<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think that's kind of telling how much skill potential aliens need to match their marine counterparts.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah. Right now it takes a LOT more effort to be an effective alien than an effective marine, especially at the t1 marine v t1 skulk stage.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1990731:date=Oct 13 2012, 06:40 AM:name=Inspector Canardo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Inspector Canardo @ Oct 13 2012, 06:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990731"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're not answering nor bringing counter-arguments to people's concerns and opinions, and when someone say ANYTHING regarding your point of view, you jump the gun and aggressively attack them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, you're right. I am obligated to reply to everything, no matter how ridiculous and beside the point, and spend hour after hour writing replies, because you say I should.
I made my argument in my original post, there haven't been any substantive counter-arguments made since then.
Unlike you, I don't believe all gamers today have paper mache for brains. The only difference is that there is now a vastly larger population of gamers who play different kinds of games. There is still a certain percentage of gamers who enjoy complex games, and that group isn't any smaller now than it was 10 years ago. If UWE believed otherwise, they might as well have canceled NS2 altoghether, because that's the gamer segment this game appeals to, regardless of balance.
<!--quoteo(post=1990475:date=Oct 12 2012, 08:18 PM:name=mR.Waffles)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mR.Waffles @ Oct 12 2012, 08:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990475"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It actually is. I don't follow the fighting game community, but rarely do they ban a character outright (Akuma comes to mind). Your statement about "being frowned upon by the audience" lacks a complete understanding of the competitive mindset. It doesn't matter what is frowned upon. Winning is all that matters. This is the difference between neighborhood heroes and Gods who win Evo's.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So the term "cheese" never existed? Honor codes of conduct have always been there, even in competitive environments. And it's often "neighborhoods heroes" winning at EVO, every year there are new faces many of them incredibly skilled and mashing up the old guys, after all it is a very small scene and only few players from around the globe have the means to participate.
And league/cup specific rule changes are not really that rare, this years Evo banned the usage of Kratos from MK9, because using him would have been considered "unfair" to 360 players. How could it be unfair? If winning is all that matters then real progamers would have know about him and used/fought him anyway? So much about playing the "same game" and "it's only winning that matters" ;)
<!--quoteo(post=1990475:date=Oct 12 2012, 08:18 PM:name=mR.Waffles)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mR.Waffles @ Oct 12 2012, 08:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990475"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Counter-Strike matches have a standard, but they're still playing the exact same game as public players. Sure, the team sizes may be different, and the round time may be set, but those server settings not in the same ball park as a promod. All de_maps play the same way.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They now might have standards, but there have been times when every small-ass league had it's own "standards". Yes many of them only having to do with server variables, but the same could be applied to NS2.
<!--quoteo(post=1990475:date=Oct 12 2012, 08:18 PM:name=mR.Waffles)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mR.Waffles @ Oct 12 2012, 08:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990475"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In Starcraft 2 everyone plays the exact same game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See my other posts regarding Starcraft1, all of them stay relevant even for Starcraft2. Maybe even more so considering that Blizzard has gone out of their way to make the "competitive side" as easy to get into as possible. The multi-tiered league system with stat based matchmaking is a miracle working live, but it only works because SC comp gameplay works with very low playernumbers per match and because Blizzard has the resources, playerbase and manpower to build such an setup.
Imho all this makes SC2 is the perfect example for what i'm arguing for, but unlike Blizzard, UWE has not the same resources, has a way more exotic gameplay and runs into other issues, if UWE would desire to build such an system. So it's not just a problem of scale but also of mechanics, as such it's an unlikely route for UWE to go to fix the "comp - pub" discrepancy.
<!--quoteo(post=1990475:date=Oct 12 2012, 08:18 PM:name=mR.Waffles)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mR.Waffles @ Oct 12 2012, 08:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990475"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In a true esport if Cabal is not banned, then no one cares about using him in a boring way to win. In Starcraft 2 it doesn't matter that in P v Z a neural parasite on the mothership wins the game. Gimmicky? Yeah. Frowned upon? Hell no.
If a game possesses inherently imbalanced mechanics, then it won't be an esport. This is why true asymmetric esport titles are so rare, especially in the strategy genre.
Regardless, all these points are irrelevant. NS2 needs to be balanced for pubs and competitive play, because balance is independent of who is playing at any given time. Balance is balance and we all need to be playing the same game for NS2 to thrive.
Also, all competitive communities are organic. You can't force an esport. Only if the core game is competitive will the competitive community flourish.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What is a "true esport"? People don't play esport, people play games. People don't buy esport, they buy games. It's the sad reality that "esport" is still a highly overrated concept. Blizzard is struggling to monetize on it with SC2 because of a myriad of different issues and compared to others, Blizzard had been in one of the prime spots to make it actually valid and happen, yet they are still struggling.
But somehow UWE can do it, if we just get this "balance" right then people will come in droves just to play the "cool high skilled guys" regardless of their own experience with the game. Or to put it in fanatic's words:
<!--quoteo(post=1989791:date=Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989791"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That (fun) might make somebody buy the game, but it won't keep them playing it for years on end. (only balance does that!11)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's that simple little competitive world, where the only difference between players is a linear 2 dimensional scale of "skill", where it's good to be on the high end and being on the low end means none of your concerns matter. But in reality it's only a very narrow sighted and subjective view on what makes the game actually work. Being "high skilled" won't make you good at fun game design, being "low skilled" also won't make you good at designing a game. It's not that simple and bipolar, yet people pretend that it's only an issue of getting some "balance" right and ignore key things like accessibility, learning curve, overall complexity and different player motivations. Assuming that everybody just wants the "competitive balanced experience" and it's the only thing that matters is the wrong thing to assume when you want to build an interactive experience with broad appeal.
