I must admit, I find Team Fortress 2 to be too simple but Valve is slowly fixing that by implementing more interesting weapons. But I think Flayra has an important point here about map complexity.
Everytime I play a new NS map, sometimes I would sigh and try to get a grasp of the map, but often I just disconnect because at least to me, its not really THAT fun to get to know a new map. I still find new vents/hiding spots on pretty "old" ns maps even though I have played them like 100x times.
So the question is, who and what benefits from more simple maps? Pretty much everyone. Experienced players can better rely on noobs to know the map. Since experienced players always know the maps pretty good, it doesnt make a difference if the map is a little complex or not. In the end, the outcome of a game relies (or should rely!) on teamwork.
Of course its always cool to show noobs that awesome hidden vent, or plainly owning other noobs by superior map knowledge. But then we can also rename this game into "NS: Discovery. Who finds the vents first?".
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1690987:date=Oct 21 2008, 02:26 PM:name=w0dk4)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(w0dk4 @ Oct 21 2008, 02:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1690987"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Everytime I play a new NS map, sometimes I would sigh and try to get a grasp of the map, but often I just disconnect because at least to me, its not really THAT fun to get to know a new map. I still find new vents/hiding spots on pretty "old" ns maps even though I have played them like 100x times.
So the question is, who and what benefits from more simple maps? Pretty much everyone. Experienced players can better rely on noobs to know the map. Since experienced players always know the maps pretty good, it doesnt make a difference if the map is a little complex or not. In the end, the outcome of a game relies (or should rely!) on teamwork.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I like the epic twisty-turny corridors of NS alot and love the fact I can find new areas to use when playing. That alone isn't worth keeping the style, and I think the landmark rooms will feel epic in their own right and wp paths will mostly negate the need of a HUD minimap. I hope the devs planning on keeping the "map" map though because it's useful for many things and key to a marine's autonomy from the comm. A marine needs to be able to look a the map and determine his objectives if the comm isn't there strategically.
The more I read about NS2 the more I wonder if a commander position is even necessary. What's the point of being a comm in NS2? Is it any fun? Is there actually any strategy? Is it deep enough where there's a difference between a crappy one and a good one?
I would think that smaller maps (less rooms, less hallways) would inherently limit the strategies. Less places to do a stealth / ninja phase, less areas to siege from, less resource nodes to capture and pressure, the list goes on and on. It would suck to be an alien, see that hive "X" is under siege, and know the only possibly way that could happen is because they're in room "Y."
Marines pick their own weapons now, which I don't mind at all as it was just one more baby-sitting duty the comm did next to dropping meds and ammo. I also know that the dev's are against the comm having a physical hand in the battle, like dropping damage spells, so how many different varieties of scanner sweep, or other support spells, can they come up with?
Hopefully they're able to add <i>meaningful</i> duties and abilities to the commander's role. Smaller, more simple maps, combined with reducing the tasks required of the role* make it seem that the role is going to be incredibly boring.
*not necessarily a bad thing. I'm all for removing weapon drops. If we can remove med/ammo drops for the comm's role as well, or have some automated system for it, there will at least be room for some significant support abilities.
<!--quoteo(post=1690850:date=Oct 20 2008, 06:57 AM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Oct 20 2008, 06:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1690850"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->True, but there isn't a large difference between an experienced player and an experienced player. Crits and other luck factors play the game for you.
Bottom line: If xensity can be a top3 team in a popular game, game doesn't take/have a lot of skill. I've learned everything there is to learn about the soldier class in about a month and gained perfect proficiency in 3 months. This isn't my idea of a game that has a high skill ceiling. To put that in perspective, I've been playing SC for about 8 years and I still occasionally get so balled by some Korean that it makes me want to cry.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> lol
<!--quoteo(post=1690862:date=Oct 20 2008, 08:47 AM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Oct 20 2008, 08:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1690862"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I put "other luck factors" there for a reason. Another overwhelming gameplay hole in TF2 is the factor of being the right class at the right time, or having a rocket/sticky/sniper crosshairs in the right place. Getting a scout to fluke out and flank the enemy medic also plays a role. In 2fort, having one soldier and a demo rocket up to the battlements at the right time wins the game, and at other time forces the attackers to regroup based on <u>when</u> exactly the attacking team got their kills.
You won't believe how many scrims I won by spamming rockets down a hallway/corridor and getting 50 instant crit kills. TF2 is the only game where throwing yourself at the enemy and hoping for a lucky critical is a valid winning tactic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> lol
<!--quoteo(post=1690863:date=Oct 20 2008, 08:56 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Oct 20 2008, 08:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1690863"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't consider knowing where to aim a rocket/sniper rifle, choosing the right class for a job, knowing when to take and hold the high ground, and knowing when to press an attack "luck" so much as "knowing how to play the game".
