<!--quoteo(post=1949405:date=Jul 6 2012, 11:27 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Jul 6 2012, 11:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949405"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've read your posts. I think you confused yourself with what you're complaining about.
You are complaining about individually broken mechanics. As soon as you start off on tangents like "MY KDR LOST ME THE GAME CUZ MY COMMANDER IS TOO IMPORTANT TO WINNING" then you've lost the entire message of your complaint.
Things like nanoconstruct, nanoshield, infestation spikes, etc are a problem with the game because they are overpowered and/or horrendous mechanics. It really has nothing to do with your KDR or the commander's importance.
<!--quoteo(post=1949419:date=Jul 6 2012, 01:19 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 6 2012, 01:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949419"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's an FPSRTS. If you want that second part at all, then you need resource driven tech paths. If you want to reward teams for winning, you also need increased power for higher tech weapons or lifeforms.
I'm not against your idea of having things more even between skulk/fade/onos and lmg/shotgun/upgrades, but I don't think that is NS2. That's more of like an unreal tournament death match. And there definitely are reasons to use lower lifeforms mostly due to the need for extra power to survive earlier. In SC2, you don't just always pump battlecruisers, you have to build marines and tanks to survive long enough to build battlecruisers. Even in the lategame, you wouldn't spam battlecruisers because then you'd lose. Just like you shouldn't spam onos.
<!--quoteo(post=1949510:date=Jul 6 2012, 07:19 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 6 2012, 07:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949510"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is what's bugging sebu and I!
When I duel in quake, I actually do spend most of my time thinking about how to control/deny items, delay timings on armour, fake movements and so on. Do you think <b>Rapha </b>won $100,000 over a couple years by brainlessly fragging people in pubs? <b>czm </b>has a PhD in math, but he plays quake competitively - is he a dullard who just likes to watch blood and guts splatter in his computer games?
Quake has the exact same appeal to me as a strategy game that NS2 and Starcraft 2 have. However, if I want to play 'just for fun' in a completely relaxed setting, I join something like an instagib server, or a pub CTF. The point is this: there's a lot more to Quake than stream-of-consciousness rockets and quad damage. In the opposite end of the spectrum, there's more to NS2 than really gritty intense strategy/action (in fact, I'd say the quality of the game in competition/seriousness is really lacking at the moment). Try to enjoy the game as you want to, and if you can't, come up with specific goals that will resolve it - a post that's too general can't be answered with any sort of practical changes.
The next time you have 20 minutes to spare, watch<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdkDjsBiO58#t=4m" target="_blank"> this video</a>. Afterward, you will understand what high-level quake/UT duelling is about, without needing to play it. You might even find it interesting or enjoyable in some way. Who knows?
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1949511:date=Jul 7 2012, 12:21 AM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Jul 7 2012, 12:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949511"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I've read your posts.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo(post=1949511:date=Jul 7 2012, 12:21 AM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Jul 7 2012, 12:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949511"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"MY KDR LOST ME THE GAME CUZ MY COMMANDER IS TOO IMPORTANT TO WINNING"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Apparently not, but thanks for playing.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
Frankly, I feel that once comms had abilities outside of building placement and tech, infringement on the FPS portion of the game would vary between tolerable to terrible. I don't see how weapon drops and medpacks are ok, but nano-construct and enzyme are a bridge too far. Granted, I think the current implementation of some of these things has some problems, but that doesn't mean the underlying concept is antithesis to NS2 (or NS1 for that matter).
As for the RTS/FPS, comm/players interaction, this is how I've experienced it in NS2: - Bad comm + Good team = Generally going to lose (can sometimes get a ninja victory as aliens, but almost never with marines) - Good comm + Good team = Generally going to win (unless you lose via an alien ninja) - Good comm + Bad team = Almost always going to lose (only exception is turret spam + ARCs for marines, but still requires at least a few competent players to work)
In particular, I view the comm as being able to give the team a chance to win, but unable to do it himself. He needs a minimally competent team with at least one, if not two or three, players with average competence at shooting (for marines) or using a player-killing higher lifeform (i.e. lerk, fade, or onos).
IMO spare use of weapons adds to the appreciation of those weapons, frankly I think top tier stuff is too common in NS2 and I much prefered the NS1 levels of lifeforms and guns.
Just to clarify, dropping buffs from the sky is not what is usually done in RTS. For example the nano-shield equivalent in sc1, defense matrix, is casted by a defenseless, fragile and expensive tier two unit. Having it castable from the commander center at the beginning of the game would probably be pretty bad as well.