<!--quoteo(post=1990594:date=Oct 13 2012, 12:16 AM:name=Grissi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Grissi @ Oct 13 2012, 12:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990594"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It seems to be you have already made up your mind how competitive players think and look at the game in a very narrow way. But In most cases I think you are dead wrong. Most mentioned problems in this thread has little to do with balance but more how the fundamental game mechanics work and connect to each other. For example - sprint gives marines the ability to travel very fast and it neglects big part of the alien mobility advantage. Aliens are build from ground up to win with mobility and coordination. - Like mentioned before this is a single game so the problems in competitive play do actually exist in public play even though they are not obvious right away. If these problems are not addressed it will cause problems in the long run when players start abusing these problems to win games. - For example - NS1 was a lot about territorial control, in competitive matches players positioned them self very effectively to keep both rts save and their map control. It is true that this did usually not happen in public but the same law applied. Instead marines often used turrets and electrified rts to defend their territories versus the alien mobility. This is of course just a small example of how it is actually possible to make a game work for both public and competitive. You just need to understand what is the most important for both teams to win a match and then make it so that players have the tools to achieve at all skill level. This is in no way easy thing to do and takes a lot of effort, but with such access to knowledge and experience around them I believe they are capable to gather the necessary feedback to work with to achieve that goal. They just need to tap into the resources they have access to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have not made up my mind that "competitive players all think the same way", i've only made up my mind that the competitive view on a game is a very specific and narrow one. The reason for that opinion being that i've been on both sides of the argument at times. And the most valid conclusion i can come up for this whole mess is to separate the game in certain places.
Because there are way more fundamental changes between NS1 and NS2 that mess up everything, in addition to those you mention. The problem seems that we started out with an fundamental different idea of a game (2 commanders per team/Khamm, individual player resources, dynamic infestation) and everytime something seems not working we try to apply "NS1 balancing logic" to fix it, without realizing it's only messing things up more.
The addition of personal resources and player weapon purchases on the Marine side screws over any and all meta game balance concepts from NS1 in it's pure base. So using NS1 concepts and ideas to deal with these issues is bound to fail.
Bacillus made a great point how NS1 used to balance itself out with different playersizes. With high playernumbers Kharaa had been at a disadvantage in NS1, in NS2 the situation is the complete opposite one. The bigger the Marine team gets, the bigger it's overall meta game advantage gets. Every additional marine on the field means more p.res to spent on weapons, weapons which can still be picked up and kept on the field for infinite time.
On the other hand Kharaa lost all means to deal with playernumbers scaling issues. In NS1 a individual player could spent his "p.res" to profit his whole team, as such players that had been no good as fades/lerks/skulks/onos could still participate their res to the team in a meaningful and useful way. Building upgrade chambers, Hives, DC healing stations, spreading SC's and so on.
This mechanic is gone in NS2. P.res on a Kharaa players only serve their personal use and the best a player can do to "help his whole team" is go gorge and play a running DC with 3 crappy versions of an OC. And why is the Kharaa team in such a poor state? To compensate for the immense skill people have build playing Kharaa classes for 10 years, to make it more "balanced". At the same time we forgot that for the majority of non-NS players out there, wallclimbing alone is something they first need to wrap their head around, don't even start with leap biting, fading, playing a decent lerk or the dozen other things that present an immense learning curve on their own.
Inspector Canardo, Shnagenburg, hakenspit and Reeke all make very valid points that key into each other. These issues deserve some attention and a little bit more of an discussion then simply going "They just need to L2P, if they don't want to learn the hard way (like we did) they shouldn't be part of our community anyway!". (That's no hyperbole, i've seen people on this forum make statements like this in the past)
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1990876:date=Oct 13 2012, 04:08 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Oct 13 2012, 04:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990876"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's that simple little competitive world, where the only difference between players is a linear 2 dimensional scale of "skill", where it's good to be on the high end and being on the low end means none of your concerns matter. But in reality it's only a very narrow sighted and subjective view on what makes the game actually work. Being "high skilled" won't make you good at fun game design, being "low skilled" also won't make you good at designing a game. It's not that simple and bipolar, yet people pretend that it's only an issue of getting some "balance" right and ignore key things like accessibility, learning curve, overall complexity and different player motivations. Assuming that everybody just wants the "competitive balanced experience" and it's the only thing that matters is the wrong thing to assume when you want to build an interactive experience with broad appeal.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is just the kind of post I'm talking about. Not even bothering to read and understand the arguments made, and then even going so far as to misrepresent the original poster.
Never, not once, have I said that the only metric for determining whether or not a game is good, is balance. Not once. Not ever. Nor have I claimed that we should ignore metrics like "accessibility, learning curve, overall complexity and different player motivations". In fact, I have done everything I can to do the opposite. I have repeatedly stated that my point is, that the game should be both balanced, AND have all these other lovely things.
But apparently that's not good enough for some people. Apparently lying, cheating and being dishonest makes for a better discussion.