That's not how I play it, and any team that does that gets killed hard in scrims. Most of the scrims I play are crits off anyway, and when that's gone, there's no more "luck". The game <b>also gets more boring</b> though.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> lol
Anyways, I guess Pandemic is winning every single TF2 tournament cause of luck amirite?
<!--quoteo(post=1690982:date=Oct 21 2008, 01:15 PM:name=Flayra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Flayra @ Oct 21 2008, 01:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1690982"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- Waypoints show players how to get to their destination, not just what their destination is. It will draw arrows showing you which door/vent to go through next to get to your final destination (using AI pathfinding).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is excellent since I recently rented Unreal Tournament 3 and honest to god didn't know where I should of went. It had a similar system, albeit very simple since it only shows you the path from spawn to objective. But it did the trick and I was capable of being effective on a map quite quickly.
<!--quoteo(post=1690982:date=Oct 21 2008, 01:15 PM:name=Flayra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Flayra @ Oct 21 2008, 01:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1690982"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- The Commander and non-Comms are more decoupled so they can each be more effective on their own. Of course the best teams will have everyone working together, but Commanders will be able to be effective with braindead non-Comms (through the use of AI builder bots/nymphs and spell-like abilities) and the ability for marines to buy their own weapons/equipment from armories.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is an interesting change. At the same time a lot of NS' charm came from the fact that the commander was in fact a commander who played a major hand in strategy of the overall team. A shotgun rush would be only possible if a commander decides it is a good idea. At the same time, having a skilled commander with pants on head marines is not fun. The situation in reverse ain't charming either.
What about the infrastructure of the aliens? Specifically, their structure building?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- Waypoints show players how to get to their destination, not just what their destination is. It will draw arrows showing you which door/vent to go through next to get to your final destination (using AI pathfinding).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wicked. Sounds cool, though from a programmer standpoint, don't know how one would approach that without some sort of static mapping technique.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- The Commander and non-Comms are more decoupled so they can each be more effective on their own. Of course the best teams will have everyone working together, but Commanders will be able to be effective with braindead non-Comms (through the use of AI builder bots/nymphs and spell-like abilities) and the ability for marines to buy their own weapons/equipment from armories.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I definitely like the idea that the comm doesn't have to micromanage everything. Of course, as I'm sure you realize, there's a scale here. Some people like to have absolute control over certain aspects, and it's important to note that these features should be toggleable. As already mentioned, to allow marines to take whatever weapons they wish has 'abuse' written all over it. If not abuse, complete depletion of resources because some rambo marine won't listen to his commander and runs off with grenade launcher only to get himself killed every 30 seconds.
I assume the commander can control how the weapon distribution works. Perhaps you could toggle an armory to do one of several modes:
Mode 1) Free distribution, all marines can take any weapon researched from an armory at any time, resources allowing. Mode 2) Limited distribution, commander sets the amount of weapons of choice chosen by marines. Resources are taken accordingly upon 'purchase'. Once the number reaches zero, marines can no longer 'buy' weapons from the armory until the amount is again updated by the commander. Mode 3) Selected distribution, commander determines which players from a list will have free distribution or limited distribution from that armory, and only those marines can interface with the armory to purchase weapons.
So in a small game in which your marine team is of 3 people, might seem more prudent to use Mode 1, while in a larger game, you'd see more of Mode 2 and Mode 3 for example.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- The maps are much smaller, denser and more logically laid out. Instead of a sprawling network of halls and non-rooms, maps are made up of 6-10 rooms, each with a "landmark" (lighting, custom props, theme) to help players characterize it easily. This should also make the maps simple enough to navigate that we can get rid of the minimap, ala TF2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good for combat mode (if there is combat mode for ns2) and for games with few players, but I don't think that large maps are entirely bad for natural selection. Might be annoying for some players (and for those players, there will be smaller maps on other servers), but I personally prefer being able to sneak in to an alien hive and make a sneak attack because we didn't meet any resistance on the way there. Having a warzone is an attractive idea too, but I don't think that should be the only style of play.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- All weapons and alien abilities especially have an obvious function when you use them and should be learnable without reading anything or asking anyone anything.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's my personal opinion that weapons and alien abilities were fairly clear in ns1. Even 'webbing' took me 30 seconds to understand fully. I think it's enough to write it up in a wiki and give them a site link for information on gameplay. For that matter, don't dumb down weapons for the general audience.
I don't fully understand the smaller maps, at least for learning purposes. The 'c' map has everything you need, except the route. Now you've got the route too.
At least I feel much more uncomfortable on games like WoW and DotA, since you'll need to know most of the classes to be effective. That takes hundreds of hours of gamaplay to learn the skill sets of each class and character, not to speak of the item combos. On NS on the other hand you've got 3 hives, some RTs and a MS. The rest is more or less indifferent for the very core gameplay. It takes me maximum of 15 minutes to get the basic grasp of a map and yet probably years to master every manouvre and timing there is.
