Why are you trying to ban every interesting and surprising thing out of the game so that every match ends the same way? It is NOT imbalanced. The alien com can prevent very easily that a res-lock happens. If he doesn't do it, it's his fault. Imbalanced are things that can't be countered or prevented. And this ISN'T such a thing. It is a valid tactic that adds variety to the game. Stop ignoring that. And it is in no way an argument, that marines didn't have the same. Why needs to be everything the same? This is so boring. Res-Lock IS preventable. No matter what for situations you construct. You can ALWAYS have 10 res on the account when you got only 1RT. Even Flayra stated in one Q&A that he thinks it is a valid tactic.
So please, you 3 people are not the majority. Stop complaining that you can fail as com and adapt to the possibility of getting res-locked.
Sorry, that I post it again, but it is sooo true: <img src="http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/think_logically.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<!--quoteo(post=2026734:date=Nov 17 2012, 04:44 AM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Nov 17 2012, 04:44 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026734"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why are you trying to ban every interesting and surprising thing out of the game so that every match ends the same way?
So please, you 3 people are not the majority. Stop complaining that you can fail as com and adapt to the possibility of getting res-locked.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You've said a lot, but it all pretty much boiled down to you suck learn to play. I believe you have still failed in the earlier challenge, as 'you suck' is unfortunately not a strategy by definition, let alone a valid way to counter any previous arguments.
It's not a big thing to change, and it cuts down what amounts to a stupid bit of luck. If it's supposed to be an alternate win-state, don't make us play through what amounts to a turkey shoot.
The more people that have this happen, the more people will realize how dumb it is. You <i>might</i> have lost the game anyway, but literally without the ability to evolve or build the aliens might as well just be there for target practice. It's also easy for some better players to ROFLStomp spawn camp newer commanders, and this should never be encouraged.
Anyway what's said is said. I doubt this is something that will be changed, but there is no real defense for this Marine advantage. If they ever fix the six minute Onos, that's when it'll hit the fan. This 'game feature' will occur a lot more frequently.
No it will not. It does occur scarce. It did occur scarce in the beta and it won't occur more often in the future.
Sorry that you think, my aim was to insult you. It wasn't. I just tried AGAIN to open your eyes, that this strategy is not imbalanced. And therefor not a problem or a thing that needs to be fixed. It also doesn't need more luck to get the aliens res-locked when you actively try it, as getting down the power node in the marine base, because you had the luck that no marine was there and the com didn't see it.
This is the same failure the alien com can do when he doesn't see that he has no RTs left. It boils down to: The com did a mistake and that costs you the game. And it is very valid. It has nothing to do with "You suck", but with "Accept that this mechanic is in the game and adapt to it instead of criticizing it." What you 3 people do is exactly what is described in the comic above.
if you can't defend your last RT -AND- your commander can't set 10 res aside to build a new one, then you deserve to lose. it's not bad luck, it comes down to lack of knowledge, ignorance or epic failure.
in starcraft, if you lose all of your hatcheries/nexus/CC, and don't have the necessary 300-400 minerals to rebuild then you essentially have the same situation. also, if you lose all of your workers and don't have the necessary 50 minerals to build another. this has worked for over a decade and has been accepted by millions of people.
i don't see a problem with giving hive an emergency buffer - but at the end of the day you still epic failed and deserve to lose the game for being crap. what's next? every time you die some magic defibrillators appear and spark you back to life?
it's harsh - but RTS games are harsh and i would consider the RTS side to be the heart of NS2... without RTS it's a very trivial and imbalanced game, because without the focus on resources. which allows elements of stealth, ambushing, espionage, harrassment etc then it would only require 1:1 deathmatch balance which is simply non functional and BORING.
A lot of people seem to be dismissing this out of hand because of the 'part of the game' mentality. If you read through the posts here where people debate the issue, not many people have suggested that res lock shouldn't be in the game. This isn't where the debate is focused.
The issue at hand more specifically addresses the fact that a game state exists in which every button on the alien comm's screen becomes an instant lose button. When in the same situation, the opposite team does not experience this. The debate shouldn't be about res locking in general but rather the following questions.
Is this ok that aliens face this problem and marines do not? Is it fair that marines comm has a more forgiving experience? If res lock is a win condition, should the game end immediately? If res lock is a win condition, should it be truly possible for both teams?
<!--quoteo(post=2026782:date=Nov 17 2012, 12:17 PM:name=__Viking)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (__Viking @ Nov 17 2012, 12:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026782"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A lot of people seem to be dismissing this out of hand because of the 'part of the game' mentality. If you read through the posts here where people debate the issue, not many people have suggested that res lock shouldn't be in the game. This isn't where the debate is focused.
The issue at hand more specifically addresses the fact that a game state exists in which every button on the alien comm's screen becomes an instant lose button. When in the same situation, the opposite team does not experience this. The debate shouldn't be about res locking in general but rather the following questions.
Is this ok that aliens face this problem and marines do not? Is it fair that marines comm has a more forgiving experience? If res lock is a win condition, should the game end immediately? If res lock is a win condition, should it be truly possible for both teams?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
if marines lose their IP's and all of their marines are dead, they lose.
why doesn't this happen? because decent marines will spot that noone is defending and will 'hang back' to defend at least until phase tech or observatory is up which would allow a faster response time.
aliens lose their last harvester and don't have enough resources, they lose.
but somehow this is different and unfair and baby need's his hand held by mommy.
<!--quoteo(post=2026254:date=Nov 16 2012, 06:32 PM:name=Techercizer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Techercizer @ Nov 16 2012, 06:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026254"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Aliens rush Marine Start IPs to force a Beacon. Little do they know the Com has screwed up his res and can't afford it. Much to their surprise, the com doesn't beacon, and they aliens push through to destroy all the IPs. With no way to respawn, the Marine team is quickly cut down around the map, while the aliens in Marine Start ambush anybody who returns to build new IPs. No matter how much map presence the Marines had or how well they were doing, if their team loses their IPs the aliens can simply overwhelm the surviving players.
Shut up now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2026256:date=Nov 16 2012, 06:34 PM:name=SpaceJew)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SpaceJew @ Nov 16 2012, 06:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026256"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What, kind of like how the Aliens can be egg-locked at the very beginning of the game?
If the Marines push off the first base rush, guess what. They still have resources. The commander could <i>recycle the observatory</i> to build a new Res node or IP if he wanted.
Next please.
EDIT: Oh, and by the way, if the marines are 'around the map' he could also recycle base objects and simply <i>move them to another tech point.</i> Oops.
I guess you can't tell a well reasoned argument from crying. I interpret your response to be an admission that early base rushes are, in fact, symetrical with egg locking which easily invalidated your statement as per the direct quote daring you to make a decent example. Your failure to do so is noted.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2026265:date=Nov 16 2012, 06:38 PM:name=__Viking)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (__Viking @ Nov 16 2012, 06:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026265"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Non sequitur. This is about the same as the marines rushing in and egglocking a hive, all those who come to defend get killed by the occupying force.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2026874:date=Nov 17 2012, 09:38 AM:name=tarquinbb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tarquinbb @ Nov 17 2012, 09:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026874"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->if marines lose their IP's and all of their marines are dead, they lose.
why doesn't this happen? because decent marines will spot that noone is defending and will 'hang back' to defend at least until phase tech or observatory is up which would allow a faster response time.
aliens lose their last harvester and don't have enough resources, they lose.
but somehow this is different and unfair and baby need's his hand held by mommy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2026874:date=Nov 17 2012, 08:38 AM:name=tarquinbb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tarquinbb @ Nov 17 2012, 08:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026874"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->if marines lose their IP's and all of their marines are dead, they lose.
why doesn't this happen? because decent marines will spot that noone is defending and will 'hang back' to defend at least until phase tech or observatory is up which would allow a faster response time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, and the game ends appropriately when this occurs.
So why is it the aliens become sitting ducks, yet the Marines team are given a new round to play? Hmm?
Killing all the Marine IP's, with no surviving Marines to build them, results in an <i>instant victory for Aliens and a new round begins.</i> Aliens who are resource locked experience all the joys of <i>being target practice</i> until the Marines get tired of milking their victory and finally kill the hive. This varies by how many jerkwads are on the other team. (Not to mention the Marines can egg lock the Aliens <i>and</i> be resource locked at the same time. Yup, that's fun right?)
'Hand Holding' isn't a valid argument to what is clearly a B.S. tactic. If anything, the random luck in resource locking the other team is hand holding since resource towers are <i>already</i> a primary target for both teams. Having one team punished in the way they are for the resource tower back-and-forth is, to put it mildly, retarded. What if you saved that 10 T.Res, because you know what the result is if you have no towers, but you drop it and once again it's killed? Hmm? It would take you <i>ten flipping ticks</i> to even have a chance at <i>one more tower</i>. The aliens don't lose when that last tower goes down, but they might as well have. <i>That's</i> my problem.
