Please do not exxagerate. While there are some menial tasks that have to be done in NS2 the game is still filled with exciting fps moments. Frankly I no longer ever understand what your concern is. Your complaints are so abstract as to be practically meaningless, seeming to deal more with the 'feel' of the game which is something that is nearly completely subjective and only really felt by you. All I can say is that I share neither your displeasure with the gameplay or the 'feel' nor your desire to make NS2 more combat like and if I had any say in the development process would oppose such a motion with all my might. Still, to each his own.
EDIT: Also I never said the game should be like starcraft with players for units, that would be moronic (as most people who have played SC should realise).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not exaggerating, I spend a lot of my time doing stuff I don't enjoy, mostly running to RTs, building RTs, blowing up RTs, or avoiding fights, because that's the best way to be helpful.
And yes, my complaint is with the 'feel' of the game, and I realise it is entirely subjective, which is why I am trying to illustrate precisely the components of the game which produce this unpleasant 'feel' so that they can be rectified.
Games are supposed to be enjoyable, yet 'enjoyable' is an abstract idea, the whole point of games is to create logical, practical, mechanical systems in order to produce an abstract emotion. It is not unreasonable for me to say I don't enjoy the feel of the game at the moment and suggest ways I think would improve it.
<!--quoteo(post=1949052:date=Jul 5 2012, 12:22 AM:name={GGs} Chicken)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ({GGs} Chicken @ Jul 5 2012, 12:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949052"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The one doing the stomping who ultimately loses. Being completely thrashed and still winning gives you a sense of overcoming obstacles to achieve victory. Completely dominating the other team by yourself and still losing is pretty stupid. Happens often enough(and for quite some time) that I've pretty much given up on aliens and almost exclusively gorge when I play them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Logically however, one person would have great difficulty in matching the degree of frustration felt by five or six people being repeatedly kicked back to spawn (effectively unable to play) because they keep getting killed.
Unless that one person is some sort of android designed solely for the purpose of feeling frustrated.
<!--quoteo(post=1949036:date=Jul 4 2012, 11:30 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Jul 4 2012, 11:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949036"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Though i get the point of not having enough impact, I do wonder: who is more frustrated, the one doing the stomping or the ones being stomped?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Trick question, they're both frustrated.
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
<!--quoteo(post=1949052:date=Jul 4 2012, 04:22 PM:name={GGs} Chicken)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ({GGs} Chicken @ Jul 4 2012, 04:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949052"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The one doing the stomping who ultimately loses. Being completely thrashed and still winning gives you a sense of overcoming obstacles to achieve victory. Completely dominating the other team by yourself and still losing is pretty stupid. Happens often enough(and for quite some time) that I've pretty much given up on aliens and almost exclusively gorge when I play them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I would say this is an accurate assessment, and would agree with you, thanks for the insight :)
Personally I'd have said being thrashed and still winning makes you feel useless while being top of the board and still losing means you still spent the game playing and presumably enjoying yourself most of the time.
<!--quoteo(post=1949024:date=Jul 4 2012, 06:04 PM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Jul 4 2012, 06:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949024"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->He's not saying that fragging doesn't have an impact on the game, he's saying that fragging has too little an impact on the game. He's listing his high KDR just to illustrate how futile it can be as an fps-player to eke out an advantage even when there is a huge difference in skill-level.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I understand this, though I'm not sure I agree, how would people make fragging have more impact on the game while still retaining the commander-shooter codependency?
If such an emphasis is to be placed on KDR, isn't that just a deathmatch? In any objective based game where the objective is something other than kills, KDR is just a means to an end. Thus a high KDR is meaningless if the other team was better at the actual objective, assuming the sides are balanced in the first place. Like in BF3, I could hop in a jet and go 50-3, but my team could still lose the game because their team controlled the points. Is this a problem with the game or is this a problem with how much value I'm playing onto kdr?
<!--quoteo(post=1949070:date=Jul 5 2012, 01:42 AM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Jul 5 2012, 01:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949070"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I understand this, though I'm not sure I agree, how would people make fragging have more impact on the game while still retaining the commander-shooter codependency?
If such an emphasis is to be placed on KDR, isn't that just a deathmatch? In any objective based game where the objective is something other than kills, KDR is just a means to an end. Thus a high KDR is meaningless if the other team was better at the actual objective, assuming the sides are balanced in the first place. Like in BF3, I could hop in a jet and go 50-3, but my team could still lose the game because their team controlled the points. Is this a problem with the game or is this a problem with how much value I'm playing onto kdr?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You could shift the game more towards fighting the enemy units, rather than blowing up RTs.
RTs tend not to be where the enemy is, RTs tend not to be something large groups of players rush to defend.
Encourage players to attack where other players are, such as bases, and encourage players to defend their bases rather than relying on AI units.
That way, the ability to have a high K/D would make you a useful contributor to the success of the game, because strong combatants would be able to better achieve the combat-oriented goals. And it doesn't really affect the commander either way. The commander can still get resources, research tech, give orders, and build stuff. It's just maybe the outlying RTs aren't so important, maybe they give way less money than the bases, so it's useful to get them but you mostly want to secure the big rooms with a CC and an RT together, and build a bunch of stuff to help defend it because it's worth defending.
It was mentioned in another thread that killing higher lifeforms and marines with expensive equipment was a great move in NS1 even on a strategic level because it damaged the economy of that team directly (since there was no split between pres and tres), whereas now it merely means you temporarily have one less enemy to fight; would you say that that aspect coming back would help you feel useful, Chris?
<!--quoteo(post=1949157:date=Jul 5 2012, 12:57 PM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Align @ Jul 5 2012, 12:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949157"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It was mentioned in another thread that killing higher lifeforms and marines with expensive equipment was a great move in NS1 even on a strategic level because it damaged the economy of that team directly (since there was no split between pres and tres), whereas now it merely means you temporarily have one less enemy to fight; would you say that that aspect coming back would help you feel useful, Chris?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In practice, no.
I like the idea that successful combat would lead to victory, because it does indeed make the game more combat oriented, which is where most of its gameplay and features lie. The problem with it is that in order for that particular approach to be viable, you end up with lifeforms and equipment being very expensive, which I don't like the idea of, because it creates the aforementioned lock out problem, where players spend most of their time using crappy guns and lifeforms, because they can't afford the necessarily expensive and effective ones. If you don't make the guns and lifeforms expensive, you can't significantly deplete resources by killing enemies carrying them, and if you don't make them vastly more effective, then having a resource advantage doesn't matter because it doesn't buy you increased effectiveness.
I would prefer it if you went the rather more simple method of encouraging players to attack places of strategic value, as you already do with resource towers, but instead shifted the places of strategic value to more centralised locations. Rather than skirmishing around three or four resource towers to win a resource war, you instead focus on attacking and defending probably about two bases at any one time, which would ideally contribute most of the resource income, and also less quantifiable advantages such as strategic mobility, redundant backups, information gathering, and tech structures. Of couse it wouldn't be the SAME two bases, and you might choose to open up a second front by building an encircling base from which to attack, or you could choose to do defence in depth and place bases in front of your main to serve as buffer zones. It's down to the strategic choice of the commander.
