HandschuhJoin Date: 2005-03-08Member: 44338Members, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Community Developer
Advanced hints for nonrookieplayers would be so much more useful...
I remember playing Civ4 with BaseMod and there were so many useful hints during the loadingscreen.. so it would be really awesome to have advanced tipps which are by experienced players ...
Importantly for NS2, I think if loading screen hints were a thing, the implementation matters soooo so much.
Like you could half-ass it with some boring old words, or you could full-boss it with some words and animations, to more accurately convey concepts like map positioning, laneblocking etc.
But UWE would never do that, they're too scared, heh heh heh
/reversepsychology
I guess you could say this thread about exosuits has derailed somewhat, eh?
Not this thread, too
Btw, there should also be a compendium of all these tips somewhere, or even better, a more in-depth version. No one should have to keep reloading maps in private matches to learn how to play the game...
Yea what we need is a google doc where everyone can add their quick tips and contribute because writing good quick tips actually isnt easy. Id say first we would need to set on a few main categories.
Make tips depending on playtime, eg. rookie tips until 50 hours playtime, basic tips until 200 hours, advanced tips until 500 and pro tips >500 hours and show them accordingly in the loading screen.
SteelcapJoin Date: 2010-11-19Member: 75049Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Community Developer
I think the reason we don't see any tips regarding the less explained competitive aspects of the game is simply because they were never designed, they are the emergent strategy resulting from iterations of best practices to win games.
Notice that not all official maps conform neatly to concepts that are integral to high level play. Maps that do are consistently voted and ones that do not tend to be ignored and maligned. This isn't because they're bad maps or the map makers didn't understand the game, it was because the game as it looks now is not how the game was originally conceived and the current concept doesn't fit those maps very well.
Tips that would refer specifically to the current competitive meta may rapidly become outmoded.
Let's take an example from the discussion about the balance graph over time.
"The marines objective is to win as quickly as possible, since the longer the game goes the worse their odds of victory become"
While this is statistically true, it is not axiomatically true and slight tweaks to balance could very easily swing this in another direction.
I'll give you an example of a question whose answer currently seems obvious but was completely opposite a year or so ago.
"Is it better for the alien team to hold 3 Hives and 2 RTs or to hold only 1 hive but 5 RTs."
Currently the answer is overwhelmingly "5 rts." and it's not even a close one. This was not always the case, it used to be a major marine objective to contain the number of hives aliens could get and aliens who couldn't secure a second hive likely were doomed. I'm not even certain securing a 2nd hive is even important to alien victory anymore, I know teams tend to, but I don't know that it's actually important.
You don't HAVE to collect or deny RT's in NS2. If you have the skills, walk in to their hive and kill em all or do a skulk rush.
Skills can only make up for so much in an RTS. It doesn't matter how skilled you are, if my full HP Onos comes across your A0, W0 rifle marine, it's over.
Like @G_Lock mentioned above, NS2 is an RTS first and an FPS second.
No team skips capping res at the beginning of a round, nor would they skip attacking a weakened RT at that time, either.
More RTs equal a greater chance of success, and every player knows that - you even mentioned how frequent teams just settle for protecting their own res to their own detriment!
This is what makes it a non-choice. The alternative you mentioned, where a team doesn't cap and doesn't pressure enemy RTs, and instead just goes straight for the win condition.. exists only in a vacuum.
You're not going to find that in 99% of public games played. Players recognize how important RTs are and thus will always play that game, even if it means to their own detriment.
That makes it a non-choice by definition.
Now, you could argue that there comes a time in the round where building or attacking RTs is no longer as important as pushing for the win condition because you are now in a stronger position to do so; This is where it finally becomes a choice and is not what I was referring to.
Case in point : in that specific situation, what produces the actual victory are those other elements I mentioned like team composition, upgrade choices, physical locations on the map itself etc.. actual strategy.
There's also micro strategy when it comes to building or attacking an RT, where you're doing one or the other to pull the enemy to your position and away from another or vice versa... but that's a different argument and could be accomplished with a GT or PG or similar, and again is not what i was referring to.
