<!--quoteo(post=1699007:date=Jan 30 2009, 10:40 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 30 2009, 10:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1699007"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->...can't be trusted to design a sequel because they're dead set in their ways<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah I agree this is simply getting a little out of hand.
Especially when there conflicting points within Zek's argument, which in turn makes it bad. Instead of keeping an open ended game where a player can choose to do, he would rather force a poor definition of teamwork on those under the guise of "for the good of the many". Problem is I am betting that it will fail due to the overwhelming amount of unintended consequences it would cause.
Kharaa *AKA* Aliens: <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/hive5.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::hive::" border="0" alt="hive5.gif" /> Their motive is simple, attack in numbers and overwhelm the "sentient" species. This is complemented by "elite" lifeforms in their hive hierarchy. Everything and any action they do is so their hivemind can flourish. Each and every Kharaa that is bred is created to be the same, in only that they complete their will of the hive untill they perish.
Marines *AKA* Humans *AKA* Squishys *AKA* Gorge Huggers: <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/marine.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::marine::" border="0" alt="marine.gif" /> Their motive is to protect their installations with the manpower they have available at all costs. Since life is cherished in their society, Marines are trained and made to be elite and fully capable and mostly self sufficient warriors. The notion is that they are an army of one, but many armies of one can work together for their success. Likewise, there is always a great Commander always leads them into battle to unite them to complete their overall objectives.
So in context of lore (yes I know I used it and went that far), rambos are not a myth for a Marine Commander to employ as a practice. Only that it is used when the benefits outweigh the side effects when compared to the overall chance of victory and success, incomparance to the possibility of completely failing the TSA mission. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tsa.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::tsa::" border="0" alt="tsa.gif" />
Okay, I continue to hear the same arguments over and over again which Zek and I have been patiently demonstrating counterexamples for to which either no reply was given or the counterargument was bashed by unsound or insulting counterarguments. Don't know how you can feel this discussion is won when nobody has been able to come up with a sound counterargument to what I would consider to be very valid points. If you disagree that they're valid points, PROVE IT. You can't show they're invalid points by posting rubbish (l337 talk and personal attacks included).
With that said, a quick review of the points of interest:
<b>Argument #1: </b>There is no rambo problem, wth!!!1!one
<b>Our counterargument: </b>The length of this thread alone should be testament that there is doubt in your argument, but supposing of course that Zek and I were idiots arguing in a discussion created for a nonexistant problem, lets move on to the next counterpoint. I'm hearing various people declare that they regularly rambo (perhaps in arguing against arguments #2, #3, or #4), so it can't be that uncommon. It's actually a well-defended stance that rambos should continue to exist however that may be, which means you're trampling over your own argument. Don't think you can argue against this if you're also going to argue for points #2, #3, or #4 as the pretence is that rambos exist.
<b>Argument #2: </b>Ok, rambos exist, but it's a GOOD thing. If you tell me that I can't play rambo, then it's because you're just a sucky player that knows nothing about natural selection.
<b>Our counterargument: </b>This argument is almost entirely subjective in nature. Saying rambos are a good thing is a matter of personal opinion, but given the fact that natural selection is a game with two teams, I personally refuse to believe it is a game with two teams for purely aesthetical reasons, but that the point of playing a team game is to play as a team. You're welcome to argue against that, as it's only opinion. That's what an opinion means: we can't prove you wrong, but neither can you prove us wrong. Calling us bad at ramboing is a joke? Is that a serious argument or an imprecation? Assuming you were serious, it is yet again entirely subjective and carries about as much weight as if I had said that the reasons you don't want teamplay is because you can't play as a team or if I had simply said that your grandmother eats rotten eggs.
<b>Argument #3: </b>Natural selection is fine the way it is. Natural selection 2 should allow there to be rambos for this reason.
<b>Our counterargument: </b>Whether it is fine or not is again subjective. I argue that it is not fine the way it is, nor would I wish to see Natural Selection 2 as a clone of natural selection. There is no reason to think that only the graphics engine is going to be the only big adjustment from natural selection to natural selection 2. Seeing how you've failed to demonstrate point #2, there's no reason why rambos should be reduced if not completely eliminated from natural selection 2. With that said, a couple reasons for modifying natural selection 2 include promoting that which makes aliens aliens, or close range combat. Don't see any reason why me spawning as a marine vs me spawning as a skulk should make any difference whatsoever in the number of vanilla skulks or vanilla marines respectively that I can kill. That's a balance issue if i've ever seen it, though the best argument to why this shouldn't be fixed is because of why? "It's fine the way it is"? Nice argument. No, really. You should be a lawyer.