By focussing players together more so that fighting is more common and involves more players at once, you encourage players to work together with each other effectively. And by decoupling the strategic metagame from being almost entirely about controlling resources, you can start scaling back or even removing things like the player economy, giving players more freedom of choice in what gun they use, how they play, whether they want to commit completely to a fight and risk dying to achieve their goal, and just generally give more opportunities for fun and cool stuff to happen. Maybe you might build a base not to get money but because it is in a very defensible location, or maybe it might let you spy on some key parts of the map with observatories, or maybe it might let you get a lot closer to the enemy with hive teleportation or phase gates. People are always asking for a return of the NS1 building bases anywhere mechanic, but at the moment even if you could build bases anywhere, I don't think you would, because the only thing really worth going for is the money.
By making the resource advantage less of a big thing, you give commanders more options. More ways in which they can choose to pursue victory. As a commander I would like the option to say 'hey guys we have a fair bit of money but I want to see what the enemy is doing, go capture this room and I'll drop a PG/Obs and it will let me track aliens moving through this key corridor'. Or say 'I'm feeling a bit exposed right now so I want to capture this room, it's only got two entrances right next to each other and is a long way off from the rest of the map, so if we make that our main base I can put the arms lab in there, and we can use phase gates to get around the map quickly but the aliens will have to walk.' I don't have that option right now, because why bother with information or defensive terrain when you can just rush the RTs, buy everyone GLs, shotties and jetpacks, and roll through everything because the enemy doesn't have enough money to stop you. It degrades the variety of the game AND the importance of player skill, because winning is determined by how much bling you're wearing, not how good at your class you are.
Essentially, at the moment you win by having lots of money, and you have lots of money by fighting very small battles over resource towers, and also everything is really expensive so if you don't have lots of money you can't use any of the fun equipment. I want the game to be more about using fun equipment to have fun battles, and for that to lead to victory.
<!--quoteo(post=1949165:date=Jul 5 2012, 01:56 PM:name=NurEinMensch)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NurEinMensch @ Jul 5 2012, 01:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949165"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In short you want Combat. Just be patient someone will make a it a mod.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In short, you didn't read what I posted, what possible part of combat could involve increasing strategic choice?
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited July 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1949070:date=Jul 5 2012, 01:42 AM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Jul 5 2012, 01:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949070"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I understand this, though I'm not sure I agree, how would people make fragging have more impact on the game while still retaining the commander-shooter codependency?
If such an emphasis is to be placed on KDR, isn't that just a deathmatch? In any objective based game where the objective is something other than kills, KDR is just a means to an end. Thus a high KDR is meaningless if the other team was better at the actual objective, assuming the sides are balanced in the first place. Like in BF3, I could hop in a jet and go 50-3, but my team could still lose the game because their team controlled the points. Is this a problem with the game or is this a problem with how much value I'm playing onto kdr?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You have to stop reading everything so literally. The only reason I mentioned th k/d was to illustrate the problems. Not once did I say that a high k/d should necessarily mean that you will win the game (in fact; I said the opposite). Most of the time, FPS player impotence actaully stems from the RTS players inhibiting the FPS players' ability to frags, obviously meaning you will see a low k/d on the losing team -- even though their FPS players did everything "right".
I should also point out that it's not like I was flying around random hallways doing nothing but kill marines during the rounds I used as examples; almost all of the frags came from defending our harvesters and hives or attacking their harvesters and phase gates. The point is that none of that had any effect on the outcome of the round.
The commander in NS1 also had a huge influence on the outcome of any given round, but less so than is the case currently in NS2. The source of this difference is systemic; it's not just one feature, it's all of the features contributing to create the problem. Possible contributing factors include:
(1) Addition of alien commander instead of gorge builder. (2) Nanoconstruct. (3) ARCs. (4) Marine spawn times. (5) Nerfs to lifeform damage against buildings, fades in particular (when compared to NS1). (6) Map size.
Unfortunately, by far the biggest contributor to FPS player impotence, the addition of the alien commander, seems unlikely to be changed -- no matter how many problems it causes.
<!--quoteo(post=1949058:date=Jul 4 2012, 07:44 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 4 2012, 07:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949058"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not exaggerating, I spend a lot of my time doing stuff I don't enjoy, mostly running to RTs, building RTs, blowing up RTs, or avoiding fights, because that's the best way to be helpful.
And yes, my complaint is with the 'feel' of the game, and I realise it is entirely subjective, which is why I am trying to illustrate precisely the components of the game which produce this unpleasant 'feel' so that they can be rectified.
Games are supposed to be enjoyable, yet 'enjoyable' is an abstract idea, the whole point of games is to create logical, practical, mechanical systems in order to produce an abstract emotion. It is not unreasonable for me to say I don't enjoy the feel of the game at the moment and suggest ways I think would improve it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is I (and I suspect many other players) do not share your concerns about the feel, and do not feel the game should be changed in ways we do not necessarily approve just for the sake of you and the few like you. But, feel free to make your case here to the devs and the rest of the community, that is after all what forums are for. If you can convince them then all the power to you!
<!--quoteo(post=1949161:date=Jul 5 2012, 08:36 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 5 2012, 08:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949161"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Essentially, at the moment you win by having lots of money, and you have lots of money by fighting very small battles over resource towers, and also everything is really expensive so if you don't have lots of money you can't use any of the fun equipment. I want the game to be more about using fun equipment to have fun battles, and for that to lead to victory.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is incredibly arbitrary and it's hard to even comment on. Do you just want everything to be cheaper and weaker so you can use more of it? Ie shotguns 5 pres, jetpacks 5 pres, fade 15 pres and all subsequently reduced in power to compensate for their availability? It honestly seems like you want something completely different from NS2.
<!--quoteo(post=1949174:date=Jul 5 2012, 09:27 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Jul 5 2012, 09:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949174"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You have to stop reading everything so literally. The only reason I mentioned th k/d was to illustrate the problems. Not once did I say that a high k/d should necessarily mean that you will win the game (in fact; I said the opposite). Most of the time, FPS player impotence actaully stems from the RTS players inhibiting the FPS players' ability to frags, obviously meaning you will see a low k/d on the losing team -- even though their FPS players did everything "right".
I should also point out that it's not like I was flying around random hallways doing nothing but kill marines during the rounds I used as examples; almost all of the frags came from defending our harvesters and hives or attacking their harvesters and phase gates. The point is that none of that had any effect on the outcome of the round.
The commander in NS1 also had a huge influence on the outcome of any given round, but less so than is the case currently in NS2. The source of this difference is systemic; it's not just one feature, it's all of the features contributing to create the problem. Possible contributing factors include:
(1) Addition of alien commander instead of gorge builder. (2) Nanoconstruct. (3) ARCs. (4) Marine spawn times. (5) Nerfs to lifeform damage against buildings, fades in particular (when compared to NS1). (6) Map size.
Unfortunately, by far the biggest contributor to FPS player impotence, the addition of the alien commander, seems unlikely to be changed -- no matter how many problems it causes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your kills have an effect on the outcome of the round, but they're just a part of it. If you kill two marines coming into harass your RT, you get 2 kills and you save that RT. How much does that RT help you? That's how much your kills have helped. I don't think there is any problem with the influence of a commander on his team's play. That's a core part of NS2. You need a good commander and you need good shooters.