I think it's awesome how people keep saying this is a L2P issue when it's happened in competitive play as well. If anything I would have thought that would open peoples eyes to how B.S. this is. Saying it 'expands the winning conditions' is technically true, it's just incredibly one-sided in how it expands the winning conditions <i>and</i> it's simply not fun to lose in this way. I guess it <i>is</i> a lot of fun for fully upgraded Marines to mow down skulks in a spawn camp, but hey <i>I should learn to play</i>, that would fix this right! Only wait, <i>it's impossible to come back from.</i> Whoops! F4 time guys!
Let's just make all the res towers invincible for the duration of the game. First come, first serve. Keeping track of those pesky towers and coordinating with your team is such a hassle.
<!--quoteo(post=2026902:date=Nov 17 2012, 09:23 AM:name=__Viking)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (__Viking @ Nov 17 2012, 09:23 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026902"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why are we going in circles?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because people are incapable of reason or simply can't look at the games winning conditions objectively.
<!--quoteo(post=2027221:date=Nov 17 2012, 03:37 PM:name=tk-421)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tk-421 @ Nov 17 2012, 03:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2027221"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Let's just make all the res towers invincible for the duration of the game. First come, first serve. Keeping track of those pesky towers and coordinating with your team is such a hassle.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fact that there has not been even one well-reasoned argument for why resource locking is in the game is illustrative of how stupid resource locking is. You have also failed in the challenge to give one single example of asymmetrical balance as it relates to resource locking as a winning condition.
Sarcasm, while it could be considered a strategy, is not a valid winning condition of NS2. Nice try though.
<b>Winning Conditions in NS2:</b>
<i>Aliens:</i> 1) Kill All the Marines, and IP's. (Instantly Ends Match) 2) Kill All the Marines Command Chairs. (Instantly Ends Match)
<i>Marines</i> 1) Resource Lock the Aliens. (Does not End Match) 2) Kill all the Hives. (Instantly Ends Match) 3) Egg Lock Aliens. (Does not End Match)
Marines have three options to ultimately win the game, Aliens have two. Two of the marines options result in some of the most frustrating game play imaginable, while all the conditions to win as alien give the Marines a new match.
All of the Aliens winning conditions are conglomerated together making it impossible to assault one without assaulting the other in any practical way, while the Marines have two that occur concurrently and one that's spread out over the whole map.
They simply do not compare, since resource locking the Aliens has other repercussions beyond a winning strategy. It completely shuts them out of the game, while not ending the match. There are those who say 'you still have a chance to win, just swarm the Marines base.' I can see the logic there, but it simply doesn't work out that way. Skulks with no upgrades fall easily to even one or two Marines with a turret battery, and can be held at bay nigh indefinitely. Even the 'best' skulks will be mowed down, and as I stated if the Marines have even two tech points it's instant fail without actually ending the match. It's pointlessly painful for the Aliens, and needlessly draws out a match.
Also, two of the three Marines win conditions are ripe to be abused for spawn camping and general trolling. This is, again, something that should not be encouraged.
The very fact this is a resource game makes being locked out of the resource game, yet not being defeated, illogical. Especially when it's only one team that can be defeated in such a way. Everyone agrees that being resource locked is game over, except for the game itself. How does that make sense?
I actually like the fact that you used chess as a metaphor for NS2, other than the fact that Chess is, in fact, a 100% symmetrical game hence the reason for 'strategy'. The end-game winning condition is <i>exactly the same</i> for both teams. The <i>strategy</i> is in achieving the end-game condition to win in different ways, not in having different conditions to win for both teams. Sadly, even your metaphorical argument has failed to defend resource lock as a game mechanic.
<!--quoteo(post=2027223:date=Nov 17 2012, 12:42 PM:name=SpaceJew)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SpaceJew @ Nov 17 2012, 12:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2027223"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because people are incapable of reason or simply can't look at the games winning conditions objectively.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
-_-
<!--quoteo(post=2027223:date=Nov 17 2012, 12:42 PM:name=SpaceJew)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SpaceJew @ Nov 17 2012, 12:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2027223"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You've said a lot, but it all pretty much boiled down to you suck learn to play. I believe you have still failed in the earlier challenge, as 'you suck' is unfortunately not a strategy by definition, let alone a valid way to counter any previous arguments.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, actually, it is. This ENTIRE thread can basically be summed up as 3 or 4 people trying to turn chess into checkers. Because chess is too hard sometimes.
<!--quoteo(post=2027223:date=Nov 17 2012, 12:42 PM:name=SpaceJew)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SpaceJew @ Nov 17 2012, 12:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2027223"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The fact that there has not been even one well-reasoned argument for why resource locking is in the game is illustrative of how stupid resource locking is.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Charlie actually stated, quite clearly, that it is a valid path for winning. FOR WINNING. What more do you want?
I want to re-iterate that point, because it's important. THE HEAD OF THE STUDIO THAT DESIGNED THE GAME CLEARLY STATED THAT IT'S A VALID TACTIC FOR WINNING.
<!--quoteo(post=2027223:date=Nov 17 2012, 12:42 PM:name=SpaceJew)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SpaceJew @ Nov 17 2012, 12:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2027223"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Everyone agrees that being resource locked is game over, except for the game itself. How does that make sense?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? No. Why do you make such grand assumptions? You just said - "There are those who say 'you still have a chance to win, just swarm the Marines base.'" So which is it? Does everyone agree it ends the game or do some people believe you can swarm the base?
<!--quoteo(post=2027223:date=Nov 17 2012, 12:42 PM:name=SpaceJew)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SpaceJew @ Nov 17 2012, 12:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2027223"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I actually like the fact that you used chess as a metaphor for NS2, other than the fact that Chess is, in fact, a 100% symmetrical game hence the reason for 'strategy'.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are the king of non-sequiturs. Non-symmetrical games can still be strategic. Chess does not derive all of its strategy from its symmetry. It's a symmetrical game, sure, but the strategy is in executing your plan of attack and reacting to your opponent.
<!--quoteo(post=2027325:date=Nov 17 2012, 06:04 PM:name=tk-421)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tk-421 @ Nov 17 2012, 06:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2027325"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well, actually, it is. This ENTIRE thread can basically be summed up as 3 or 4 people trying to turn chess into checkers. Because chess is too hard sometimes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again you use a metaphor that does not, in fact, have any relation at all to the current discussion. Using your logic, the Black team would be able to win through a tactic that is impossible to achieve by the White team. Chess and checkers are both symmetrical games with the exact same winning conditions no matter which 'team' you play on. How does that even slightly apply to the given situation except to prove 'we three players' correct in the end?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Charlie actually stated, quite clearly, that it is a valid path for winning. FOR WINNING. What more do you want?
I want to re-iterate that point, because it's important. THE HEAD OF THE STUDIO THAT DESIGNED THE GAME CLEARLY STATED THAT IT'S A VALID TACTIC FOR WINNING.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's his game, he can design it however he wants. That doesn't make it logical, as last time I checked he was human. If he wants a game that gives the advantage to the Marines it's his business to do so. I can question him by right of being a human being that paid for his game, although that does <i>not</i> mean he needs to change his game in any way. Nor do I believe that he will based on three players. I can merely voice my opinion that as things stand it's weighted in favor of the Marines team in winning strategies.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What? No. Why do you make such grand assumptions? You just said - "There are those who say 'you still have a chance to win, just swarm the Marines base.'" So which is it? Does everyone agree it ends the game or do some people believe you can swarm the base?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm implying that they're wrong. That's which one it is. You would know that if you weren't selectively editing your quotes or if you actually read what I wrote.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You are the king of non-sequiturs. Non-symmetrical games can still be strategic. Chess does not derive all of its strategy from its symmetry. It's a symmetrical game, sure, but the strategy is in executing your plan of attack and reacting to your opponent.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was never implying anything, I was explicitly stating that one team is weighted with more end-game winning scenarios. It's actually you that are bringing up arguments with no bearing on the current discussion and implying many things that aren't true, yet somehow think you're 'making sense'. This is made more obvious by your selective editing of quotes and the fact you're completely ignoring the salient points that have been made. Either you're incapable of seeing the issue, purposely misinterpreting whats being said, or have not actually run into this issue before. Either way, you are not adding to the conversation beyond saying L2P and 'it's in the game live with it'.