Teams will build and attack RTs because they recognize what an impact it has on the round.
Teams will concede, even fully teched up, because they have so few RTs remaining and cannot overcome this economical difference with the aforementioned actual strategies.
As a commander try telling a marine team on 1 RT all round, 20 minutes in, that they don't need RTs and could win if they only had the "skills" to pull off a siege.
Marines must win before the aliens grow too strong with tech and too many lifeforms. You can slow the timer by killing res or lifeforms, but the timer still exists.
Makes you wonder if they should actually communicate this intention in the game somewhere
Or just remove the stupid artificial timer that's purely a bandaid fix for a symptom (turtling) that comes from different tech requirements between the teams (tech availability not tied to map control), all in the name of an arbitrary sense of asymmetry which no one seems to notice or really appreciate anyways?
Marines must win before the aliens grow too strong with tech and too many lifeforms. You can slow the timer by killing res or lifeforms, but the timer still exists.
Makes you wonder if they should actually communicate this intention in the game somewhere
Or just remove the stupid artificial timer that's purely a bandaid fix for a symptom (turtling) that comes from different tech requirements between the teams (tech availability not tied to map control), all in the name of an arbitrary sense of asymmetry which no one seems to notice or really appreciate anyways?
This just made me wonder why it was made so that marines can have all their tech on one TP. Originally, you needed a second one for jetpacks and exos. I don't remember much about that time, but I imagine turtling was less of an issue then. Why not go the other way and make it so that proto lab and a3/w3 (or maybe even 2/3) require a second chair? This should prevent marines from turtling, and then we can work on removing the soft timer.
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
edited February 2017
@F0rdPrefect
That's been my suggestion for years.. and something I've harped on about for years as well.
It occurred post build 250 btw, and the reasoning was always "asymmetry" and "marines will just turtle on 2 bases if that occurs" - which I always thought ignored the better position they'd be in for a comeback.
There's this common misconception when it comes to balancing for comebacks - people think that tech availability (regardless of flying in the face of win condition requirements) can produce comebacks. In truth they create byproducts and issues more than they help with anything. It's generally a poor way to approach balance, as it's not weighing the downsides, and just hoping that it has the desired effect.
While I can't say there were NO turtles.. it wasn't as bad, and games in general were often longer.
You'd also have to adjust Tier 3 marine tech timings if that suggestion was ever tested. Just look at Nordic's average timings thread for more on that.
@F0rdPrefect
That's been my suggestion for years.. and something I've harped on about for years as well.
It occurred post build 250 btw, and the reasoning was always "asymmetry" and "marines will just turtle on 2 bases if that occurs"
Yeah, especially asymmetry for asymmetry's sake seems to be a really bad reason for anything.
And yeah, of course lots of things would have to be rebalanced. It would be a stepping stone to a new overall balance.
(For starters... boneshield)
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
edited February 2017
There are those in this very thread who advocate for having inherent team bias in certain times in a round.
So it's not a stretch to assume that these same people would probably advocate for an artificial timer, because the opposite would be to advocate for equally balanced teams at any time in a round.
I chalk it up to certain crowds only enjoying shorter, determinate rounds, and others enjoying long back and forth rounds.
There are those in this very thread who advocate for having inherent team bias in certain times in a round.
So it's not a stretch to assume that these same people would probably advocate for an artificial timer, because the opposite would be to advocate for equally balanced teams at any time in a round.
I chalk it up to certain crowds only enjoying shorter, determinate rounds, and others enjoying long back and forth rounds.
I have said before that I don't mind that certain teams may be stronger at different points in the round, as long as it is not strictly linear and instead based on how opportunities change for each team, requiring them to be adaptable with their strategies while still being able to make risk/reward choices in the longer-term. That doesn't mean, however, that I advocate for an artificial timer. I have always preferred NS2 back when the rounds were longer. (I didn't even mind the occasional turtle too much)
There are those in this very thread who advocate for having inherent team bias in certain times in a round.
So it's not a stretch to assume that these same people would probably advocate for an artificial timer, because the opposite would be to advocate for equally balanced teams at any time in a round.