I think some mechanics on your list have their own problems with them, particularly 2 and 3, but I don't find the commander to be the problem. I think things like arcs, nanoconstruct, and nanoshield should be balanced. Outside of a few of these individually broken abilities, I don't see any problem with having the commander role be vitally important to the shooters on the ground.
<!--quoteo(post=1949265:date=Jul 5 2012, 03:01 PM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Jul 5 2012, 03:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949265"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think some mechanics on your list have their own problems with them, particularly 2 and 3, but I don't find the commander to be the problem. I think things like arcs, nanoconstruct, and nanoshield should be balanced. Outside of a few of these individually broken abilities, I don't see any problem with having the commander role be vitally important to the shooters on the ground.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Essentially, the best way to win NS2 is to ignore the enemy and just chomp RTs all day.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree
<!--quoteo(post=1949070:date=Jul 4 2012, 07:42 PM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Jul 4 2012, 07:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949070"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I understand this, though I'm not sure I agree, how would people make fragging have more impact on the game while still retaining the commander-shooter codependency?
If such an emphasis is to be placed on KDR, isn't that just a deathmatch? In any objective based game where the objective is something other than kills, KDR is just a means to an end. Thus a high KDR is meaningless if the other team was better at the actual objective, assuming the sides are balanced in the first place. Like in BF3, I could hop in a jet and go 50-3, but my team could still lose the game because their team controlled the points. Is this a problem with the game or is this a problem with how much value I'm playing onto kdr?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
^Battlefield example is appropriate.
The game is centered around destroying one objective, the CC/IP/Hive. You have many options to do this:
Just outplay the other guys and win in a rush. Happens? check. Play more defensively, gather res, win with cool upgrades. Happens? check. Play aggressively, interrupt THEIR res and ability to get cool upgrades. Happens? check. Turtle -> ARC train -> roflstomp? Unfortunately sometimes happens.
While this is not EVERY strategy, tell me: which of these does not involve fragging? The only thing that makes kills worthless is where and when you get them.
I just won a pub game as aliens where EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US had a 1:2 KDR (meaning we were dying twice as much as we were killing), and we took the whole map. The marines had basically full tech (because the game went on for quite a while) but we won while allowing ourselves to be savagely outplayed at the player-level.
Food for thought.. (ARC trains are the only way to win as marines in way too many circumstances)
You can do the same in competitive matches, tho you still need to win some key fights (like phasegates in xroads and stuff like that)... The thing is, with all this nanoconstruct rts spam, you end up quickly focusing only on destroying rts and keeping pressure up instead of caring about your k/d. (and marines end up just running from rts to rts trying to defend, with almost no pressure on alien rts)
As long as you deny their rts very well (and keep your own alive) you are allowed to have a relative crappy k/d as aliens atm. (tho maybe not 1:2)
<!--quoteo(post=1949285:date=Jul 5 2012, 10:36 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Jul 5 2012, 10:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949285"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I just won a pub game as aliens where EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US had a 1:2 KDR (meaning we were dying twice as much as we were killing), and we took the whole map. The marines had basically full tech (because the game went on for quite a while) but we won while allowing ourselves to be savagely outplayed at the player-level.
Food for thought.. (ARC trains are the only way to win as marines in way too many circumstances)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's well accepted that the game is decidedly not balanced in b212.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited July 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1949265:date=Jul 6 2012, 12:01 AM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Jul 6 2012, 12:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949265"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's a core part of NS2. You need a good commander and you need good shooters.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's like I'm talking to a wall here. Have you even read my posts?
I'm going to limit myself to making a few select comments:
1. As I have already said, I have no problems with the RTS player having a possibly deciding influence over the game; in fact, I think that is a requirement for an FPS/RTS game to work properly. What I have problems with, is that the RTS player's influence in NS2 goes further than that. It certainly goes further than it ever did in NS1 -- and even in NS1, a good comm or a bad comm would usually be the deciding factor.
2. The list in my previous post was not exclusive, as should be obvious from its content and wording. Those are just a few examples.
3. 1.-4. on that list are part of the RTS sphere of the game. The alien commander immediately adds 50% more RTS to the game compared to NS1, which alone should be a significant concern. Nano-construct is a commander ability. ARCs are built and controlled entirely by the commander; in effect they allow the commander to do direct damage against the alien team. The commander controls the marine spawn times by his ability to build more infantry portals.
4. Nano-construct is inherently broken and un-balanceable. NS1/2 gameplay is based around the premise that the teams have to build RTs/Harvesters to gain resources; that building them takes a set amount of time; and that during that set amount of time, they are extra vulnerable to attacks from the opposing team. Furthermore, the marine phase gate is based around the premise that building one takes a set amount of time, and that this set amount of time is the alien team's window of opportunity for avoiding the world of hurt that will surely follow from a massive increase in marine team mobility. No matter how you tweak the numbers, nano-construct pulverizes those premises and introduces a pandora's box of potential gameplay issues. That most of the players apparently don't realize this, is disappointing. That the devs apparently don't realize this, is downright scary.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited July 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1949202:date=Jul 5 2012, 06:17 PM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Align @ Jul 5 2012, 06:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949202"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What sort of problems do you envision being solved if the acomm got removed? I thought it was more down to the unified resource systems?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is an enormous topic in itself, but I'll list a few (not all!) examples:
- The "lifeform explosion". - The sad gorge syndrome (or as it has been described in previous debates "the noob class" -- that the gorge is both boring to play and has too little influence on gameplay). - The lack of interactivity between alien team economy and alien personal economy (killing an alien lifeform doesn't hurt the team's economy). - The mass of new "RTS sphere" castable buffs and debuffs on FPS gameplay (drifter ablities, infestation spikes and so forth) causing frustration for FPS players. - The mass alien building spam during lategame. - Cysts (currently they serve as an artificial way of limiting comm expansion, other than that they're just an annoyance for the marines who have to kill them at some point and contribute to poor server/client performance during lategame). - Lack of viable options for alien build orders (this also ties in with cysts serving as an artificial limitation of where aliens can build, for example aliens always having to build the harvesters closest to their starting hive -- unlike NS1, where you had many options for how, when, how many and where you could place your harvesters, upgrade chambers, and so forth). - The problems introduced by adding 50% more RTS to the game (compared to NS1). The introduction of the alien comm automatically doubles the problems caused by the tension between RTS/FPS in NS1 (troll comms ruining rounds for the players, bad comms ruining rounds for the other players, the other players raging at newbie commanders, and so forth).
Some of these issues can be solved through other means (for example giving the gorge meaningful options for combat and support actions (instead of clogs and other gimmicks), while others are inherent to the feature.
<!--quoteo(post=1949265:date=Jul 6 2012, 12:01 AM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Jul 6 2012, 12:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949265"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That is incredibly arbitrary and it's hard to even comment on. Do you just want everything to be cheaper and weaker so you can use more of it? Ie shotguns 5 pres, jetpacks 5 pres, fade 15 pres and all subsequently reduced in power to compensate for their availability? It honestly seems like you want something completely different from NS2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I want to be able to use the fun stuff more freely, and just generally have more fun in the game.