I can't see the smaller maps being a good thing for the RTS elements in general. The map control isn't most likely going to be as effective, since the distances are really short. There aren't most likely going to be as many timings, route selections, risks and ways to spread on the map. I just hope they're getting replaced with something great, since learning to understand and control the game flow has been one of the greatest things in NS for me.
Of course who knows what can be stacked small maps, but 6-10 rooms sounds really scary to me. On quick count Veil has 15+ rooms and probably roughly 5-10 more areas between the actual rooms.
<!--quoteo(post=1690982:date=Oct 21 2008, 05:15 PM:name=Flayra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Flayra @ Oct 21 2008, 05:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1690982"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think it will be much more accessible and with at least as much depth.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, okay.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- The Commander and non-Comms are more decoupled so they can each be more effective on their own. Of course the best teams will have everyone working together, but Commanders will be able to be effective with braindead non-Comms (through the use of AI builder bots/nymphs and spell-like abilities) and the ability for marines to buy their own weapons/equipment from armories.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes!
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- The maps are much smaller, denser and more logically laid out. Instead of a sprawling network of halls and non-rooms, maps are made up of 6-10 rooms, each with a "landmark" (lighting, custom props, theme) to help players characterize it easily. This should also make the maps simple enough to navigate that we can get rid of the minimap, ala TF2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I hope the minimap remains in the game because I'm planning on porting all of the competitive NS1 maps over.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- All weapons and alien abilities especially have an obvious function when you use them and should be learnable without reading anything or asking anyone anything.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, no weapon in NS1 needs any reading to learn to use.
<!--quoteo(post=1691038:date=Oct 22 2008, 01:55 AM:name=triggahappy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(triggahappy @ Oct 22 2008, 01:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691038"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Anyways, I guess Pandemic is winning every single TF2 tournament cause of luck amirite?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> My terrible team beat pandemic back in the day. I've watched cri beat pandemic for god's sake. Also, xen soldiers = pandemic soldiers.
Of course this is all scrims, in real matches, game is decided by scout aim because nobody takes rewarding risks.
i really didnt mind the learning curve for NS the first time i played it, my interest skyrocketed the more i learned about the game the more i wanted to play it
just a matter or the people you play it with NS has mostly a mature community unlike many other games ive played
what discourages me from trying to learn/ play games in general is not the learning curve rather the players that play the game
<!--quoteo(post=1691059:date=Oct 22 2008, 11:05 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bacillus @ Oct 22 2008, 11:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691059"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't fully understand the smaller maps, at least for learning purposes. The 'c' map has everything you need, except the route. Now you've got the route too.
At least I feel much more uncomfortable on games like WoW and DotA, since you'll need to know most of the classes to be effective. That takes hundreds of hours of gamaplay to learn the skill sets of each class and character, not to speak of the item combos. On NS on the other hand you've got 3 hives, some RTs and a MS. The rest is more or less indifferent for the very core gameplay. It takes me maximum of 15 minutes to get the basic grasp of a map and yet probably years to master every manouvre and timing there is.
I can't see the smaller maps being a good thing for the RTS elements in general. The map control isn't most likely going to be as effective, since the distances are really short. There aren't most likely going to be as many timings, route selections, risks and ways to spread on the map. I just hope they're getting replaced with something great, since learning to understand and control the game flow has been one of the greatest things in NS for me.
Of course who knows what can be stacked small maps, but 6-10 rooms sounds really scary to me. On quick count Veil has 15+ rooms and probably roughly 5-10 more areas between the actual rooms.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like these points.
Something to think about is to make sure NS doesn't become a game where you play the map with the game mechanics, instead of what NS1 was where you apply the game mechanics to a map.
Basically, a game should be interesting, and the map is a battlefield to execute upon. If you make the game map dependent, then it becomes a game where you have to learn every map and how to apply the game mechanics to the map. Dystopia falls into the latter category, which is perhaps one of its biggest flaws leading to its low popularity.
I would like NS2 to be an interesting game in itself, and the maps just where we battle it out. I personally don't mind map novelty, but I can see how sometimes it's a matter of taking time to grasp the flow of the map. With few rooms, we may gain ease of location, but as noted will we also sacrifice multiple paths in the map? Having an expanding front and being able to sneak around and hit a flank is what made map control so fun in NS1. I also was able to pick up maps pretty quickly, even during a game in the new map. Some of the more complex maps took a little longer, especially if they have a super complex vent system.
Another interesting point is that in NS1, many maps already have iconic rooms. People who played a while began to pick up on the names even thought he map wasn't labeled at the time. Sure, Triad in ns_eclipse was known as the donut room at my LAN party, but still, people started to figure out where they were. Granted, it took time, and the gaming population is becoming more and more gimme gratification now, but it wasn't illogical.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1691059:date=Oct 22 2008, 07:05 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bacillus @ Oct 22 2008, 07:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691059"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't fully understand the smaller maps, at least for learning purposes. The 'c' map has everything you need, except the route. Now you've got the route too.
