<!--quoteo(post=1989316:date=Oct 10 2012, 01:59 PM:name=Eißfeldt)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Eißfeldt @ Oct 10 2012, 01:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989316"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why dont we simple try the idea with the 'focus group' again? I am not sure if Charlie is reachable via Email but maybe someone can create clarification about that. I would suggest to write a serious letter composed by experienced players (fanatic, gorgeous, rantalogy, locklear etc. , maybe even the team captain from every clan). It is important that we make clear that the whole competetive community stands behind this idea so we could digitally 'sign' it by the clans/teams and players. Maybe someone can ask few of those experienced players to assemble in voice chat and begin the work. I think it is worth a try.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is a lot of work and requires very dedicated people that can stay on topic for 2-3 hours. I had this kind of thing running earlier in the beta and it was clear pretty quickly that it works best with a small group of players that can keep a healthy discussion going. However you can set it up in a way where anyone can contribute ideas and post the end results for everyone to see. We managed to get a lot of well thought and detailed ideas at the time written down (about 4-5 focused articles with 2-5 different solutions each) that ended up being completely ignored. This only made it frustrating for the players who had dedicated over 100 hours of work on this and were not give any feedback back.
Even so there is plenty of players willing to participate in a focus group but I think it will only be effective if it will be running with the developers. The group can bounce ideas for a week on a topic that the devs think is important (or give feedback that might need fixing) and give them afterwards with a well written doc with all the information. It could also be a simple teamspeak chat where the topics are given on the day before (so the players can think them over before talking about them).
Simply put, the only way for this kind of group to be effective is for the dev to reach out, select the right people and work with them.
While it's a difficult vehicle to get a grips with, it's definitely one that should be a priority. It's actually pretty scandalous that a game that calls itself competitive has done almost nothing to incorporate the views of the competitive community in a serious and organised way. It's hard to think of a single good game that hasn't leant heavily on the knowledge and experience that players with hundreds/thousands of hours under their belt and are at the top of the game. Many games actively recruit these kinds of people and view them as incredibly useful assets in the development process - it's an abomination that NS2, a complicated hybrid rts/fps melee/ranged, is not doing something similar.
The truth is bleak. UWE has barely an ounce of gaming credibility. Nobody in the office is anywhere near the kind of level that would be acceptable for making informed decisions about competitive play. Before people bite me for this one, I should like to remind people that NS1 had, comparatively, a very strong team of highly intelligent individuals who understood the game and were given license to effect changes. NS2, on the other hand, is completely devoid of a qualified balance team with actual decision making power (I don't mean in absolute terms but it would be wise to defer to a credible team's wisdom).
As it stands, where are balance changes decided upon? Essentially, the job is Charlie's alone. This is bad, not only because he is pretty terrible at the game (no offence!), but more fundamentally, because he is one man. Granted, he is a man who reads the depressing forums where good criticism is drowned out by people who completely violate logic, experience and intuition but this is clearly not nearly enough. The other filter he as it his disposal is also highly contentious; a "bugtesting" team that comprises inexperienced, fanboyish but good-natured individuals with ill-conceived notions of what balance even is. These "bugtesters", who are high up in the feedback chain (I know because I was one), are barely listened to themselves. I guess its a mixed blessing that Charlie ignores that source too because the kinds of things many of them say are shocking.
Even the competitive seen is being caked in inexperience. We have casters, whom I respect for their enthusiasm and commitment, consistently and tragically missing vital components of any game and making less clued-up spectators believe that fundamental problems with the game are actually just <i>really exciting super awesome flashpoints!</i>. Charlie watched the tournament recently and I was mortified at some of the conclusions he drew and the priorities he had for NS2. Perhaps this wouldn't have happened quite so starkly if there had been someone close to Day9's calibre - we can only hope one turns up. It's absolutely imperative that we need tap into the pool of those serious and dedicated min/maxers who are articulate enough to explain where NS2 is just completely missing the point.
<!--quoteo(post=1989347:date=Oct 10 2012, 11:55 AM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Oct 10 2012, 11:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989347"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The truth is bleak. UWE has barely an ounce of gaming credibility. Nobody in the office is anywhere near the kind of level that would be acceptable for making informed decisions about competitive play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's so great that we have community members like yourself. Thankfully we have amazingly credible posters like you pointing out all these terrible flaws being made by UWE.
Wait a second let me catch my breath, I can't stop laughing.
Next time you write a block of text, try to increase your own credibility first. You are seeing a game being developed more openly than any other out there. It's also an EXTREMELY complicated game to balance, if you think you can do a better job I can't help but laugh.
Charlie has been watching all the recent competitive matches. Luckily this game has the RTS aspect, as you can see what is going on a lot better than being on the ground.
I would say he is doing a great job doing this and it is good to see.
<!--quoteo(post=1989347:date=Oct 10 2012, 11:55 AM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Oct 10 2012, 11:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989347"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Inane chatter<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I actually applaud you for looking like the most patronizing, competitive gamer guy there is. Nice job. Maybe the handful of folks pouring their sweat and blood into this gem should commit ritualistic seppuku after caring so deeply about your post.
<!--quoteo(post=1989362:date=Oct 10 2012, 03:02 PM:name=Fappuchino)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Fappuchino @ Oct 10 2012, 03:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989362"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I actually applaud you for looking like the most patronizing, competitive gamer guy there is. Nice job. Maybe the handful of folks pouring their sweat and blood into this gem should commit ritualistic seppuku after caring so deeply about your post.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1989357:date=Oct 10 2012, 08:44 PM:name=Jonp_11)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jonp_11 @ Oct 10 2012, 08:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989357"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's so great that we have community members like yourself. Thankfully we have amazingly credible posters like you pointing out all these terrible flaws being made by UWE.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Community members like myself have organised leagues, played for their country, lead clans to league champions, helped farm teams in their spare time, casted games, written articles, moderated forums, hosted servers, given copious amounts of feedback and played the franchise for almost a decade. Stop making me waste my time justifying why i'm credible, especially when i'm not even arguing that I am (even though I am). I can think of far better equipped people than myself with far more motivation who UWE would do well to exploit as the assets they are.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would say he is doing a great job doing this and it is good to see.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think he's doing a great job as one man but the crux of my frustration is that it doesn't need to be a one man job. There is a wealth of good information to be plucked if only they knew where and how to pluck it. Charlie has many strengths, but gaming experience is not one of them.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Frap)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Frap)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I actually applaud you for looking like the most patronizing, competitive gamer guy there is.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm sorry I come across as patronising but it's not from a place of elitism per se, rather from a position where I have watched development for years making what I, and many others, perceive to be mistakes that could be easily avoided. I'm not asking for anyone's validation - I'm just asking that we validate those from the community who deserve it and those who would be able to offer genuine and experienced insight into this game. It's an immensely complicated one after all and I shouldn't be lambasted for saying that there are people who could help or that I think the process could be improved.
<!--quoteo(post=1989347:date=Oct 10 2012, 08:55 PM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Oct 10 2012, 08:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989347"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->While it's a difficult vehicle to get a grips with, it's definitely one that should be a priority. It's actually pretty scandalous that a game that calls itself competitive has done almost nothing to incorporate the views of the competitive community in a serious and organised way. It's hard to think of a single good game that hasn't leant heavily on the knowledge and experience that players with hundreds/thousands of hours under their belt and are at the top of the game. Many games actively recruit these kinds of people and view them as incredibly useful assets in the development process - it's an abomination that NS2, a complicated hybrid rts/fps melee/ranged, is not doing something similar.
The truth is bleak. UWE has barely an ounce of gaming credibility. Nobody in the office is anywhere near the kind of level that would be acceptable for making informed decisions about competitive play. Before people bite me for this one, I should like to remind people that NS1 had, comparatively, a very strong team of highly intelligent individuals who understood the game and were given license to effect changes. NS2, on the other hand, is completely devoid of a qualified balance team with actual decision making power (I don't mean in absolute terms but it would be wise to defer to a credible team's wisdom).
As it stands, where are balance changes decided upon? Essentially, the job is Charlie's alone. This is bad, not only because he is pretty terrible at the game (no offence!), but more fundamentally, because he is one man. Granted, he is a man who reads the depressing forums where good criticism is drowned out by people who completely violate logic, experience and intuition but this is clearly not nearly enough. The other filter he as it his disposal is also highly contentious; a "bugtesting" team that comprises inexperienced, fanboyish but good-natured individuals with ill-conceived notions of what balance even is. These "bugtesters", who are high up in the feedback chain (I know because I was one), are barely listened to themselves. I guess its a mixed blessing that Charlie ignores that source too because the kinds of things many of them say are shocking.