<b>Argument #4: </b>You can't modify the skill factor in natural selection! That's skill communism and it keeps me from being able to kill everything!
<b>Our counterargument: </b>Look at it this way. If you're a vanilla marine and you come across an onos, is it really a battle you expect to be able to win? No, of course not. That's not skill communism. Making aliens more effective vs rambo marines is no more skill communism than my example. If you wish to counterbalance and make marine MORE effective in numbers, even better. Nobody ever said aliens had to be overpowered as a result of this change. We'd just prefer that if you had to choose between a lone marine taking out a lone alien in ambush position vs three marines in a group taking on three aliens in a non-ambush situation that the three marines would win their battle whereas the lone marine would not. If you really just want to be able to kill everything with a lmg and pistol, get over it. Natural selection isn't your game, or if it were, think I'd retire my gun from natural selection and natural selection 2.
I'm starting to think the only thing you've got in your bag of tricks are insults and make baseless claims. Lets see you argue for a change. Your argument that you want natural selection 2 to be like natural selection because you want to go pubstomping (your true motivation for this argument, lets be honest here), doesn't apply here to any of these arguments. I'd like to see some new counterarguments.
<!--quoteo(post=1699198:date=Feb 2 2009, 02:24 PM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Feb 2 2009, 02:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1699198"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->--<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Some of those are more or less different than I've seen presented, but I think the authors will correct those statements if necessary. However, think you could sum these up too?
1. Natural Selection is at very declining shape. The skill differences in public are enormous. Most people seem to overrun publics here and there because they are totally outplaying the aliens in almost every gameplay aspect. Aliens on the other hand aren't able to form good enough teamwork to compensate the advantages the average top fragger has in skill, decisionmaking and game sense. The situation should improve when there are more servers of various skill levels and the competetive community is active enough to keep the players busy playing PCWs and league matches.
2. Skulks have the ability to pick their fights by parasite and superior mobility. For example they can start the fight while the marine(s) are either in bad position or outnumbered. The alien team can also employ lerks and gorges to weaken the marines effectively before going in and finishing the fight. Of course whether it should be like this, is arguable. However, I think it increases the asymmetry between the teams and allows players to adapt into a whole different mindset as an alien. It also makes skulk one of the most unique FPS gaming experiences ever and keeps players attracted to the game for years.
3. Smart use of the single marines adds up to the gameplay. A single marine can force aliens to release the pressure from the marine groups progressing the map. With some well thought timing this allows marines to gain map control effectively, greatly increasing the teamwork used for map control on both teams and also allows commanders take their strategies to another level. That level of gameplay might be difficult to achieve on public servers, but on the other hand NS 2 will introduce a lot better learning curve.
4. Limiting marines to groups can cause trouble. If one marine decides to wander out into wrong direction, his former squadmate gets punished too. Players depending on the teammates with less skill and/or less game sense often create a lot of frustration. At worst, the more skilled players isolate themselves into organised play, creating a huge skill cap between the public server NS and organised play. The present xmenu combat vs vanilla NS is a little similar situation in many ways: The transition from one game style to another gets too big and people there are very few people feeding the 'top' of the pyramid.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
I don't really have the desire to write essays like I used to. Nor is there a desire to feed a never-ending topic that recycles ideas over and over without any progress. If this is the crux of this argument:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nobody ever said aliens had to be overpowered as a result of this change. We'd just prefer that if you had to choose between a lone marine taking out a lone alien in ambush position vs three marines in a group taking on three aliens in a non-ambush situation that the three marines would win their battle whereas the lone marine would not.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
then so be it. If this is somehow accomplished without making aliens overpowered, it is going to change the game mechanics on several levels (opening, mid, and end game). It will change the way the game plays and with it the players who subscribe to the game. So what? Ok..
1. From a marketing perspective - there are no numbers to support this change in terms of selling more copies of the game. 2. From a game play perspective - compensating for poor skulking by forcing marine cooperation is not necessarily a wise change and nor is it the only way of addressing poor skulking. <u>You assume that the problem is ramboing, while opponents propose that the problem is skulking.</u> 3. From an evidence-based perspective - most skulks are just not any good at all; they don't even get into a position of ambush. On the occasion that they do find a position to ambush from, it really isn't all that great due to map design. On the rare occasion that there is a good ambush position, 99% of skulk failure on a lone marine occurs due to poor timing (latency or reflexes). 4. From a logical perspective - why do you have to choose between lone marine winning over a skulk in a (bad/good?) ambush position versus three marines walking over three skulks that are <b>not</b> in an ambush position (i.e. dead skulks)? Seems like a very oversimplified scenario.