At least I feel much more uncomfortable on games like WoW and DotA, since you'll need to know most of the classes to be effective. That takes hundreds of hours of gamaplay to learn the skill sets of each class and character, not to speak of the item combos. On NS on the other hand you've got 3 hives, some RTs and a MS. The rest is more or less indifferent for the very core gameplay. It takes me maximum of 15 minutes to get the basic grasp of a map and yet probably years to master every manouvre and timing there is.
I can't see the smaller maps being a good thing for the RTS elements in general. The map control isn't most likely going to be as effective, since the distances are really short. There aren't most likely going to be as many timings, route selections, risks and ways to spread on the map. I just hope they're getting replaced with something great, since learning to understand and control the game flow has been one of the greatest things in NS for me.
Of course who knows what can be stacked small maps, but 6-10 rooms sounds really scary to me. On quick count Veil has 15+ rooms and probably roughly 5-10 more areas between the actual rooms.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo(post=1691068:date=Oct 22 2008, 10:17 AM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spellman23 @ Oct 22 2008, 10:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691068"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I like these points.
Something to think about is to make sure NS doesn't become a game where you play the map with the game mechanics, instead of what NS1 was where you apply the game mechanics to a map.
Basically, a game should be interesting, and the map is a battlefield to execute upon. If you make the game map dependent, then it becomes a game where you have to learn every map and how to apply the game mechanics to the map. Dystopia falls into the latter category, which is perhaps one of its biggest flaws leading to its low popularity.
I would like NS2 to be an interesting game in itself, and the maps just where we battle it out. I personally don't mind map novelty, but I can see how sometimes it's a matter of taking time to grasp the flow of the map. With few rooms, we may gain ease of location, but as noted will we also sacrifice multiple paths in the map? Having an expanding front and being able to sneak around and hit a flank is what made map control so fun in NS1. I also was able to pick up maps pretty quickly, even during a game in the new map. Some of the more complex maps took a little longer, especially if they have a super complex vent system.
Another interesting point is that in NS1, many maps already have iconic rooms. People who played a while began to pick up on the names even thought he map wasn't labeled at the time. Sure, Triad in ns_eclipse was known as the donut room at my LAN party, but still, people started to figure out where they were. Granted, it took time, and the gaming population is becoming more and more gimme gratification now, but it wasn't illogical.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well said. I couldn't really explain why I liked the larger maps, but you've both really described it well. I'll support this new direction, but I can't help but think something important about NS was lost. With the Kharaa commander and these latest updates it seems NS2 really will be different from NS1. I'm sure it will be a good game, I just hope not everything I like about NS1 gets cut out for more mainstream appeal. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/nerd-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::nerdy::" border="0" alt="nerd-fix.gif" />
Why not use the startcraft way here? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" /> When choosing maps you can choose between small/medium/large.
Small for new players and for simpler games, and larger maps as we are used to for the experienced ones. Join the server of your preference!
<!--quoteo(post=1691072:date=Oct 22 2008, 02:34 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Oct 22 2008, 02:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691072"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well said. I couldn't really explain why I liked the larger maps, but you've both really described it well. I'll support this new direction, but I can't help but think something important about NS was lost. With the Kharaa commander and these latest updates it seems NS2 really will be different from NS1. I'm sure it will be a good game, I just hope not everything I like about NS1 gets cut out for more mainstream appeal. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/nerd-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::nerdy::" border="0" alt="nerd-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
heh, I'm actually being quoted for making sense?
Anyways. I don't think it would be fair to accuse the dev team of trying to mainstream NS. While in some ways it would be nice (more structured UI and easier flow of information is always a good thing), many players have pointed out that we're adverse to change.
Granted, this is true of all games. Just look on the Blizzard forums for all the complaints on Diablo 3 and StarCraft 2. Half are saying it's a rip off and not novel, the other half are complaining about them ruining their perfect game. This is the inherent problem with taking core game mechanics and trying to make a new, better game. You will always be compared with the original.
I'm not saying NS1 was the pinnacle of FPS/RTS blending, although it's the best out there in my opinion, but it's going to be natural that we'll try to compare NS2 with its predecessor for all of NS2's flaws and merits.
That being said, there is something to be said about how maps are structured due to the very nature of a RTS system. Andos brings up the point about map sizing. In StarCraft, they're still building new competitive maps, and they range from smaller 1v1 to larger 4 random start locations, and that's just for the 1v1 tournaments. In the same way, many NS1 maps are smaller or larger and can comfortably fit certain team sizes. I strongly doubt ns_machina is really suited for a 6v6.