I'm still playing, and having fun. I know how to avoid the issue at hand, but it's always hanging over the Aliens head. Especially when there are several Marines that have made it their mission to kill resource towers. Eventually, the only structure you <i>can</i> build are resource towers and losing the last one wins the game. That's fine, but it neglects actually fighting the aliens. You fight their nodes, and nothing else, which is also something the dev team has said they don't like; fighting structures and not players.
<!--quoteo(post=2027343:date=Nov 17 2012, 03:24 PM:name=SpaceJew)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SpaceJew @ Nov 17 2012, 03:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2027343"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is made more obvious by your selective editing of quotes and the fact you're completely ignoring the salient points that have been made.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Usually, in a discussion where you disagree with someone, you focus on the points where you disagree.
<!--quoteo(post=2027343:date=Nov 17 2012, 03:24 PM:name=SpaceJew)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SpaceJew @ Nov 17 2012, 03:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2027343"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's actually you that are bringing up arguments with no bearing on the current discussion and implying many things that aren't true, yet somehow think you're 'making sense'.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you serious?
a) You said there were no arguments for keeping res lock. b) I pointed out a simple argument for keeping res lock. c) You now say that I have not brought up a valid argument for discussion.
I'm done here. If you want to have an actual discussion perhaps other people can entertain you.
i like how i compared it to marines losing their IP's and they shrugged it off as "going in circles".
errr guys, how is it any different?
do aliens stop spawning if they lose an egg? no, the egg just respawns after some seconds. marines have their own 'instalose' situations which are devilishly hard to recover from. ergo it's not a balance issue because it happens to both teams.
You're argument boils down to 'thats just the way it is', which isn't an argument rather a statment of fact. It doesn't address anything other than you think its fine without justification for that view.
<!--quoteo(post=2026782:date=Nov 17 2012, 07:17 AM:name=__Viking)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (__Viking @ Nov 17 2012, 07:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026782"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A lot of people seem to be dismissing this out of hand because of the 'part of the game' mentality. If you read through the posts here where people debate the issue, not many people have suggested that res lock shouldn't be in the game. This isn't where the debate is focused.
The issue at hand more specifically addresses the fact that a game state exists in which every button on the alien comm's screen becomes an instant lose button. When in the same situation, the opposite team does not experience this. The debate shouldn't be about res locking in general but rather the following questions.
Is this ok that aliens face this problem and marines do not? Is it fair that marines comm has a more forgiving experience? If res lock is a win condition, should the game end immediately? If res lock is a win condition, should it be truly possible for both teams?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, I'm starting to think that there's two problems at work here. Number one, people are ONLY reading the last few post of the thread and assuming that we're all just whining about a situation. And number two, debate suddenly means lets all insult each other and ignore the issue.
I don't think I can clarify things further than this:
RES LOCK IS AN INHERENT PART OF ANY RTS GAME, I HAVE NEVER SAID IT SHOULDN'T EXIST.
However, I feel the questions quoted above are relevant and I'll add one more.
Should killing a harvester be more valuable than killing an extractor? (Because it currently is.)
I dare you to explain how these questions turn chess into checkers.
<!--quoteo(post=2027389:date=Nov 17 2012, 08:14 PM:name=tarquinbb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tarquinbb @ Nov 17 2012, 08:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2027389"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i like how i compared it to marines losing their IP's and they shrugged it off as "going in circles".
errr guys, how is it any different?
do aliens stop spawning if they lose an egg? no, the egg just respawns after some seconds. marines have their own 'instalose' situations which are devilishly hard to recover from. ergo it's not a balance issue because it happens to both teams.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This argument was shrugged off when you brought it up because it had already been addressed, and I quoted those portions of the conversation so you could catch up. It's rather difficult to have a discourse when one party isn't listening.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=2027223:date=Nov 17 2012, 01:42 PM:name=SpaceJew)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SpaceJew @ Nov 17 2012, 01:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2027223"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>Winning Conditions in NS2:</b>
<i>Aliens:</i> 1) Kill All the Marines, and IP's. (Instantly Ends Match) 2) Kill All the Marines Command Chairs. (Instantly Ends Match)
<i>Marines</i> 1) Resource Lock the Aliens. (Does not End Match) 2) Kill all the Hives. (Instantly Ends Match) 3) Egg Lock Aliens. (Does not End Match)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aliens: 3) Kill the base powernode (Does not end match, but easily can)
Also #1 on marine side is not a strategy or tactic because marines NEVER know if aliens are res locked while actually playing on the field, as they dont know what resources the alien comm has saved up.. so at best its an unintentional form of "potential winning that does not end the match".. hardly considered a "strategy." And a resource lock is not a winning condition by any stretch of the imagination.. players still continue to spawn and it becomes a game about "time".. you have a matter of time until the enemy out techs you now, so kill quick. Since the enemy rarely knows that you are res locked, its in your best interest to strike quick - so the worst thing you can assign res locking is that it forces the team into one remaining tactic : to rush.
So the way i see it:
Aliens 1) Kill All the Marines, and IP's. (Instantly Ends Match) 2) Kill All the Marines Command Chairs. (Instantly Ends Match) 3) Kill the base powernode (Does not end match, but typically does)
Marines 1) Resource Lock the Aliens. (Forces a strategy) 2) Kill all the Hives. (Instantly Ends Match) 3) Egg Lock Aliens. (Does not End Match)
So at best they are tied, and at worst Aliens have more ways to win.
Thats the last time im going to say it, its crazy to think, that a way to win the game exists where A the aliens don't know its going to happen so can't prepare a def. for it, its not just pub comm's who are new falling for this error, see the ESL.
And B, the marines don't even know they have done it.
Its not a race against time to end the game, its over, for aliens when this occurs.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=2027415:date=Nov 17 2012, 05:42 PM:name=tarquinbb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tarquinbb @ Nov 17 2012, 05:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2027415"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->who cares if it instantly ends the match or not?
the fat lady will be singing shortly afterwards. i think you're clutching at straws.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> lol if i could count the amount of times i've been a) egglocked and came back to win b) power lost in base and repaired leading to a win I think you aren't considering everything, or even the stats of these occurrences, and my post was merely to point out what i felt to be an inaccuracy from that poster as he too did the same. :)
<!--quoteo(post=2027418:date=Nov 18 2012, 01:44 AM:name=|R18|Zerg)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (|R18|Zerg @ Nov 18 2012, 01:44 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2027418"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Res lock on one side only is imba.
Thats the last time im going to say it, its crazy to think, that a way to win the game exists where A the aliens don't know its going to happen so can't prepare a def. for it, its not just pub comm's who are new falling for this error, see the ESL.
And B, the marines don't even know they have done it.
Its not a race against time to end the game, its over, for aliens when this occurs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so marines kill all of the extractors and then do what... sit in their base and have a picnic for 20 minutes? someone is bound to poke a nose in and see still no extractor, telltale sign.
also, how often do you see marines having to recycle stuff in order to throw an extractor down to save their own resource lock? i've never seen it. it doesn't happen because aliens can just go for IP's or power instead.
<!--quoteo(post=2027406:date=Nov 17 2012, 08:35 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Nov 17 2012, 08:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2027406"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Aliens: 3) Kill the base powernode (Does not end match, but easily can)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think this is a bit of a stretch. Its efficacy hinges upon the marines only being on one base or only having IPs in their main. Furthermore it isn't exactly a discrete win condition as much as it is an avenue to achieve #1.
Your comments on a res locked alien team are quite correct. Certainly an alien team can win while res locked, they are just on a time limit. This doesn't quite sit right with me though, mainly because if that all in push fails there's going to be a bit of time waiting to lose. I don't like ready rooming as a concede option, I think if forfeiting is an option the devs wish us to have then they'll give it to us. This doesn't appear to be a situation with an elegant solution. Applying my own argument to res locking the aliens, it becomes clear that res lock is an avenue toward killing all the enemy hives. This thread exists because games that end like this tend to not be fun, and if this situation could be made to suck less it may help things a bit.
<!--quoteo(post=2027437:date=Nov 17 2012, 07:56 PM:name=__Viking)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (__Viking @ Nov 17 2012, 07:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2027437"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think this is a bit of a stretch. Its efficacy hinges upon the marines only being on one base or only having IPs in their main. Furthermore it isn't exactly a discrete win condition as much as it is an avenue to achieve #1.
This thread exists because games that end like this tend to not be fun, and if this situation could be made to suck less it may help things a bit.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty much precisely this. I don't have an inherent problem with being resource locked, it's that being resource locked, as conceded by a lead tester, puts you on a 'timer' of sorts where you either rush and destroy the Marines base or you don't. Even if the Marines don't know for a fact you've been resourced locked, <i>is it inherently fun to be locked out of the very feature that makes this game unique?</i> The 'chance' to come back from this situation is a very brief chance, followed by a painful stretch that lasts as long as the Marines team want it to.