So, essentially this pile of posts is about an argument that is not based on evidence or reason.
Point #1 Not sure what you are getting at, however there is no rambo or solo play problem in NS. A solo player is racking up a lot of kills is simply outplaying the other team. If you take two similarly skilled teams, if someone tries to go solo they will more than likely get killed. Solo play is only a problem when there is severe skill disparity. One of the ways I suggested to keep the games even is using a developer created Reserve Slot System with Server Labeling. You can read about that idea here: <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=104062&hl=" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...=104062&hl=</a>
It has also been suggested to store local stats for balancing teams. I reserve judgment on that, but perhaps that would be of assistance.
Point #2
You stated your opinion, I and several others have stated a counter opinion. However, this does fit in with point #1.
Point #3
I'd have an easier time believing your argument if NS was not downloaded over 2 million times, and was not the most popular 3rd party Half-Life Mod. Ever. It might have actually been the most popular 3rd party mod ever, but I do not have statistics to prove that. Also if you never found the game fun, you would not be posting here, nor would you be able to comment on the gameplay. I agree that NS2 should not be NS, but it should draw from the core gameplay and offer options to players. Hard restrictions on solo play does not offer options, nor does it enforce the teamwork that you so deeply desire to have. Also from a gameplay perspective based on tech evolution, it may be required in NS2 for the marines to be successful to have an occasional solo marine. Under your system that marine would be so severely penalized that if the marines lost enough momentum, the aliens could dominate them in the early game if they get enough kills. That is simply not balance.
Point #4
Yes the Vanilla marine will in all likelihood lose to the Onos. However you are implying that the alien and marines start off equally, that is simply not true. Until the first lerk comes out, the Marines have a slight advantage. A slight advantage in the early game is not game crippling, and does not justify an "anti solo player" system.
And bare in mind that NS is not YOUR game either. All the people who are against this system want is the ability to use their skills to the maximum ability. You assume that everyone here just wants to pub stomp. The really truly skilled players want the competitive scene back (unfortunately its gone. and so is most of the pub scene).
What you are not understanding is that by forcing Marines into squads you are going to create revenge effects in the mid and late game, some of which stated make a lot of sense and in all probability would exist. Your desire to eliminate one player that can potentially stand out from the rest (given that solo play is only a problem with severely lesser skilled players). You are creating a system because of a "problem" minority that would penalize players for not being huddled around each other.
It would be simply better for you and Zek to be a part of a server community that enforces the rules you want. You can play your way, we can play our way <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
(and I did that without the passive aggressive insults, lets see if you continue to be a hypocrite or not Hawkeye).
Comments
LOL.
Especially when there conflicting points within Zek's argument, which in turn makes it bad. Instead of keeping an open ended game where a player can choose to do, he would rather force a poor definition of teamwork on those under the guise of "for the good of the many". Problem is I am betting that it will fail due to the overwhelming amount of unintended consequences it would cause.
Kharaa *AKA* Aliens: <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/hive5.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::hive::" border="0" alt="hive5.gif" />
Their motive is simple, attack in numbers and overwhelm the "sentient" species. This is complemented by "elite" lifeforms in their hive hierarchy. Everything and any action they do is so their hivemind can flourish. Each and every Kharaa that is bred is created to be the same, in only that they complete their will of the hive untill they perish.
Marines *AKA* Humans *AKA* Squishys *AKA* Gorge Huggers: <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/marine.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::marine::" border="0" alt="marine.gif" />
Their motive is to protect their installations with the manpower they have available at all costs. Since life is cherished in their society, Marines are trained and made to be elite and fully capable and mostly self sufficient warriors. The notion is that they are an army of one, but many armies of one can work together for their success. Likewise, there is always a great Commander always leads them into battle to unite them to complete their overall objectives.
So in context of lore (yes I know I used it and went that far), rambos are not a myth for a Marine Commander to employ as a practice. Only that it is used when the benefits outweigh the side effects when compared to the overall chance of victory and success, incomparance to the possibility of completely failing the TSA mission. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tsa.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::tsa::" border="0" alt="tsa.gif" />
LOCKED AND DROPPED MOTHER@%$#!*&. (Marine humor... LOL Z!!!) <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/asrifle.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::asrifle::" border="0" alt="asrifle.gif" />
With that said, a quick review of the points of interest:
<b>Argument #1: </b>There is no rambo problem, wth!!!1!one
<b>Our counterargument: </b>The length of this thread alone should be testament that there is doubt in your argument, but supposing of course that Zek and I were idiots arguing in a discussion created for a nonexistant problem, lets move on to the next counterpoint. I'm hearing various people declare that they regularly rambo (perhaps in arguing against arguments #2, #3, or #4), so it can't be that uncommon. It's actually a well-defended stance that rambos should continue to exist however that may be, which means you're trampling over your own argument. Don't think you can argue against this if you're also going to argue for points #2, #3, or #4 as the pretence is that rambos exist.