A variety of map sizes would actually be quite interesting. Combat also seems to help servers get up to critical mass for Classic. However, what if there were maps designed for a 12v12 Classic battle? This would give mappers more room for more, well, rooms and a larger front to fight on, while we can still have smaller 6v6 maps with only 2 or 3 open fronts at a time.
As far as how these maps are structured, I still am going to bank on the old NS1 system with interconnections in a network. However, I'm totally open to the fewer, closely packed, bigger room system to blowing me away with its awesome. Maybe each room has more obstacles so it's rather more like 2 or 3 mini-rooms that share a common ceiling for Aliens to move along?
<!--quoteo(post=1691066:date=Oct 22 2008, 06:38 AM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Oct 22 2008, 06:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691066"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well, okay. Yes! I hope the minimap remains in the game because I'm planning on porting all of the competitive NS1 maps over. Well, no weapon in NS1 needs any reading to learn to use. My terrible team beat pandemic back in the day. I've watched cri beat pandemic for god's sake. Also, xen soldiers = pandemic soldiers.
Of course this is all scrims, in real matches, game is decided by scout aim because nobody takes rewarding risks.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
who are you? i'm guessing you played in the first week of the TF2 release and then retired as a self-proclaimed master of the universe
Comments
I must admit, I find Team Fortress 2 to be too simple but Valve is slowly fixing that by implementing more interesting weapons.
But I think Flayra has an important point here about map complexity.
Everytime I play a new NS map, sometimes I would sigh and try to get a grasp of the map, but often I just disconnect because at least to me, its not really THAT fun to get to know a new map. I still find new vents/hiding spots on pretty "old" ns maps even though I have played them like 100x times.
So the question is, who and what benefits from more simple maps?
Pretty much everyone. Experienced players can better rely on noobs to know the map. Since experienced players always know the maps pretty good, it doesnt make a difference if the map is a little complex or not. In the end, the outcome of a game relies (or should rely!) on teamwork.
Of course its always cool to show noobs that awesome hidden vent, or plainly owning other noobs by superior map knowledge.
But then we can also rename this game into "NS: Discovery. Who finds the vents first?".
So the question is, who and what benefits from more simple maps?
Pretty much everyone. Experienced players can better rely on noobs to know the map. Since experienced players always know the maps pretty good, it doesnt make a difference if the map is a little complex or not. In the end, the outcome of a game relies (or should rely!) on teamwork.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like the epic twisty-turny corridors of NS alot and love the fact I can find new areas to use when playing. That alone isn't worth keeping the style, and I think the landmark rooms will feel epic in their own right and wp paths will mostly negate the need of a HUD minimap. I hope the devs planning on keeping the "map" map though because it's useful for many things and key to a marine's autonomy from the comm. A marine needs to be able to look a the map and determine his objectives if the comm isn't there strategically.
I would think that smaller maps (less rooms, less hallways) would inherently limit the strategies. Less places to do a stealth / ninja phase, less areas to siege from, less resource nodes to capture and pressure, the list goes on and on. It would suck to be an alien, see that hive "X" is under siege, and know the only possibly way that could happen is because they're in room "Y."
Marines pick their own weapons now, which I don't mind at all as it was just one more baby-sitting duty the comm did next to dropping meds and ammo. I also know that the dev's are against the comm having a physical hand in the battle, like dropping damage spells, so how many different varieties of scanner sweep, or other support spells, can they come up with?
Hopefully they're able to add <i>meaningful</i> duties and abilities to the commander's role. Smaller, more simple maps, combined with reducing the tasks required of the role* make it seem that the role is going to be incredibly boring.
*not necessarily a bad thing. I'm all for removing weapon drops. If we can remove med/ammo drops for the comm's role as well, or have some automated system for it, there will at least be room for some significant support abilities.
Bottom line: If xensity can be a top3 team in a popular game, game doesn't take/have a lot of skill. I've learned everything there is to learn about the soldier class in about a month and gained perfect proficiency in 3 months. This isn't my idea of a game that has a high skill ceiling. To put that in perspective, I've been playing SC for about 8 years and I still occasionally get so balled by some Korean that it makes me want to cry.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol
<!--quoteo(post=1690862:date=Oct 20 2008, 08:47 AM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Oct 20 2008, 08:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1690862"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I put "other luck factors" there for a reason. Another overwhelming gameplay hole in TF2 is the factor of being the right class at the right time, or having a rocket/sticky/sniper crosshairs in the right place. Getting a scout to fluke out and flank the enemy medic also plays a role. In 2fort, having one soldier and a demo rocket up to the battlements at the right time wins the game, and at other time forces the attackers to regroup based on <u>when</u> exactly the attacking team got their kills.