I chalk it up to certain crowds only enjoying shorter, determinate rounds, and others enjoying long back and forth rounds.
Are you talking about Hive 3 win condition? Because that was an idea of UWE to deny annoying marine turtles when they 100% lost already yet dont concede which will always happens due to the nature of ranged vs melee design.
And yes if you want to fix late game alien + winrate you need to remove contamination, tone down stomp, etc but first u need to find another way to completely deny any possibility of unecessary turtles.
Like I mentioned 1 way could be to make having no extractor for too long a automatic loss.
Or disregarding all that they could just give marines their own game ending tech like a small nuke homolog of contamination or something but straight buffing exo will make them OP.
And its not as much about advocating for team bias as it is about advocating for preserving asymetry and not breaking the game.
You don't HAVE to collect or deny RT's in NS2. If you have the skills, walk in to their hive and kill em all or do a skulk rush.
Skills can only make up for so much in an RTS. It doesn't matter how skilled you are, if my full HP Onos comes across your A0, W0 rifle marine, it's over.
Try executing any strategies or get any tech up when you lose every single fight. You get egglocked or spawn camped.
There are those in this very thread who advocate for having inherent team bias in certain times in a round.
So it's not a stretch to assume that these same people would probably advocate for an artificial timer, because the opposite would be to advocate for equally balanced teams at any time in a round.
I chalk it up to certain crowds only enjoying shorter, determinate rounds, and others enjoying long back and forth rounds.
Are you talking about Hive 3 win condition? Because that was an idea of UWE to deny annoying marine turtles when they 100% lost already yet dont concede which will always happens due to the nature of ranged vs melee design.
And yes if you want to fix late game alien + winrate you need to remove contamination, tone down stomp, etc but first u need to find another way to completely deny any possibility of unecessary turtles.
Like I mentioned 1 way could be to make having no extractor for too long a automatic loss.
Or disregarding all that they could just give marines their own game ending tech like a small nuke homolog of contamination or something but straight buffing exo will make them OP.
And its not as much about advocating for team bias as it is about advocating for preserving asymetry and not breaking the game.
It's quite annoying when the alien commander spams contamination and so you need to stay in base to get things fixed (this is before a turtle scenario). I would not like to see it removed, however, because it is useful for breaking down turtles. I would rather it become more expensive, or have a longer cooldown. You'd have to nail it though or its intended design (to reduce marine turtles) might become untenable.
There are those in this very thread who advocate for having inherent team bias in certain times in a round.
So it's not a stretch to assume that these same people would probably advocate for an artificial timer, because the opposite would be to advocate for equally balanced teams at any time in a round.
I chalk it up to certain crowds only enjoying shorter, determinate rounds, and others enjoying long back and forth rounds.
Are you talking about Hive 3 win condition? Because that was an idea of UWE to deny annoying marine turtles when they 100% lost already yet dont concede which will always happens due to the nature of ranged vs melee design.
And yes if you want to fix late game alien + winrate you need to remove contamination, tone down stomp, etc but first u need to find another way to completely deny any possibility of unecessary turtles.
Like I mentioned 1 way could be to make having no extractor for too long a automatic loss.
Or disregarding all that they could just give marines their own game ending tech like a small nuke homolog of contamination or something but straight buffing exo will make them OP.
And its not as much about advocating for team bias as it is about advocating for preserving asymetry and not breaking the game.
I wouldn't mind a giant Drop ship/Monstrosity piloted by the commander (hey they should get some action too!) which deals terrible terrible damage, and heals nearby teammates.
There are so many possible ways to allow 3 Hive 9 biomass to remain the failsafe win condition without Contaminate.
For example, there could be an upgrade which supercharges Whips and giving them the ability to attack without infestation (which wouldn't look as climactic without the Contaminate though. Contaminate could just return to being a source of infestation without the bile bombs)
Xenocide could be buffed (eg 500 damage bile bomb-like structural-only damage component ) to encourage lifeform diversity. The other aliens would support Skulks to allow them to reach their target.
The end goal is just to distract the opposing team, while your team focuses on the Command Station/Hive. Exos serve their role as defenders of ARCs, which are the marine game enders. Although the ease of alien counter-baserush makes Exos less viable than they should be.