The game is full of cool guns, equipment, lifeforms, abilities, all that jazz, but it's all locked out by money, and most of it isn't very well balanced in a fight. A skulk has no realistic chance against a flamethrower jetpacker, a lerk will presumably be at a major disadvantage against an exosuit with miniguns. almost anything the marines can currently field is going to have a hard time with a fade. All of that is because they're balanced around being better because they cost more, but it doesn't make them fun in a fight.
All the 'spend money to be able to kill more' approach does for me is mean I spend most of my time either killing things with no challenge, or fighting things I can't realistically beat, because the chances of finding someone who has spent the same amount of money I have is very low.
My second issue is that being able to pay for more power means that actual player skill, and especially player skill in combat, has very little to do with winning, because combat doesn't significantly affect the resources available to the enemy, and when it does, it's decided more by who has the most expensive gear and not who is the better player.
The way to actually win the game, and therefore the way you are encouraged to play, is to not bother about fighting unless you have to, and play whack a mole with the resource towers. This means that most of the time, you aren't fighting interesting battles, and you aren't encouraged to make use of the equipment you buy other than for overwhelming and completely decisive attacks against a crippled enemy.
I don't think that focussing the game around the idea of paying for power is a good way to do it. I think the game would be much better if you kept all the strategic stuff, all the base building and strategic maneuvering, but opened up the classes and equipment, balanced them to all be workable at any time, and told people to go out and fight for control of the map and to kick the other team's ass.
Obviously you need <i>some</i> form of benefit to map control, so I think there's lots you could do with things like tech requirements to unlock more lifeforms as <i>options</i> in combat, and some limited forms of commander support for players, as well as the ability to place more support buildings like PGs and crags. But at the moment, it isn't like that. You unlock more lifeforms so that you can use the <i>mandatory</i> expensive ones, because the expensive ones are just universally better. Is there any reason to use a lerk or skulk when you can afford fades and onoses? Other than not having enough money? Hell do you even really need fades? Or would a team of onoses completely overrun everything the marines have? Regardless of player skill? I think it would. Is it likely to be any different when marines get exos? I don't see anything to suggest otherwise, the answer is always 'throw more money at the problem' not 'think of a new strategy' or 'work really well as a team'. The fact that every commander and strategy revolves around absolute resource control is <i>not a good thing.</i> And not much could prove my point better.
I think the game can be significantly improved by just letting go of the idea that everything should be about the money, there's a lot of variety in the game, but at the moment, the focus on money and RTs completely eclipses all other aspects of the game.
<u><b>Quoting from the OPs post</b></u> <!--quoteo(post=1948464:date=Jul 2 2012, 02:53 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 2 2012, 02:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948464"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You are heavily penalised for losing a fight, so your primary goal is to avoid losing, not to win. In unreal tournament, your best way to win is to attack all out, very rarely do you run away, because if you win, you get your enemy's gun, and a direct point towards victory, you also can't lose more than a minute or so of progress.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> - Its obvious that you don't know what your talking about.
I don't know have anybody mentioned this, but did the OP never looked at pro UT gameplay? When you say that you rarely need to run away and do not have to take your fights carefully on those games <b>ur so badly wrong</b>. If you wanna be casual thats fine, but in advanced level of play the overall gameplay was very strict. UT at the highest level was very tactical reactional shooter. It could take minutes before the first frag has been traded and it is all downhill from there usually for the losing player. Fe. if you lose the first fight, the opponent has mapcontrol, can camp gunspawns, armor, and hp boosts. Depending on the map it was very difficoult to come back. I'm definately not saying that first frag wins, but there was an elemnt to it that it could have started an snowball effect, pretty much depending on the map though. Even tiebrakers were pretty usual cases, because if the scores were even both players stay so passive and just try to battle on those spawns and their timings. I think that i have seen a match last half an hour max. If you have watched any quake (original) or UT competitive play you know what im talking about.
OPs argument of UT being a clikity clikity shooter is false. Offcourse there is public and you could have fun, but against higher level players you get absolutely demolished not only because their of their aiming skills, but their superior tactical thinking. So i bet that OP haven't seen much of the pro scene (or even advanced level of play) of UT or quake, because run and gun is far from those games.
On cysts I have the feeling it might be better if infestation lost all game play effects and was reduced to an aesthetic enhancement of the environment, simply growing out of all aliens structures.
<!--quoteo(post=1949461:date=Jul 6 2012, 09:31 PM:name=sebu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sebu @ Jul 6 2012, 09:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949461"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><u><b>Quoting from the OPs post</b></u> - Its obvious that you don't know what your talking about.
I don't know have anybody mentioned this, but did the OP never looked at pro UT gameplay? When you say that you rarely need to run away and do not have to take your fights carefully on those games <b>ur so badly wrong</b>. If you wanna be casual thats fine, but in advanced level of play the overall gameplay was very strict. UT at the highest level was very tactical reactional shooter. It could take minutes before the first frag has been traded and it is all downhill from there usually for the losing player. Fe. if you lose the first fight, the opponent has mapcontrol, can camp gunspawns, armor, and hp boosts. Depending on the map it was very difficoult to come back. I'm definately not saying that first frag wins, but there was an elemnt to it that it could have started an snowball effect, pretty much depending on the map though. Even tiebrakers were pretty usual cases, because if the scores were even both players stay so passive and just try to battle on those spawns and their timings. I think that i have seen a match last half an hour max. If you have watched any quake (original) or UT competitive play you know what im talking about.
OPs argument of UT being a clikity clikity shooter is false. Offcourse there is public and you could have fun, but against higher level players you get absolutely demolished not only because their of their aiming skills, but their superior tactical thinking. So i bet that OP haven't seen much of the pro scene (or even advanced level of play) of UT or quake, because run and gun is far from those games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No I haven't seen pro UT, I don't want to play pro UT, I play games for fun, nor do I have the reflexes to be particularly good at something like UT or quake. My point about them is I enjoy the gameplay I get from them, I assume other people have played those games, and are familiar with the kind of play I am describing, such is the purpose of a comparison.
That you can play quake or UT very anal-retentively is fine, if you like that and can find other people who like that too, and the game supports it, that's a good thing. But currently that's the ONLY way to play NS2, and I don't enjoy it.
If you can play something as un-strategic mechanically as UTin that manner, surely that only lends strength to the idea that NS2 does not need to be completely dominated by strategic elements to the detriment of the simple shooter elements, in order to appeal to the strategically minded, or to have a strong strategic component to its gameplay? It seems to me that it'd be a far better game if you could enjoy it as both a good shooter <i>and</i> as a strategic, thoughtful, intelligent game? That is the point of making an FPS/RTS game isn't it?
If I don't want organised play I just don't join a clan, which is how I play all games I like, but only in NS2 do I join a public server and end up with a very unfulfilling experience, because it's very hard to enjoy as a shooter and the strategic element just feels so... forced. Like you have to do it even if your team isn't really that organised, or you don't really find that very enjoyable, and there's no other way to contribute to the match other than focussing completely on strategic play.
If you want a closer example, take empires. I can join any public game, and contribute plenty by just fighting as hard as I can with a bog standard infantryman to take ground in the constant infantry ground war going on on the frontlines. Every enemy I kill slows the enemy advance down, and every foot I take brings us closer to taking out the enemy base. I'm also generally inspired to coordinate people around me to better achieve that goal, because I'm having fun, and achieving the goal is fun, because it's about fighting loads of enemies and you have good equipment to help you do that. It's a great mix of FPS and RTS and is a far cry from running around blowing up RTs and seeing very little actual combat, which is my average NS2 experience.