You won't believe how many scrims I won by spamming rockets down a hallway/corridor and getting 50 instant crit kills. TF2 is the only game where throwing yourself at the enemy and hoping for a lucky critical is a valid winning tactic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol
<!--quoteo(post=1690863:date=Oct 20 2008, 08:56 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Oct 20 2008, 08:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1690863"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't consider knowing where to aim a rocket/sniper rifle, choosing the right class for a job, knowing when to take and hold the high ground, and knowing when to press an attack "luck" so much as "knowing how to play the game".
That's not how I play it, and any team that does that gets killed hard in scrims. Most of the scrims I play are crits off anyway, and when that's gone, there's no more "luck". The game <b>also gets more boring</b> though.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol
Anyways, I guess Pandemic is winning every single TF2 tournament cause of luck amirite?
That is excellent since I recently rented Unreal Tournament 3 and honest to god didn't know where I should of went. It had a similar system, albeit very simple since it only shows you the path from spawn to objective. But it did the trick and I was capable of being effective on a map quite quickly.
<!--quoteo(post=1690982:date=Oct 21 2008, 01:15 PM:name=Flayra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Flayra @ Oct 21 2008, 01:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1690982"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- The Commander and non-Comms are more decoupled so they can each be more effective on their own. Of course the best teams will have everyone working together, but Commanders will be able to be effective with braindead non-Comms (through the use of AI builder bots/nymphs and spell-like abilities) and the ability for marines to buy their own weapons/equipment from armories.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is an interesting change. At the same time a lot of NS' charm came from the fact that the commander was in fact a commander who played a major hand in strategy of the overall team. A shotgun rush would be only possible if a commander decides it is a good idea. At the same time, having a skilled commander with pants on head marines is not fun. The situation in reverse ain't charming either.
What about the infrastructure of the aliens? Specifically, their structure building?
Wicked. Sounds cool, though from a programmer standpoint, don't know how one would approach that without some sort of static mapping technique.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- The Commander and non-Comms are more decoupled so they can each be more effective on their own. Of course the best teams will have everyone working together, but Commanders will be able to be effective with braindead non-Comms (through the use of AI builder bots/nymphs and spell-like abilities) and the ability for marines to buy their own weapons/equipment from armories.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I definitely like the idea that the comm doesn't have to micromanage everything. Of course, as I'm sure you realize, there's a scale here. Some people like to have absolute control over certain aspects, and it's important to note that these features should be toggleable. As already mentioned, to allow marines to take whatever weapons they wish has 'abuse' written all over it. If not abuse, complete depletion of resources because some rambo marine won't listen to his commander and runs off with grenade launcher only to get himself killed every 30 seconds.
I assume the commander can control how the weapon distribution works. Perhaps you could toggle an armory to do one of several modes:
Mode 1) Free distribution, all marines can take any weapon researched from an armory at any time, resources allowing.
Mode 2) Limited distribution, commander sets the amount of weapons of choice chosen by marines. Resources are taken accordingly upon 'purchase'. Once the number reaches zero, marines can no longer 'buy' weapons from the armory until the amount is again updated by the commander.
Mode 3) Selected distribution, commander determines which players from a list will have free distribution or limited distribution from that armory, and only those marines can interface with the armory to purchase weapons.
So in a small game in which your marine team is of 3 people, might seem more prudent to use Mode 1, while in a larger game, you'd see more of Mode 2 and Mode 3 for example.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- The maps are much smaller, denser and more logically laid out. Instead of a sprawling network of halls and non-rooms, maps are made up of 6-10 rooms, each with a "landmark" (lighting, custom props, theme) to help players characterize it easily. This should also make the maps simple enough to navigate that we can get rid of the minimap, ala TF2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good for combat mode (if there is combat mode for ns2) and for games with few players, but I don't think that large maps are entirely bad for natural selection. Might be annoying for some players (and for those players, there will be smaller maps on other servers), but I personally prefer being able to sneak in to an alien hive and make a sneak attack because we didn't meet any resistance on the way there. Having a warzone is an attractive idea too, but I don't think that should be the only style of play.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- All weapons and alien abilities especially have an obvious function when you use them and should be learnable without reading anything or asking anyone anything.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's my personal opinion that weapons and alien abilities were fairly clear in ns1. Even 'webbing' took me 30 seconds to understand fully. I think it's enough to write it up in a wiki and give them a site link for information on gameplay. For that matter, don't dumb down weapons for the general audience.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- Lots more.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look forward to it. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/nerd-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::nerdy::" border="0" alt="nerd-fix.gif" />
At least I feel much more uncomfortable on games like WoW and DotA, since you'll need to know most of the classes to be effective. That takes hundreds of hours of gamaplay to learn the skill sets of each class and character, not to speak of the item combos. On NS on the other hand you've got 3 hives, some RTs and a MS. The rest is more or less indifferent for the very core gameplay. It takes me maximum of 15 minutes to get the basic grasp of a map and yet probably years to master every manouvre and timing there is.