<!--quoteo(post=1990767:date=Oct 13 2012, 12:53 AM:name=matso)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (matso @ Oct 13 2012, 12:53 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990767"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Considering the length of the wish-list for stuff that's planned to go into the game, and considering the resources available ... the answer is simple; because it would mean a late 2013 release, about.
You can't let perfect become the enemy of good. The game - as is - is good, warts and all.
I do share the frustration that some (IMO) obvious things are not getting the attention I feel it deserves (fundamentally broken alien strategic gameplay, spawning etc), but right now most of the focus is on performance and making the game more welcoming for non-hardcore players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which sounds great as long as your target market plans to play only one side. Which won't happen because you need equal teams obviously.
I wasted 30 something bucks on alien vs predator (most recent) and the multiplayer empty as some sides had a ridculous advantage over others. This is starting to sound like the exact same thing.
Again I can't stress this enough, nearly the entire forum seems to agree aliens are broken. That's bad. I've rarely of ever seen such agreement. It indicates that not only are we not at perfect level, we haven't even reached good currently. I've played CSS, TF2, and Starcraft before, and even the occasionally increadibly broken aspect usually had people on both sides defending it. This doesn't. That scares me greatly.
<!--quoteo(post=1990878:date=Oct 13 2012, 08:15 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 13 2012, 08:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990878"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But apparently that's not good enough for some people. Apparently lying, cheating and being dishonest makes for a better discussion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are devs using Euro round win % stats as well? Those games are funny: fewer people with mics, more are passive and even more players than in the NA srvs run around alone randomly hoping to trip into victory. Rounds like that skew the stats a bit. So if aliens are winning more rounds overseas then devs might keep nerfing aliens... :|
Why can't aliens have damage and armor upgrades like marines?
Since damage is kind of irrelevant since we already do good damage from the get-go why not life and armor upgrades? Each hive increase life and armor by 10%?
Of course keep the carapace upgrade as well but this allows aliens to scale with marine weapon damage
<!--quoteo(post=1990733:date=Oct 13 2012, 01:44 AM:name=Mango)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mango @ Oct 13 2012, 01:44 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990733"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Every server everyone is stacking marines. The scoreboard for marines is usually 40 kills and 3 deaths while aliens with 15 kills and 30 deaths. This patch should have fixed many aliens issues but they went to buffing marines again, and again. I have a feeling the guys working on balance are marines minded only. Go join a server and you will see what I am talking about the Aliens are broken really bad. Now, we have to worry about arcs more than ever and the aim of marines is impossible to dodge. I have been playing this beta for two years and I never seen it so lopsided like it is now. Right now is a good time to just be a marine. But, I am still for the underdogs Aliens. This patch put a nail to the underdogs and no one is looking in to buffing aliens.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The main issue is that while the marines may get more kills the aliens usually end up eeking out a victory. And since flayra only balances the game by looking a win/loss ratio it ends up being technically 'balanced' while not feeling like it when you actually play.
<!--quoteo(post=1991052:date=Oct 14 2012, 01:17 PM:name=ChickenOfWar)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ChickenOfWar @ Oct 14 2012, 01:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1991052"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The main issue is that while the marines may get more kills the aliens usually end up eeking out a victory. And since flayra only balances the game by looking a win/loss ratio it ends up being technically 'balanced' while not feeling like it when you actually play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
thats the problem, yes the aliens do pull victories but the whole time its a struggle and most of the time unfun for aliens it doesnt flow well the whole game will feel like a loss then suddenly marines are on the back pedal.
i looked and took note of the score board in a few games in 222 as marine i was 50 kills 7 deaths its was effortless then on aliens i went 40-15 and i was onos for the last 10 mins but it was easily harder to be an effective skulk then a marine.
aliens feel like theres alot of things missing. But i guess UWE will just keep looking at the stats and keep nerfing aliens till its 50-50. no one will want to play aliens, no one will want to play the game.
twilitebluebug stalkerJoin Date: 2003-02-04Member: 13116Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited October 2012
After watching a lot of competitive matches recently, I noticed even skilled Skulks seem to "drift" in large circles around Marines, taking a long time (2-5 seconds) to land consecutive bites.
I think the biggest problems with Skulks are with its movement:
1. Slow base movement speed (could be 10 to 20% faster). Even when wall jumping boosts speed, it is not possible to maintain that speed while staying in close combat, where Skulks lose most of that speed. 2. Low ground acceleration. It should at least match marines'.
Increasing Skulk air acceleration would also be an option, but I feel it would make Skulks a little too difficult to track, and damage the game's immersion.
Playing a skulk feels like you're trying to run on ice with oiled feet. In other words, it feels very slippery. Especially with celerity. I think some collision changes would be nice.
To be honest, the only thing I like about playing aliens is that alt-f4 is so responsive, because ending up with a 1 to 10 k/d every single time is just so much fun..
<!--quoteo(post=1991085:date=Oct 14 2012, 02:05 AM:name=twiliteblue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (twiliteblue @ Oct 14 2012, 02:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1991085"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->After watching a lot of competitive matches recently, I noticed even skilled Skulks seem to "drift" in large circles around Marines, taking a long time (2-5 seconds) to land consecutive bites.
I think the biggest problems with Skulks are with its movement:
1. Slow base movement speed (could be 10 to 20% faster). Even when wall jumping boosts speed, it is not possible to maintain that speed while staying in close combat, where Skulks lose most of that speed. 2. Low ground acceleration. It should at least match marines'.
