<!--quoteo(post=1899244:date=Feb 3 2012, 09:25 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Feb 3 2012, 09:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1899244"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The higher up the chain you go, the less skill you need to be as effective<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
this doesn't have to be true, and isn't supposed to be different tech choices in ANY rts game are not about general 'effectiveness', but rather they're about cost-effectiveness or situational use
for example - the fade is highly cost-INeffective against marines with jetpacks and flamethrowers, but can be highly cost effective against marines with shotguns. however, it takes (in ns1 hehe) a great deal of skill to consistently fight shotgun marines as a fade and realize that cost effectiveness
another example - the gorge is highly cost-ineffective against players and buildings alike, because it is not a core combat class. however, bile bomb can make it highly cost effective against buildings, with an associated skillset (using teammates for distraction/fodder, aiming well, managing adrenaline etc)
There shouldn't be "better" weapons/lifeforms in this game. NS1 exemplifies this idea - take any pair of comparable technologies in NS1 and I'll tell you how they're balanced by cost effectiveness, pres cost, situational viability and so on. For instance, the HMG versus the LMG - the HMG is obviously a much more beastly weapon when it's shooting, but it takes about 5 times as long to reload and costs a lot of res. That tradeoff impacts combat, and changes the skillset required to use the gun (even though you aim both the same way) - emphasis shifts slightly from "aim and rapid reloading" to "positioning to not die during reloads."
The reason weapons/armor/lifeforms/upgrades are supposed to cost pres is that they are always more volatile (in a properly balanced game) than their pres-free counterparts. They can do more, but not <i>in general</i>. You put yourself on a decaying path if you spend pres on things and don't put them to good use by paying for them with kills. Or, in the current version of NS2, you can <b>never </b>die having purchased a weapon/lifeform/armor/upgrade unless you love gigantic boring gaps in your gameplay.
<!--quoteo(post=1899244:date=Feb 3 2012, 09:25 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Feb 3 2012, 09:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1899244"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think that RFK's primary purpose is to make players (and teams) <i>feel rewarded</i>, but as previously stated, it takes away focus from the overall strategy aspect (i.e. the importance of resource towers, etc.) and also leads to player- and team-level slippery slopes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a shallow view of 'strategy'
The FPS part of this game is not detached from the RTS part. It's not something they threw in to attract counterstrike nerds. It's at the core of everything every player does (including the commander). You can have a great strategy based on map knowledge, game state, psychology etc, but ultimately it comes down the execution by the players (moving/aiming) and the commanders (casting spells) for it to work out. That's what makes NS so much more exciting than both RTS and FPS games, and it's why RFK is an important method of pacing the game and creating tension.
Earlier in the thread Bacillus was mentioning how he creates strategies based on RFK in his gameplay. What he described was barely scratching the surface of what is possible in a game like this, and now that entire mode of thinking is a waste because of this patch.
Also, you can still work to control resource towers and deny them to the enemy team with RFK turned on. It's still extremely important in that case, and nobody who knows what they're doing would try to completely supplant res nodes with RFK because it's just as dumb as forcing every player to rely entirely on resource nodes for everything.
I think that first of all we need to keep in mind that NS1 and NS2 are vastly different games, and this has much to do with the personal resource model. So as far as using NS1 examples, it's limited.
At the moment, in NS2, there is very little opportunity cost involved in upgrading: you're just paying for more power, but not at the expense of anything else*. It's like Pay2Win with imaginary money. All you are really doing is "saving up", and that's not a meaningful choice**. At the moment, tech choices do not play much of a role, and there are objectively better weapons/lifeforms. And thanks to the personal resource model (and lack of meaningful intermediate upgrades), <u>there is no resource and unit scarcity</u>, so the possibility that <b>everyone</b> on the team can go onos or fade <b>at the same time</b> is very high. RFK might 'fix' that by staggering player's resource pools <b>to some extent</b> (not much, judging by the most recent versions of NS2), but it causes a host of other problems which cannot easily be fixed except by its removal. ** You might take the view that RFK means you are doing more than just "saving up" because you are "working for your pay", but consider this: would you choose to <b>not</b> kill that enemy, if there were no RFK?
* The exceptions to this are the flamethrower and the gorge, because they are support units. I also consider them to be relatively boring units as they can't easily hold their own. They are a bad choice in isolation. The only reason you will go a flamethrower or a gorge is because the team does not have enough flamethrowers or gorges for the current situation or strategy. I think that both need work.
So I take a completely different view. I think the power differential between all units should be tightened, and the costs scaled down across the board. That would do far more for "gigantic boring gaps in your gameplay"* than RFK. RFK just means that better players are bored for less time. I don't think this is a very good solution.