I think attempting to fix late game aliens by buffing even more things is the wrong way to go. There is already an escalation of power going on. We need nerfs instead.
I think attempting to fix late game aliens by buffing even more things is the wrong way to go. There is already an escalation of power going on. We need nerfs instead.
It's got to be bilateral nuclear disarmament!!
No but seriously. This game is an RTS and FPS... stop bickering about frags > RTs or vice versa, both are required and it's possible to win with one or the other being greater than the other or one.
On the note of 2nd CC unlocking 3/3, I think is a good idea (maybe keep Proto to 1 CC for extra tech choice!!)
It then allows the third hive and onos to be balanced and we can remove this terrible soft timer of 3 hives gg
I think attempting to fix late game aliens by buffing even more things is the wrong way to go. There is already an escalation of power going on. We need nerfs instead.
Deescalation??? You hippie! Nuke the map
Right now rines like "get to pipe we can't let them get third hive or its GG"....
Solution 3rd chair unlocks...
Observatory-motion tracking
Armory-heal armor and area healing effect
Arms lab-extended ammo clip(all weapons)
Command chair- temporary electrify any rine structure
Robot factory- xeno macs, sentry mounted on arc
Now it's GG if either team locks down 3 tech points!!! The nuclear solution!
I think attempting to fix late game aliens by buffing even more things is the wrong way to go. There is already an escalation of power going on. We need nerfs instead.
Deescalation??? You hippie! Nuke the map
Right now rines like "get to pipe we can't let them get third hive or its GG"....
Solution 3rd chair unlocks...
Observatory-motion tracking
Armory-heal armor and area healing effect
Arms lab-extended ammo clip(all weapons)
Command chair- temporary electrify any rine structure
Robot factory- xeno macs, sentry mounted on arc
Now it's GG if either team locks down 3 tech points!!! The nuclear solution!
Yes great idea!
3 CC -> Shaheed Marines with tone of dynamite. Allah-babah!
God save the Queen!
Try executing any strategies or get any tech up when you lose every single fight. You get egglocked or spawn camped.
My gorge tunnel rush begs to differ. : P
But that aside, you're arguing something I was not. Once a team has tech, skill can not always overcome said tech. Hence why I used an Onos as an example.
Also, there's not so much "hand wringing" over alien lifeforms, but more regarding overall tech power output like contamination, which is unfortunately a necessary evil right now.
@RevanCorana
The solution to turtles has already been mentioned, and has been utilized in the past before build 250. No need for new radical RT loss ideas.
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
@RevanCorana
I read your post, and you seemed to have trouble understanding what was being discussed?
Evidenced by you asking what was being discussed, and then making a claim that is not true. (ranged vs melee does not inherently imply turtling scenarios will occur)
No offense, but you should not dramatically tell someone to read your post to better understand something if you yourself are not privy to 1) What's being discussed 2) The history behind it 3) Solutions that have previously worked.
@RevanCorana
I read your post, and you seemed to have trouble understanding what was being discussed?
Evidenced by you asking what was being discussed, and then making a claim that is not true. (ranged vs melee does not inherently imply turtling scenarios will occur)
No offense, but you should not dramatically tell someone to read your post to better understand something if you yourself are not privy to 1) What's being discussed 2) The history behind it 3) Solutions that have previously worked.
I still see marine turtles on a regular basis, despite the aliens OP endgame techs but Im curious now, what solution are u referring to that were used prior to 250 to decrease marine turtles?
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
The way to decrease the ability for a team to turtle is to remove their strength when they've lost the requirement that got them said strength to begin with.
In this case that's map control. You gain tech with it, and for aliens only - by holding it.
It's one of the reasons why aliens can't really turtle... sure if marines have a bunch of exos to finish off that last hive, a couple of gorges can slow down the ending.
But overall the aliens are pretty weak given their Biomass with 1 hive, and without all those lifeform upgrades as well as hive type upgrades it typically ends pretty fast...