Even the competitive seen is being caked in inexperience. We have casters, whom I respect for their enthusiasm and commitment, consistently and tragically missing vital components of any game and making less clued-up spectators believe that fundamental problems with the game are actually just <i>really exciting super awesome flashpoints!</i>. Charlie watched the tournament recently and I was mortified at some of the conclusions he drew and the priorities he had for NS2. Perhaps this wouldn't have happened quite so starkly if there had been someone close to Day9's calibre - we can only hope one turns up. It's absolutely imperative that we need tap into the pool of those serious and dedicated min/maxers who are articulate enough to explain where NS2 is just completely missing the point.
Better late, than never.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
+1
Its pretty bad calling the game an e-sport and dont use the fact that this community has extremly dedicated competative players who just wants to help the game get balanced fast. Think SC2 was/is balanced without active competative feedback?
I played many builds ago then stopped because i was getting pissed at having fps spikes lowering me to 20-30 late game, way too annoying.
But during this time I could dominate as skulk, sneak up behind ppl/drop off ceilings and own like 2-3 of them, it was really fun.
This build the skulk is a total piece of ###### because EVERYBODY has more then 5 fps and they decided to limit the upgrades (can't have regen and cara at the same time? wtf)
The lerk lol, the shotgun spikes were really fun to use, it used to be my favorite unit. The stupid poison bite thing is okay but having to get that close kinda sucks.
in ns1 it was hard to hit skulks because of bhopping, they were faster, they could 1-2 shot you, and they were smaller (better in every single way).
also why is acid rocket not in the game? What is so bad about fades dominating, people overreacted and WAY overnerfed the fade (like blizzard style).
My solutions:
Aliens - slightly faster on creep, slight regen on creep even in combat, add FOCUS.
lerk - add shotty spikes, keep bite, but make it more like skulk bite, make spores ranged blast, shrink size
fade - add acid rocket, get rid of shadowstep, make blink good again, make the fade feel like a ###### badass like it should be
skulk - shrink size, add bhop if possible
Alien commander - why is everything passive/non direct (NOT FUN)? Let him do fun stuff like healing up his guys, making them bigger/faster etc.
LET aliens pick any # of upgrades they want, no limits, but max +1 per hive.
And oh yeah, the thing that will make or break the game on release day, people with remotely modern rigs need to have maxed fps at all times.
<!--quoteo(post=1989347:date=Oct 10 2012, 02:55 PM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Oct 10 2012, 02:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989347"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As it stands, where are balance changes decided upon? Essentially, the job is Charlie's alone. This is bad, not only because he is pretty terrible at the game (no offence!), but more fundamentally, because he is one man. Granted, he is a man who reads the depressing forums where good criticism is drowned out by people who completely violate logic, experience and intuition but this is clearly not nearly enough. The other filter he as it his disposal is also highly contentious; a "bugtesting" team that comprises inexperienced, fanboyish but good-natured individuals with ill-conceived notions of what balance even is. These "bugtesters", who are high up in the feedback chain (I know because I was one), are barely listened to themselves. I guess its a mixed blessing that Charlie ignores that source too because the kinds of things many of them say are shocking.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*points at current sentry gun implementation* ... *pauses* ... it all makes sense now! :)
<!--quoteo(post=1989347:date=Oct 10 2012, 11:55 AM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Oct 10 2012, 11:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989347"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->While it's a difficult vehicle to get a grips with, it's definitely one that should be a priority. It's actually pretty scandalous that a game that calls itself competitive has done almost nothing to incorporate the views of the competitive community in a serious and organised way. It's hard to think of a single good game that hasn't leant heavily on the knowledge and experience that players with hundreds/thousands of hours under their belt and are at the top of the game. Many games actively recruit these kinds of people and view them as incredibly useful assets in the development process - it's an abomination that NS2, a complicated hybrid rts/fps melee/ranged, is not doing something similar.
The truth is bleak. UWE has barely an ounce of gaming credibility. Nobody in the office is anywhere near the kind of level that would be acceptable for making informed decisions about competitive play. Before people bite me for this one, I should like to remind people that NS1 had, comparatively, a very strong team of highly intelligent individuals who understood the game and were given license to effect changes. NS2, on the other hand, is completely devoid of a qualified balance team with actual decision making power (I don't mean in absolute terms but it would be wise to defer to a credible team's wisdom).
As it stands, where are balance changes decided upon? Essentially, the job is Charlie's alone. This is bad, not only because he is pretty terrible at the game (no offence!), but more fundamentally, because he is one man. Granted, he is a man who reads the depressing forums where good criticism is drowned out by people who completely violate logic, experience and intuition but this is clearly not nearly enough. The other filter he as it his disposal is also highly contentious; a "bugtesting" team that comprises inexperienced, fanboyish but good-natured individuals with ill-conceived notions of what balance even is. These "bugtesters", who are high up in the feedback chain (I know because I was one), are barely listened to themselves. I guess its a mixed blessing that Charlie ignores that source too because the kinds of things many of them say are shocking.
Even the competitive seen is being caked in inexperience. We have casters, whom I respect for their enthusiasm and commitment, consistently and tragically missing vital components of any game and making less clued-up spectators believe that fundamental problems with the game are actually just <i>really exciting super awesome flashpoints!</i>. Charlie watched the tournament recently and I was mortified at some of the conclusions he drew and the priorities he had for NS2. Perhaps this wouldn't have happened quite so starkly if there had been someone close to Day9's calibre - we can only hope one turns up. It's absolutely imperative that we need tap into the pool of those serious and dedicated min/maxers who are articulate enough to explain where NS2 is just completely missing the point.
Better late, than never.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Obviously the issue is a complicated one but one thing that will be obvious at some point is that aliens need to be able to movement(teleport) between hives at least if they have the appropriate chamber. Right now marines using beacon and phasegates have a massive mobility advantage though they don't often use it properly. I can't imagine why they would remove that from a game.
Something less necessary for basic balance but that should be done for gameplay purposes, armories should not weld. It vastly reduces the importance of teamwork/communication/player welding which was a key component of good ns1. The game can play with armory welding, I just don't see any positive purpose other than dumbing down the gameplay though.
THE TRUTH, IT BURNS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can't UWE just pull out from the forums the right people that they need to help co-design the game and get to work developing what is probably less than 15 steps away from being a killer game?
Dub this team the design consultation team and magic will happen. I can say this with some degree of certainty because I have seen tons of amazing feedback from people on the forums that analyze NS2 gameplay mechanics to degrees I can't even imagine, yet their great ideas are left on the floor. Some of these guys could probably be game designers for triple-A multi-million dollar titles.
So take like two or three of these dudes, sit them down with Charlie for a few hours (skype chat?) and let them tell him what's going on with this game and what is stopping it from being a game that has a player lifespan of 2 weeks to a player lifespan of 2+ years.
Right now, I kind of have the same feeling about NS2 that I had after playing Quake Wars. It had a great idea behind it, but the end result always seemed like if it had just 4 or 5 major tweaks to the mechanics, it could have been amazing.
<!--quoteo(post=1989347:date=Oct 10 2012, 09:55 PM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Oct 10 2012, 09:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989347"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->While it's a difficult vehicle to get a grips with, it's definitely one that should be a priority. It's actually pretty scandalous that a game that calls itself competitive has done almost nothing to incorporate the views of the competitive community in a serious and organised way. It's hard to think of a single good game that hasn't leant heavily on the knowledge and experience that players with hundreds/thousands of hours under their belt and are at the top of the game. Many games actively recruit these kinds of people and view them as incredibly useful assets in the development process - it's an abomination that NS2, a complicated hybrid rts/fps melee/ranged, is not doing something similar.
The truth is bleak. UWE has barely an ounce of gaming credibility. Nobody in the office is anywhere near the kind of level that would be acceptable for making informed decisions about competitive play. Before people bite me for this one, I should like to remind people that NS1 had, comparatively, a very strong team of highly intelligent individuals who understood the game and were given license to effect changes. NS2, on the other hand, is completely devoid of a qualified balance team with actual decision making power (I don't mean in absolute terms but it would be wise to defer to a credible team's wisdom).
As it stands, where are balance changes decided upon? Essentially, the job is Charlie's alone. This is bad, not only because he is pretty terrible at the game (no offence!), but more fundamentally, because he is one man. Granted, he is a man who reads the depressing forums where good criticism is drowned out by people who completely violate logic, experience and intuition but this is clearly not nearly enough. The other filter he as it his disposal is also highly contentious; a "bugtesting" team that comprises inexperienced, fanboyish but good-natured individuals with ill-conceived notions of what balance even is. These "bugtesters", who are high up in the feedback chain (I know because I was one), are barely listened to themselves. I guess its a mixed blessing that Charlie ignores that source too because the kinds of things many of them say are shocking.