<!--quoteo(post=1949504:date=Jul 6 2012, 06:59 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 6 2012, 06:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949504"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That you can play quake or UT very anal-retentively is fine, if you like that and can find other people who like that too, and the game supports it, that's a good thing. But currently that's the ONLY way to play NS2, and I don't enjoy it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is so wrong it hurts. Every bleeding-heart casual player does this all the time, and it's so incredibly stupid and I'm so tired of it.
They just patched Quake Live like a month ago, and added tons of content. What did they add? "Fun" game modes like red rover, harvester, 1 flag CTF. New maps for those "fun" game modes. The entire patch was dedicated to casual players, with absolutely nothing for the competitive duelling community.
They did it because they know casual players are important, and they care about that demographic. There are many ways to play Quake (and I'm sure the UT games as well) that are not "anal retentive" high-skill stuff. The fact that you call it anal retentive is really insulting, too. I gather I won't be seeing you at quakecon next month supporting a classic game instead of crying about it...
NS2 has the same trend - the game can be played any way you like. You can run around aimlessly, ignoring your team and finding things that you consider 'fun' in that context. You can hunker down and play a really methodical, emotionally-invested round if you're one of those guys. You can do everything in between - and you can even change between 'ways of playing the game' at will. You can do what you want with the game, and nobody is stopping you. That doesn't mean the game can't have rules or motifs throughout it. It's an RTS-FPS game, so it has to play like one. Like the developers always say, other rules can be modded in by players who truly want them. If you want a mode with no RTS-style restrictions whatsoever, come back in the fall when someone has modded it into the released version and it has taken over 3/4 of the servers. For now, the game is in a beta and people with modding talent are hesitant to spend time on it because the game is so unstable. What can you do but wait?
Instead of getting angry with people who are able to enjoy a game beyond the most basic level (read: popcorn at the colosseum while you watch the flogging), try to have fun with the game in the way you want. If you truly can't do that, revise your expectations. History shows that negative feedback on these forums is met with closed threads, not reactionary changes geared toward one player's interests.
(also, it's best to not speak on how competitive games like UT/quake work if you have absolutely no idea, and you're just making it up to suit your argument)
I wasn't aware that anal retentiveness was a bad thing, it's something I exhibit in a lot of things, most of my strategy games for one thing, but it's not something I would play a shooter for. I play shooters generally because I don't have to plan ahead much, it's a different kind of game. The shooter format is really good for more stream-of-consciousness style thinking, you constantly think and react and change your view based on your changing environment. It's intellectually appealing but in a very different way from say, playing sword of the stars where your thought patterns are very much about making a long term plan and sticking to it.
I suppose a shooter is when you observe the world and think to interpret and understand it, so that you can react to it in the best way, whereas a strategy game is where you observe the world, then devise a way to reshape it to a more favorable state.
I just don't think a shooter where you spend most of your time thinking about building and destroying RTs is a very good idea. It'd be like making an RTS that uses the interface of a driving game or something, it adds a lot of tedium to a relatively simple task. It isn't what the game is good at. The game is good at being an interesting shooter with lots of variety in it, so let it be that more often.
I really don't think you're reading the thread because I didn't say I wanted a game with no RTS elements, I said combat was boring precisely because it suffers from the lack of variety that the RTS component brings to classic. If you took out the RTS elements you just get a fairly ok deathmatch sort of game, but there's lots of those around.
Comments
The fact that it was a competitive match severely lowers the odds that they had an incompetent commander.
EDIT: Also I never said the game should be like starcraft with players for units, that would be moronic (as most people who have played SC should realise).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not exaggerating, I spend a lot of my time doing stuff I don't enjoy, mostly running to RTs, building RTs, blowing up RTs, or avoiding fights, because that's the best way to be helpful.
And yes, my complaint is with the 'feel' of the game, and I realise it is entirely subjective, which is why I am trying to illustrate precisely the components of the game which produce this unpleasant 'feel' so that they can be rectified.
Games are supposed to be enjoyable, yet 'enjoyable' is an abstract idea, the whole point of games is to create logical, practical, mechanical systems in order to produce an abstract emotion. It is not unreasonable for me to say I don't enjoy the feel of the game at the moment and suggest ways I think would improve it.
<!--quoteo(post=1949052:date=Jul 5 2012, 12:22 AM:name={GGs} Chicken)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ({GGs} Chicken @ Jul 5 2012, 12:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949052"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The one doing the stomping who ultimately loses. Being completely thrashed and still winning gives you a sense of overcoming obstacles to achieve victory. Completely dominating the other team by yourself and still losing is pretty stupid. Happens often enough(and for quite some time) that I've pretty much given up on aliens and almost exclusively gorge when I play them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Logically however, one person would have great difficulty in matching the degree of frustration felt by five or six people being repeatedly kicked back to spawn (effectively unable to play) because they keep getting killed.
Unless that one person is some sort of android designed solely for the purpose of feeling frustrated.
Trick question, they're both frustrated.
I would say this is an accurate assessment, and would agree with you, thanks for the insight :)
I understand this, though I'm not sure I agree, how would people make fragging have more impact on the game while still retaining the commander-shooter codependency?
If such an emphasis is to be placed on KDR, isn't that just a deathmatch? In any objective based game where the objective is something other than kills, KDR is just a means to an end. Thus a high KDR is meaningless if the other team was better at the actual objective, assuming the sides are balanced in the first place. Like in BF3, I could hop in a jet and go 50-3, but my team could still lose the game because their team controlled the points. Is this a problem with the game or is this a problem with how much value I'm playing onto kdr?
If such an emphasis is to be placed on KDR, isn't that just a deathmatch? In any objective based game where the objective is something other than kills, KDR is just a means to an end. Thus a high KDR is meaningless if the other team was better at the actual objective, assuming the sides are balanced in the first place. Like in BF3, I could hop in a jet and go 50-3, but my team could still lose the game because their team controlled the points. Is this a problem with the game or is this a problem with how much value I'm playing onto kdr?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You could shift the game more towards fighting the enemy units, rather than blowing up RTs.
RTs tend not to be where the enemy is, RTs tend not to be something large groups of players rush to defend.
Encourage players to attack where other players are, such as bases, and encourage players to defend their bases rather than relying on AI units.
That way, the ability to have a high K/D would make you a useful contributor to the success of the game, because strong combatants would be able to better achieve the combat-oriented goals. And it doesn't really affect the commander either way. The commander can still get resources, research tech, give orders, and build stuff. It's just maybe the outlying RTs aren't so important, maybe they give way less money than the bases, so it's useful to get them but you mostly want to secure the big rooms with a CC and an RT together, and build a bunch of stuff to help defend it because it's worth defending.
Plus it'd make me happy.
In practice, no.
I like the idea that successful combat would lead to victory, because it does indeed make the game more combat oriented, which is where most of its gameplay and features lie. The problem with it is that in order for that particular approach to be viable, you end up with lifeforms and equipment being very expensive, which I don't like the idea of, because it creates the aforementioned lock out problem, where players spend most of their time using crappy guns and lifeforms, because they can't afford the necessarily expensive and effective ones. If you don't make the guns and lifeforms expensive, you can't significantly deplete resources by killing enemies carrying them, and if you don't make them vastly more effective, then having a resource advantage doesn't matter because it doesn't buy you increased effectiveness.
