put something in to avoid "stalemate" situations (for more reasons than game-length)
biz
Join Date: 2012-11-05 Member: 167386Members
Join Date: 2012-11-05 Member: 167386Members
I like the concept of the game, and I think eventually the balance issues / bugs will get sorted out, but I think a lot of unresolved games that lead to poor team balance is going to kill the experience for players who aren't super-casual or super-competitive. Things might be fun and interesting for now, but when people learn the build orders and what to expect and how to react and how to survive, late-game will become a big problem.
Disclaimer: I don't claim to be an expert on the game, and I'm not trying to argue that these situations are true stalemates if both teams are filled with great players.
However, for every tactically interesting late-game victory push in a competitive 6v6, there are probably thousands of pub games (usually 8v8+) where the late-game is just stagnant. All techs are basically researched and players just go through the same motions. It's quite repetitive, and it seems to get resolved by players getting bored and leaving - not because some team actually comes out ahead. The game should become more rewarding and more interesting the more balanced it is and the longer it lasts, but NS2 is the opposite.
This just encourages server hopping where teams will rarely be fair since it's always a different group of players every time. The game is at its best when teams are roughly even, and someone wins because they were able to capitalize on an advantage that they earned by having better teamwork and strategy, not because they had a stacked team. That only happens when people see how uneven a match is and then make the teams somewhat fair for subsequent rounds. Resolving games quicker is necessary for NS2 to be played "seriously", which means players care about winning and they care about balanced teams and they finish the games they start, but they don't have to practice with the same team all the time and play competitively.
Maybe games could stay fun more often after the initial build up if players have an incentive to do something other than camp in base so that there's a clearer risk / reward tradeoff.
some other games solved these problems in interesting ways:
Starcraft resource nodes get depleted over time. Games still become long in very rare cases, but it isn't some multi-hour affair.
Enemy Territory and Counterstrike have a time limit victory condition. This creates a lot of tension and excitement, especially towards the end. People have to always choose between cautious advance and running out of time. It also becomes very easy to balance because you don't have to make the sides fair - you just need to adjust how long the weaker side has to stay alive for. And the best rounds are the ones that come down to the last few minutes.
Age of Empires has wonders (and resource depletion on some maps). Someone can decide to spend a lot of his resources making a useless building in return for winning the game if he manages to keep it alive for long enough.
Rise of Nations has a very deep tech tree where someone will ultimately come out ahead if the game goes on too long.
Even the standard arena shooters have a time limit where the higher score wins.
Alternatively, there could be some branching decisions early on where you have to choose between short-term gain and late-game strength. It doesn't even have to be related to unit abilities, but can be purely economic.
Or you could grant offensive abilities that can only be used once per round or ones that have ridiculously long cooldown. It's like you activate them before a big push and then it's do or die.
Disclaimer: I don't claim to be an expert on the game, and I'm not trying to argue that these situations are true stalemates if both teams are filled with great players.
However, for every tactically interesting late-game victory push in a competitive 6v6, there are probably thousands of pub games (usually 8v8+) where the late-game is just stagnant. All techs are basically researched and players just go through the same motions. It's quite repetitive, and it seems to get resolved by players getting bored and leaving - not because some team actually comes out ahead. The game should become more rewarding and more interesting the more balanced it is and the longer it lasts, but NS2 is the opposite.
This just encourages server hopping where teams will rarely be fair since it's always a different group of players every time. The game is at its best when teams are roughly even, and someone wins because they were able to capitalize on an advantage that they earned by having better teamwork and strategy, not because they had a stacked team. That only happens when people see how uneven a match is and then make the teams somewhat fair for subsequent rounds. Resolving games quicker is necessary for NS2 to be played "seriously", which means players care about winning and they care about balanced teams and they finish the games they start, but they don't have to practice with the same team all the time and play competitively.
Maybe games could stay fun more often after the initial build up if players have an incentive to do something other than camp in base so that there's a clearer risk / reward tradeoff.
some other games solved these problems in interesting ways:
Starcraft resource nodes get depleted over time. Games still become long in very rare cases, but it isn't some multi-hour affair.
Enemy Territory and Counterstrike have a time limit victory condition. This creates a lot of tension and excitement, especially towards the end. People have to always choose between cautious advance and running out of time. It also becomes very easy to balance because you don't have to make the sides fair - you just need to adjust how long the weaker side has to stay alive for. And the best rounds are the ones that come down to the last few minutes.
Age of Empires has wonders (and resource depletion on some maps). Someone can decide to spend a lot of his resources making a useless building in return for winning the game if he manages to keep it alive for long enough.
Rise of Nations has a very deep tech tree where someone will ultimately come out ahead if the game goes on too long.
Even the standard arena shooters have a time limit where the higher score wins.
Alternatively, there could be some branching decisions early on where you have to choose between short-term gain and late-game strength. It doesn't even have to be related to unit abilities, but can be purely economic.
Or you could grant offensive abilities that can only be used once per round or ones that have ridiculously long cooldown. It's like you activate them before a big push and then it's do or die.
Comments
Sitting down for hours, and getting nowhere is too close to my job thanks. Need something that can end games that last too long, so other commanders can have a go, teams can be rearranged, and people can goto the loo.
Either need some sort of tech sigularity countdown that ends games when both sides are teched out for a long period, or heavily nerf defense on both sides.
Currently this is more of a problem with aliens attacking marines. Marines using phasegates, sentries and beacons can hold multiple positions far easier than aliens are capable. Attack 2 bases as alien, the marines will fight both off. Attack 2 bases as marine, and the aliens will lose a hive.