Even the competitive seen is being caked in inexperience. We have casters, whom I respect for their enthusiasm and commitment, consistently and tragically missing vital components of any game and making less clued-up spectators believe that fundamental problems with the game are actually just <i>really exciting super awesome flashpoints!</i>. Charlie watched the tournament recently and I was mortified at some of the conclusions he drew and the priorities he had for NS2. Perhaps this wouldn't have happened quite so starkly if there had been someone close to Day9's calibre - we can only hope one turns up. It's absolutely imperative that we need tap into the pool of those serious and dedicated min/maxers who are articulate enough to explain where NS2 is just completely missing the point.
Better late, than never.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Good post, even if it might hurt some people.
Aliens - slightly faster on creep, slight regen on creep even in combat, add FOCUS.
lerk - add shotty spikes, keep bite, but make it more like skulk bite, make spores ranged blast, shrink size
fade - add acid rocket, get rid of shadowstep, make blink good again, make the fade feel like a ###### badass like it should be
skulk - shrink size, add bhop if possible
Alien commander - why is everything passive/non direct (NOT FUN)? Let him do fun stuff like healing up his guys, making them bigger/faster etc.
LET aliens pick any # of upgrades they want, no limits, but max +1 per hive.
And oh yeah, the thing that will make or break the game on release day, people with remotely modern rigs need to have maxed fps at all times.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can we also add back in the HMG for good measure? I would love to see the marines get a mid-level tech tier again.
<!--quoteo(post=1989347:date=Oct 11 2012, 04:55 AM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Oct 11 2012, 04:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989347"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As it stands, where are balance changes decided upon? Essentially, the job is Charlie's alone. This is bad, not only because he is pretty terrible at the game (no offence!), but more fundamentally, because he is one man. Granted, he is a man who reads the depressing forums where good criticism is drowned out by people who completely violate logic, experience and intuition but this is clearly not nearly enough. The other filter he as it his disposal is also highly contentious; a "bugtesting" team that comprises inexperienced, fanboyish but good-natured individuals with ill-conceived notions of what balance even is. These "bugtesters", who are high up in the feedback chain (I know because I was one), are barely listened to themselves. I guess its a mixed blessing that Charlie ignores that source too because the kinds of things many of them say are shocking.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--coloro:#FFC0CB--><span style="color:#FFC0CB"><!--/coloro-->Well said. I have a lot of love and respect for all of UWE, the playtesters, and other volunteers. But balance is something that requires input from the competitive community. It is certainly not a job for any one person.
If NS2 became a popular eSport, the game's sales would surge. It definitely has potential, but Charlie needs to take a good look at the competitive forum and actively discuss balance with the community's more experienced players.
Don't miss this incredible opportunity, Flayra. You've been open with us throughout development and that's great, but you <i>CANNOT</i> balance the game solo.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Unkind, I've said it before and I'll say it again, this game is not NS1. Things like acid rocket, bhop and shotgun spikes are not going to make it into NS2. Why? Because NS2 is not NS1.
<!--quoteo(post=1989433:date=Oct 10 2012, 06:44 PM:name=ChickenOfWar)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ChickenOfWar @ Oct 10 2012, 06:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989433"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Unkind, I've said it before and I'll say it again, this game is not NS1. Things like acid rocket, bhop and shotgun spikes are not going to make it into NS2. Why? Because NS2 is not NS1.
Try coming up with original ideas instead.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Im all for original ideas man, the only thing i really care about (because i still enjoy the game even now) is having high fps the entire time with my expensive ass computer lol. Was just tossing stuff out there. Relax. lol
<!--quoteo(post=1989347:date=Oct 10 2012, 01:55 PM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Oct 10 2012, 01:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989347"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->While it's a difficult vehicle to get a grips with, it's definitely one that should be a priority. It's actually pretty scandalous that a game that calls itself competitive has done almost nothing to incorporate the views of the competitive community in a serious and organised way. It's hard to think of a single good game that hasn't leant heavily on the knowledge and experience that players with hundreds/thousands of hours under their belt and are at the top of the game. Many games actively recruit these kinds of people and view them as incredibly useful assets in the development process - it's an abomination that NS2, a complicated hybrid rts/fps melee/ranged, is not doing something similar.
The truth is bleak. UWE has barely an ounce of gaming credibility. Nobody in the office is anywhere near the kind of level that would be acceptable for making informed decisions about competitive play. Before people bite me for this one, I should like to remind people that NS1 had, comparatively, a very strong team of highly intelligent individuals who understood the game and were given license to effect changes. NS2, on the other hand, is completely devoid of a qualified balance team with actual decision making power (I don't mean in absolute terms but it would be wise to defer to a credible team's wisdom).
As it stands, where are balance changes decided upon? Essentially, the job is Charlie's alone. This is bad, not only because he is pretty terrible at the game (no offence!), but more fundamentally, because he is one man. Granted, he is a man who reads the depressing forums where good criticism is drowned out by people who completely violate logic, experience and intuition but this is clearly not nearly enough. The other filter he as it his disposal is also highly contentious; a "bugtesting" team that comprises inexperienced, fanboyish but good-natured individuals with ill-conceived notions of what balance even is. These "bugtesters", who are high up in the feedback chain (I know because I was one), are barely listened to themselves. I guess its a mixed blessing that Charlie ignores that source too because the kinds of things many of them say are shocking.
Even the competitive seen is being caked in inexperience. We have casters, whom I respect for their enthusiasm and commitment, consistently and tragically missing vital components of any game and making less clued-up spectators believe that fundamental problems with the game are actually just <i>really exciting super awesome flashpoints!</i>. Charlie watched the tournament recently and I was mortified at some of the conclusions he drew and the priorities he had for NS2. Perhaps this wouldn't have happened quite so starkly if there had been someone close to Day9's calibre - we can only hope one turns up. It's absolutely imperative that we need tap into the pool of those serious and dedicated min/maxers who are articulate enough to explain where NS2 is just completely missing the point.
Better late, than never.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well written. And I agree that Charlie simply lacks the gameplay experience to make many of his creative ideas work. It really shows from the current state of the game and how he talks about the game. But with small tweaks the game could improve so much before release, its all about using the information and experience he has access to.
And to all past and future ad hominem against what has been said, atleast have the decency to make your own self look credible.
<!--quoteo(post=1989428:date=Oct 11 2012, 09:38 AM:name=Kallistrate)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kallistrate @ Oct 11 2012, 09:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989428"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--coloro:#FFC0CB--><span style="color:#FFC0CB"><!--/coloro-->Well said. I have a lot of love and respect for all of UWE, the playtesters, and Don't miss this incredible opportunity, Flayra. You've been open with us throughout development and that's great, but you <i>CANNOT</i> balance the game solo.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't mean to be a jaded, whiny pessimist (although i am quick becoming one), but i seriously doubt Flayra will read this topic and see a need to do this.
Alas, history is a good indicator on this issue although i hope i'm proved wrong (do prove me wrong UWE!). There really is a wealth of good and ready information out there, especially in the EU community.
<!--quoteo(post=1989434:date=Oct 10 2012, 06:47 PM:name=Daphisto)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Daphisto @ Oct 10 2012, 06:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989434"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And so it begins!
:)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It had already started before, UWE has stated countless times that these things will never be in NS2.
One can be ten times more constructive by putting some thought into movement mechanics that could be implemented for the skulks (such as someone elses idea to add an unreal tourny type aerial dodge by double tapping a, d or s) or my idea to add a stacking poison effect to lerk spikes to turn the lerk into an interesting DoT based lifeform rather than just a flying skulk with a shotgun that some people seem okay with.
MouseThe Lighter Side of PessimismJoin Date: 2002-03-02Member: 263Members, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
edited October 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1989423:date=Oct 11 2012, 08:34 AM:name=Daphisto)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Daphisto @ Oct 11 2012, 08:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989423"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Can't UWE just pull out from the forums the right people that they need to help co-design the game and get to work developing what is probably less than 15 steps away from being a killer game?
Dub this team the design consultation team and magic will happen. I can say this with some degree of certainty because I have seen tons of amazing feedback from people on the forums that analyze NS2 gameplay mechanics to degrees I can't even imagine, yet their great ideas are left on the floor. Some of these guys could probably be game designers for triple-A multi-million dollar titles.