Even if the marines are totally unware of the Aliens being resource locked it doesn't make it effective past that first desperate base rush. If they win that, it's an unstoppable march of doom that is quite simply unfun to play. Yes, I can F4. But doing so is cheap and at the end of the day it isn't actually fair to the Marines. It's a lousy way to win, and anyone looking for a good game would agree on that point unless winning in a cheap and lucky way is part of their joy in playing rather than legitimately out playing the other team. As was recently established, <i>there is no way for the Marines to purposely lock the Aliens out of resources.</i> This means it's a side effect, a lucky break, and a situation that leads to some of the worst one sided game play in Natural Selection 2. It quite literally turns the game into a match where one side has a ton of cool toys to play with at their own liesure, while the aliens are forced into repeated desperate attempts to assail increasingly impossible defenses.
We might as well be playing a one-sided RTS or a flash-based turret defense game as soon as the Aliens are resourced locked. It's a fun way for the Marines to play around with their fancy toys while stomping a team of newer players into dust in the most frustrating way imaginable by reducing their strategy to only one option. There is no similar way to lock the Marines into a single method of winning the game and therein lies the problem.
I admit the lead play tester is likely to have far, far, <i>far</i> more experience in Natural Selection so I'm giving his comments a lot of weight. I just can't agree with that assessment. Killing a power node is indeed a way to win, however it is simply an alternate strategy on how to achieve one of the points I listed rather than an honest alternate path to success in my admittedly limited view. I've only played roughly 150+ hours of Natural Selection, while I'm sure he has thousands. Even with tons of experience, it seems even the most 'professional' league Natural Selection 2 players are still vulnerable to a one-sided game mechanic at the end of the day. Just because it's an <i>avoidable</i> mechanic doesn't make the mechanic a good one. At best, it makes it a silly one. At worst, it will make you question your sanity as the red mist of rage overtakes you.
The fact that there is a path to winning that is completely governed by luck and happenstance involving a regular action that will be taken by any good team on either side? This strikes me as a serious imbalance even if it's a rare eventuality, and while I'd love to have my mind changed I simply haven't seen something that legitimately explains the imbalance beyond the fact that it seems to have been purposely done that way. The reasons <i>why</i> it was designed to be such a one-sided occurrence is the mystery, especially when trying to think of an alternate situation that would be <i>even remotely similar</i> for the Marines.
Oh, and to those that keep using the refrain "It's supposed to be like that"? I submit to you the three minute Onos strategy. I guess if Resource Locking is intentional than so-to must the three minute Onos be an intentional path for the Aliens to win. I'm not saying one way or the other what my opinion of that issue is here, but if you have a problem with one surely you can see how a system can have unintended consequences even with the best of intentions.
Hell, the most recent declaration of overdoing the Regeneration buffs should show you that game designers are not, in fact, omniscient. It's our privilege as players to submit things that we think are unbalanced and be proven right or wrong. (Or ignored.) Honestly, at the end of the day, there are a lot of people that probably play the end result of their labor of love more than the designers themselves do. Especially in actual public matches.
You think I'm making mountains out of molehills, which perhaps I am; but I unequivocally can state that an imbalance in end-game scenarios in a game that is inherently asymmetrical is a very difficult thing to balance. This example is one that should strike anyone as glaring, and I think the lack of issue with this problem simply stems from it's infrequency of occurrence. (Which is also probably how it was missed in-house as a bad mechanic.) The more it actually happens to a team, the more I think people will come around to realizing how bad of a game mechanic it really is.
I seem to recall that Devour was removed because it took players out of the game and removed control from them. Being resource locked is a similar frustration, only it's a team-wide phenomena. You have no choice in what you do after a resource lock. <b>It's base rush, or F4. That's it. No amount of skill, or play, or <i>literally anything</i> can change that in a given round no matter what else changes.</b> If massively frustrating, one-sided game play is the end result this mechanic certainly illustrates it. This is quite literally my only <i>real</i> problem with NS2 and it's a fairly small issue when considering the numbers of game's played I'm sure. Otherwise it's a fun, infinitely replayable game. This mechanic simply doesn't feel like it fits, or it fits but only if the 'units' in question were not controlled by actual human beings.
I don't know how many matches you have played now. But I can say you, res-lock is not imbalanced. It is simply asymmetrical. If it would destroy the balance, aliens wouldn't have more wins than the marines. Sure, there are many effects in place that can shift the overall balance, and that is good, because this is an asymmetric game. The asymmetry does not stop at the winning conditions. There are other aspects that can balance this out. It also happens so scarce, that you are exaggerating this issue to a problem that is non.
So everything boils down to: What is "fun"? And this is a very subjective thing. And as you see in the controversy in this thread. Many people think it IS fun. It is a surprising element that can end games in a way, that you doesn't expect at first. Best seen in the competitive matches where it was used. As I said and you ignored, even the moderators got all excited about it. It was (like in good story telling) an unexpected twist. And this is very fun.
If this would happen to often, you may be right. It would lose its fun, because it isn't a surprise anymore. But you lie, when you say that it happens this often. Let's just stop to talk in circles and accept, that other peoples find this mechanic fun and don't want to miss it. And Flayra thinks the same way. Even if he reads this thread, he will see, that only a minority of 4 or 5 people are against this mechanic. Or at least, that it is a very controversial topic. And if something is controversial, you better not change it. You will only make people happy for the cost of other people that were happy.
<!--quoteo(post=2027437:date=Nov 18 2012, 01:56 AM:name=__Viking)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (__Viking @ Nov 18 2012, 01:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2027437"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think this is a bit of a stretch. Its efficacy hinges upon the marines only being on one base or only having IPs in their main. Furthermore it isn't exactly a discrete win condition as much as it is an avenue to achieve #1.
Your comments on a res locked alien team are quite correct. Certainly an alien team can win while res locked, they are just on a time limit. This doesn't quite sit right with me though, mainly because if that all in push fails there's going to be a bit of time waiting to lose. I don't like ready rooming as a concede option, I think if forfeiting is an option the devs wish us to have then they'll give it to us. This doesn't appear to be a situation with an elegant solution. Applying my own argument to res locking the aliens, it becomes clear that res lock is an avenue toward killing all the enemy hives. This thread exists because games that end like this tend to not be fun, and if this situation could be made to suck less it may help things a bit.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
how often do you see marines having to recycle stuff in order to throw an extractor down to save their own resource lock? i've never seen it. it doesn't happen because aliens can just go for IP's or power instead.
i think the reason why it doesn't say 'MARINES WIN' after getting res locked is kind of obvious, it's because the game is not necessarily over - aliens could still all-in and maybe win. all you lose with res lock is your tech progression, therefore it's logical to go for an all-in. additionally, if the game instantaneously ended on res lock then it might not be apparent why you abruptly lost the game.
but there are plenty of situations like res lock from which you <i>should</i> not be able to recover. for example you kill the marine main command station and overrun their 2nd command station, preventing the 'commanderless' marines from retaking it. should the game instantly say "ALIENS WIN"? because the marines effectively have to all-in to stand a chance.
you guys are seriously thinking too much like an FPS game, so of course the RTS mechanics don't make sense. on the other hand, anyone who's played RTS like starcraft is very familiar with situations like this where for example you get rushed and lose all of your harvesters - you have no chance to recover because they'll storm miles ahead of you economically - you either GG right there or you try an all-in strategy... those are your only two options.
<!--quoteo(post=2025701:date=Nov 16 2012, 09:57 AM:name=nSidia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (nSidia @ Nov 16 2012, 09:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2025701"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Its bad gameplay man. Ns2 is supposed to be a strategy game where teams go at each other with a build order for early, mid and late game. Its pretty dumb when marines can just say ###### strategy! You go for a early hive we go for res lock. Res for killing needs to come back. I'm not saying teams shouldn't be punished for spending and losing there towers. But they shouldn't be out of the game. Im pretty sure this is why res for killing was in ns1 in the first place.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How is this bad gameplay? If you haven't managed your resources properly and you lose, that's just gg. The whole theory behind Kharaa is that their structures are grown, not built, so you can't ungrow something but you can recycle artificial structures. Even if there's res for killing, I don't see how that would help since its Team res that goes toward harvestors.