I also believe that it should be viable (with purchasable upgrades) that a fully-upgraded bottom tier unit can be equal to a fully-upgraded top tier unit (of the same total cost), that is, the bottom tier unit has more cumulative upgrades and/or the upgrades have more added value. That (meaningful intermediate upgrades) would do far more for diversifying team load-outs than RFK, since it introduces a greater degree of opportunity cost.
One thing to experiment with, in order to alleviate the "gigantic boring gaps in your gameplay"*, might be to have partial cost refunds upon death, especially for the aliens (since marines can already pick up dropped weapons). *This is highly subjective. I would hope that every class would be both fun to play in isolation, as well as balanced enough against every other class**, regardless of cost, so that you never feel useless or ineffective. **This needs to be the case because of the lack of resource and unit scarcity: the one onos should no longer be able to take on multiple marines, except in the same way that a skulk can take on multiple marines (i.e. by the player's own skill, and not the game giving them both damage and survivability).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is a shallow view of 'strategy'
The FPS part of this game is not detached from the RTS part.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sun Tzu+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sun Tzu)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't disagree with you (in those terms), but you have to understand that these are different concepts (as the quote from Sun Tzu illustrates), even if they are related. No, strategy isn't just about resource towers. And no, having a good strategy does not mean it will necessarily win you the game (if the players in your team can't deliver). RFK however, has no (or minimal) effect on the strategy - it <b>mostly</b> just provides a little added noise (how soon or how often good players get good units), so the opposing team must be a little more reactive (how soon or how often they have to counter it). If anything, what Bacillus described, was similar in ways to a turtling strategy - not objectively bad (I would even commend Bacillus for the idea), but not the most exciting thing for the players on the ground. When RFK might have a more profound effect on the strategy is if it were TRFK (team resource for kill), and that all support abilities cost TR. And that's an idea I can get behind.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->and nobody who knows what they're doing would try to completely supplant res nodes with RFK because it's just as dumb as forcing every player to rely entirely on resource nodes for everything.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't think these compare. Making the player rely only on RFK would make this game more like... CS or even CoD. Making the player rely only on resource nodes puts the focus on capturing and holding resource nodes and team-level decisions. Neither of these are objectively bad ("dumb") when looked at in isolation, but the former is bad when you consider slippery slopes, and public game team cooperation. The latter might seem dull, but no more dull than any capture point game (maybe a little more dull since it takes a longer time to capture points in NS/2).
RFK itself isn't bad - and there are good and bad things about it, but with regard to the way it meshes with the other components in NS2 (especially as they are now), I think there is more bad than good.
Comments
this doesn't have to be true, and isn't supposed to be
different tech choices in ANY rts game are not about general 'effectiveness', but rather they're about cost-effectiveness or situational use
for example - the fade is highly cost-INeffective against marines with jetpacks and flamethrowers, but can be highly cost effective against marines with shotguns. however, it takes (in ns1 hehe) a great deal of skill to consistently fight shotgun marines as a fade and realize that cost effectiveness
another example - the gorge is highly cost-ineffective against players and buildings alike, because it is not a core combat class. however, bile bomb can make it highly cost effective against buildings, with an associated skillset (using teammates for distraction/fodder, aiming well, managing adrenaline etc)
There shouldn't be "better" weapons/lifeforms in this game. NS1 exemplifies this idea - take any pair of comparable technologies in NS1 and I'll tell you how they're balanced by cost effectiveness, pres cost, situational viability and so on. For instance, the HMG versus the LMG - the HMG is obviously a much more beastly weapon when it's shooting, but it takes about 5 times as long to reload and costs a lot of res. That tradeoff impacts combat, and changes the skillset required to use the gun (even though you aim both the same way) - emphasis shifts slightly from "aim and rapid reloading" to "positioning to not die during reloads."
The reason weapons/armor/lifeforms/upgrades are supposed to cost pres is that they are always more volatile (in a properly balanced game) than their pres-free counterparts. They can do more, but not <i>in general</i>. You put yourself on a decaying path if you spend pres on things and don't put them to good use by paying for them with kills. Or, in the current version of NS2, you can <b>never </b>die having purchased a weapon/lifeform/armor/upgrade unless you love gigantic boring gaps in your gameplay.
<!--quoteo(post=1899244:date=Feb 3 2012, 09:25 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Feb 3 2012, 09:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1899244"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think that RFK's primary purpose is to make players (and teams) <i>feel rewarded</i>, but as previously stated, it takes away focus from the overall strategy aspect (i.e. the importance of resource towers, etc.) and also leads to player- and team-level slippery slopes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a shallow view of 'strategy'
The FPS part of this game is not detached from the RTS part. It's not something they threw in to attract counterstrike nerds. It's at the core of everything every player does (including the commander). You can have a great strategy based on map knowledge, game state, psychology etc, but ultimately it comes down the execution by the players (moving/aiming) and the commanders (casting spells) for it to work out. That's what makes NS so much more exciting than both RTS and FPS games, and it's why RFK is an important method of pacing the game and creating tension.