So take like two or three of these dudes, sit them down with Charlie for a few hours (skype chat?) and let them tell him what's going on with this game and what is stopping it from being a game that has a player lifespan of 2 weeks to a player lifespan of 2+ years.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> One thing with designing a game (I'm a game designer) from the ground up, particularly when you've been at it for years, is that it's very easy to convince yourself that you know best. This isn't necessarily a thought born of arrogance, but more often one born of pragmatic optimism. While everyone else has their opinions and ideas for what should be done (look at I&S), you can't please everyone; nor can you follow everyone's advice. Design by committee often goes poorly. Unless you're a close group in regular contact that shares a coherent view on the philosophy and the goals of the game, you're all going to have slightly different ideas on what the game's ideal state is and slightly different motivations for balance changes. Games designed by committee often try to please everyone and stumble as a result.
As design lead/creative director on a project you have two realistic options: 1) Watch how the game changes as it develops and follow your gut. You have the most coherent vision of what the game should be and only you can bring it to fruition. Now, this isn't as nonsensical as it sounds. Think of the various blockbuster indie games of the past few years. Typically the development of these games is led by "super-star" designer/programmers who have previous experience within the games industry. During development they make the vast majority of the decisions on their own with little outside input.. and it works for them.
2) Gather a handful of people around you that you can trust without question. Be confident that if you were hit by a bus, they would be able to pick up development where you left off and make the exact same game you would have. Make sure they understand and agree with the motivations behind every notable change that is made. Listen to them. Rely on their criticisms and opinions to help guide your hand.
This second option is hard. Finding people you can trust with designing your baby is hard. Typically the process of a game's design falls somewhere between the two options; with a committee. Typically, games aren't that great.
Now, I have not seen inside UWE, I have no real idea how Charlie and the team go about development. But I doubt that Charlie not jumping every time the I&S forum or the competitive scene asks him to say "apple" is the result of him arrogantly dismissing any opinion that isn't his own. Instead I'd guess that it's merely an unfortunate reality of pragmatic development undertaken with an optimistic "we'll get it right soon".
<!--quoteo(post=1989454:date=Oct 10 2012, 04:29 PM:name=Mouse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mouse @ Oct 10 2012, 04:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989454"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2) Gather a handful of people around you that you can trust without question. Be confident that if you were hit by a bus, they would be able to pick up development where you left off and make the exact same game you would have. Make sure they understand and agree with the motivations behind every notable change that is made. Listen to them. Rely on their criticisms and opinions to help guide your hand.
This second option is hard. Finding people you can trust with designing your baby is hard. Typically the process of a game's design falls somewhere between the two options; with a committee. Typically, games aren't that great.
Now, I have not seen inside UWE, I have no real idea how Charlie and the team go about development. But I doubt that Charlie not jumping every time the I&S forum or the competitive scene asks him to say "apple" is the result of him arrogantly dismissing any opinion that isn't his own. Instead I'd guess that it's merely an unfortunate reality of pragmatic development undertaken with an optimistic "we'll get it right soon".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah. Ideally there's layers of feedback being drawn. You ideally have the closest group who are very well trusted and vetted for their abilities and knowledge and trust. But small groups can have group-think, so you have layers out to people who objectively yell from the outside. And lastly you have the aggregate playerbase smashing their heads against the game and revealing flaws via stats.
I think several of the people on this forum have thought long and hard on these issues, just as the dev team has, and hopefully they have the right mechanisms in place to get feedback and whatnot. I know for a fact several members of the dev and lead testing groups frequent these forums to get a finger on the pulse of things, and hopefully they are getting the feedback they require.
I also know how easy groupthink can form and previous poor decisions can be invested into making them hard to let go.
<span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'><!--quoteo(post=1989454:date=Oct 10 2012, 04:29 PM:name=Mouse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mouse @ Oct 10 2012, 04:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989454"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->One thing with designing a game (I'm a game designer) from the ground up, particularly when you've been at it for years, is that it's very easy to convince yourself that you know best. This isn't necessarily a thought born of arrogance, but more often one born of pragmatic optimism. While everyone else has their opinions and ideas for what should be done (look at I&S), you can't please everyone; nor can you follow everyone's advice. Design by committee often goes poorly. Unless you're a close group in regular contact that shares a coherent view on the philosophy and the goals of the game, you're all going to have slightly different ideas on what the game's ideal state is and slightly different motivations for balance changes. Games designed by committee often try to please everyone and stumble as a result.
As design lead/creative director on a project you have two realistic options: 1) Watch how the game changes as it develops and follow your gut. You have the most coherent vision of what the game should be and only you can bring it to fruition. Now, this isn't as nonsensical as it sounds. Think of the various blockbuster indie games of the past few years. Typically the development of these games is led by "super-star" designer/programmers who have previous experience within the games industry. During development they make the vast majority of the decisions on their own with little outside input.. and it works for them.
2) Gather a handful of people around you that you can trust without question. Be confident that if you were hit by a bus, they would be able to pick up development where you left off and make the exact same game you would have. Make sure they understand and agree with the motivations behind every notable change that is made. Listen to them. Rely on their criticisms and opinions to help guide your hand.
This second option is hard. Finding people you can trust with designing your baby is hard. Typically the process of a game's design falls somewhere between the two options; with a committee. Typically, games aren't that great.
Now, I have not seen inside UWE, I have no real idea how Charlie and the team go about development. But I doubt that Charlie not jumping every time the I&S forum or the competitive scene asks him to say "apple" is the result of him arrogantly dismissing any opinion that isn't his own. Instead I'd guess that it's merely an unfortunate reality of pragmatic development undertaken with an optimistic "we'll get it right soon".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> </span> Thank you for putting it eloquently. Key word here is "opinion"; go to any popular game considered competitive, and watch how sections of players froth at the mouth every time a change is introduced. You simply can't rely on the general public (pro status or not) for certain matters. Feedback is nice, but that's all it should be, feedback and nothing more.
Besides, this game hasn't even been released yet for Pete's sake, balancing + new features will take time.
<!--quoteo(post=1989454:date=Oct 10 2012, 07:29 PM:name=Mouse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mouse @ Oct 10 2012, 07:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989454"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Instead I'd guess that it's merely an unfortunate reality of pragmatic development undertaken with an optimistic "we'll get it right soon".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what you're saying is.... all hope is lost? ;)
I do kind of feel the same way that you describe. Sort of like they are throwing putty at a wall and seeing what sticks, rather than knowing what they want to do and executing it. Or maybe a combination of the two.
Either way, it seems like there are a lot of people that feel this way of designing isn't working well and the people want change because they love the idea of NS2. :)
<!--quoteo(post=1989454:date=Oct 10 2012, 06:29 PM:name=Mouse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mouse @ Oct 10 2012, 06:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989454"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->One thing with designing a game (I'm a game designer) from the ground up, particularly when you've been at it for years, is that it's very easy to convince yourself that you know best. This isn't necessarily a thought born of arrogance, but more often one born of pragmatic optimism. While everyone else has their opinions and ideas for what should be done (look at I&S), you can't please everyone; nor can you follow everyone's advice. Design by committee often goes poorly. Unless you're a close group in regular contact that shares a coherent view on the philosophy and the goals of the game, you're all going to have slightly different ideas on what the game's ideal state is and slightly different motivations for balance changes. Games designed by committee often try to please everyone and stumble as a result.
As design lead/creative director on a project you have two realistic options: 1) Watch how the game changes as it develops and follow your gut. You have the most coherent vision of what the game should be and only you can bring it to fruition. Now, this isn't as nonsensical as it sounds. Think of the various blockbuster indie games of the past few years. Typically the development of these games is led by "super-star" designer/programmers who have previous experience within the games industry. During development they make the vast majority of the decisions on their own with little outside input.. and it works for them.
2) Gather a handful of people around you that you can trust without question. Be confident that if you were hit by a bus, they would be able to pick up development where you left off and make the exact same game you would have. Make sure they understand and agree with the motivations behind every notable change that is made. Listen to them. Rely on their criticisms and opinions to help guide your hand.
This second option is hard. Finding people you can trust with designing your baby is hard. Typically the process of a game's design falls somewhere between the two options; with a committee. Typically, games aren't that great.
Now, I have not seen inside UWE, I have no real idea how Charlie and the team go about development. But I doubt that Charlie not jumping every time the I&S forum or the competitive scene asks him to say "apple" is the result of him arrogantly dismissing any opinion that isn't his own. Instead I'd guess that it's merely an unfortunate reality of pragmatic development undertaken with an optimistic "we'll get it right soon".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Very good writeup and very good points made.
I do think however these rules are not set in stone. People do have different skillsets and some people simply work better in groups. I do think many of Charlies strengths comes from his creativity, if he would find someone with the gameplay experience to channel it with him he could probably make his ideas fit with quality game mechanics. It would have to be someone he trust and fit closely into the point 2 in your description. It's doubtful you will be able to find such a person on the forums or in the community.