<!--quoteo(post=2027777:date=Nov 18 2012, 06:55 AM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Nov 18 2012, 06:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2027777"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So everything boils down to: What is "fun"? And this is a very subjective thing. And as you see in the controversy in this thread. Many people think it IS fun. It is a surprising element that can end games in a way, that you doesn't expect at first. Best seen in the competitive matches where it was used. As I said and you ignored, even the moderators got all excited about it. It was (like in good story telling) an unexpected twist. And this is very fun.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Until now, I have not said much of my own opinion on this topic. I agree with you here, and the game needs <i>more</i> res locking, not less. The game may have portions that play like an FPS, but the win conditions are that of an RTS. Playing to win is playing to achieve these win conditions. Egg locking and IP sniping are essentially FPS classics of team deathmatch. The destruction of tech points is very much the same as a demolition objective as per many FPS games. This one you could argue, but by most RTS game rules, you must destroy <i>all</i> buildings to win, not simply command structures. Furthermore, one could argue that without a command structure, you are on the same time limit as one is when res locked. So I say, there should be more in the game that favors RTS win conditions, and this means <b>more res locking</b>.
Now to achieve this there is a significant hurdle: recycling. Marines <i>can</i> be res locked, but recycling mitigates this. I do not dispute the marines ability to recycle, but it has side effects that are problematic.
As for the aliens and a recycle ability not fitting with their lore, consider the following. Lets not say recycle and use reorganize instead. So as marines you can reorganize the components of an armory to build a phase gate. So then would it be too much of a stretch to say aliens can reorganize a crag into a harvester. To answer this, I'm going to use the enigmatic lives of spiders. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_web" target="_blank">Spider Web</a> <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It is common for spiders to eat their own web daily to recoup some of the energy used in spinning.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_cannibalism" target="_blank">Spider Cannibalism</a> <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Once the male has mated, he is unlikely to mate again and so any further extension of his life is of lesser evolutionary benefit than his indirectly contributing nutrition to the eggs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Spiders often practice a reorganization of matter into energy they can use elsewhere by eating their webs or their mates. This is not something that is unique to spiders either and happens in nature quite frequently. It would not be so much of a stretch for a drifter to have the ability to consume a structure, and then go morph into a new one after harnessing those nutrients.
That being said, my only intention was to make the case for alien recycling seem a plausible idea. <u><b>I do not think that it should be in the game.</b></u> The problem remains that recycling prevents marine res lock, and I don't have a solution for that. This is the line of thought that raises my earlier question: <!--quoteo(post=2026782:date=Nov 17 2012, 12:17 PM:name=__Viking)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (__Viking @ Nov 17 2012, 12:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026782"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Is this ok that aliens face this problem and marines do not?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The possible implications of this are that the value of a harvester outweighs the value of an extractor. This is because killing a harvester has the potential to res lock the aliens whereas killing an extractor cannot do this to marines. This notion tends to fit early gameplay where a skulk's primary focus should be killing extractors and avoiding combat. This balance only holds however, if marines do not take up the same mentality. Interestingly enough, hyper aggressive marines are exactly what you see in high level play, and aliens are usually lucky if they have three or more harvesters up.
Marines can be res locked... It's unlikely since you could recycle some things but if you have to recycle your armory, arms lab, ips, or obs then... Yea the game is over. Similarly if the alien comm is in the hive and letting the rt get killed... Well yea you deserve to lose, it's no different than a marine comm sitting in the chair while the power is getting killed or not beaconing.
Comments
It is NOT imbalanced. The alien com can prevent very easily that a res-lock happens. If he doesn't do it, it's his fault. Imbalanced are things that can't be countered or prevented. And this ISN'T such a thing. It is a valid tactic that adds variety to the game. Stop ignoring that. And it is in no way an argument, that marines didn't have the same. Why needs to be everything the same? This is so boring. Res-Lock IS preventable. No matter what for situations you construct. You can ALWAYS have 10 res on the account when you got only 1RT.
Even Flayra stated in one Q&A that he thinks it is a valid tactic.
So please, you 3 people are not the majority. Stop complaining that you can fail as com and adapt to the possibility of getting res-locked.
Sorry, that I post it again, but it is sooo true:
<img src="http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/think_logically.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
So please, you 3 people are not the majority. Stop complaining that you can fail as com and adapt to the possibility of getting res-locked.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You've said a lot, but it all pretty much boiled down to you suck learn to play. I believe you have still failed in the earlier challenge, as 'you suck' is unfortunately not a strategy by definition, let alone a valid way to counter any previous arguments.
It's not a big thing to change, and it cuts down what amounts to a stupid bit of luck. If it's supposed to be an alternate win-state, don't make us play through what amounts to a turkey shoot.
The more people that have this happen, the more people will realize how dumb it is. You <i>might</i> have lost the game anyway, but literally without the ability to evolve or build the aliens might as well just be there for target practice. It's also easy for some better players to ROFLStomp spawn camp newer commanders, and this should never be encouraged.
Anyway what's said is said. I doubt this is something that will be changed, but there is no real defense for this Marine advantage. If they ever fix the six minute Onos, that's when it'll hit the fan. This 'game feature' will occur a lot more frequently.
Sorry that you think, my aim was to insult you. It wasn't. I just tried AGAIN to open your eyes, that this strategy is not imbalanced. And therefor not a problem or a thing that needs to be fixed. It also doesn't need more luck to get the aliens res-locked when you actively try it, as getting down the power node in the marine base, because you had the luck that no marine was there and the com didn't see it.
This is the same failure the alien com can do when he doesn't see that he has no RTs left. It boils down to: The com did a mistake and that costs you the game. And it is very valid. It has nothing to do with "You suck", but with "Accept that this mechanic is in the game and adapt to it instead of criticizing it." What you 3 people do is exactly what is described in the comic above.
if you can't defend your last RT -AND- your commander can't set 10 res aside to build a new one, then you deserve to lose. it's not bad luck, it comes down to lack of knowledge, ignorance or epic failure.
in starcraft, if you lose all of your hatcheries/nexus/CC, and don't have the necessary 300-400 minerals to rebuild then you essentially have the same situation. also, if you lose all of your workers and don't have the necessary 50 minerals to build another. this has worked for over a decade and has been accepted by millions of people.
i don't see a problem with giving hive an emergency buffer - but at the end of the day you still epic failed and deserve to lose the game for being crap. what's next? every time you die some magic defibrillators appear and spark you back to life?
it's harsh - but RTS games are harsh and i would consider the RTS side to be the heart of NS2... without RTS it's a very trivial and imbalanced game, because without the focus on resources. which allows elements of stealth, ambushing, espionage, harrassment etc then it would only require 1:1 deathmatch balance which is simply non functional and BORING.
The issue at hand more specifically addresses the fact that a game state exists in which every button on the alien comm's screen becomes an instant lose button. When in the same situation, the opposite team does not experience this. The debate shouldn't be about res locking in general but rather the following questions.
Is this ok that aliens face this problem and marines do not?
Is it fair that marines comm has a more forgiving experience?
If res lock is a win condition, should the game end immediately?
If res lock is a win condition, should it be truly possible for both teams?
The issue at hand more specifically addresses the fact that a game state exists in which every button on the alien comm's screen becomes an instant lose button. When in the same situation, the opposite team does not experience this. The debate shouldn't be about res locking in general but rather the following questions.
Is this ok that aliens face this problem and marines do not?
Is it fair that marines comm has a more forgiving experience?
If res lock is a win condition, should the game end immediately?
If res lock is a win condition, should it be truly possible for both teams?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
if marines lose their IP's and all of their marines are dead, they lose.
why doesn't this happen? because decent marines will spot that noone is defending and will 'hang back' to defend at least until phase tech or observatory is up which would allow a faster response time.
aliens lose their last harvester and don't have enough resources, they lose.
but somehow this is different and unfair and baby need's his hand held by mommy.
Shut up now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2026256:date=Nov 16 2012, 06:34 PM:name=SpaceJew)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SpaceJew @ Nov 16 2012, 06:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026256"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What, kind of like how the Aliens can be egg-locked at the very beginning of the game?
If the Marines push off the first base rush, guess what. They still have resources. The commander could <i>recycle the observatory</i> to build a new Res node or IP if he wanted.
Next please.
EDIT: Oh, and by the way, if the marines are 'around the map' he could also recycle base objects and simply <i>move them to another tech point.</i> Oops.