<b>Argument #2: </b>Ok, rambos exist, but it's a GOOD thing. If you tell me that I can't play rambo, then it's because you're just a sucky player that knows nothing about natural selection.
<b>Our counterargument: </b>This argument is almost entirely subjective in nature. Saying rambos are a good thing is a matter of personal opinion, but given the fact that natural selection is a game with two teams, I personally refuse to believe it is a game with two teams for purely aesthetical reasons, but that the point of playing a team game is to play as a team. You're welcome to argue against that, as it's only opinion. That's what an opinion means: we can't prove you wrong, but neither can you prove us wrong. Calling us bad at ramboing is a joke? Is that a serious argument or an imprecation? Assuming you were serious, it is yet again entirely subjective and carries about as much weight as if I had said that the reasons you don't want teamplay is because you can't play as a team or if I had simply said that your grandmother eats rotten eggs.
<b>Argument #3: </b>Natural selection is fine the way it is. Natural selection 2 should allow there to be rambos for this reason.
<b>Our counterargument: </b>Whether it is fine or not is again subjective. I argue that it is not fine the way it is, nor would I wish to see Natural Selection 2 as a clone of natural selection. There is no reason to think that only the graphics engine is going to be the only big adjustment from natural selection to natural selection 2. Seeing how you've failed to demonstrate point #2, there's no reason why rambos should be reduced if not completely eliminated from natural selection 2. With that said, a couple reasons for modifying natural selection 2 include promoting that which makes aliens aliens, or close range combat. Don't see any reason why me spawning as a marine vs me spawning as a skulk should make any difference whatsoever in the number of vanilla skulks or vanilla marines respectively that I can kill. That's a balance issue if i've ever seen it, though the best argument to why this shouldn't be fixed is because of why? "It's fine the way it is"? Nice argument. No, really. You should be a lawyer.
<b>Argument #4: </b>You can't modify the skill factor in natural selection! That's skill communism and it keeps me from being able to kill everything!
<b>Our counterargument: </b>Look at it this way. If you're a vanilla marine and you come across an onos, is it really a battle you expect to be able to win? No, of course not. That's not skill communism. Making aliens more effective vs rambo marines is no more skill communism than my example. If you wish to counterbalance and make marine MORE effective in numbers, even better. Nobody ever said aliens had to be overpowered as a result of this change. We'd just prefer that if you had to choose between a lone marine taking out a lone alien in ambush position vs three marines in a group taking on three aliens in a non-ambush situation that the three marines would win their battle whereas the lone marine would not. If you really just want to be able to kill everything with a lmg and pistol, get over it. Natural selection isn't your game, or if it were, think I'd retire my gun from natural selection and natural selection 2.
I'm starting to think the only thing you've got in your bag of tricks are insults and make baseless claims. Lets see you argue for a change. Your argument that you want natural selection 2 to be like natural selection because you want to go pubstomping (your true motivation for this argument, lets be honest here), doesn't apply here to any of these arguments. I'd like to see some new counterarguments.
Some of those are more or less different than I've seen presented, but I think the authors will correct those statements if necessary. However, think you could sum these up too?
1. Natural Selection is at very declining shape. The skill differences in public are enormous. Most people seem to overrun publics here and there because they are totally outplaying the aliens in almost every gameplay aspect. Aliens on the other hand aren't able to form good enough teamwork to compensate the advantages the average top fragger has in skill, decisionmaking and game sense. The situation should improve when there are more servers of various skill levels and the competetive community is active enough to keep the players busy playing PCWs and league matches.
2. Skulks have the ability to pick their fights by parasite and superior mobility. For example they can start the fight while the marine(s) are either in bad position or outnumbered. The alien team can also employ lerks and gorges to weaken the marines effectively before going in and finishing the fight. Of course whether it should be like this, is arguable. However, I think it increases the asymmetry between the teams and allows players to adapt into a whole different mindset as an alien. It also makes skulk one of the most unique FPS gaming experiences ever and keeps players attracted to the game for years.