Increasing Skulk air acceleration would also be an option, but I feel it would make Skulks a little too difficult to track, and damage the game's immersion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Took the words right out of my mouth.
If Kharaa movement is as <b>responsive</b> as the Marines were in BUILD 222, I think this may aid in better close-quarter combat and target tracking.
Collision tracking could be a factor [<i>slipping under Marines, walking over a crouching one, etc.</i>]
Just saw an alien(venem) who was 54:0 so dont say marines are more "deadly" vs aliens. I think skulks do need a little move speed boost(maybe skill based) Marines moving almost as fast a skulk is a bit crazy.
<!--quoteo(post=1991088:date=Oct 14 2012, 07:29 AM:name=Ligisttomten)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ligisttomten @ Oct 14 2012, 07:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1991088"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Playing a skulk feels like you're trying to run on ice with oiled feet. In other words, it feels very slippery. Especially with celerity. I think some collision changes would be nice.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed.
Before it wasn't such a problem because marines had terrible movement. Now they have decent movement it's a lot more obvious that skulk movement is slippery. Due to the movement I find it easier to kill 3 skulks than 2 marines at t1.
It really feel like landing hits in close quarters is now some what easier with a marine than with an skulk, at least at the "non-competitive" skill level.
<!--quoteo(post=1991094:date=Oct 14 2012, 07:55 AM:name=flyjum)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (flyjum @ Oct 14 2012, 07:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1991094"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just saw an alien(venem) who was 54:0 so dont say marines are more "deadly" vs aliens.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't think its so much a problem of them being more "deadly". It's just harder to track a marine in close quarters than tracking an alien at the same distance. For 'competitive' players who dedicate more time to the game this might not be a problem, but the majority of players aren't going to be competitive. I'm not saying we should lower the skill ceiling (very much against that), but as it stands I feel like I'm a skulk covered in lubricant biting a marine covered in slippery oil.
You saw one alien stomp a pub? MY GOD WE BETTER NERF THEM AGAIN BOYS! I say we take fades out of the game so people have to skulk all game. That'll cause skulks to need to be that much better and raise this games skillcap.
<!--quoteo(post=1991085:date=Oct 14 2012, 08:05 AM:name=twiliteblue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (twiliteblue @ Oct 14 2012, 08:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1991085"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->After watching a lot of competitive matches recently, I noticed even skilled Skulks seem to "drift" in large circles around Marines, taking a long time (2-5 seconds) to land consecutive bites.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ye. I saw a lot of people exclaiming their joy upon learning about the skulk bite changes, and how much more skill would be required. After watching those matches, its pretty clear that they are spraying and praying just as much as everyone else, and missing just as much as well.
The bite cone in the build 221 was ridiculously auto-hit. This build, it's much more reasonable, but the problem of collisions is still there. This makes the timing on the bite a bit too difficult for my taste; you have to be close, but if you are just a bit too close, the marine will suddenly surf on you and you will die. I freely admit to sucking as a skulk right now. Can't seem to land any bites at all :(
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->but if you are just a bit too close, the marine will suddenly surf on you and you will die.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> They're fixing this in 224, thank god. Though I don't think this will suffice, the base skulk speed is too low imo, you NEED celerity and/or leap to be competitive, even with the new wall jump. (Which imo is still lacking)
<!--quoteo(post=1990878:date=Oct 13 2012, 04:15 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 13 2012, 04:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990878"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is just the kind of post I'm talking about. Not even bothering to read and understand the arguments made, and then even going so far as to misrepresent the original poster.
Never, not once, have I said that the only metric for determining whether or not a game is good, is balance. Not once. Not ever. Nor have I claimed that we should ignore metrics like "accessibility, learning curve, overall complexity and different player motivations". In fact, I have done everything I can to do the opposite. I have repeatedly stated that my point is, that the game should be both balanced, AND have all these other lovely things.
But apparently that's not good enough for some people. Apparently lying, cheating and being dishonest makes for a better discussion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you claim i don't even understand the discussion and the arguments being made, then how can you at the same time say that i'm "lying, cheating, being dishonest" like i'm acting with with intentional malice?
I added the bracket comments to the quote to put it back into a context. Because i used it somewhat out of context to use it as example for the point i'm trying to make. So far i interpret your point on balance being that it's something ultimate regardless of circumstances and setting, something that's some "middle point for everybody" regardless of the setting being an comp 6v6 match or an 12v12 pub match.
And that's just not something i can't wrap my head around, because the games dynamics heavily change based on playernumbers and player intention/motivation to play. So imho it would make sense to have two different points of views to "balance" around: 6v6 setting and "anything bigger than 6v6" (endless scaling)
The main argument against a "comp config" that's often voiced is, that it splits the community. But in reality the community has always been split and will always be split. A game with such an steep learning curve and numerous deep mechanics is one that takes time to fully understand, as such there will always be a huge variance in terms of "game knowledge" in the playerbase. And that adds to the natural segmentation that already exists between (sorry for using such polarizing terms) "casual" and "hardcore" players.
If you balance the game around the idea of it being played solely in a 6v6 competitive environment, then you are balancing it only for that specific setting and that specific playerbase (the hardcore players that have already beaten the learning curve and are as such way more potent in execution and coordination). While ignoring the fact that in public XvX setting there are many "casual players" who's intention often ain't even understanding all the mechanics, who on their own often won't even engage in coordination if not motivated by something/somebody. They are often just there to "enjoy the show" and have fun with the sandboxy aspects of the game.