I would prefer it if you went the rather more simple method of encouraging players to attack places of strategic value, as you already do with resource towers, but instead shifted the places of strategic value to more centralised locations. Rather than skirmishing around three or four resource towers to win a resource war, you instead focus on attacking and defending probably about two bases at any one time, which would ideally contribute most of the resource income, and also less quantifiable advantages such as strategic mobility, redundant backups, information gathering, and tech structures. Of couse it wouldn't be the SAME two bases, and you might choose to open up a second front by building an encircling base from which to attack, or you could choose to do defence in depth and place bases in front of your main to serve as buffer zones. It's down to the strategic choice of the commander.
By focussing players together more so that fighting is more common and involves more players at once, you encourage players to work together with each other effectively. And by decoupling the strategic metagame from being almost entirely about controlling resources, you can start scaling back or even removing things like the player economy, giving players more freedom of choice in what gun they use, how they play, whether they want to commit completely to a fight and risk dying to achieve their goal, and just generally give more opportunities for fun and cool stuff to happen. Maybe you might build a base not to get money but because it is in a very defensible location, or maybe it might let you spy on some key parts of the map with observatories, or maybe it might let you get a lot closer to the enemy with hive teleportation or phase gates. People are always asking for a return of the NS1 building bases anywhere mechanic, but at the moment even if you could build bases anywhere, I don't think you would, because the only thing really worth going for is the money.
By making the resource advantage less of a big thing, you give commanders more options. More ways in which they can choose to pursue victory. As a commander I would like the option to say 'hey guys we have a fair bit of money but I want to see what the enemy is doing, go capture this room and I'll drop a PG/Obs and it will let me track aliens moving through this key corridor'. Or say 'I'm feeling a bit exposed right now so I want to capture this room, it's only got two entrances right next to each other and is a long way off from the rest of the map, so if we make that our main base I can put the arms lab in there, and we can use phase gates to get around the map quickly but the aliens will have to walk.' I don't have that option right now, because why bother with information or defensive terrain when you can just rush the RTs, buy everyone GLs, shotties and jetpacks, and roll through everything because the enemy doesn't have enough money to stop you. It degrades the variety of the game AND the importance of player skill, because winning is determined by how much bling you're wearing, not how good at your class you are.
Essentially, at the moment you win by having lots of money, and you have lots of money by fighting very small battles over resource towers, and also everything is really expensive so if you don't have lots of money you can't use any of the fun equipment. I want the game to be more about using fun equipment to have fun battles, and for that to lead to victory.
In short, you didn't read what I posted, what possible part of combat could involve increasing strategic choice?
If such an emphasis is to be placed on KDR, isn't that just a deathmatch? In any objective based game where the objective is something other than kills, KDR is just a means to an end. Thus a high KDR is meaningless if the other team was better at the actual objective, assuming the sides are balanced in the first place. Like in BF3, I could hop in a jet and go 50-3, but my team could still lose the game because their team controlled the points. Is this a problem with the game or is this a problem with how much value I'm playing onto kdr?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have to stop reading everything so literally. The only reason I mentioned th k/d was to illustrate the problems. Not once did I say that a high k/d should necessarily mean that you will win the game (in fact; I said the opposite). Most of the time, FPS player impotence actaully stems from the RTS players inhibiting the FPS players' ability to frags, obviously meaning you will see a low k/d on the losing team -- even though their FPS players did everything "right".
I should also point out that it's not like I was flying around random hallways doing nothing but kill marines during the rounds I used as examples; almost all of the frags came from defending our harvesters and hives or attacking their harvesters and phase gates. The point is that none of that had any effect on the outcome of the round.
The commander in NS1 also had a huge influence on the outcome of any given round, but less so than is the case currently in NS2. The source of this difference is systemic; it's not just one feature, it's all of the features contributing to create the problem. Possible contributing factors include:
(1) Addition of alien commander instead of gorge builder.
(2) Nanoconstruct.
(3) ARCs.
(4) Marine spawn times.
(5) Nerfs to lifeform damage against buildings, fades in particular (when compared to NS1).
(6) Map size.
Unfortunately, by far the biggest contributor to FPS player impotence, the addition of the alien commander, seems unlikely to be changed -- no matter how many problems it causes.
And yes, my complaint is with the 'feel' of the game, and I realise it is entirely subjective, which is why I am trying to illustrate precisely the components of the game which produce this unpleasant 'feel' so that they can be rectified.
Games are supposed to be enjoyable, yet 'enjoyable' is an abstract idea, the whole point of games is to create logical, practical, mechanical systems in order to produce an abstract emotion. It is not unreasonable for me to say I don't enjoy the feel of the game at the moment and suggest ways I think would improve it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is I (and I suspect many other players) do not share your concerns about the feel, and do not feel the game should be changed in ways we do not necessarily approve just for the sake of you and the few like you. But, feel free to make your case here to the devs and the rest of the community, that is after all what forums are for. If you can convince them then all the power to you!
That is incredibly arbitrary and it's hard to even comment on. Do you just want everything to be cheaper and weaker so you can use more of it? Ie shotguns 5 pres, jetpacks 5 pres, fade 15 pres and all subsequently reduced in power to compensate for their availability? It honestly seems like you want something completely different from NS2.
<!--quoteo(post=1949174:date=Jul 5 2012, 09:27 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Jul 5 2012, 09:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949174"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You have to stop reading everything so literally. The only reason I mentioned th k/d was to illustrate the problems. Not once did I say that a high k/d should necessarily mean that you will win the game (in fact; I said the opposite). Most of the time, FPS player impotence actaully stems from the RTS players inhibiting the FPS players' ability to frags, obviously meaning you will see a low k/d on the losing team -- even though their FPS players did everything "right".
I should also point out that it's not like I was flying around random hallways doing nothing but kill marines during the rounds I used as examples; almost all of the frags came from defending our harvesters and hives or attacking their harvesters and phase gates. The point is that none of that had any effect on the outcome of the round.
The commander in NS1 also had a huge influence on the outcome of any given round, but less so than is the case currently in NS2. The source of this difference is systemic; it's not just one feature, it's all of the features contributing to create the problem. Possible contributing factors include:
(1) Addition of alien commander instead of gorge builder.
(2) Nanoconstruct.
(3) ARCs.
(4) Marine spawn times.
(5) Nerfs to lifeform damage against buildings, fades in particular (when compared to NS1).
(6) Map size.
Unfortunately, by far the biggest contributor to FPS player impotence, the addition of the alien commander, seems unlikely to be changed -- no matter how many problems it causes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your kills have an effect on the outcome of the round, but they're just a part of it. If you kill two marines coming into harass your RT, you get 2 kills and you save that RT. How much does that RT help you? That's how much your kills have helped. I don't think there is any problem with the influence of a commander on his team's play. That's a core part of NS2. You need a good commander and you need good shooters.
I think some mechanics on your list have their own problems with them, particularly 2 and 3, but I don't find the commander to be the problem. I think things like arcs, nanoconstruct, and nanoshield should be balanced. Outside of a few of these individually broken abilities, I don't see any problem with having the commander role be vitally important to the shooters on the ground.