Conversely, marines never lose tech when they lose map control outside of their base, just the incoming resources. Compounding that issue is weapon recycling, of course, as well as a few other small things.
Most people confuse linear tech availability (as in, cannot be lost once gained) as facilitating comebacks.. but this really isn't the case most of the time, (What percentage of marine turtles do you see becoming a marine victory?) and it mostly just creates issues and byproducts that end up having to be fixed with band aid approaches.
It's an approach that has good intentions, but forgets that comebacks can apply for either team.
An example of what I mean : Imagine as marines you just narrowly killed alien's 3rd hive and are on your way to their 2nd... but because someone thought linear tech availability was a good idea, aliens still have contamination and stomp and all 3 hive type upgrades.. how well do you think those marines would fare in the next few minutes?
Most people confuse linear tech availability as facilitating comebacks.. but this really isn't the case most of the time, (What percentage of marine turtles do you see becoming a marine victory?)
wow so because marine turtle happen when they lost already linear tech doesnt allow comeback, learn to think straight
An example of what I mean : Imagine as marines you just narrowly killed alien's 3rd hive and are on your way to their 2nd... but because someone thought linear tech availability was a good idea, aliens still have contamination and stomp and all 3 hive type upgrades.. how well do you think those marines would fare in the next few minutes?
Its never been question of aliens having "linear tech availability" your example is remote from reality because teams are asymetric.
You could totally have the characteristics of aliens to gain upgrades from having more hives without havin 3rd hive basically a win condition. Its not exclusive or a direct consequence.
Marines holding to their last room for ages instead of conceding happens because they have ranged weapons, arcs, sentry, and the general lack of coordination that aliens need for the final push, u could sell the arms lab really and still have turtles last forever.
All I am saying is the winrate difference you notice is due to #1 hive 3 win condition and #2 marine turtles and I havent hear yet a single argument why this is wrong.
Try executing any strategies or get any tech up when you lose every single fight. You get egglocked or spawn camped.
My gorge tunnel rush begs to differ. : P
But that aside, you're arguing something I was not. Once a team has tech, skill can not always overcome said tech. Hence why I used an Onos as an example.
Also, there's not so much "hand wringing" over alien lifeforms, but more regarding overall tech power output like contamination, which is unfortunately a necessary evil right now.
What gorge tunnel rush? You are egg locked. Have fun staring at your spawn queue screen. Yes. My point was you do not get said tech if you don't win fights.
Give me a break. Contamination is rarely what causes marines to lose. Its the final nail in the coffin when they are already dead. The lifeforms are the alien's tech as you already admitted yourself.
Most people confuse linear tech availability as facilitating comebacks.. but this really isn't the case most of the time, (What percentage of marine turtles do you see becoming a marine victory?)
wow so because marine turtle happen when they lost already linear tech doesnt allow comeback, learn to think straight
Nah that's not what he said mate, learn to read straight.
what he said was that most of the time, that doesn't happen (a comeback from a marine turtling position). And I have to agree.
What if.
What if marines required 2 CC to buy AA and above? Or even W/A3? Or even more radically, shotguns? Theorycraft with me here.
Marines holding to their last room for ages instead of conceding happens because they have ranged weapons, arcs, sentry, and the general lack of coordination that aliens need for the final push, u could sell the arms lab really and still have turtles last forever.
The loss of the arms lab makes a huge difference. No one's advocating that the arms lab itself - as opposed to, say, A3/W3 - be linked to a second CC, but if you fight ten marines with 30 armour as opposed to with 90 armour and 30% extra damage, there is a large difference. Sure turtles would still occur, but they'd break down a lot faster. Also, what about jetpacks? If marines can keep buying them it again increases the length of turtles.
Most people confuse linear tech availability as facilitating comebacks.. but this really isn't the case most of the time, (What percentage of marine turtles do you see becoming a marine victory?)
wow so because marine turtle happen when they lost already linear tech doesnt allow comeback, learn to think straight
Nah that's not what he said mate, learn to read straight.
what he said was that most of the time, that doesn't happen (a comeback from a marine turtling position). And I have to agree.
What if.