I can't see the smaller maps being a good thing for the RTS elements in general. The map control isn't most likely going to be as effective, since the distances are really short. There aren't most likely going to be as many timings, route selections, risks and ways to spread on the map. I just hope they're getting replaced with something great, since learning to understand and control the game flow has been one of the greatest things in NS for me.
Of course who knows what can be stacked small maps, but 6-10 rooms sounds really scary to me. On quick count Veil has 15+ rooms and probably roughly 5-10 more areas between the actual rooms.
NS was good because it was complex, it was good because it was hard to master, etc
it seems like the this is gonna turn out as a normal fps/rts game that will attract some attention and then ppl will move onto other games.
Well, okay.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- The Commander and non-Comms are more decoupled so they can each be more effective on their own. Of course the best teams will have everyone working together, but Commanders will be able to be effective with braindead non-Comms (through the use of AI builder bots/nymphs and spell-like abilities) and the ability for marines to buy their own weapons/equipment from armories.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes!
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- The maps are much smaller, denser and more logically laid out. Instead of a sprawling network of halls and non-rooms, maps are made up of 6-10 rooms, each with a "landmark" (lighting, custom props, theme) to help players characterize it easily. This should also make the maps simple enough to navigate that we can get rid of the minimap, ala TF2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hope the minimap remains in the game because I'm planning on porting all of the competitive NS1 maps over.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- All weapons and alien abilities especially have an obvious function when you use them and should be learnable without reading anything or asking anyone anything.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, no weapon in NS1 needs any reading to learn to use.
<!--quoteo(post=1691038:date=Oct 22 2008, 01:55 AM:name=triggahappy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(triggahappy @ Oct 22 2008, 01:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691038"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Anyways, I guess Pandemic is winning every single TF2 tournament cause of luck amirite?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My terrible team beat pandemic back in the day. I've watched cri beat pandemic for god's sake. Also, xen soldiers = pandemic soldiers.
Of course this is all scrims, in real matches, game is decided by scout aim because nobody takes rewarding risks.
the first time i played it, my interest skyrocketed
the more i learned about the game the more i wanted to play it
just a matter or the people you play it with
NS has mostly a mature community unlike many other games ive played
what discourages me from trying to learn/ play games in general is not the learning curve rather the players that play the game
At least I feel much more uncomfortable on games like WoW and DotA, since you'll need to know most of the classes to be effective. That takes hundreds of hours of gamaplay to learn the skill sets of each class and character, not to speak of the item combos. On NS on the other hand you've got 3 hives, some RTs and a MS. The rest is more or less indifferent for the very core gameplay. It takes me maximum of 15 minutes to get the basic grasp of a map and yet probably years to master every manouvre and timing there is.
I can't see the smaller maps being a good thing for the RTS elements in general. The map control isn't most likely going to be as effective, since the distances are really short. There aren't most likely going to be as many timings, route selections, risks and ways to spread on the map. I just hope they're getting replaced with something great, since learning to understand and control the game flow has been one of the greatest things in NS for me.
Of course who knows what can be stacked small maps, but 6-10 rooms sounds really scary to me. On quick count Veil has 15+ rooms and probably roughly 5-10 more areas between the actual rooms.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like these points.
Something to think about is to make sure NS doesn't become a game where you play the map with the game mechanics, instead of what NS1 was where you apply the game mechanics to a map.
Basically, a game should be interesting, and the map is a battlefield to execute upon. If you make the game map dependent, then it becomes a game where you have to learn every map and how to apply the game mechanics to the map. Dystopia falls into the latter category, which is perhaps one of its biggest flaws leading to its low popularity.
I would like NS2 to be an interesting game in itself, and the maps just where we battle it out. I personally don't mind map novelty, but I can see how sometimes it's a matter of taking time to grasp the flow of the map. With few rooms, we may gain ease of location, but as noted will we also sacrifice multiple paths in the map? Having an expanding front and being able to sneak around and hit a flank is what made map control so fun in NS1. I also was able to pick up maps pretty quickly, even during a game in the new map. Some of the more complex maps took a little longer, especially if they have a super complex vent system.
Another interesting point is that in NS1, many maps already have iconic rooms. People who played a while began to pick up on the names even thought he map wasn't labeled at the time. Sure, Triad in ns_eclipse was known as the donut room at my LAN party, but still, people started to figure out where they were. Granted, it took time, and the gaming population is becoming more and more gimme gratification now, but it wasn't illogical.
At least I feel much more uncomfortable on games like WoW and DotA, since you'll need to know most of the classes to be effective. That takes hundreds of hours of gamaplay to learn the skill sets of each class and character, not to speak of the item combos. On NS on the other hand you've got 3 hives, some RTs and a MS. The rest is more or less indifferent for the very core gameplay. It takes me maximum of 15 minutes to get the basic grasp of a map and yet probably years to master every manouvre and timing there is.