Earlier in the thread Bacillus was mentioning how he creates strategies based on RFK in his gameplay. What he described was barely scratching the surface of what is possible in a game like this, and now that entire mode of thinking is a waste because of this patch.
Also, you can still work to control resource towers and deny them to the enemy team with RFK turned on. It's still extremely important in that case, and nobody who knows what they're doing would try to completely supplant res nodes with RFK because it's just as dumb as forcing every player to rely entirely on resource nodes for everything.
At the moment, in NS2, there is very little opportunity cost involved in upgrading: you're just paying for more power, but not at the expense of anything else*. It's like Pay2Win with imaginary money. All you are really doing is "saving up", and that's not a meaningful choice**. At the moment, tech choices do not play much of a role, and there are objectively better weapons/lifeforms. And thanks to the personal resource model (and lack of meaningful intermediate upgrades), <u>there is no resource and unit scarcity</u>, so the possibility that <b>everyone</b> on the team can go onos or fade <b>at the same time</b> is very high. RFK might 'fix' that by staggering player's resource pools <b>to some extent</b> (not much, judging by the most recent versions of NS2), but it causes a host of other problems which cannot easily be fixed except by its removal.
** You might take the view that RFK means you are doing more than just "saving up" because you are "working for your pay", but consider this: would you choose to <b>not</b> kill that enemy, if there were no RFK?
* The exceptions to this are the flamethrower and the gorge, because they are support units. I also consider them to be relatively boring units as they can't easily hold their own. They are a bad choice in isolation. The only reason you will go a flamethrower or a gorge is because the team does not have enough flamethrowers or gorges for the current situation or strategy. I think that both need work.
So I take a completely different view. I think the power differential between all units should be tightened, and the costs scaled down across the board. That would do far more for "gigantic boring gaps in your gameplay"* than RFK. RFK just means that better players are bored for less time. I don't think this is a very good solution.
I also believe that it should be viable (with purchasable upgrades) that a fully-upgraded bottom tier unit can be equal to a fully-upgraded top tier unit (of the same total cost), that is, the bottom tier unit has more cumulative upgrades and/or the upgrades have more added value. That (meaningful intermediate upgrades) would do far more for diversifying team load-outs than RFK, since it introduces a greater degree of opportunity cost.
One thing to experiment with, in order to alleviate the "gigantic boring gaps in your gameplay"*, might be to have partial cost refunds upon death, especially for the aliens (since marines can already pick up dropped weapons).
*This is highly subjective. I would hope that every class would be both fun to play in isolation, as well as balanced enough against every other class**, regardless of cost, so that you never feel useless or ineffective.
**This needs to be the case because of the lack of resource and unit scarcity: the one onos should no longer be able to take on multiple marines, except in the same way that a skulk can take on multiple marines (i.e. by the player's own skill, and not the game giving them both damage and survivability).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is a shallow view of 'strategy'
The FPS part of this game is not detached from the RTS part.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Sun Tzu+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sun Tzu)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't disagree with you (in those terms), but you have to understand that these are different concepts (as the quote from Sun Tzu illustrates), even if they are related.
No, strategy isn't just about resource towers. And no, having a good strategy does not mean it will necessarily win you the game (if the players in your team can't deliver).
RFK however, has no (or minimal) effect on the strategy - it <b>mostly</b> just provides a little added noise (how soon or how often good players get good units), so the opposing team must be a little more reactive (how soon or how often they have to counter it). If anything, what Bacillus described, was similar in ways to a turtling strategy - not objectively bad (I would even commend Bacillus for the idea), but not the most exciting thing for the players on the ground.
When RFK might have a more profound effect on the strategy is if it were TRFK (team resource for kill), and that all support abilities cost TR. And that's an idea I can get behind.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->and nobody who knows what they're doing would try to completely supplant res nodes with RFK because it's just as dumb as forcing every player to rely entirely on resource nodes for everything.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think these compare. Making the player rely only on RFK would make this game more like... CS or even CoD. Making the player rely only on resource nodes puts the focus on capturing and holding resource nodes and team-level decisions. Neither of these are objectively bad ("dumb") when looked at in isolation, but the former is bad when you consider slippery slopes, and public game team cooperation. The latter might seem dull, but no more dull than any capture point game (maybe a little more dull since it takes a longer time to capture points in NS/2).
RFK itself isn't bad - and there are good and bad things about it, but with regard to the way it meshes with the other components in NS2 (especially as they are now), I think there is more bad than good.