The equivalent of umbra, dark swarm, is also casted by a slow, defenseless, expensive tier three unit. The direct equivalent in NS2 would be to give umbra to the gorge as a tier three ability.
Same thing with force fields and infestation spikes.
<!--quoteo(post=1949516:date=Jul 7 2012, 12:28 AM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Jul 7 2012, 12:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949516"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Quake has the exact same appeal to me as a strategy game that NS2 and Starcraft 2 have. However, if I want to play 'just for fun' in a completely relaxed setting, I join something like an instagib server, or a pub CTF. The point is this: there's a lot more to Quake than stream-of-consciousness rockets and quad damage. In the opposite end of the spectrum, there's more to NS2 than really gritty intense strategy/action (in fact, I'd say the quality of the game in competition/seriousness is really lacking at the moment). Try to enjoy the game as you want to, and if you can't, come up with specific goals that will resolve it - a post that's too general can't be answered with any sort of practical changes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree to a point, I keep saying there's a lot of stuff in the game that is a lot of fun, my problem is that the very forced and uninspired 'money = winning' strategic portion really steps on it.
It's like if quake 3 only let you use the basic machinegun and had no powerups, unless you waited five minutes, during which you had to run from point to point holding E on bits of geometry and occasionally shooting different coloured bits of geometry for 30 seconds at a time, then you got to buy a plasma gun, only if you die you have to wait another five minutes. Also if the basic machinegun was really rubbish and the plasma gun was universally better in every way.
Strategically played or not, the other shooters I list are REALLY good shooters, and NS2 is also a really good shooter <i>when everyone has the same level of equipment and you are fighting in groups over central, key locations.</i> The problem is it isn't that very often, because most of the time you're using rubbish weapons and avoiding most of the action in favor of farming resources.
Hence, I want less resource farming, and more use of the good combat oriented elements, as well as a combat balance more like the good FPS games I enjoy, where everything has its advantages and disadvantages rather than the 'more expensive = better' approach it currently uses.
The point isn't to mimic Starcraft exactly, though. You can play many different builds of NS1 and see that umbra fits the lerk perfectly in the larger context of the game. It doesn't need to be slow like a defiler.
Nano-shield is a bit of a different story, since the 'source' of it is very difficult to destroy or disable. Spells like that are incredibly boring, especially in the early game when they can turn fights that they shouldn't.
Just to add. Vanilla NS didnt have anything besides CLASSIC gameplay it think. Just when the 3.0 hit the scene it added COMBAT gamemode. It was and still is pretty popular, and thats exactly the gamemode that i spent in just to have fun in ns. It had levelling system and it was all about lunging to enemies and gathering that xp to get your needed ups.
<!--quoteo(post=1949642:date=Jul 7 2012, 10:58 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 7 2012, 10:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949642"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Hence, I want less resource farming, and more use of the good combat oriented elements, as well as a combat balance more like the good FPS games I enjoy, where everything has its advantages and disadvantages"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As the IE said, just give it time to develop, and speaking in ns 2 language to grow more mature. It bet it will have its own ways just to have fun and shoot some liens here and there, or bite some space ass in as relaxed state as you wish.
I don't always even get the people who constantly complain about the overall balance, even that they know that the whole tech three hasn't even been implemented especially when the performance is prior no 1. I understand fedback from the features such as nano-shield or spikes, but gameplay vise its still in baby form. And by baby form, I mean that we cannot know how the metagame and the overall gameplay is gonna form at the release, at least i have no idea.
Comments
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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've read your posts. I think you confused yourself with what you're complaining about.
You are complaining about individually broken mechanics. As soon as you start off on tangents like "MY KDR LOST ME THE GAME CUZ MY COMMANDER IS TOO IMPORTANT TO WINNING" then you've lost the entire message of your complaint.
Things like nanoconstruct, nanoshield, infestation spikes, etc are a problem with the game because they are overpowered and/or horrendous mechanics. It really has nothing to do with your KDR or the commander's importance.
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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's an FPSRTS. If you want that second part at all, then you need resource driven tech paths. If you want to reward teams for winning, you also need increased power for higher tech weapons or lifeforms.
I'm not against your idea of having things more even between skulk/fade/onos and lmg/shotgun/upgrades, but I don't think that is NS2. That's more of like an unreal tournament death match. And there definitely are reasons to use lower lifeforms mostly due to the need for extra power to survive earlier. In SC2, you don't just always pump battlecruisers, you have to build marines and tanks to survive long enough to build battlecruisers. Even in the lategame, you wouldn't spam battlecruisers because then you'd lose. Just like you shouldn't spam onos.