I can't see the smaller maps being a good thing for the RTS elements in general. The map control isn't most likely going to be as effective, since the distances are really short. There aren't most likely going to be as many timings, route selections, risks and ways to spread on the map. I just hope they're getting replaced with something great, since learning to understand and control the game flow has been one of the greatest things in NS for me.
Of course who knows what can be stacked small maps, but 6-10 rooms sounds really scary to me. On quick count Veil has 15+ rooms and probably roughly 5-10 more areas between the actual rooms.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1691068:date=Oct 22 2008, 10:17 AM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spellman23 @ Oct 22 2008, 10:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1691068"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I like these points.
Something to think about is to make sure NS doesn't become a game where you play the map with the game mechanics, instead of what NS1 was where you apply the game mechanics to a map.
Basically, a game should be interesting, and the map is a battlefield to execute upon. If you make the game map dependent, then it becomes a game where you have to learn every map and how to apply the game mechanics to the map. Dystopia falls into the latter category, which is perhaps one of its biggest flaws leading to its low popularity.
I would like NS2 to be an interesting game in itself, and the maps just where we battle it out. I personally don't mind map novelty, but I can see how sometimes it's a matter of taking time to grasp the flow of the map. With few rooms, we may gain ease of location, but as noted will we also sacrifice multiple paths in the map? Having an expanding front and being able to sneak around and hit a flank is what made map control so fun in NS1. I also was able to pick up maps pretty quickly, even during a game in the new map. Some of the more complex maps took a little longer, especially if they have a super complex vent system.
Another interesting point is that in NS1, many maps already have iconic rooms. People who played a while began to pick up on the names even thought he map wasn't labeled at the time. Sure, Triad in ns_eclipse was known as the donut room at my LAN party, but still, people started to figure out where they were. Granted, it took time, and the gaming population is becoming more and more gimme gratification now, but it wasn't illogical.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well said. I couldn't really explain why I liked the larger maps, but you've both really described it well. I'll support this new direction, but I can't help but think something important about NS was lost. With the Kharaa commander and these latest updates it seems NS2 really will be different from NS1. I'm sure it will be a good game, I just hope not everything I like about NS1 gets cut out for more mainstream appeal. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/nerd-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::nerdy::" border="0" alt="nerd-fix.gif" />
When choosing maps you can choose between small/medium/large.
Small for new players and for simpler games, and larger maps as we are used to for the experienced ones. Join the server of your preference!
heh, I'm actually being quoted for making sense?
Anyways. I don't think it would be fair to accuse the dev team of trying to mainstream NS. While in some ways it would be nice (more structured UI and easier flow of information is always a good thing), many players have pointed out that we're adverse to change.
Granted, this is true of all games. Just look on the Blizzard forums for all the complaints on Diablo 3 and StarCraft 2. Half are saying it's a rip off and not novel, the other half are complaining about them ruining their perfect game. This is the inherent problem with taking core game mechanics and trying to make a new, better game. You will always be compared with the original.
I'm not saying NS1 was the pinnacle of FPS/RTS blending, although it's the best out there in my opinion, but it's going to be natural that we'll try to compare NS2 with its predecessor for all of NS2's flaws and merits.
That being said, there is something to be said about how maps are structured due to the very nature of a RTS system. Andos brings up the point about map sizing. In StarCraft, they're still building new competitive maps, and they range from smaller 1v1 to larger 4 random start locations, and that's just for the 1v1 tournaments. In the same way, many NS1 maps are smaller or larger and can comfortably fit certain team sizes. I strongly doubt ns_machina is really suited for a 6v6.
A variety of map sizes would actually be quite interesting. Combat also seems to help servers get up to critical mass for Classic. However, what if there were maps designed for a 12v12 Classic battle? This would give mappers more room for more, well, rooms and a larger front to fight on, while we can still have smaller 6v6 maps with only 2 or 3 open fronts at a time.
As far as how these maps are structured, I still am going to bank on the old NS1 system with interconnections in a network. However, I'm totally open to the fewer, closely packed, bigger room system to blowing me away with its awesome. Maybe each room has more obstacles so it's rather more like 2 or 3 mini-rooms that share a common ceiling for Aliens to move along?
Yes!
I hope the minimap remains in the game because I'm planning on porting all of the competitive NS1 maps over.
Well, no weapon in NS1 needs any reading to learn to use.
My terrible team beat pandemic back in the day. I've watched cri beat pandemic for god's sake. Also, xen soldiers = pandemic soldiers.
Of course this is all scrims, in real matches, game is decided by scout aim because nobody takes rewarding risks.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
who are you? i'm guessing you played in the first week of the TF2 release and then retired as a self-proclaimed master of the universe
I declare myself master of the universe!
sorry, not helpful.