I guess you can't tell a well reasoned argument from crying. I interpret your response to be an admission that early base rushes are, in fact, symetrical with egg locking which easily invalidated your statement as per the direct quote daring you to make a decent example. Your failure to do so is noted.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2026265:date=Nov 16 2012, 06:38 PM:name=__Viking)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (__Viking @ Nov 16 2012, 06:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026265"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Non sequitur. This is about the same as the marines rushing in and egglocking a hive, all those who come to defend get killed by the occupying force.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2026874:date=Nov 17 2012, 09:38 AM:name=tarquinbb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tarquinbb @ Nov 17 2012, 09:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026874"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->if marines lose their IP's and all of their marines are dead, they lose.
why doesn't this happen? because decent marines will spot that noone is defending and will 'hang back' to defend at least until phase tech or observatory is up which would allow a faster response time.
aliens lose their last harvester and don't have enough resources, they lose.
but somehow this is different and unfair and baby need's his hand held by mommy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why are we going in circles?
why doesn't this happen? because decent marines will spot that noone is defending and will 'hang back' to defend at least until phase tech or observatory is up which would allow a faster response time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, and the game ends appropriately when this occurs.
So why is it the aliens become sitting ducks, yet the Marines team are given a new round to play? Hmm?
Killing all the Marine IP's, with no surviving Marines to build them, results in an <i>instant victory for Aliens and a new round begins.</i> Aliens who are resource locked experience all the joys of <i>being target practice</i> until the Marines get tired of milking their victory and finally kill the hive. This varies by how many jerkwads are on the other team. (Not to mention the Marines can egg lock the Aliens <i>and</i> be resource locked at the same time. Yup, that's fun right?)
'Hand Holding' isn't a valid argument to what is clearly a B.S. tactic. If anything, the random luck in resource locking the other team is hand holding since resource towers are <i>already</i> a primary target for both teams. Having one team punished in the way they are for the resource tower back-and-forth is, to put it mildly, retarded. What if you saved that 10 T.Res, because you know what the result is if you have no towers, but you drop it and once again it's killed? Hmm? It would take you <i>ten flipping ticks</i> to even have a chance at <i>one more tower</i>. The aliens don't lose when that last tower goes down, but they might as well have. <i>That's</i> my problem.
I think it's awesome how people keep saying this is a L2P issue when it's happened in competitive play as well. If anything I would have thought that would open peoples eyes to how B.S. this is. Saying it 'expands the winning conditions' is technically true, it's just incredibly one-sided in how it expands the winning conditions <i>and</i> it's simply not fun to lose in this way. I guess it <i>is</i> a lot of fun for fully upgraded Marines to mow down skulks in a spawn camp, but hey <i>I should learn to play</i>, that would fix this right! Only wait, <i>it's impossible to come back from.</i> Whoops! F4 time guys!
Because people are incapable of reason or simply can't look at the games winning conditions objectively.
<!--quoteo(post=2027221:date=Nov 17 2012, 03:37 PM:name=tk-421)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tk-421 @ Nov 17 2012, 03:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2027221"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Let's just make all the res towers invincible for the duration of the game. First come, first serve. Keeping track of those pesky towers and coordinating with your team is such a hassle.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fact that there has not been even one well-reasoned argument for why resource locking is in the game is illustrative of how stupid resource locking is. You have also failed in the challenge to give one single example of asymmetrical balance as it relates to resource locking as a winning condition.
Sarcasm, while it could be considered a strategy, is not a valid winning condition of NS2. Nice try though.
<b>Winning Conditions in NS2:</b>
<i>Aliens:</i>
1) Kill All the Marines, and IP's. (Instantly Ends Match)
2) Kill All the Marines Command Chairs. (Instantly Ends Match)
<i>Marines</i>
1) Resource Lock the Aliens. (Does not End Match)
2) Kill all the Hives. (Instantly Ends Match)
3) Egg Lock Aliens. (Does not End Match)
Marines have three options to ultimately win the game, Aliens have two. Two of the marines options result in some of the most frustrating game play imaginable, while all the conditions to win as alien give the Marines a new match.
All of the Aliens winning conditions are conglomerated together making it impossible to assault one without assaulting the other in any practical way, while the Marines have two that occur concurrently and one that's spread out over the whole map.
They simply do not compare, since resource locking the Aliens has other repercussions beyond a winning strategy. It completely shuts them out of the game, while not ending the match. There are those who say 'you still have a chance to win, just swarm the Marines base.' I can see the logic there, but it simply doesn't work out that way. Skulks with no upgrades fall easily to even one or two Marines with a turret battery, and can be held at bay nigh indefinitely. Even the 'best' skulks will be mowed down, and as I stated if the Marines have even two tech points it's instant fail without actually ending the match. It's pointlessly painful for the Aliens, and needlessly draws out a match.
Also, two of the three Marines win conditions are ripe to be abused for spawn camping and general trolling. This is, again, something that should not be encouraged.
The very fact this is a resource game makes being locked out of the resource game, yet not being defeated, illogical. Especially when it's only one team that can be defeated in such a way. Everyone agrees that being resource locked is game over, except for the game itself. How does that make sense?
I actually like the fact that you used chess as a metaphor for NS2, other than the fact that Chess is, in fact, a 100% symmetrical game hence the reason for 'strategy'. The end-game winning condition is <i>exactly the same</i> for both teams. The <i>strategy</i> is in achieving the end-game condition to win in different ways, not in having different conditions to win for both teams. Sadly, even your metaphorical argument has failed to defend resource lock as a game mechanic.
-_-
<!--quoteo(post=2027223:date=Nov 17 2012, 12:42 PM:name=SpaceJew)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SpaceJew @ Nov 17 2012, 12:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2027223"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You've said a lot, but it all pretty much boiled down to you suck learn to play. I believe you have still failed in the earlier challenge, as 'you suck' is unfortunately not a strategy by definition, let alone a valid way to counter any previous arguments.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, actually, it is. This ENTIRE thread can basically be summed up as 3 or 4 people trying to turn chess into checkers. Because chess is too hard sometimes.
<!--quoteo(post=2027223:date=Nov 17 2012, 12:42 PM:name=SpaceJew)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SpaceJew @ Nov 17 2012, 12:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2027223"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The fact that there has not been even one well-reasoned argument for why resource locking is in the game is illustrative of how stupid resource locking is.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Charlie actually stated, quite clearly, that it is a valid path for winning. FOR WINNING. What more do you want?
I want to re-iterate that point, because it's important. THE HEAD OF THE STUDIO THAT DESIGNED THE GAME CLEARLY STATED THAT IT'S A VALID TACTIC FOR WINNING.
<!--quoteo(post=2027223:date=Nov 17 2012, 12:42 PM:name=SpaceJew)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SpaceJew @ Nov 17 2012, 12:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2027223"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Everyone agrees that being resource locked is game over, except for the game itself. How does that make sense?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? No. Why do you make such grand assumptions? You just said - "There are those who say 'you still have a chance to win, just swarm the Marines base.'" So which is it? Does everyone agree it ends the game or do some people believe you can swarm the base?
<!--quoteo(post=2027223:date=Nov 17 2012, 12:42 PM:name=SpaceJew)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SpaceJew @ Nov 17 2012, 12:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2027223"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I actually like the fact that you used chess as a metaphor for NS2, other than the fact that Chess is, in fact, a 100% symmetrical game hence the reason for 'strategy'.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are the king of non-sequiturs. Non-symmetrical games can still be strategic. Chess does not derive all of its strategy from its symmetry. It's a symmetrical game, sure, but the strategy is in executing your plan of attack and reacting to your opponent.
So in addition to adding 10 res to all alien res costs JUST IN CASE, aliens should also leave a single player at all times by the base tower.
Its a massive alien disadvantage. Why dont you see that.
Again you use a metaphor that does not, in fact, have any relation at all to the current discussion. Using your logic, the Black team would be able to win through a tactic that is impossible to achieve by the White team. Chess and checkers are both symmetrical games with the exact same winning conditions no matter which 'team' you play on. How does that even slightly apply to the given situation except to prove 'we three players' correct in the end?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Charlie actually stated, quite clearly, that it is a valid path for winning. FOR WINNING. What more do you want?
I want to re-iterate that point, because it's important. THE HEAD OF THE STUDIO THAT DESIGNED THE GAME CLEARLY STATED THAT IT'S A VALID TACTIC FOR WINNING.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's his game, he can design it however he wants. That doesn't make it logical, as last time I checked he was human. If he wants a game that gives the advantage to the Marines it's his business to do so. I can question him by right of being a human being that paid for his game, although that does <i>not</i> mean he needs to change his game in any way. Nor do I believe that he will based on three players. I can merely voice my opinion that as things stand it's weighted in favor of the Marines team in winning strategies.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What? No. Why do you make such grand assumptions? You just said - "There are those who say 'you still have a chance to win, just swarm the Marines base.'" So which is it? Does everyone agree it ends the game or do some people believe you can swarm the base?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm implying that they're wrong. That's which one it is. You would know that if you weren't selectively editing your quotes or if you actually read what I wrote.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You are the king of non-sequiturs. Non-symmetrical games can still be strategic. Chess does not derive all of its strategy from its symmetry. It's a symmetrical game, sure, but the strategy is in executing your plan of attack and reacting to your opponent.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was never implying anything, I was explicitly stating that one team is weighted with more end-game winning scenarios. It's actually you that are bringing up arguments with no bearing on the current discussion and implying many things that aren't true, yet somehow think you're 'making sense'. This is made more obvious by your selective editing of quotes and the fact you're completely ignoring the salient points that have been made. Either you're incapable of seeing the issue, purposely misinterpreting whats being said, or have not actually run into this issue before. Either way, you are not adding to the conversation beyond saying L2P and 'it's in the game live with it'.