Even so its never an excuse to ignore pool of information and experience in front of you. I have seen so many company managers make such horrendous decisions that could have been avoided by simply taking 10 minutes speaking with the people involved in the process. Even though you go your own way its always a good idea to get all the quality feedback possible. In the end its your decision anyway to follow it or not. Understandably it can be hard to find the right people that are able to give this feedback on random gaming forums. I'm sure that its possible to create a process that could channel it through in a very simple and nice manner. But creating that process would probably take some time.
But this might be a subject that should not be discussed on the forums.
ZeikkoJoin Date: 2007-12-16Member: 63179Members, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester
I am not sure if i should write this post or not. Mostly because I don't think it will serve any purpose and just waste a lot of my time. But now that I think of it, that's how i feel about most of things i've done regarding to NS2 recently.
Now that the game is almost ready to be released i really want to congratulate Charlie, Cory, Max and whole UWE for accomplishing to build a game with original IP, ground breaking gameplay ideas, great graphics and own engine with such a small team. I also hope the sales have been, are and will be great and you guys can continue developing NS2 and also other games in the future.
I think that NS2 has some great ideas mostly taken from NS, also the original IP is pretty great. The basic idea of FPS-RTS hybrid, mixed with melee-ranged combat is just great. But so many details have been wrong in the game for a long time and very little or no improvement has happened in the beta.
I could compile a long list of all the things related to the design and implementation of the game that are bad or completely broken. I have done this many times during the beta and emailed it to UWE and also posted it to the forums couple of times hoping that something would be done for the issues that ruin the gameplay experience every day. I have always received a response from UWE but usually they have disagreed with most of my points or have been undecided about them thus no changes to the game have been made. Couple of things have also changed for better over a long period of time and after multiple rounds of feedback for example removing energy from buildings and making alien abilities individual researches.
Disagreeing or ignoring my feedback is not really a big thing since i'm just one player among thousands but the same problems are highlighted in many forum threads and gamecasts over a long period of time. It has made me to believe that there's something wrong with the feedback loop of the game. I'm a software developer myself and one of the most important things i have learnt in the past years is to focus on creating a working feedback loop where the user of the software can give feedback efficiently and accurately and I can fix all the broken stuff as efficiantly as possible. Creating a good feedback loop sounds simple but there are many issues related to the subject. It just feels there's a huge amount of great feedback given to the developers by many skilled and intelligent individuals in the community but most of it is ignored. While the development of NS2 and the work of UWE seems very open i think it's quite the opposite. Comparing the public feedback loop of NS2 to some other indie games or even big titles like SC2 i'm convinced that many other companies are doing much better job at using the feedback given to improve the game.
Nice improvements have happened on the interface and overall approachability of the game. You can see that the small developer team has focused on these things recently. However the core gameplay mechanics like movement and tech trees feel still very broken. The game looks great and it's fun for quite some time on public, but once one gets into it and realizes what's happening in the game one is easily disappointed because the seemingly deep game is actually very shallow because most of the mechanics don't work and are so imbalanced that only inexperienced players use them.
I have hoped this to change and get better for the last year. I've been investing a huge amounts of time to the game by playing, casting, modding, leading a competitive team in the hope that it will all pay off once the game gets better and reaches it's full potential (which is huge). But during the last months i've really started to lose my hope as the release date is closing.
The game mechanics just haven't improved in a pace i was hoping. Maybe i have been too optimistic and haven't realized how much work there is to make the game actually work technically so that it can be even released. The recent competitive events have given more hope as I thought they would force UWE to focus on the design and mechanics of the game. Now after couple of events very little has happened and many things have actually gone worse. Also reading and listening some recent statements by UWE regarding some gameplay mechanics and UWE's relationship with the whole competitive gaming are making me to think twice to spend any more time with the game.
As I said earlier i think the game is very shallow and stale currently. It has very lot of potential to be a great game with a lot of replayability and competitive potential, but it has neither really. The only hope I have is that after releasing the game UWE will take a whole different view how to improve the game design, core mechanics, balance and get the feedback loop working. If that doesn't happen soon I don't think the game will reach the potential it has and I think I will find a new game to play competitively or a totally new hobby.
In my experience on Australian pub servers, Aliens win at least 70-80% of the time and I feel that Aliens have the advantage in certain areas. I think the basis of the 'balance issues' come from experience and fps/rts history. I myself come from BF3 (as mentioned earlier) and I feel I suck as marines, mainly because the interactions with the enemy is so different along with the environment, tight hallways with numerous obstacles. AIM is an issue! I feel as thought there needs to be a tutorial to introduce those standard fps players to NS2 or maybe a few more tips. such as "keep your distance from enemy, stay in groups, cover your mans feet, conserve your ammo(dont spam), check map, listen. Mainly in early and late game I feel aliens have the advantage: 1. quickly form groups without need for commander assistance. 2. speed. mobility and agility. Jumping , using walls, retreating then celerity then leap.. 3. onos sprint ? (maybe another issue altogether) fade blink, lerk... 4. aliens get close to your =gg? 5. marines cant shoot through each other harder.
With marines I feel that every 'push' or advance is more risky than an alien push.
I feel like I have soo much more to say however it probably doesn't matter, each build will change the argument? plus maybe us aussies have better alien commanders that marines, plus this is on an 18 player server probs heaps difference on 24 player server. larger marine groups would probably be stronger.
edit: but i still love the game! keep it up! cant wait for release :)
Comments
I would suggest to write a serious letter composed by experienced players (fanatic, gorgeous, rantalogy, locklear etc. , maybe even the team captain from every clan). It is important that we make clear that the whole competetive community stands behind this idea so we could digitally 'sign' it by the clans/teams and players. Maybe someone can ask few of those experienced players to assemble in voice chat and begin the work. I think it is worth a try.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a lot of work and requires very dedicated people that can stay on topic for 2-3 hours. I had this kind of thing running earlier in the beta and it was clear pretty quickly that it works best with a small group of players that can keep a healthy discussion going. However you can set it up in a way where anyone can contribute ideas and post the end results for everyone to see.
We managed to get a lot of well thought and detailed ideas at the time written down (about 4-5 focused articles with 2-5 different solutions each) that ended up being completely ignored. This only made it frustrating for the players who had dedicated over 100 hours of work on this and were not give any feedback back.
Even so there is plenty of players willing to participate in a focus group but I think it will only be effective if it will be running with the developers. The group can bounce ideas for a week on a topic that the devs think is important (or give feedback that might need fixing) and give them afterwards with a well written doc with all the information. It could also be a simple teamspeak chat where the topics are given on the day before (so the players can think them over before talking about them).
Simply put, the only way for this kind of group to be effective is for the dev to reach out, select the right people and work with them.
The truth is bleak. UWE has barely an ounce of gaming credibility. Nobody in the office is anywhere near the kind of level that would be acceptable for making informed decisions about competitive play. Before people bite me for this one, I should like to remind people that NS1 had, comparatively, a very strong team of highly intelligent individuals who understood the game and were given license to effect changes. NS2, on the other hand, is completely devoid of a qualified balance team with actual decision making power (I don't mean in absolute terms but it would be wise to defer to a credible team's wisdom).
As it stands, where are balance changes decided upon? Essentially, the job is Charlie's alone. This is bad, not only because he is pretty terrible at the game (no offence!), but more fundamentally, because he is one man. Granted, he is a man who reads the depressing forums where good criticism is drowned out by people who completely violate logic, experience and intuition but this is clearly not nearly enough. The other filter he as it his disposal is also highly contentious; a "bugtesting" team that comprises inexperienced, fanboyish but good-natured individuals with ill-conceived notions of what balance even is. These "bugtesters", who are high up in the feedback chain (I know because I was one), are barely listened to themselves. I guess its a mixed blessing that Charlie ignores that source too because the kinds of things many of them say are shocking.
Even the competitive seen is being caked in inexperience. We have casters, whom I respect for their enthusiasm and commitment, consistently and tragically missing vital components of any game and making less clued-up spectators believe that fundamental problems with the game are actually just <i>really exciting super awesome flashpoints!</i>. Charlie watched the tournament recently and I was mortified at some of the conclusions he drew and the priorities he had for NS2. Perhaps this wouldn't have happened quite so starkly if there had been someone close to Day9's calibre - we can only hope one turns up. It's absolutely imperative that we need tap into the pool of those serious and dedicated min/maxers who are articulate enough to explain where NS2 is just completely missing the point.
Better late, than never.
It's so great that we have community members like yourself. Thankfully we have amazingly credible posters like you pointing out all these terrible flaws being made by UWE.
Wait a second let me catch my breath, I can't stop laughing.
Next time you write a block of text, try to increase your own credibility first. You are seeing a game being developed more openly than any other out there. It's also an EXTREMELY complicated game to balance, if you think you can do a better job I can't help but laugh.