3. Smart use of the single marines adds up to the gameplay. A single marine can force aliens to release the pressure from the marine groups progressing the map. With some well thought timing this allows marines to gain map control effectively, greatly increasing the teamwork used for map control on both teams and also allows commanders take their strategies to another level. That level of gameplay might be difficult to achieve on public servers, but on the other hand NS 2 will introduce a lot better learning curve.
4. Limiting marines to groups can cause trouble. If one marine decides to wander out into wrong direction, his former squadmate gets punished too. Players depending on the teammates with less skill and/or less game sense often create a lot of frustration. At worst, the more skilled players isolate themselves into organised play, creating a huge skill cap between the public server NS and organised play. The present xmenu combat vs vanilla NS is a little similar situation in many ways: The transition from one game style to another gets too big and people there are very few people feeding the 'top' of the pyramid.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nobody ever said aliens had to be overpowered as a result of this change. We'd just prefer that if you had to choose between a lone marine taking out a lone alien in ambush position vs three marines in a group taking on three aliens in a non-ambush situation that the three marines would win their battle whereas the lone marine would not.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
then so be it. If this is somehow accomplished without making aliens overpowered, it is going to change the game mechanics on several levels (opening, mid, and end game). It will change the way the game plays and with it the players who subscribe to the game. So what? Ok..
1. From a marketing perspective - there are no numbers to support this change in terms of selling more copies of the game.
2. From a game play perspective - compensating for poor skulking by forcing marine cooperation is not necessarily a wise change and nor is it the only way of addressing poor skulking. <u>You assume that the problem is ramboing, while opponents propose that the problem is skulking.</u>
3. From an evidence-based perspective - most skulks are just not any good at all; they don't even get into a position of ambush. On the occasion that they do find a position to ambush from, it really isn't all that great due to map design. On the rare occasion that there is a good ambush position, 99% of skulk failure on a lone marine occurs due to poor timing (latency or reflexes).
4. From a logical perspective - why do you have to choose between lone marine winning over a skulk in a (bad/good?) ambush position versus three marines walking over three skulks that are <b>not</b> in an ambush position (i.e. dead skulks)? Seems like a very oversimplified scenario.
So, essentially this pile of posts is about an argument that is not based on evidence or reason.
Ok Fair enough.
Point #1
Not sure what you are getting at, however there is no rambo or solo play problem in NS. A solo player is racking up a lot of kills is simply outplaying the other team. If you take two similarly skilled teams, if someone tries to go solo they will more than likely get killed. Solo play is only a problem when there is severe skill disparity. One of the ways I suggested to keep the games even is using a developer created Reserve Slot System with Server Labeling. You can read about that idea here: <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=104062&hl=" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...=104062&hl=</a>
It has also been suggested to store local stats for balancing teams. I reserve judgment on that, but perhaps that would be of assistance.
Point #2
You stated your opinion, I and several others have stated a counter opinion. However, this does fit in with point #1.
Point #3
I'd have an easier time believing your argument if NS was not downloaded over 2 million times, and was not the most popular 3rd party Half-Life Mod. Ever. It might have actually been the most popular 3rd party mod ever, but I do not have statistics to prove that. Also if you never found the game fun, you would not be posting here, nor would you be able to comment on the gameplay. I agree that NS2 should not be NS, but it should draw from the core gameplay and offer options to players. Hard restrictions on solo play does not offer options, nor does it enforce the teamwork that you so deeply desire to have. Also from a gameplay perspective based on tech evolution, it may be required in NS2 for the marines to be successful to have an occasional solo marine. Under your system that marine would be so severely penalized that if the marines lost enough momentum, the aliens could dominate them in the early game if they get enough kills. That is simply not balance.
Point #4
Yes the Vanilla marine will in all likelihood lose to the Onos. However you are implying that the alien and marines start off equally, that is simply not true. Until the first lerk comes out, the Marines have a slight advantage. A slight advantage in the early game is not game crippling, and does not justify an "anti solo player" system.
And bare in mind that NS is not YOUR game either. All the people who are against this system want is the ability to use their skills to the maximum ability. You assume that everyone here just wants to pub stomp. The really truly skilled players want the competitive scene back (unfortunately its gone. and so is most of the pub scene).
What you are not understanding is that by forcing Marines into squads you are going to create revenge effects in the mid and late game, some of which stated make a lot of sense and in all probability would exist. Your desire to eliminate one player that can potentially stand out from the rest (given that solo play is only a problem with severely lesser skilled players). You are creating a system because of a "problem" minority that would penalize players for not being huddled around each other.
It would be simply better for you and Zek to be a part of a server community that enforces the rules you want. You can play your way, we can play our way <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
(and I did that without the passive aggressive insults, lets see if you continue to be a hypocrite or not Hawkeye).