This^
It's what makes NS2.. NS2.
If such an emphasis is to be placed on KDR, isn't that just a deathmatch? In any objective based game where the objective is something other than kills, KDR is just a means to an end. Thus a high KDR is meaningless if the other team was better at the actual objective, assuming the sides are balanced in the first place. Like in BF3, I could hop in a jet and go 50-3, but my team could still lose the game because their team controlled the points. Is this a problem with the game or is this a problem with how much value I'm playing onto kdr?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
^Battlefield example is appropriate.
The game is centered around destroying one objective, the CC/IP/Hive. You have many options to do this:
Just outplay the other guys and win in a rush. Happens? check.
Play more defensively, gather res, win with cool upgrades. Happens? check.
Play aggressively, interrupt THEIR res and ability to get cool upgrades. Happens? check.
Turtle -> ARC train -> roflstomp? Unfortunately sometimes happens.
While this is not EVERY strategy, tell me: which of these does not involve fragging? The only thing that makes kills worthless is where and when you get them.
The marines had basically full tech (because the game went on for quite a while) but we won while allowing ourselves to be savagely outplayed at the player-level.
Food for thought.. (ARC trains are the only way to win as marines in way too many circumstances)
As long as you deny their rts very well (and keep your own alive) you are allowed to have a relative crappy k/d as aliens atm. (tho maybe not 1:2)
The marines had basically full tech (because the game went on for quite a while) but we won while allowing ourselves to be savagely outplayed at the player-level.
Food for thought.. (ARC trains are the only way to win as marines in way too many circumstances)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's well accepted that the game is decidedly not balanced in b212.
It's like I'm talking to a wall here. Have you even read my posts?
I'm going to limit myself to making a few select comments:
1. As I have already said, I have no problems with the RTS player having a possibly deciding influence over the game; in fact, I think that is a requirement for an FPS/RTS game to work properly. What I have problems with, is that the RTS player's influence in NS2 goes further than that. It certainly goes further than it ever did in NS1 -- and even in NS1, a good comm or a bad comm would usually be the deciding factor.
2. The list in my previous post was not exclusive, as should be obvious from its content and wording. Those are just a few examples.
3. 1.-4. on that list are part of the RTS sphere of the game. The alien commander immediately adds 50% more RTS to the game compared to NS1, which alone should be a significant concern. Nano-construct is a commander ability. ARCs are built and controlled entirely by the commander; in effect they allow the commander to do direct damage against the alien team. The commander controls the marine spawn times by his ability to build more infantry portals.
4. Nano-construct is inherently broken and un-balanceable. NS1/2 gameplay is based around the premise that the teams have to build RTs/Harvesters to gain resources; that building them takes a set amount of time; and that during that set amount of time, they are extra vulnerable to attacks from the opposing team. Furthermore, the marine phase gate is based around the premise that building one takes a set amount of time, and that this set amount of time is the alien team's window of opportunity for avoiding the world of hurt that will surely follow from a massive increase in marine team mobility. No matter how you tweak the numbers, nano-construct pulverizes those premises and introduces a pandora's box of potential gameplay issues. That most of the players apparently don't realize this, is disappointing. That the devs apparently don't realize this, is downright scary.
That is an enormous topic in itself, but I'll list a few (not all!) examples:
- The "lifeform explosion".
- The sad gorge syndrome (or as it has been described in previous debates "the noob class" -- that the gorge is both boring to play and has too little influence on gameplay).
- The lack of interactivity between alien team economy and alien personal economy (killing an alien lifeform doesn't hurt the team's economy).
- The mass of new "RTS sphere" castable buffs and debuffs on FPS gameplay (drifter ablities, infestation spikes and so forth) causing frustration for FPS players.
- The mass alien building spam during lategame.
- Cysts (currently they serve as an artificial way of limiting comm expansion, other than that they're just an annoyance for the marines who have to kill them at some point and contribute to poor server/client performance during lategame).
- Lack of viable options for alien build orders (this also ties in with cysts serving as an artificial limitation of where aliens can build, for example aliens always having to build the harvesters closest to their starting hive -- unlike NS1, where you had many options for how, when, how many and where you could place your harvesters, upgrade chambers, and so forth).
- The problems introduced by adding 50% more RTS to the game (compared to NS1). The introduction of the alien comm automatically doubles the problems caused by the tension between RTS/FPS in NS1 (troll comms ruining rounds for the players, bad comms ruining rounds for the other players, the other players raging at newbie commanders, and so forth).
Some of these issues can be solved through other means (for example giving the gorge meaningful options for combat and support actions (instead of clogs and other gimmicks), while others are inherent to the feature.
I want to be able to use the fun stuff more freely, and just generally have more fun in the game.
The game is full of cool guns, equipment, lifeforms, abilities, all that jazz, but it's all locked out by money, and most of it isn't very well balanced in a fight. A skulk has no realistic chance against a flamethrower jetpacker, a lerk will presumably be at a major disadvantage against an exosuit with miniguns. almost anything the marines can currently field is going to have a hard time with a fade. All of that is because they're balanced around being better because they cost more, but it doesn't make them fun in a fight.
All the 'spend money to be able to kill more' approach does for me is mean I spend most of my time either killing things with no challenge, or fighting things I can't realistically beat, because the chances of finding someone who has spent the same amount of money I have is very low.
My second issue is that being able to pay for more power means that actual player skill, and especially player skill in combat, has very little to do with winning, because combat doesn't significantly affect the resources available to the enemy, and when it does, it's decided more by who has the most expensive gear and not who is the better player.
The way to actually win the game, and therefore the way you are encouraged to play, is to not bother about fighting unless you have to, and play whack a mole with the resource towers. This means that most of the time, you aren't fighting interesting battles, and you aren't encouraged to make use of the equipment you buy other than for overwhelming and completely decisive attacks against a crippled enemy.
I don't think that focussing the game around the idea of paying for power is a good way to do it. I think the game would be much better if you kept all the strategic stuff, all the base building and strategic maneuvering, but opened up the classes and equipment, balanced them to all be workable at any time, and told people to go out and fight for control of the map and to kick the other team's ass.
Obviously you need <i>some</i> form of benefit to map control, so I think there's lots you could do with things like tech requirements to unlock more lifeforms as <i>options</i> in combat, and some limited forms of commander support for players, as well as the ability to place more support buildings like PGs and crags. But at the moment, it isn't like that. You unlock more lifeforms so that you can use the <i>mandatory</i> expensive ones, because the expensive ones are just universally better. Is there any reason to use a lerk or skulk when you can afford fades and onoses? Other than not having enough money? Hell do you even really need fades? Or would a team of onoses completely overrun everything the marines have? Regardless of player skill? I think it would. Is it likely to be any different when marines get exos? I don't see anything to suggest otherwise, the answer is always 'throw more money at the problem' not 'think of a new strategy' or 'work really well as a team'. The fact that every commander and strategy revolves around absolute resource control is <i>not a good thing.</i> And not much could prove my point better.
I think the game can be significantly improved by just letting go of the idea that everything should be about the money, there's a lot of variety in the game, but at the moment, the focus on money and RTs completely eclipses all other aspects of the game.