I would say he is doing a great job doing this and it is good to see.
I actually applaud you for looking like the most patronizing, competitive gamer guy there is. Nice job. Maybe the handful of folks pouring their sweat and blood into this gem should commit ritualistic seppuku after caring so deeply about your post.
id buy that for a dollar!
Community members like myself have organised leagues, played for their country, lead clans to league champions, helped farm teams in their spare time, casted games, written articles, moderated forums, hosted servers, given copious amounts of feedback and played the franchise for almost a decade. Stop making me waste my time justifying why i'm credible, especially when i'm not even arguing that I am (even though I am). I can think of far better equipped people than myself with far more motivation who UWE would do well to exploit as the assets they are.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would say he is doing a great job doing this and it is good to see.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think he's doing a great job as one man but the crux of my frustration is that it doesn't need to be a one man job. There is a wealth of good information to be plucked if only they knew where and how to pluck it. Charlie has many strengths, but gaming experience is not one of them.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Frap)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Frap)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I actually applaud you for looking like the most patronizing, competitive gamer guy there is.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry I come across as patronising but it's not from a place of elitism per se, rather from a position where I have watched development for years making what I, and many others, perceive to be mistakes that could be easily avoided. I'm not asking for anyone's validation - I'm just asking that we validate those from the community who deserve it and those who would be able to offer genuine and experienced insight into this game. It's an immensely complicated one after all and I shouldn't be lambasted for saying that there are people who could help or that I think the process could be improved.
The truth is bleak. UWE has barely an ounce of gaming credibility. Nobody in the office is anywhere near the kind of level that would be acceptable for making informed decisions about competitive play. Before people bite me for this one, I should like to remind people that NS1 had, comparatively, a very strong team of highly intelligent individuals who understood the game and were given license to effect changes. NS2, on the other hand, is completely devoid of a qualified balance team with actual decision making power (I don't mean in absolute terms but it would be wise to defer to a credible team's wisdom).
As it stands, where are balance changes decided upon? Essentially, the job is Charlie's alone. This is bad, not only because he is pretty terrible at the game (no offence!), but more fundamentally, because he is one man. Granted, he is a man who reads the depressing forums where good criticism is drowned out by people who completely violate logic, experience and intuition but this is clearly not nearly enough. The other filter he as it his disposal is also highly contentious; a "bugtesting" team that comprises inexperienced, fanboyish but good-natured individuals with ill-conceived notions of what balance even is. These "bugtesters", who are high up in the feedback chain (I know because I was one), are barely listened to themselves. I guess its a mixed blessing that Charlie ignores that source too because the kinds of things many of them say are shocking.
Even the competitive seen is being caked in inexperience. We have casters, whom I respect for their enthusiasm and commitment, consistently and tragically missing vital components of any game and making less clued-up spectators believe that fundamental problems with the game are actually just <i>really exciting super awesome flashpoints!</i>. Charlie watched the tournament recently and I was mortified at some of the conclusions he drew and the priorities he had for NS2. Perhaps this wouldn't have happened quite so starkly if there had been someone close to Day9's calibre - we can only hope one turns up. It's absolutely imperative that we need tap into the pool of those serious and dedicated min/maxers who are articulate enough to explain where NS2 is just completely missing the point.
Better late, than never.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
+1
Its pretty bad calling the game an e-sport and dont use the fact that this community has extremly dedicated competative players who just wants to help the game get balanced fast.
Think SC2 was/is balanced without active competative feedback?
But during this time I could dominate as skulk, sneak up behind ppl/drop off ceilings and own like 2-3 of them, it was really fun.
This build the skulk is a total piece of ###### because EVERYBODY has more then 5 fps and they decided to limit the upgrades (can't have regen and cara at the same time? wtf)
The lerk lol, the shotgun spikes were really fun to use, it used to be my favorite unit. The stupid poison bite thing is okay but having to get that close kinda sucks.
in ns1 it was hard to hit skulks because of bhopping, they were faster, they could 1-2 shot you, and they were smaller (better in every single way).
also why is acid rocket not in the game? What is so bad about fades dominating, people overreacted and WAY overnerfed the fade (like blizzard style).
My solutions:
Aliens - slightly faster on creep, slight regen on creep even in combat, add FOCUS.
lerk - add shotty spikes, keep bite, but make it more like skulk bite, make spores ranged blast, shrink size
fade - add acid rocket, get rid of shadowstep, make blink good again, make the fade feel like a ###### badass like it should be
skulk - shrink size, add bhop if possible
Alien commander - why is everything passive/non direct (NOT FUN)? Let him do fun stuff like healing up his guys, making them bigger/faster etc.
LET aliens pick any # of upgrades they want, no limits, but max +1 per hive.
And oh yeah, the thing that will make or break the game on release day, people with remotely modern rigs need to have maxed fps at all times.
*points at current sentry gun implementation* ... *pauses* ... it all makes sense now! :)
The truth is bleak. UWE has barely an ounce of gaming credibility. Nobody in the office is anywhere near the kind of level that would be acceptable for making informed decisions about competitive play. Before people bite me for this one, I should like to remind people that NS1 had, comparatively, a very strong team of highly intelligent individuals who understood the game and were given license to effect changes. NS2, on the other hand, is completely devoid of a qualified balance team with actual decision making power (I don't mean in absolute terms but it would be wise to defer to a credible team's wisdom).
As it stands, where are balance changes decided upon? Essentially, the job is Charlie's alone. This is bad, not only because he is pretty terrible at the game (no offence!), but more fundamentally, because he is one man. Granted, he is a man who reads the depressing forums where good criticism is drowned out by people who completely violate logic, experience and intuition but this is clearly not nearly enough. The other filter he as it his disposal is also highly contentious; a "bugtesting" team that comprises inexperienced, fanboyish but good-natured individuals with ill-conceived notions of what balance even is. These "bugtesters", who are high up in the feedback chain (I know because I was one), are barely listened to themselves. I guess its a mixed blessing that Charlie ignores that source too because the kinds of things many of them say are shocking.
Even the competitive seen is being caked in inexperience. We have casters, whom I respect for their enthusiasm and commitment, consistently and tragically missing vital components of any game and making less clued-up spectators believe that fundamental problems with the game are actually just <i>really exciting super awesome flashpoints!</i>. Charlie watched the tournament recently and I was mortified at some of the conclusions he drew and the priorities he had for NS2. Perhaps this wouldn't have happened quite so starkly if there had been someone close to Day9's calibre - we can only hope one turns up. It's absolutely imperative that we need tap into the pool of those serious and dedicated min/maxers who are articulate enough to explain where NS2 is just completely missing the point.
Better late, than never.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
+2
THE TRUTH, IT BURNS.
Something less necessary for basic balance but that should be done for gameplay purposes, armories should not weld. It vastly reduces the importance of teamwork/communication/player welding which was a key component of good ns1. The game can play with armory welding, I just don't see any positive purpose other than dumbing down the gameplay though.
THE TRUTH, IT BURNS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can't UWE just pull out from the forums the right people that they need to help co-design the game and get to work developing what is probably less than 15 steps away from being a killer game?
Dub this team the design consultation team and magic will happen. I can say this with some degree of certainty because I have seen tons of amazing feedback from people on the forums that analyze NS2 gameplay mechanics to degrees I can't even imagine, yet their great ideas are left on the floor. Some of these guys could probably be game designers for triple-A multi-million dollar titles.
So take like two or three of these dudes, sit them down with Charlie for a few hours (skype chat?) and let them tell him what's going on with this game and what is stopping it from being a game that has a player lifespan of 2 weeks to a player lifespan of 2+ years.
Right now, I kind of have the same feeling about NS2 that I had after playing Quake Wars. It had a great idea behind it, but the end result always seemed like if it had just 4 or 5 major tweaks to the mechanics, it could have been amazing.
The truth is bleak. UWE has barely an ounce of gaming credibility. Nobody in the office is anywhere near the kind of level that would be acceptable for making informed decisions about competitive play. Before people bite me for this one, I should like to remind people that NS1 had, comparatively, a very strong team of highly intelligent individuals who understood the game and were given license to effect changes. NS2, on the other hand, is completely devoid of a qualified balance team with actual decision making power (I don't mean in absolute terms but it would be wise to defer to a credible team's wisdom).
As it stands, where are balance changes decided upon? Essentially, the job is Charlie's alone. This is bad, not only because he is pretty terrible at the game (no offence!), but more fundamentally, because he is one man. Granted, he is a man who reads the depressing forums where good criticism is drowned out by people who completely violate logic, experience and intuition but this is clearly not nearly enough. The other filter he as it his disposal is also highly contentious; a "bugtesting" team that comprises inexperienced, fanboyish but good-natured individuals with ill-conceived notions of what balance even is. These "bugtesters", who are high up in the feedback chain (I know because I was one), are barely listened to themselves. I guess its a mixed blessing that Charlie ignores that source too because the kinds of things many of them say are shocking.