I believe a big part of the "casual playerbase" enjoys NS solely for it's sandbox aspects, these people could just mess around with the game without even having any competition from an enemy team. That's an polar opposite view on the game compared to the "balanced competitive" one. Because "Competitive", "Balanced" and "Sandbox" are just three terms that can't fit together easily in a game context.
Unchaining all this into two different "playing modes" would allow for way more extreme (unbalancing) changes that add more points of references to see how the players and the game react to them. For example give skulks a sprint equivalent (in addition to leap), add "headbites" (skulk only, rebalance normal bite damage accordingly), turn FF on, allow multiple upgrades from one chamber type. There are so many crazy ideas out there that often can't be considered because nobody can really wrap his head around the overall consequences of them or how some of them have potential to get "abused" in an organized 6v6 setting.
It's funny to watch people try and draw a clear delineating line between competitive and public play when in fact there's a whole spectrum that goes from a pub full of the worst players ever to a competitive match between the best teams. The fact is that you can't balance a game based on public level play because the players simply aren't exploring the game options to the fullest - I saw a post talking about how rambo Marines sneaking into hives and taking down chambers was overpowered (Which in my pub experience, is pretty common). But in a competitive game, the Marine would get spotted and parasited most of the time and there is absolutely zero reason a pub player can't do the same thing instead of rushing blindly forth, dying, and not telling anybody about the Marine they spotted. Yet advocates of balancing at the pub level would rather us nerf Marines so pub skulks can keep using their failed tactics. The point is gameplay tactics are better explored at the competitive level and many perceived imbalances at a pub level are simply because solutions at the top haven't filtered down yet, not because there's anything actually wrong with the game... and what seems balanced at the pub level is actually imbalanced and it only takes a player who knows what they're doing to expose it. There was some tourny a week or two ago where in the finals the Aliens went straight Onos and managed to win, and in the interview afterwards, Fana talked about how Onos was so easy his mother could do it, it was overpowered, etc (And I have to say I agree, running in and running out before you die isn't that impressive)... And then stream decided they would mock him for being brusque instead of considering what one of the top players in the game had to say about balance.
If Starcraft 1 developers listened to the low-level players instead of professionals, the ZvT metagame would still be stuck at 2 hive lurker vs 1 base marine/tank rush. Don't listen to what bad players have to say about balance, they're bad for a reason.
<!--quoteo(post=1991357:date=Oct 14 2012, 02:15 PM:name=Underwhelmed)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Underwhelmed @ Oct 14 2012, 02:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1991357"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If Starcraft 1 developers listened to the low-level players instead of professionals, the ZvT metagame would still be stuck at 2 hive lurker vs 1 base marine/tank rush. Don't listen to what bad players have to say about balance, they're bad for a reason.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I have to quote this for emphasis.
You hear that, devs? Don't listen to the plebs on the forums. Trust only those who have proven themselves to be the best.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You hear that, devs? Don't listen to the plebs on the forums. Trust only those who have proven themselves to be the best.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Blizzard usually goes by the "easy to learn, hard to master" logic. I'm no expert but right now I think there's more to master on marines than there is on skulks.
Anyway, game won't last a month if only 50 "non-plebs" play it. To put it in politics, you don't make a government purely for the 1%. If the devs mainly design it to be fun for hardcore tournies, then the casual milk-cows won't buy it :p
<!--quoteo(post=1991413:date=Oct 14 2012, 06:00 PM:name=meb10)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (meb10 @ Oct 14 2012, 06:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1991413"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have to quote this for emphasis.
You hear that, devs? Don't listen to the plebs on the forums. Trust only those who have proven themselves to be the best.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1991865:date=Oct 15 2012, 02:39 PM:name=hlicat)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hlicat @ Oct 15 2012, 02:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1991865"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This thread alone is more than enough for me to regret pre-ordering this game.
Makes it sound so very 'fun'.
I guess I'll 'look forward' to playing cannon fodder for you guys.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Comments
Yeah. Right now it takes a LOT more effort to be an effective alien than an effective marine, especially at the t1 marine v t1 skulk stage.
Yes, you're right. I am obligated to reply to everything, no matter how ridiculous and beside the point, and spend hour after hour writing replies, because you say I should.
I made my argument in my original post, there haven't been any substantive counter-arguments made since then.
Unlike you, I don't believe all gamers today have paper mache for brains. The only difference is that there is now a vastly larger population of gamers who play different kinds of games. There is still a certain percentage of gamers who enjoy complex games, and that group isn't any smaller now than it was 10 years ago. If UWE believed otherwise, they might as well have canceled NS2 altoghether, because that's the gamer segment this game appeals to, regardless of balance.
So the term "cheese" never existed? Honor codes of conduct have always been there, even in competitive environments.
And it's often "neighborhoods heroes" winning at EVO, every year there are new faces many of them incredibly skilled and mashing up the old guys, after all it is a very small scene and only few players from around the globe have the means to participate.
And league/cup specific rule changes are not really that rare, this years Evo banned the usage of Kratos from MK9, because using him would have been considered "unfair" to 360 players. How could it be unfair? If winning is all that matters then real progamers would have know about him and used/fought him anyway?