<!--quoteo(post=1948464:date=Jul 2 2012, 02:53 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 2 2012, 02:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1948464"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You are heavily penalised for losing a fight, so your primary goal is to avoid losing, not to win. In unreal tournament, your best way to win is to attack all out, very rarely do you run away, because if you win, you get your enemy's gun, and a direct point towards victory, you also can't lose more than a minute or so of progress.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> - Its obvious that you don't know what your talking about.
I don't know have anybody mentioned this, but did the OP never looked at pro UT gameplay? When you say that you rarely need to run away and do not have to take your fights carefully on those games <b>ur so badly wrong</b>. If you wanna be casual thats fine, but in advanced level of play the overall gameplay was very strict. UT at the highest level was very tactical reactional shooter. It could take minutes before the first frag has been traded and it is all downhill from there usually for the losing player. Fe. if you lose the first fight, the opponent has mapcontrol, can camp gunspawns, armor, and hp boosts. Depending on the map it was very difficoult to come back. I'm definately not saying that first frag wins, but there was an elemnt to it that it could have started an snowball effect, pretty much depending on the map though. Even tiebrakers were pretty usual cases, because if the scores were even both players stay so passive and just try to battle on those spawns and their timings. I think that i have seen a match last half an hour max. If you have watched any quake (original) or UT competitive play you know what im talking about.
OPs argument of UT being a clikity clikity shooter is false. Offcourse there is public and you could have fun, but against higher level players you get absolutely demolished not only because their of their aiming skills, but their superior tactical thinking. So i bet that OP haven't seen much of the pro scene (or even advanced level of play) of UT or quake, because run and gun is far from those games.
- Its obvious that you don't know what your talking about.
I don't know have anybody mentioned this, but did the OP never looked at pro UT gameplay? When you say that you rarely need to run away and do not have to take your fights carefully on those games <b>ur so badly wrong</b>. If you wanna be casual thats fine, but in advanced level of play the overall gameplay was very strict. UT at the highest level was very tactical reactional shooter. It could take minutes before the first frag has been traded and it is all downhill from there usually for the losing player. Fe. if you lose the first fight, the opponent has mapcontrol, can camp gunspawns, armor, and hp boosts. Depending on the map it was very difficoult to come back. I'm definately not saying that first frag wins, but there was an elemnt to it that it could have started an snowball effect, pretty much depending on the map though. Even tiebrakers were pretty usual cases, because if the scores were even both players stay so passive and just try to battle on those spawns and their timings. I think that i have seen a match last half an hour max. If you have watched any quake (original) or UT competitive play you know what im talking about.
OPs argument of UT being a clikity clikity shooter is false. Offcourse there is public and you could have fun, but against higher level players you get absolutely demolished not only because their of their aiming skills, but their superior tactical thinking. So i bet that OP haven't seen much of the pro scene (or even advanced level of play) of UT or quake, because run and gun is far from those games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No I haven't seen pro UT, I don't want to play pro UT, I play games for fun, nor do I have the reflexes to be particularly good at something like UT or quake. My point about them is I enjoy the gameplay I get from them, I assume other people have played those games, and are familiar with the kind of play I am describing, such is the purpose of a comparison.
That you can play quake or UT very anal-retentively is fine, if you like that and can find other people who like that too, and the game supports it, that's a good thing. But currently that's the ONLY way to play NS2, and I don't enjoy it.
If you can play something as un-strategic mechanically as UTin that manner, surely that only lends strength to the idea that NS2 does not need to be completely dominated by strategic elements to the detriment of the simple shooter elements, in order to appeal to the strategically minded, or to have a strong strategic component to its gameplay? It seems to me that it'd be a far better game if you could enjoy it as both a good shooter <i>and</i> as a strategic, thoughtful, intelligent game? That is the point of making an FPS/RTS game isn't it?
If I don't want organised play I just don't join a clan, which is how I play all games I like, but only in NS2 do I join a public server and end up with a very unfulfilling experience, because it's very hard to enjoy as a shooter and the strategic element just feels so... forced. Like you have to do it even if your team isn't really that organised, or you don't really find that very enjoyable, and there's no other way to contribute to the match other than focussing completely on strategic play.
If you want a closer example, take empires. I can join any public game, and contribute plenty by just fighting as hard as I can with a bog standard infantryman to take ground in the constant infantry ground war going on on the frontlines. Every enemy I kill slows the enemy advance down, and every foot I take brings us closer to taking out the enemy base. I'm also generally inspired to coordinate people around me to better achieve that goal, because I'm having fun, and achieving the goal is fun, because it's about fighting loads of enemies and you have good equipment to help you do that. It's a great mix of FPS and RTS and is a far cry from running around blowing up RTs and seeing very little actual combat, which is my average NS2 experience.
This is so wrong it hurts.
Every bleeding-heart casual player does this all the time, and it's so incredibly stupid and I'm so tired of it.
They just patched Quake Live like a month ago, and added tons of content. What did they add? "Fun" game modes like red rover, harvester, 1 flag CTF. New maps for those "fun" game modes. The entire patch was dedicated to casual players, with absolutely nothing for the competitive duelling community.
They did it because they know casual players are important, and they care about that demographic. There are many ways to play Quake (and I'm sure the UT games as well) that are not "anal retentive" high-skill stuff. The fact that you call it anal retentive is really insulting, too. I gather I won't be seeing you at quakecon next month supporting a classic game instead of crying about it...
NS2 has the same trend - the game can be played any way you like. You can run around aimlessly, ignoring your team and finding things that you consider 'fun' in that context. You can hunker down and play a really methodical, emotionally-invested round if you're one of those guys. You can do everything in between - and you can even change between 'ways of playing the game' at will. You can do what you want with the game, and nobody is stopping you. That doesn't mean the game can't have rules or motifs throughout it. It's an RTS-FPS game, so it has to play like one. Like the developers always say, other rules can be modded in by players who truly want them. If you want a mode with no RTS-style restrictions whatsoever, come back in the fall when someone has modded it into the released version and it has taken over 3/4 of the servers. For now, the game is in a beta and people with modding talent are hesitant to spend time on it because the game is so unstable. What can you do but wait?
Instead of getting angry with people who are able to enjoy a game beyond the most basic level (read: popcorn at the colosseum while you watch the flogging), try to have fun with the game in the way you want. If you truly can't do that, revise your expectations. History shows that negative feedback on these forums is met with closed threads, not reactionary changes geared toward one player's interests.
(also, it's best to not speak on how competitive games like UT/quake work if you have absolutely no idea, and you're just making it up to suit your argument)
Cheers!
I suppose a shooter is when you observe the world and think to interpret and understand it, so that you can react to it in the best way, whereas a strategy game is where you observe the world, then devise a way to reshape it to a more favorable state.
I just don't think a shooter where you spend most of your time thinking about building and destroying RTs is a very good idea. It'd be like making an RTS that uses the interface of a driving game or something, it adds a lot of tedium to a relatively simple task. It isn't what the game is good at. The game is good at being an interesting shooter with lots of variety in it, so let it be that more often.
I really don't think you're reading the thread because I didn't say I wanted a game with no RTS elements, I said combat was boring precisely because it suffers from the lack of variety that the RTS component brings to classic. If you took out the RTS elements you just get a fairly ok deathmatch sort of game, but there's lots of those around.