What if marines required 2 CC to buy AA and above? Or even W/A3? Or even more radically, shotguns? Theorycraft with me here.
Has anyone ever thought about tieing tech availability to number of RTs? There's probably a myriad of problems with that, but maybe it could lead to some interesting scenarios.
Comments
I remember playing Civ4 with BaseMod and there were so many useful hints during the loadingscreen.. so it would be really awesome to have advanced tipps which are by experienced players ...
Yes
Not this thread, too
Btw, there should also be a compendium of all these tips somewhere, or even better, a more in-depth version. No one should have to keep reloading maps in private matches to learn how to play the game...
EDIT: I dont know what is thread is about anymore
Notice that not all official maps conform neatly to concepts that are integral to high level play. Maps that do are consistently voted and ones that do not tend to be ignored and maligned. This isn't because they're bad maps or the map makers didn't understand the game, it was because the game as it looks now is not how the game was originally conceived and the current concept doesn't fit those maps very well.
Tips that would refer specifically to the current competitive meta may rapidly become outmoded.
Let's take an example from the discussion about the balance graph over time.
"The marines objective is to win as quickly as possible, since the longer the game goes the worse their odds of victory become"
While this is statistically true, it is not axiomatically true and slight tweaks to balance could very easily swing this in another direction.
I'll give you an example of a question whose answer currently seems obvious but was completely opposite a year or so ago.
"Is it better for the alien team to hold 3 Hives and 2 RTs or to hold only 1 hive but 5 RTs."
Currently the answer is overwhelmingly "5 rts." and it's not even a close one. This was not always the case, it used to be a major marine objective to contain the number of hives aliens could get and aliens who couldn't secure a second hive likely were doomed. I'm not even certain securing a 2nd hive is even important to alien victory anymore, I know teams tend to, but I don't know that it's actually important.
Like @G_Lock mentioned above, NS2 is an RTS first and an FPS second.
No team skips capping res at the beginning of a round, nor would they skip attacking a weakened RT at that time, either.
More RTs equal a greater chance of success, and every player knows that - you even mentioned how frequent teams just settle for protecting their own res to their own detriment!
This is what makes it a non-choice. The alternative you mentioned, where a team doesn't cap and doesn't pressure enemy RTs, and instead just goes straight for the win condition.. exists only in a vacuum.
You're not going to find that in 99% of public games played. Players recognize how important RTs are and thus will always play that game, even if it means to their own detriment.
That makes it a non-choice by definition.
Now, you could argue that there comes a time in the round where building or attacking RTs is no longer as important as pushing for the win condition because you are now in a stronger position to do so; This is where it finally becomes a choice and is not what I was referring to.
Case in point : in that specific situation, what produces the actual victory are those other elements I mentioned like team composition, upgrade choices, physical locations on the map itself etc.. actual strategy.
There's also micro strategy when it comes to building or attacking an RT, where you're doing one or the other to pull the enemy to your position and away from another or vice versa... but that's a different argument and could be accomplished with a GT or PG or similar, and again is not what i was referring to.
Teams will build and attack RTs because they recognize what an impact it has on the round.
Teams will concede, even fully teched up, because they have so few RTs remaining and cannot overcome this economical difference with the aforementioned actual strategies.
As a commander try telling a marine team on 1 RT all round, 20 minutes in, that they don't need RTs and could win if they only had the "skills" to pull off a siege.
Or just remove the stupid artificial timer that's purely a bandaid fix for a symptom (turtling) that comes from different tech requirements between the teams (tech availability not tied to map control), all in the name of an arbitrary sense of asymmetry which no one seems to notice or really appreciate anyways?
This just made me wonder why it was made so that marines can have all their tech on one TP. Originally, you needed a second one for jetpacks and exos. I don't remember much about that time, but I imagine turtling was less of an issue then. Why not go the other way and make it so that proto lab and a3/w3 (or maybe even 2/3) require a second chair? This should prevent marines from turtling, and then we can work on removing the soft timer.
That's been my suggestion for years.. and something I've harped on about for years as well.
It occurred post build 250 btw, and the reasoning was always "asymmetry" and "marines will just turtle on 2 bases if that occurs" - which I always thought ignored the better position they'd be in for a comeback.