So much about playing the "same game" and "it's only winning that matters" ;)
<!--quoteo(post=1990475:date=Oct 12 2012, 08:18 PM:name=mR.Waffles)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mR.Waffles @ Oct 12 2012, 08:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990475"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Counter-Strike matches have a standard, but they're still playing the exact same game as public players. Sure, the team sizes may be different, and the round time may be set, but those server settings not in the same ball park as a promod. All de_maps play the same way.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They now might have standards, but there have been times when every small-ass league had it's own "standards". Yes many of them only having to do with server variables, but the same could be applied to NS2.
<!--quoteo(post=1990475:date=Oct 12 2012, 08:18 PM:name=mR.Waffles)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mR.Waffles @ Oct 12 2012, 08:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990475"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In Starcraft 2 everyone plays the exact same game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See my other posts regarding Starcraft1, all of them stay relevant even for Starcraft2. Maybe even more so considering that Blizzard has gone out of their way to make the "competitive side" as easy to get into as possible. The multi-tiered league system with stat based matchmaking is a miracle working live, but it only works because SC comp gameplay works with very low playernumbers per match and because Blizzard has the resources, playerbase and manpower to build such an setup.
Imho all this makes SC2 is the perfect example for what i'm arguing for, but unlike Blizzard, UWE has not the same resources, has a way more exotic gameplay and runs into other issues, if UWE would desire to build such an system. So it's not just a problem of scale but also of mechanics, as such it's an unlikely route for UWE to go to fix the "comp - pub" discrepancy.
<!--quoteo(post=1990475:date=Oct 12 2012, 08:18 PM:name=mR.Waffles)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mR.Waffles @ Oct 12 2012, 08:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990475"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In a true esport if Cabal is not banned, then no one cares about using him in a boring way to win. In Starcraft 2 it doesn't matter that in P v Z a neural parasite on the mothership wins the game. Gimmicky? Yeah. Frowned upon? Hell no.
If a game possesses inherently imbalanced mechanics, then it won't be an esport. This is why true asymmetric esport titles are so rare, especially in the strategy genre.
Regardless, all these points are irrelevant. NS2 needs to be balanced for pubs and competitive play, because balance is independent of who is playing at any given time. Balance is balance and we all need to be playing the same game for NS2 to thrive.
Also, all competitive communities are organic. You can't force an esport. Only if the core game is competitive will the competitive community flourish.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What is a "true esport"? People don't play esport, people play games. People don't buy esport, they buy games. It's the sad reality that "esport" is still a highly overrated concept. Blizzard is struggling to monetize on it with SC2 because of a myriad of different issues and compared to others, Blizzard had been in one of the prime spots to make it actually valid and happen, yet they are still struggling.
But somehow UWE can do it, if we just get this "balance" right then people will come in droves just to play the "cool high skilled guys" regardless of their own experience with the game. Or to put it in fanatic's words:
<!--quoteo(post=1989791:date=Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Oct 11 2012, 06:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1989791"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That (fun) might make somebody buy the game, but it won't keep them playing it for years on end. (only balance does that!11)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's that simple little competitive world, where the only difference between players is a linear 2 dimensional scale of "skill", where it's good to be on the high end and being on the low end means none of your concerns matter. But in reality it's only a very narrow sighted and subjective view on what makes the game actually work. Being "high skilled" won't make you good at fun game design, being "low skilled" also won't make you good at designing a game. It's not that simple and bipolar, yet people pretend that it's only an issue of getting some "balance" right and ignore key things like accessibility, learning curve, overall complexity and different player motivations. Assuming that everybody just wants the "competitive balanced experience" and it's the only thing that matters is the wrong thing to assume when you want to build an interactive experience with broad appeal.
<!--quoteo(post=1990594:date=Oct 13 2012, 12:16 AM:name=Grissi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Grissi @ Oct 13 2012, 12:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1990594"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It seems to be you have already made up your mind how competitive players think and look at the game in a very narrow way. But In most cases I think you are dead wrong. Most mentioned problems in this thread has little to do with balance but more how the fundamental game mechanics work and connect to each other. For example - sprint gives marines the ability to travel very fast and it neglects big part of the alien mobility advantage. Aliens are build from ground up to win with mobility and coordination.
-
Like mentioned before this is a single game so the problems in competitive play do actually exist in public play even though they are not obvious right away. If these problems are not addressed it will cause problems in the long run when players start abusing these problems to win games.
-
For example - NS1 was a lot about territorial control, in competitive matches players positioned them self very effectively to keep both rts save and their map control. It is true that this did usually not happen in public but the same law applied. Instead marines often used turrets and electrified rts to defend their territories versus the alien mobility.
This is of course just a small example of how it is actually possible to make a game work for both public and competitive. You just need to understand what is the most important for both teams to win a match and then make it so that players have the tools to achieve at all skill level.
This is in no way easy thing to do and takes a lot of effort, but with such access to knowledge and experience around them I believe they are capable to gather the necessary feedback to work with to achieve that goal. They just need to tap into the resources they have access to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have not made up my mind that "competitive players all think the same way", i've only made up my mind that the competitive view on a game is a very specific and narrow one. The reason for that opinion being that i've been on both sides of the argument at times. And the most valid conclusion i can come up for this whole mess is to separate the game in certain places.
Because there are way more fundamental changes between NS1 and NS2 that mess up everything, in addition to those you mention.
The problem seems that we started out with an fundamental different idea of a game (2 commanders per team/Khamm, individual player resources, dynamic infestation) and everytime something seems not working we try to apply "NS1 balancing logic" to fix it, without realizing it's only messing things up more.