Even the competitive seen is being caked in inexperience. We have casters, whom I respect for their enthusiasm and commitment, consistently and tragically missing vital components of any game and making less clued-up spectators believe that fundamental problems with the game are actually just <i>really exciting super awesome flashpoints!</i>. Charlie watched the tournament recently and I was mortified at some of the conclusions he drew and the priorities he had for NS2. Perhaps this wouldn't have happened quite so starkly if there had been someone close to Day9's calibre - we can only hope one turns up. It's absolutely imperative that we need tap into the pool of those serious and dedicated min/maxers who are articulate enough to explain where NS2 is just completely missing the point.
Better late, than never.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good post, even if it might hurt some people.
Aliens - slightly faster on creep, slight regen on creep even in combat, add FOCUS.
lerk - add shotty spikes, keep bite, but make it more like skulk bite, make spores ranged blast, shrink size
fade - add acid rocket, get rid of shadowstep, make blink good again, make the fade feel like a ###### badass like it should be
skulk - shrink size, add bhop if possible
Alien commander - why is everything passive/non direct (NOT FUN)? Let him do fun stuff like healing up his guys, making them bigger/faster etc.
LET aliens pick any # of upgrades they want, no limits, but max +1 per hive.
And oh yeah, the thing that will make or break the game on release day, people with remotely modern rigs need to have maxed fps at all times.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can we also add back in the HMG for good measure? I would love to see the marines get a mid-level tech tier again.
<!--coloro:#FFC0CB--><span style="color:#FFC0CB"><!--/coloro-->Well said. I have a lot of love and respect for all of UWE, the playtesters, and other volunteers. But balance is something that requires input from the competitive community. It is certainly not a job for any one person.
If NS2 became a popular eSport, the game's sales would surge. It definitely has potential, but Charlie needs to take a good look at the competitive forum and actively discuss balance with the community's more experienced players.
Don't miss this incredible opportunity, Flayra. You've been open with us throughout development and that's great, but you <i>CANNOT</i> balance the game solo.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Try coming up with original ideas instead.
Try coming up with original ideas instead.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And so it begins!
:)
The truth is bleak. UWE has barely an ounce of gaming credibility. Nobody in the office is anywhere near the kind of level that would be acceptable for making informed decisions about competitive play. Before people bite me for this one, I should like to remind people that NS1 had, comparatively, a very strong team of highly intelligent individuals who understood the game and were given license to effect changes. NS2, on the other hand, is completely devoid of a qualified balance team with actual decision making power (I don't mean in absolute terms but it would be wise to defer to a credible team's wisdom).
As it stands, where are balance changes decided upon? Essentially, the job is Charlie's alone. This is bad, not only because he is pretty terrible at the game (no offence!), but more fundamentally, because he is one man. Granted, he is a man who reads the depressing forums where good criticism is drowned out by people who completely violate logic, experience and intuition but this is clearly not nearly enough. The other filter he as it his disposal is also highly contentious; a "bugtesting" team that comprises inexperienced, fanboyish but good-natured individuals with ill-conceived notions of what balance even is. These "bugtesters", who are high up in the feedback chain (I know because I was one), are barely listened to themselves. I guess its a mixed blessing that Charlie ignores that source too because the kinds of things many of them say are shocking.
Even the competitive seen is being caked in inexperience. We have casters, whom I respect for their enthusiasm and commitment, consistently and tragically missing vital components of any game and making less clued-up spectators believe that fundamental problems with the game are actually just <i>really exciting super awesome flashpoints!</i>. Charlie watched the tournament recently and I was mortified at some of the conclusions he drew and the priorities he had for NS2. Perhaps this wouldn't have happened quite so starkly if there had been someone close to Day9's calibre - we can only hope one turns up. It's absolutely imperative that we need tap into the pool of those serious and dedicated min/maxers who are articulate enough to explain where NS2 is just completely missing the point.
Better late, than never.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well written.
And I agree that Charlie simply lacks the gameplay experience to make many of his creative ideas work. It really shows from the current state of the game and how he talks about the game.
But with small tweaks the game could improve so much before release, its all about using the information and experience he has access to.
+1
And to all past and future ad hominem against what has been said, atleast have the decency to make your own self look credible.
<!--quoteo(post=1989428:date=Oct 11 2012, 09:38 AM:name=Kallistrate)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kallistrate @ Oct 11 2012, 09:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989428"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--coloro:#FFC0CB--><span style="color:#FFC0CB"><!--/coloro-->Well said. I have a lot of love and respect for all of UWE, the playtesters, and
Don't miss this incredible opportunity, Flayra. You've been open with us throughout development and that's great, but you <i>CANNOT</i> balance the game solo.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't mean to be a jaded, whiny pessimist (although i am quick becoming one), but i seriously doubt Flayra will read this topic and see a need to do this.
Alas, history is a good indicator on this issue although i hope i'm proved wrong (do prove me wrong UWE!). There really is a wealth of good and ready information out there, especially in the EU community.
:)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It had already started before, UWE has stated countless times that these things will never be in NS2.
One can be ten times more constructive by putting some thought into movement mechanics that could be implemented for the skulks (such as someone elses idea to add an unreal tourny type aerial dodge by double tapping a, d or s) or my idea to add a stacking poison effect to lerk spikes to turn the lerk into an interesting DoT based lifeform rather than just a flying skulk with a shotgun that some people seem okay with.
Dub this team the design consultation team and magic will happen. I can say this with some degree of certainty because I have seen tons of amazing feedback from people on the forums that analyze NS2 gameplay mechanics to degrees I can't even imagine, yet their great ideas are left on the floor. Some of these guys could probably be game designers for triple-A multi-million dollar titles.
So take like two or three of these dudes, sit them down with Charlie for a few hours (skype chat?) and let them tell him what's going on with this game and what is stopping it from being a game that has a player lifespan of 2 weeks to a player lifespan of 2+ years.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One thing with designing a game (I'm a game designer) from the ground up, particularly when you've been at it for years, is that it's very easy to convince yourself that you know best. This isn't necessarily a thought born of arrogance, but more often one born of pragmatic optimism. While everyone else has their opinions and ideas for what should be done (look at I&S), you can't please everyone; nor can you follow everyone's advice. Design by committee often goes poorly. Unless you're a close group in regular contact that shares a coherent view on the philosophy and the goals of the game, you're all going to have slightly different ideas on what the game's ideal state is and slightly different motivations for balance changes. Games designed by committee often try to please everyone and stumble as a result.
As design lead/creative director on a project you have two realistic options:
1) Watch how the game changes as it develops and follow your gut. You have the most coherent vision of what the game should be and only you can bring it to fruition. Now, this isn't as nonsensical as it sounds. Think of the various blockbuster indie games of the past few years. Typically the development of these games is led by "super-star" designer/programmers who have previous experience within the games industry. During development they make the vast majority of the decisions on their own with little outside input.. and it works for them.
2) Gather a handful of people around you that you can trust without question. Be confident that if you were hit by a bus, they would be able to pick up development where you left off and make the exact same game you would have. Make sure they understand and agree with the motivations behind every notable change that is made. Listen to them. Rely on their criticisms and opinions to help guide your hand.
This second option is hard. Finding people you can trust with designing your baby is hard. Typically the process of a game's design falls somewhere between the two options; with a committee. Typically, games aren't that great.
Now, I have not seen inside UWE, I have no real idea how Charlie and the team go about development. But I doubt that Charlie not jumping every time the I&S forum or the competitive scene asks him to say "apple" is the result of him arrogantly dismissing any opinion that isn't his own. Instead I'd guess that it's merely an unfortunate reality of pragmatic development undertaken with an optimistic "we'll get it right soon".
This second option is hard. Finding people you can trust with designing your baby is hard. Typically the process of a game's design falls somewhere between the two options; with a committee. Typically, games aren't that great.
Now, I have not seen inside UWE, I have no real idea how Charlie and the team go about development. But I doubt that Charlie not jumping every time the I&S forum or the competitive scene asks him to say "apple" is the result of him arrogantly dismissing any opinion that isn't his own. Instead I'd guess that it's merely an unfortunate reality of pragmatic development undertaken with an optimistic "we'll get it right soon".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah. Ideally there's layers of feedback being drawn. You ideally have the closest group who are very well trusted and vetted for their abilities and knowledge and trust. But small groups can have group-think, so you have layers out to people who objectively yell from the outside. And lastly you have the aggregate playerbase smashing their heads against the game and revealing flaws via stats.