There's this common misconception when it comes to balancing for comebacks - people think that tech availability (regardless of flying in the face of win condition requirements) can produce comebacks. In truth they create byproducts and issues more than they help with anything. It's generally a poor way to approach balance, as it's not weighing the downsides, and just hoping that it has the desired effect.
While I can't say there were NO turtles.. it wasn't as bad, and games in general were often longer.
You'd also have to adjust Tier 3 marine tech timings if that suggestion was ever tested. Just look at Nordic's average timings thread for more on that.
Yeah, especially asymmetry for asymmetry's sake seems to be a really bad reason for anything.
And yeah, of course lots of things would have to be rebalanced. It would be a stepping stone to a new overall balance.
(For starters... boneshield)
So it's not a stretch to assume that these same people would probably advocate for an artificial timer, because the opposite would be to advocate for equally balanced teams at any time in a round.
I chalk it up to certain crowds only enjoying shorter, determinate rounds, and others enjoying long back and forth rounds.
I have said before that I don't mind that certain teams may be stronger at different points in the round, as long as it is not strictly linear and instead based on how opportunities change for each team, requiring them to be adaptable with their strategies while still being able to make risk/reward choices in the longer-term. That doesn't mean, however, that I advocate for an artificial timer. I have always preferred NS2 back when the rounds were longer. (I didn't even mind the occasional turtle too much)
Are you talking about Hive 3 win condition? Because that was an idea of UWE to deny annoying marine turtles when they 100% lost already yet dont concede which will always happens due to the nature of ranged vs melee design.
And yes if you want to fix late game alien + winrate you need to remove contamination, tone down stomp, etc but first u need to find another way to completely deny any possibility of unecessary turtles.
Like I mentioned 1 way could be to make having no extractor for too long a automatic loss.
Or disregarding all that they could just give marines their own game ending tech like a small nuke homolog of contamination or something but straight buffing exo will make them OP.
And its not as much about advocating for team bias as it is about advocating for preserving asymetry and not breaking the game.
Try executing any strategies or get any tech up when you lose every single fight. You get egglocked or spawn camped.
It's quite annoying when the alien commander spams contamination and so you need to stay in base to get things fixed (this is before a turtle scenario). I would not like to see it removed, however, because it is useful for breaking down turtles. I would rather it become more expensive, or have a longer cooldown. You'd have to nail it though or its intended design (to reduce marine turtles) might become untenable.
I wouldn't mind a giant Drop ship/Monstrosity piloted by the commander (hey they should get some action too!) which deals terrible terrible damage, and heals nearby teammates.
There are so many possible ways to allow 3 Hive 9 biomass to remain the failsafe win condition without Contaminate.
For example, there could be an upgrade which supercharges Whips and giving them the ability to attack without infestation (which wouldn't look as climactic without the Contaminate though. Contaminate could just return to being a source of infestation without the bile bombs)
Xenocide could be buffed (eg 500 damage bile bomb-like structural-only damage component ) to encourage lifeform diversity. The other aliens would support Skulks to allow them to reach their target.
The end goal is just to distract the opposing team, while your team focuses on the Command Station/Hive. Exos serve their role as defenders of ARCs, which are the marine game enders. Although the ease of alien counter-baserush makes Exos less viable than they should be.
It's got to be bilateral nuclear disarmament!!
No but seriously. This game is an RTS and FPS... stop bickering about frags > RTs or vice versa, both are required and it's possible to win with one or the other being greater than the other or one.
On the note of 2nd CC unlocking 3/3, I think is a good idea (maybe keep Proto to 1 CC for extra tech choice!!)
It then allows the third hive and onos to be balanced and we can remove this terrible soft timer of 3 hives gg
Deescalation??? You hippie! Nuke the map
Right now rines like "get to pipe we can't let them get third hive or its GG"....
Solution 3rd chair unlocks...
Observatory-motion tracking
Armory-heal armor and area healing effect
Arms lab-extended ammo clip(all weapons)
Command chair- temporary electrify any rine structure
Robot factory- xeno macs, sentry mounted on arc
Now it's GG if either team locks down 3 tech points!!! The nuclear solution!