The addition of personal resources and player weapon purchases on the Marine side screws over any and all meta game balance concepts from NS1 in it's pure base. So using NS1 concepts and ideas to deal with these issues is bound to fail.
Bacillus made a great point how NS1 used to balance itself out with different playersizes. With high playernumbers Kharaa had been at a disadvantage in NS1, in NS2 the situation is the complete opposite one. The bigger the Marine team gets, the bigger it's overall meta game advantage gets. Every additional marine on the field means more p.res to spent on weapons, weapons which can still be picked up and kept on the field for infinite time.
On the other hand Kharaa lost all means to deal with playernumbers scaling issues. In NS1 a individual player could spent his "p.res" to profit his whole team, as such players that had been no good as fades/lerks/skulks/onos could still participate their res to the team in a meaningful and useful way. Building upgrade chambers, Hives, DC healing stations, spreading SC's and so on.
This mechanic is gone in NS2. P.res on a Kharaa players only serve their personal use and the best a player can do to "help his whole team" is go gorge and play a running DC with 3 crappy versions of an OC. And why is the Kharaa team in such a poor state? To compensate for the immense skill people have build playing Kharaa classes for 10 years, to make it more "balanced". At the same time we forgot that for the majority of non-NS players out there, wallclimbing alone is something they first need to wrap their head around, don't even start with leap biting, fading, playing a decent lerk or the dozen other things that present an immense learning curve on their own.
Inspector Canardo, Shnagenburg, hakenspit and Reeke all make very valid points that key into each other. These issues deserve some attention and a little bit more of an discussion then simply going "They just need to L2P, if they don't want to learn the hard way (like we did) they shouldn't be part of our community anyway!". (That's no hyperbole, i've seen people on this forum make statements like this in the past)
This is just the kind of post I'm talking about. Not even bothering to read and understand the arguments made, and then even going so far as to misrepresent the original poster.
Never, not once, have I said that the only metric for determining whether or not a game is good, is balance. Not once. Not ever. Nor have I claimed that we should ignore metrics like "accessibility, learning curve, overall complexity and different player motivations". In fact, I have done everything I can to do the opposite. I have repeatedly stated that my point is, that the game should be both balanced, AND have all these other lovely things.
But apparently that's not good enough for some people. Apparently lying, cheating and being dishonest makes for a better discussion.
You can't let perfect become the enemy of good. The game - as is - is good, warts and all.
I do share the frustration that some (IMO) obvious things are not getting the attention I feel it deserves (fundamentally broken alien strategic gameplay, spawning etc), but right now most of the focus is on performance and making the game more welcoming for non-hardcore players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which sounds great as long as your target market plans to play only one side. Which won't happen because you need equal teams obviously.
I wasted 30 something bucks on alien vs predator (most recent) and the multiplayer empty as some sides had a ridculous advantage over others. This is starting to sound like the exact same thing.
Again I can't stress this enough, nearly the entire forum seems to agree aliens are broken. That's bad. I've rarely of ever seen such agreement. It indicates that not only are we not at perfect level, we haven't even reached good currently. I've played CSS, TF2, and Starcraft before, and even the occasionally increadibly broken aspect usually had people on both sides defending it. This doesn't. That scares me greatly.
If it didn't, where would all the politicians be?
Since damage is kind of irrelevant since we already do good damage from the get-go why not life and armor upgrades? Each hive increase life and armor by 10%?
Of course keep the carapace upgrade as well but this allows aliens to scale with marine weapon damage
JackieChanWTF.jpg
The main issue is that while the marines may get more kills the aliens usually end up eeking out a victory. And since flayra only balances the game by looking a win/loss ratio it ends up being technically 'balanced' while not feeling like it when you actually play.
thats the problem, yes the aliens do pull victories but the whole time its a struggle and most of the time unfun for aliens it doesnt flow well the whole game will feel like a loss then suddenly marines are on the back pedal.
i looked and took note of the score board in a few games in 222 as marine i was 50 kills 7 deaths its was effortless then on aliens i went 40-15 and i was onos for the last 10 mins but it was easily harder to be an effective skulk then a marine.
aliens feel like theres alot of things missing. But i guess UWE will just keep looking at the stats and keep nerfing aliens till its 50-50. no one will want to play aliens, no one will want to play the game.
I think the biggest problems with Skulks are with its movement:
1. Slow base movement speed (could be 10 to 20% faster). Even when wall jumping boosts speed, it is not possible to maintain that speed while staying in close combat, where Skulks lose most of that speed.
2. Low ground acceleration. It should at least match marines'.
Increasing Skulk air acceleration would also be an option, but I feel it would make Skulks a little too difficult to track, and damage the game's immersion.
I think the biggest problems with Skulks are with its movement:
1. Slow base movement speed (could be 10 to 20% faster). Even when wall jumping boosts speed, it is not possible to maintain that speed while staying in close combat, where Skulks lose most of that speed.
2. Low ground acceleration. It should at least match marines'.
Increasing Skulk air acceleration would also be an option, but I feel it would make Skulks a little too difficult to track, and damage the game's immersion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Took the words right out of my mouth.
If Kharaa movement is as <b>responsive</b> as the Marines were in BUILD 222, I think this may aid in better close-quarter combat and target tracking.
Collision tracking could be a factor [<i>slipping under Marines, walking over a crouching one, etc.</i>]
I think skulks do need a little move speed boost(maybe skill based)
Marines moving almost as fast a skulk is a bit crazy.