I think several of the people on this forum have thought long and hard on these issues, just as the dev team has, and hopefully they have the right mechanisms in place to get feedback and whatnot. I know for a fact several members of the dev and lead testing groups frequent these forums to get a finger on the pulse of things, and hopefully they are getting the feedback they require.
I also know how easy groupthink can form and previous poor decisions can be invested into making them hard to let go.
Hope for the best, rpepare for the worst.
As design lead/creative director on a project you have two realistic options:
1) Watch how the game changes as it develops and follow your gut. You have the most coherent vision of what the game should be and only you can bring it to fruition. Now, this isn't as nonsensical as it sounds. Think of the various blockbuster indie games of the past few years. Typically the development of these games is led by "super-star" designer/programmers who have previous experience within the games industry. During development they make the vast majority of the decisions on their own with little outside input.. and it works for them.
2) Gather a handful of people around you that you can trust without question. Be confident that if you were hit by a bus, they would be able to pick up development where you left off and make the exact same game you would have. Make sure they understand and agree with the motivations behind every notable change that is made. Listen to them. Rely on their criticisms and opinions to help guide your hand.
This second option is hard. Finding people you can trust with designing your baby is hard. Typically the process of a game's design falls somewhere between the two options; with a committee. Typically, games aren't that great.
Now, I have not seen inside UWE, I have no real idea how Charlie and the team go about development. But I doubt that Charlie not jumping every time the I&S forum or the competitive scene asks him to say "apple" is the result of him arrogantly dismissing any opinion that isn't his own. Instead I'd guess that it's merely an unfortunate reality of pragmatic development undertaken with an optimistic "we'll get it right soon".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
</span>
Thank you for putting it eloquently. Key word here is "opinion"; go to any popular game considered competitive, and watch how sections of players froth at the mouth every time a change is introduced. You simply can't rely on the general public (pro status or not) for certain matters. Feedback is nice, but that's all it should be, feedback and nothing more.
Besides, this game hasn't even been released yet for Pete's sake, balancing + new features will take time.
So what you're saying is.... all hope is lost? ;)
I do kind of feel the same way that you describe. Sort of like they are throwing putty at a wall and seeing what sticks, rather than knowing what they want to do and executing it. Or maybe a combination of the two.
Either way, it seems like there are a lot of people that feel this way of designing isn't working well and the people want change because they love the idea of NS2. :)
As design lead/creative director on a project you have two realistic options:
1) Watch how the game changes as it develops and follow your gut. You have the most coherent vision of what the game should be and only you can bring it to fruition. Now, this isn't as nonsensical as it sounds. Think of the various blockbuster indie games of the past few years. Typically the development of these games is led by "super-star" designer/programmers who have previous experience within the games industry. During development they make the vast majority of the decisions on their own with little outside input.. and it works for them.
2) Gather a handful of people around you that you can trust without question. Be confident that if you were hit by a bus, they would be able to pick up development where you left off and make the exact same game you would have. Make sure they understand and agree with the motivations behind every notable change that is made. Listen to them. Rely on their criticisms and opinions to help guide your hand.
This second option is hard. Finding people you can trust with designing your baby is hard. Typically the process of a game's design falls somewhere between the two options; with a committee. Typically, games aren't that great.
Now, I have not seen inside UWE, I have no real idea how Charlie and the team go about development. But I doubt that Charlie not jumping every time the I&S forum or the competitive scene asks him to say "apple" is the result of him arrogantly dismissing any opinion that isn't his own. Instead I'd guess that it's merely an unfortunate reality of pragmatic development undertaken with an optimistic "we'll get it right soon".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very good writeup and very good points made.
I do think however these rules are not set in stone. People do have different skillsets and some people simply work better in groups. I do think many of Charlies strengths comes from his creativity, if he would find someone with the gameplay experience to channel it with him he could probably make his ideas fit with quality game mechanics. It would have to be someone he trust and fit closely into the point 2 in your description. It's doubtful you will be able to find such a person on the forums or in the community.
Even so its never an excuse to ignore pool of information and experience in front of you. I have seen so many company managers make such horrendous decisions that could have been avoided by simply taking 10 minutes speaking with the people involved in the process. Even though you go your own way its always a good idea to get all the quality feedback possible. In the end its your decision anyway to follow it or not.
Understandably it can be hard to find the right people that are able to give this feedback on random gaming forums. I'm sure that its possible to create a process that could channel it through in a very simple and nice manner. But creating that process would probably take some time.
But this might be a subject that should not be discussed on the forums.
Now that the game is almost ready to be released i really want to congratulate Charlie, Cory, Max and whole UWE for accomplishing to build a game with original IP, ground breaking gameplay ideas, great graphics and own engine with such a small team. I also hope the sales have been, are and will be great and you guys can continue developing NS2 and also other games in the future.
I think that NS2 has some great ideas mostly taken from NS, also the original IP is pretty great. The basic idea of FPS-RTS hybrid, mixed with melee-ranged combat is just great. But so many details have been wrong in the game for a long time and very little or no improvement has happened in the beta.
I could compile a long list of all the things related to the design and implementation of the game that are bad or completely broken. I have done this many times during the beta and emailed it to UWE and also posted it to the forums couple of times hoping that something would be done for the issues that ruin the gameplay experience every day. I have always received a response from UWE but usually they have disagreed with most of my points or have been undecided about them thus no changes to the game have been made. Couple of things have also changed for better over a long period of time and after multiple rounds of feedback for example removing energy from buildings and making alien abilities individual researches.
Disagreeing or ignoring my feedback is not really a big thing since i'm just one player among thousands but the same problems are highlighted in many forum threads and gamecasts over a long period of time. It has made me to believe that there's something wrong with the feedback loop of the game. I'm a software developer myself and one of the most important things i have learnt in the past years is to focus on creating a working feedback loop where the user of the software can give feedback efficiently and accurately and I can fix all the broken stuff as efficiantly as possible. Creating a good feedback loop sounds simple but there are many issues related to the subject. It just feels there's a huge amount of great feedback given to the developers by many skilled and intelligent individuals in the community but most of it is ignored. While the development of NS2 and the work of UWE seems very open i think it's quite the opposite. Comparing the public feedback loop of NS2 to some other indie games or even big titles like SC2 i'm convinced that many other companies are doing much better job at using the feedback given to improve the game.
Nice improvements have happened on the interface and overall approachability of the game. You can see that the small developer team has focused on these things recently. However the core gameplay mechanics like movement and tech trees feel still very broken. The game looks great and it's fun for quite some time on public, but once one gets into it and realizes what's happening in the game one is easily disappointed because the seemingly deep game is actually very shallow because most of the mechanics don't work and are so imbalanced that only inexperienced players use them.
I have hoped this to change and get better for the last year. I've been investing a huge amounts of time to the game by playing, casting, modding, leading a competitive team in the hope that it will all pay off once the game gets better and reaches it's full potential (which is huge). But during the last months i've really started to lose my hope as the release date is closing.
The game mechanics just haven't improved in a pace i was hoping. Maybe i have been too optimistic and haven't realized how much work there is to make the game actually work technically so that it can be even released. The recent competitive events have given more hope as I thought they would force UWE to focus on the design and mechanics of the game. Now after couple of events very little has happened and many things have actually gone worse. Also reading and listening some recent statements by UWE regarding some gameplay mechanics and UWE's relationship with the whole competitive gaming are making me to think twice to spend any more time with the game.
As I said earlier i think the game is very shallow and stale currently. It has very lot of potential to be a great game with a lot of replayability and competitive potential, but it has neither really. The only hope I have is that after releasing the game UWE will take a whole different view how to improve the game design, core mechanics, balance and get the feedback loop working. If that doesn't happen soon I don't think the game will reach the potential it has and I think I will find a new game to play competitively or a totally new hobby.
Just my 20 cents.
Thanks for reading
I feel as thought there needs to be a tutorial to introduce those standard fps players to NS2 or maybe a few more tips. such as "keep your distance from enemy, stay in groups, cover your mans feet, conserve your ammo(dont spam), check map, listen.
Mainly in early and late game I feel aliens have the advantage:
1. quickly form groups without need for commander assistance.
2. speed. mobility and agility. Jumping , using walls, retreating then celerity then leap..
3. onos sprint ? (maybe another issue altogether) fade blink, lerk...
4. aliens get close to your =gg?
5. marines cant shoot through each other harder.
With marines I feel that every 'push' or advance is more risky than an alien push.
I feel like I have soo much more to say however it probably doesn't matter, each build will change the argument? plus maybe us aussies have better alien commanders that marines, plus this is on an 18 player server probs heaps difference on 24 player server. larger marine groups would probably be stronger.
edit: but i still love the game! keep it up! cant wait for release :)