Yes great idea!
3 CC -> Shaheed Marines with tone of dynamite. Allah-babah!
God save the Queen!
But that aside, you're arguing something I was not.
Once a team has tech, skill can not always overcome said tech. Hence why I used an Onos as an example.
Also, there's not so much "hand wringing" over alien lifeforms, but more regarding overall tech power output like contamination, which is unfortunately a necessary evil right now.
@RevanCorana
The solution to turtles has already been mentioned, and has been utilized in the past before build 250. No need for new radical RT loss ideas.
... read previous posts srsly.
I dont agree its radical but whatever
I read your post, and you seemed to have trouble understanding what was being discussed?
Evidenced by you asking what was being discussed, and then making a claim that is not true. (ranged vs melee does not inherently imply turtling scenarios will occur)
No offense, but you should not dramatically tell someone to read your post to better understand something if you yourself are not privy to 1) What's being discussed 2) The history behind it 3) Solutions that have previously worked.
I still see marine turtles on a regular basis, despite the aliens OP endgame techs but Im curious now, what solution are u referring to that were used prior to 250 to decrease marine turtles?
In this case that's map control. You gain tech with it, and for aliens only - by holding it.
It's one of the reasons why aliens can't really turtle... sure if marines have a bunch of exos to finish off that last hive, a couple of gorges can slow down the ending.
But overall the aliens are pretty weak given their Biomass with 1 hive, and without all those lifeform upgrades as well as hive type upgrades it typically ends pretty fast...
Conversely, marines never lose tech when they lose map control outside of their base, just the incoming resources. Compounding that issue is weapon recycling, of course, as well as a few other small things.
Most people confuse linear tech availability (as in, cannot be lost once gained) as facilitating comebacks.. but this really isn't the case most of the time, (What percentage of marine turtles do you see becoming a marine victory?) and it mostly just creates issues and byproducts that end up having to be fixed with band aid approaches.
It's an approach that has good intentions, but forgets that comebacks can apply for either team.
An example of what I mean : Imagine as marines you just narrowly killed alien's 3rd hive and are on your way to their 2nd... but because someone thought linear tech availability was a good idea, aliens still have contamination and stomp and all 3 hive type upgrades.. how well do you think those marines would fare in the next few minutes?
Its never been question of aliens having "linear tech availability" your example is remote from reality because teams are asymetric.
You could totally have the characteristics of aliens to gain upgrades from having more hives without havin 3rd hive basically a win condition. Its not exclusive or a direct consequence.
Marines holding to their last room for ages instead of conceding happens because they have ranged weapons, arcs, sentry, and the general lack of coordination that aliens need for the final push, u could sell the arms lab really and still have turtles last forever.
All I am saying is the winrate difference you notice is due to #1 hive 3 win condition and #2 marine turtles and I havent hear yet a single argument why this is wrong.
What gorge tunnel rush? You are egg locked. Have fun staring at your spawn queue screen. Yes. My point was you do not get said tech if you don't win fights.
Give me a break. Contamination is rarely what causes marines to lose. Its the final nail in the coffin when they are already dead. The lifeforms are the alien's tech as you already admitted yourself.
what he said was that most of the time, that doesn't happen (a comeback from a marine turtling position). And I have to agree.
What if.
What if marines required 2 CC to buy AA and above? Or even W/A3? Or even more radically, shotguns? Theorycraft with me here.
The loss of the arms lab makes a huge difference. No one's advocating that the arms lab itself - as opposed to, say, A3/W3 - be linked to a second CC, but if you fight ten marines with 30 armour as opposed to with 90 armour and 30% extra damage, there is a large difference. Sure turtles would still occur, but they'd break down a lot faster. Also, what about jetpacks? If marines can keep buying them it again increases the length of turtles.
Has anyone ever thought about tieing tech availability to number of RTs? There's probably a myriad of problems with that, but maybe it could lead to some interesting scenarios.
CC drops should get a free IP auto-dropped, after a cost adjustment.