I'm still playing, and having fun. I know how to avoid the issue at hand, but it's always hanging over the Aliens head. Especially when there are several Marines that have made it their mission to kill resource towers. Eventually, the only structure you <i>can</i> build are resource towers and losing the last one wins the game. That's fine, but it neglects actually fighting the aliens. You fight their nodes, and nothing else, which is also something the dev team has said they don't like; fighting structures and not players.
Usually, in a discussion where you disagree with someone, you focus on the points where you disagree.
<!--quoteo(post=2027343:date=Nov 17 2012, 03:24 PM:name=SpaceJew)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SpaceJew @ Nov 17 2012, 03:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2027343"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's actually you that are bringing up arguments with no bearing on the current discussion and implying many things that aren't true, yet somehow think you're 'making sense'.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you serious?
a) You said there were no arguments for keeping res lock.
b) I pointed out a simple argument for keeping res lock.
c) You now say that I have not brought up a valid argument for discussion.
I'm done here. If you want to have an actual discussion perhaps other people can entertain you.
errr guys, how is it any different?
do aliens stop spawning if they lose an egg? no, the egg just respawns after some seconds. marines have their own 'instalose' situations which are devilishly hard to recover from. ergo it's not a balance issue because it happens to both teams.
The issue at hand more specifically addresses the fact that a game state exists in which every button on the alien comm's screen becomes an instant lose button. When in the same situation, the opposite team does not experience this. The debate shouldn't be about res locking in general but rather the following questions.
Is this ok that aliens face this problem and marines do not?
Is it fair that marines comm has a more forgiving experience?
If res lock is a win condition, should the game end immediately?
If res lock is a win condition, should it be truly possible for both teams?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, I'm starting to think that there's two problems at work here. Number one, people are ONLY reading the last few post of the thread and assuming that we're all just whining about a situation. And number two, debate suddenly means lets all insult each other and ignore the issue.
I don't think I can clarify things further than this:
RES LOCK IS AN INHERENT PART OF ANY RTS GAME, I HAVE NEVER SAID IT SHOULDN'T EXIST.
However, I feel the questions quoted above are relevant and I'll add one more.
Should killing a harvester be more valuable than killing an extractor? (Because it currently is.)
I dare you to explain how these questions turn chess into checkers.
<!--quoteo(post=2027389:date=Nov 17 2012, 08:14 PM:name=tarquinbb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tarquinbb @ Nov 17 2012, 08:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2027389"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i like how i compared it to marines losing their IP's and they shrugged it off as "going in circles".
errr guys, how is it any different?
do aliens stop spawning if they lose an egg? no, the egg just respawns after some seconds. marines have their own 'instalose' situations which are devilishly hard to recover from. ergo it's not a balance issue because it happens to both teams.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This argument was shrugged off when you brought it up because it had already been addressed, and I quoted those portions of the conversation so you could catch up. It's rather difficult to have a discourse when one party isn't listening.
<i>Aliens:</i>
1) Kill All the Marines, and IP's. (Instantly Ends Match)
2) Kill All the Marines Command Chairs. (Instantly Ends Match)
<i>Marines</i>
1) Resource Lock the Aliens. (Does not End Match)
2) Kill all the Hives. (Instantly Ends Match)
3) Egg Lock Aliens. (Does not End Match)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aliens:
3) Kill the base powernode (Does not end match, but easily can)
Also #1 on marine side is not a strategy or tactic because marines NEVER know if aliens are res locked while actually playing on the field, as they dont know what resources the alien comm has saved up.. so at best its an unintentional form of "potential winning that does not end the match".. hardly considered a "strategy."
And a resource lock is not a winning condition by any stretch of the imagination.. players still continue to spawn and it becomes a game about "time".. you have a matter of time until the enemy out techs you now, so kill quick. Since the enemy rarely knows that you are res locked, its in your best interest to strike quick - so the worst thing you can assign res locking is that it forces the team into one remaining tactic : to rush.
So the way i see it:
Aliens
1) Kill All the Marines, and IP's. (Instantly Ends Match)
2) Kill All the Marines Command Chairs. (Instantly Ends Match)
3) Kill the base powernode (Does not end match, but typically does)
Marines
1) Resource Lock the Aliens. (Forces a strategy)
2) Kill all the Hives. (Instantly Ends Match)
3) Egg Lock Aliens. (Does not End Match)
So at best they are tied, and at worst Aliens have more ways to win.
the fat lady will be singing shortly afterwards. i think you're clutching at straws.
Thats the last time im going to say it, its crazy to think, that a way to win the game exists where A the aliens don't know its going to happen so can't prepare a def. for it, its not just pub comm's who are new falling for this error, see the ESL.
And B, the marines don't even know they have done it.
Its not a race against time to end the game, its over, for aliens when this occurs.
the fat lady will be singing shortly afterwards. i think you're clutching at straws.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol if i could count the amount of times i've been a) egglocked and came back to win b) power lost in base and repaired leading to a win
I think you aren't considering everything, or even the stats of these occurrences, and my post was merely to point out what i felt to be an inaccuracy from that poster as he too did the same. :)
Thats the last time im going to say it, its crazy to think, that a way to win the game exists where A the aliens don't know its going to happen so can't prepare a def. for it, its not just pub comm's who are new falling for this error, see the ESL.
And B, the marines don't even know they have done it.
Its not a race against time to end the game, its over, for aliens when this occurs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so marines kill all of the extractors and then do what... sit in their base and have a picnic for 20 minutes? someone is bound to poke a nose in and see still no extractor, telltale sign.
also, how often do you see marines having to recycle stuff in order to throw an extractor down to save their own resource lock? i've never seen it. it doesn't happen because aliens can just go for IP's or power instead.
3) Kill the base powernode (Does not end match, but easily can)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think this is a bit of a stretch. Its efficacy hinges upon the marines only being on one base or only having IPs in their main. Furthermore it isn't exactly a discrete win condition as much as it is an avenue to achieve #1.
Your comments on a res locked alien team are quite correct. Certainly an alien team can win while res locked, they are just on a time limit. This doesn't quite sit right with me though, mainly because if that all in push fails there's going to be a bit of time waiting to lose. I don't like ready rooming as a concede option, I think if forfeiting is an option the devs wish us to have then they'll give it to us. This doesn't appear to be a situation with an elegant solution. Applying my own argument to res locking the aliens, it becomes clear that res lock is an avenue toward killing all the enemy hives. This thread exists because games that end like this tend to not be fun, and if this situation could be made to suck less it may help things a bit.
This thread exists because games that end like this tend to not be fun, and if this situation could be made to suck less it may help things a bit.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty much precisely this. I don't have an inherent problem with being resource locked, it's that being resource locked, as conceded by a lead tester, puts you on a 'timer' of sorts where you either rush and destroy the Marines base or you don't. Even if the Marines don't know for a fact you've been resourced locked, <i>is it inherently fun to be locked out of the very feature that makes this game unique?</i> The 'chance' to come back from this situation is a very brief chance, followed by a painful stretch that lasts as long as the Marines team want it to.
Even if the marines are totally unware of the Aliens being resource locked it doesn't make it effective past that first desperate base rush. If they win that, it's an unstoppable march of doom that is quite simply unfun to play. Yes, I can F4. But doing so is cheap and at the end of the day it isn't actually fair to the Marines. It's a lousy way to win, and anyone looking for a good game would agree on that point unless winning in a cheap and lucky way is part of their joy in playing rather than legitimately out playing the other team. As was recently established, <i>there is no way for the Marines to purposely lock the Aliens out of resources.</i> This means it's a side effect, a lucky break, and a situation that leads to some of the worst one sided game play in Natural Selection 2. It quite literally turns the game into a match where one side has a ton of cool toys to play with at their own liesure, while the aliens are forced into repeated desperate attempts to assail increasingly impossible defenses.