Agreed.
Before it wasn't such a problem because marines had terrible movement. Now they have decent movement it's a lot more obvious that skulk movement is slippery. Due to the movement I find it easier to kill 3 skulks than 2 marines at t1.
It really feel like landing hits in close quarters is now some what easier with a marine than with an skulk, at least at the "non-competitive" skill level.
<!--quoteo(post=1991094:date=Oct 14 2012, 07:55 AM:name=flyjum)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (flyjum @ Oct 14 2012, 07:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1991094"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just saw an alien(venem) who was 54:0 so dont say marines are more "deadly" vs aliens.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think its so much a problem of them being more "deadly". It's just harder to track a marine in close quarters than tracking an alien at the same distance. For 'competitive' players who dedicate more time to the game this might not be a problem, but the majority of players aren't going to be competitive. I'm not saying we should lower the skill ceiling (very much against that), but as it stands I feel like I'm a skulk covered in lubricant biting a marine covered in slippery oil.
Ye. I saw a lot of people exclaiming their joy upon learning about the skulk bite changes, and how much more skill would be required. After watching those matches, its pretty clear that they are spraying and praying just as much as everyone else, and missing just as much as well.
They're fixing this in 224, thank god. Though I don't think this will suffice, the base skulk speed is too low imo, you NEED celerity and/or leap to be competitive, even with the new wall jump. (Which imo is still lacking)
Never, not once, have I said that the only metric for determining whether or not a game is good, is balance. Not once. Not ever. Nor have I claimed that we should ignore metrics like "accessibility, learning curve, overall complexity and different player motivations". In fact, I have done everything I can to do the opposite. I have repeatedly stated that my point is, that the game should be both balanced, AND have all these other lovely things.
But apparently that's not good enough for some people. Apparently lying, cheating and being dishonest makes for a better discussion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you claim i don't even understand the discussion and the arguments being made, then how can you at the same time say that i'm "lying, cheating, being dishonest" like i'm acting with with intentional malice?
I added the bracket comments to the quote to put it back into a context. Because i used it somewhat out of context to use it as example for the point i'm trying to make.
So far i interpret your point on balance being that it's something ultimate regardless of circumstances and setting, something that's some "middle point for everybody" regardless of the setting being an comp 6v6 match or an 12v12 pub match.
And that's just not something i can't wrap my head around, because the games dynamics heavily change based on playernumbers and player intention/motivation to play.
So imho it would make sense to have two different points of views to "balance" around: 6v6 setting and "anything bigger than 6v6" (endless scaling)
The main argument against a "comp config" that's often voiced is, that it splits the community. But in reality the community has always been split and will always be split. A game with such an steep learning curve and numerous deep mechanics is one that takes time to fully understand, as such there will always be a huge variance in terms of "game knowledge" in the playerbase. And that adds to the natural segmentation that already exists between (sorry for using such polarizing terms) "casual" and "hardcore" players.
If you balance the game around the idea of it being played solely in a 6v6 competitive environment, then you are balancing it only for that specific setting and that specific playerbase (the hardcore players that have already beaten the learning curve and are as such way more potent in execution and coordination). While ignoring the fact that in public XvX setting there are many "casual players" who's intention often ain't even understanding all the mechanics, who on their own often won't even engage in coordination if not motivated by something/somebody. They are often just there to "enjoy the show" and have fun with the sandboxy aspects of the game.
I believe a big part of the "casual playerbase" enjoys NS solely for it's sandbox aspects, these people could just mess around with the game without even having any competition from an enemy team. That's an polar opposite view on the game compared to the "balanced competitive" one. Because "Competitive", "Balanced" and "Sandbox" are just three terms that can't fit together easily in a game context.
Unchaining all this into two different "playing modes" would allow for way more extreme (unbalancing) changes that add more points of references to see how the players and the game react to them. For example give skulks a sprint equivalent (in addition to leap), add "headbites" (skulk only, rebalance normal bite damage accordingly), turn FF on, allow multiple upgrades from one chamber type. There are so many crazy ideas out there that often can't be considered because nobody can really wrap his head around the overall consequences of them or how some of them have potential to get "abused" in an organized 6v6 setting.
If Starcraft 1 developers listened to the low-level players instead of professionals, the ZvT metagame would still be stuck at 2 hive lurker vs 1 base marine/tank rush. Don't listen to what bad players have to say about balance, they're bad for a reason.
I have to quote this for emphasis.
You hear that, devs? Don't listen to the plebs on the forums. Trust only those who have proven themselves to be the best.
Blizzard usually goes by the "easy to learn, hard to master" logic. I'm no expert but right now I think there's more to master on marines than there is on skulks.
Anyway, game won't last a month if only 50 "non-plebs" play it. To put it in politics, you don't make a government purely for the 1%. If the devs mainly design it to be fun for hardcore tournies, then the casual milk-cows won't buy it :p
You hear that, devs? Don't listen to the plebs on the forums. Trust only those who have proven themselves to be the best.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
is meb ######? meb is ######.
JackieChanWTF.jpg<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol ya really its so goddamn funny biting a rine and seeing him fly 20 ft backwards INSTANTLY
Makes it sound so very 'fun'.
I guess I'll 'look forward' to playing cannon fodder for you guys.
Makes it sound so very 'fun'.
I guess I'll 'look forward' to playing cannon fodder for you guys.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ask steam for a refund.