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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is what's bugging sebu and I!
When I duel in quake, I actually do spend most of my time thinking about how to control/deny items, delay timings on armour, fake movements and so on. Do you think <b>Rapha </b>won $100,000 over a couple years by brainlessly fragging people in pubs? <b>czm </b>has a PhD in math, but he plays quake competitively - is he a dullard who just likes to watch blood and guts splatter in his computer games?
Quake has the exact same appeal to me as a strategy game that NS2 and Starcraft 2 have. However, if I want to play 'just for fun' in a completely relaxed setting, I join something like an instagib server, or a pub CTF. The point is this: there's a lot more to Quake than stream-of-consciousness rockets and quad damage. In the opposite end of the spectrum, there's more to NS2 than really gritty intense strategy/action (in fact, I'd say the quality of the game in competition/seriousness is really lacking at the moment). Try to enjoy the game as you want to, and if you can't, come up with specific goals that will resolve it - a post that's too general can't be answered with any sort of practical changes.
The next time you have 20 minutes to spare, watch<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdkDjsBiO58#t=4m" target="_blank"> this video</a>. Afterward, you will understand what high-level quake/UT duelling is about, without needing to play it. You might even find it interesting or enjoyable in some way. Who knows?
<!--quoteo(post=1949511:date=Jul 7 2012, 12:21 AM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Jul 7 2012, 12:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949511"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"MY KDR LOST ME THE GAME CUZ MY COMMANDER IS TOO IMPORTANT TO WINNING"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Apparently not, but thanks for playing.
As for the RTS/FPS, comm/players interaction, this is how I've experienced it in NS2:
- Bad comm + Good team = Generally going to lose (can sometimes get a ninja victory as aliens, but almost never with marines)
- Good comm + Good team = Generally going to win (unless you lose via an alien ninja)
- Good comm + Bad team = Almost always going to lose (only exception is turret spam + ARCs for marines, but still requires at least a few competent players to work)
In particular, I view the comm as being able to give the team a chance to win, but unable to do it himself. He needs a minimally competent team with at least one, if not two or three, players with average competence at shooting (for marines) or using a player-killing higher lifeform (i.e. lerk, fade, or onos).
The equivalent of umbra, dark swarm, is also casted by a slow, defenseless, expensive tier three unit. The direct equivalent in NS2 would be to give umbra to the gorge as a tier three ability.
Same thing with force fields and infestation spikes.
I agree to a point, I keep saying there's a lot of stuff in the game that is a lot of fun, my problem is that the very forced and uninspired 'money = winning' strategic portion really steps on it.
It's like if quake 3 only let you use the basic machinegun and had no powerups, unless you waited five minutes, during which you had to run from point to point holding E on bits of geometry and occasionally shooting different coloured bits of geometry for 30 seconds at a time, then you got to buy a plasma gun, only if you die you have to wait another five minutes. Also if the basic machinegun was really rubbish and the plasma gun was universally better in every way.
Strategically played or not, the other shooters I list are REALLY good shooters, and NS2 is also a really good shooter <i>when everyone has the same level of equipment and you are fighting in groups over central, key locations.</i> The problem is it isn't that very often, because most of the time you're using rubbish weapons and avoiding most of the action in favor of farming resources.
Hence, I want less resource farming, and more use of the good combat oriented elements, as well as a combat balance more like the good FPS games I enjoy, where everything has its advantages and disadvantages rather than the 'more expensive = better' approach it currently uses.
Nano-shield is a bit of a different story, since the 'source' of it is very difficult to destroy or disable. Spells like that are incredibly boring, especially in the early game when they can turn fights that they shouldn't.
<!--quoteo(post=1949642:date=Jul 7 2012, 10:58 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 7 2012, 10:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1949642"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Hence, I want less resource farming, and more use of the good combat oriented elements, as well as a combat balance more like the good FPS games I enjoy, where everything has its advantages and disadvantages"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As the IE said, just give it time to develop, and speaking in ns 2 language to grow more mature. It bet it will have its own ways just to have fun and shoot some liens here and there, or bite some space ass in as relaxed state as you wish.
I don't always even get the people who constantly complain about the overall balance, even that they know that the whole tech three hasn't even been implemented especially when the performance is prior no 1. I understand fedback from the features such as nano-shield or spikes, but gameplay vise its still in baby form. And by baby form, I mean that we cannot know how the metagame and the overall gameplay is gonna form at the release, at least i have no idea.