We might as well be playing a one-sided RTS or a flash-based turret defense game as soon as the Aliens are resourced locked. It's a fun way for the Marines to play around with their fancy toys while stomping a team of newer players into dust in the most frustrating way imaginable by reducing their strategy to only one option. There is no similar way to lock the Marines into a single method of winning the game and therein lies the problem.
I admit the lead play tester is likely to have far, far, <i>far</i> more experience in Natural Selection so I'm giving his comments a lot of weight. I just can't agree with that assessment. Killing a power node is indeed a way to win, however it is simply an alternate strategy on how to achieve one of the points I listed rather than an honest alternate path to success in my admittedly limited view. I've only played roughly 150+ hours of Natural Selection, while I'm sure he has thousands. Even with tons of experience, it seems even the most 'professional' league Natural Selection 2 players are still vulnerable to a one-sided game mechanic at the end of the day. Just because it's an <i>avoidable</i> mechanic doesn't make the mechanic a good one. At best, it makes it a silly one. At worst, it will make you question your sanity as the red mist of rage overtakes you.
The fact that there is a path to winning that is completely governed by luck and happenstance involving a regular action that will be taken by any good team on either side? This strikes me as a serious imbalance even if it's a rare eventuality, and while I'd love to have my mind changed I simply haven't seen something that legitimately explains the imbalance beyond the fact that it seems to have been purposely done that way. The reasons <i>why</i> it was designed to be such a one-sided occurrence is the mystery, especially when trying to think of an alternate situation that would be <i>even remotely similar</i> for the Marines.
Oh, and to those that keep using the refrain "It's supposed to be like that"? I submit to you the three minute Onos strategy. I guess if Resource Locking is intentional than so-to must the three minute Onos be an intentional path for the Aliens to win. I'm not saying one way or the other what my opinion of that issue is here, but if you have a problem with one surely you can see how a system can have unintended consequences even with the best of intentions.
Hell, the most recent declaration of overdoing the Regeneration buffs should show you that game designers are not, in fact, omniscient. It's our privilege as players to submit things that we think are unbalanced and be proven right or wrong. (Or ignored.) Honestly, at the end of the day, there are a lot of people that probably play the end result of their labor of love more than the designers themselves do. Especially in actual public matches.
You think I'm making mountains out of molehills, which perhaps I am; but I unequivocally can state that an imbalance in end-game scenarios in a game that is inherently asymmetrical is a very difficult thing to balance. This example is one that should strike anyone as glaring, and I think the lack of issue with this problem simply stems from it's infrequency of occurrence. (Which is also probably how it was missed in-house as a bad mechanic.) The more it actually happens to a team, the more I think people will come around to realizing how bad of a game mechanic it really is.
I seem to recall that Devour was removed because it took players out of the game and removed control from them. Being resource locked is a similar frustration, only it's a team-wide phenomena. You have no choice in what you do after a resource lock. <b>It's base rush, or F4. That's it. No amount of skill, or play, or <i>literally anything</i> can change that in a given round no matter what else changes.</b> If massively frustrating, one-sided game play is the end result this mechanic certainly illustrates it. This is quite literally my only <i>real</i> problem with NS2 and it's a fairly small issue when considering the numbers of game's played I'm sure. Otherwise it's a fun, infinitely replayable game. This mechanic simply doesn't feel like it fits, or it fits but only if the 'units' in question were not controlled by actual human beings.
So everything boils down to: What is "fun"? And this is a very subjective thing. And as you see in the controversy in this thread. Many people think it IS fun. It is a surprising element that can end games in a way, that you doesn't expect at first. Best seen in the competitive matches where it was used. As I said and you ignored, even the moderators got all excited about it. It was (like in good story telling) an unexpected twist. And this is very fun.
If this would happen to often, you may be right. It would lose its fun, because it isn't a surprise anymore. But you lie, when you say that it happens this often.
Let's just stop to talk in circles and accept, that other peoples find this mechanic fun and don't want to miss it. And Flayra thinks the same way. Even if he reads this thread, he will see, that only a minority of 4 or 5 people are against this mechanic. Or at least, that it is a very controversial topic. And if something is controversial, you better not change it. You will only make people happy for the cost of other people that were happy.
Your comments on a res locked alien team are quite correct. Certainly an alien team can win while res locked, they are just on a time limit. This doesn't quite sit right with me though, mainly because if that all in push fails there's going to be a bit of time waiting to lose. I don't like ready rooming as a concede option, I think if forfeiting is an option the devs wish us to have then they'll give it to us. This doesn't appear to be a situation with an elegant solution. Applying my own argument to res locking the aliens, it becomes clear that res lock is an avenue toward killing all the enemy hives. This thread exists because games that end like this tend to not be fun, and if this situation could be made to suck less it may help things a bit.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
how often do you see marines having to recycle stuff in order to throw an extractor down to save their own resource lock? i've never seen it. it doesn't happen because aliens can just go for IP's or power instead.
i think the reason why it doesn't say 'MARINES WIN' after getting res locked is kind of obvious, it's because the game is not necessarily over - aliens could still all-in and maybe win. all you lose with res lock is your tech progression, therefore it's logical to go for an all-in. additionally, if the game instantaneously ended on res lock then it might not be apparent why you abruptly lost the game.
but there are plenty of situations like res lock from which you <i>should</i> not be able to recover. for example you kill the marine main command station and overrun their 2nd command station, preventing the 'commanderless' marines from retaking it. should the game instantly say "ALIENS WIN"? because the marines effectively have to all-in to stand a chance.
you guys are seriously thinking too much like an FPS game, so of course the RTS mechanics don't make sense. on the other hand, anyone who's played RTS like starcraft is very familiar with situations like this where for example you get rushed and lose all of your harvesters - you have no chance to recover because they'll storm miles ahead of you economically - you either GG right there or you try an all-in strategy... those are your only two options.
How is this bad gameplay? If you haven't managed your resources properly and you lose, that's just gg. The whole theory behind Kharaa is that their structures are grown, not built, so you can't ungrow something but you can recycle artificial structures. Even if there's res for killing, I don't see how that would help since its Team res that goes toward harvestors.
Until now, I have not said much of my own opinion on this topic. I agree with you here, and the game needs <i>more</i> res locking, not less. The game may have portions that play like an FPS, but the win conditions are that of an RTS. Playing to win is playing to achieve these win conditions. Egg locking and IP sniping are essentially FPS classics of team deathmatch. The destruction of tech points is very much the same as a demolition objective as per many FPS games. This one you could argue, but by most RTS game rules, you must destroy <i>all</i> buildings to win, not simply command structures. Furthermore, one could argue that without a command structure, you are on the same time limit as one is when res locked. So I say, there should be more in the game that favors RTS win conditions, and this means <b>more res locking</b>.
Now to achieve this there is a significant hurdle: recycling. Marines <i>can</i> be res locked, but recycling mitigates this. I do not dispute the marines ability to recycle, but it has side effects that are problematic.
As for the aliens and a recycle ability not fitting with their lore, consider the following. Lets not say recycle and use reorganize instead. So as marines you can reorganize the components of an armory to build a phase gate. So then would it be too much of a stretch to say aliens can reorganize a crag into a harvester. To answer this, I'm going to use the enigmatic lives of spiders.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_web" target="_blank">Spider Web</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It is common for spiders to eat their own web daily to recoup some of the energy used in spinning.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_cannibalism" target="_blank">Spider Cannibalism</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Once the male has mated, he is unlikely to mate again and so any further extension of his life is of lesser evolutionary benefit than his indirectly contributing nutrition to the eggs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Spiders often practice a reorganization of matter into energy they can use elsewhere by eating their webs or their mates. This is not something that is unique to spiders either and happens in nature quite frequently. It would not be so much of a stretch for a drifter to have the ability to consume a structure, and then go morph into a new one after harnessing those nutrients.
That being said, my only intention was to make the case for alien recycling seem a plausible idea. <u><b>I do not think that it should be in the game.</b></u> The problem remains that recycling prevents marine res lock, and I don't have a solution for that. This is the line of thought that raises my earlier question: <!--quoteo(post=2026782:date=Nov 17 2012, 12:17 PM:name=__Viking)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (__Viking @ Nov 17 2012, 12:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2026782"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Is this ok that aliens face this problem and marines do not?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The possible implications of this are that the value of a harvester outweighs the value of an extractor. This is because killing a harvester has the potential to res lock the aliens whereas killing an extractor cannot do this to marines. This notion tends to fit early gameplay where a skulk's primary focus should be killing extractors and avoiding combat. This balance only holds however, if marines do not take up the same mentality. Interestingly enough, hyper aggressive marines are exactly what you see in high level play, and aliens are usually lucky if they have three or more harvesters up.