There is a “lets keep it as is†band wagon as well and you’re part of it. All this stuff is subjective and the people who are in this debate are probably not going to have their minds changed by their respective opposition. I bet it’s more interesting to the audience who are just reading this and not posting at all, since they don’t have a stance to defend but instead want to find one.
I find a group of marines cooperating together to lock down a hive to be better teamwork and fun for more people. Traveling inside a group is more immersive and is a way to ease new players into the game. Players who are not practiced enough to decide fights by themselves can assist more experienced players and fulfill a support role. This kind of gameplay helps builds community in a literal sense. This is not much as an issue for the aliens because the gorge class gives newer players a way to contribute to the team without having to be directly in combat but still oversee it. This gives the player a chance to learn the different mechanics of the game safely. As a marine, you just get snuffed out if you are alone without as much opportunity to learn. Encouraging them to stay together is a step to ensure a long life to the game.
This is all in addition to the gameplay reasoning I gave in my earlier post. I am curious to see what retort will be given to it since I don’t labeling anything as communist is a mature way of discussing matters.
<!--quoteo(post=1695553:date=Dec 7 2008, 09:25 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Dec 7 2008, 09:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695553"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> It doesn't, but if it's unnecessary of course you're not going to do it as you've already demonstrated. It's irrelevant to the discussion because this isn't about the commander. And arguing "Well, we've already started moving towards solo play, may as well keep going" is nonsense.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lowering dependence on the game's commander is not a step towards more autonomy for the individual marine player? I don't know how you could not interpret that is allowing more independence towards the players. Furthermore the effect of solo players has had will not change unless the developers hardcode strict penalities for doing so, which would destroy the gameplay for the core.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yup.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I see, then I would refer to the following quote:
<!--quoteo(post=1695573:date=Dec 8 2008, 05:55 AM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Dec 8 2008, 05:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695573"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Skill communism. The two above posts are made with 100% helen keller.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Referencing of course posts 25 and 26 in the current thread. This statement maybe a bit immature but I'm sure that is just because of the frustration of the quality of argument (or lack there of) that has been presented for limiting the effect of solo players based on hard programming.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm sorry that I prioritize the fun of the game over pro players winning as easily as they deserve. This is a team game first and foremost and of course a rock star is going to be brought down by unskilled teammates, that's life. Nobody's stopping him from using his skills to cover his teammates. And I never proposed penalizing them outside the fact that if they mess up they're dead - I'm suggesting making it easier for them to mess up. Even newbs learn what does and doesn't work, and the stronger the reinforcement against rambo behavior the less likely they are to do it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You seem to adopt a mindset that solo players are not contributing to the well being of the team, and that all pro players want to do is go solo and pick on casual players. While I agree that sometimes there are solo players who are ineffective at what they do. The natural consequence in NS1 is that the player returns to the spawn queue and the aliens get some easy resources. You also assume that the pressure ability that one skilled player can provide is not affecting how the rest of the team is interacting with each other. If one player is capable of taking down several skulks in one life, I would maximize that players talents so that the rest of the team can do other things more quickly with the least amount of conflict, such as cap nodes, or even better, destroy enemy nodes. If one player can do the job of many, I have no idea why people would want to limit that player (especially if they are on the marines). Just because a player is not in arms range of another player (again skewed definition of teamwork, which has yet to be addressed) does not mean he or she is not contributing to the team.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->P.S. Believe it or not I'm also capable of playing solo and no, I'm not jealous of you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't believe it, because skill is relative to the players one is playing against. If you truly understood NS at its roots and the dynamics of gameplay, there is no forseeable logical counter argument you can use to dispute the points I have presented. The "Its more fun" argument seems to be thesis of your argument. Many others would argue that working as a team that maximizing talent instead of hampering it would be more fun then play a game where the better you are at something, the more you have to penalized because "other players need kills too" (Skill Communism). I'm all for teamwork, as if everyone runs off their own with no logical plan then the marines are done for. What I am not for is limiting the abilities of players based on the idiotic argument of "Its not fun for me when someone kills aliens while they are not around me" logic. As for whether you are jealous of me or not jealous, both options are of equal value.
<!--quoteo(post=1695621:date=Dec 8 2008, 04:41 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Dec 8 2008, 04:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695621"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Lowering dependence on the game's commander is not a step towards more autonomy for the individual marine player? I don't know how you could not interpret that is allowing more independence towards the players. Furthermore the effect of solo players has had will not change unless the developers hardcode strict penalities for doing so, which would destroy the gameplay for the core.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I said this once before, increasing the independence between commander and marines <i>does not</i> mean that individual marines are become independent from each other. Another assumption you are making is that they are going to be strict penalties like reducing the movement speed of the marine. This can entirely done using softer balancing techniques such as removing the effectiveness of motion tracking and increasing the time to reload a weapon. In addition, the aliens could gain abilities that exploit a marine player when is alone. The idea is to make sending a marine a solo mission a gamble, not to make them completely ineffective. If the lone marine can still do well in the new environment, more power to him.
<!--quoteo(post=1695621:date=Dec 8 2008, 04:41 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Dec 8 2008, 04:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695621"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Referencing of course posts 25 and 26 in the current thread. This statement maybe a bit immature but I'm sure that is just because of the frustration of the quality of argument (or lack there of) that has been presented for limiting the effect of solo players based on hard programming.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There have been valid arguments made and I'll say right now that you ignored two of the purely mechanical additions. It gives newer player opportunities to serve a support role so they can learn the game from more experienced players and that it stabilizes the player value economy so that players of different skill levels could play together. This is actually a very large design issue that modern games started using ranking systems to ensure players of the same skill worked together. The issue is that in a PC world, you cannot easily have specific servers available dynamically for certain skill sets, especially on a independent game that has a small budget. It is not currently viable. The only other suggestion I heard aside from balancing fixes is to have servers themselves as casual and competitive, which is a horrible solution. You are segregating a community and not only that, doing it poorly so that either side can join each others game to wreck havoc on the balance. Competitive players will complain whenever a casual player starts to try out on their servers and casual players will probably wonder why they get the euphonized version of being called incompetent.
<!--quoteo(post=1695621:date=Dec 8 2008, 05:41 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Dec 8 2008, 05:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695621"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Lowering dependence on the game's commander is not a step towards more autonomy for the individual marine player? I don't know how you could not interpret that is allowing more independence towards the players. Furthermore the effect of solo players has had will not change unless the developers hardcode strict penalities for doing so, which would destroy the gameplay for the core.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I never said I didn't interpret it that way, I said it's irrelevant to the argument. What point are you trying to make? I don't see how the fact that the devs made one change so far that increases player independence can be used as an argument in favor of every other shift towards solo play. How the marines buy their weapons has nothing to do with whether or not they can run out alone without dying.
And the effectiveness of solo players will change if you change the game balance to make it more difficult to survive without cover. Like for example, nerfing the jumping quirks that allow you to walk into an ambush and still escape back into shooting range.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I see, then I would refer to the following quote:
Referencing of course posts 25 and 26 in the current thread. This statement maybe a bit immature but I'm sure that is just because of the frustration of the quality of argument (or lack there of) that has been presented for limiting the effect of solo players based on hard programming.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I play games to have fun. You play games to measure skill. Sorry, but my side brings the $$$. More importantly, the two are not mutually exclusive and what I'm talking about is a very minor reduction in the importance of twitch skill which you guys are blowing way out of proportion. Nobody's trying to turn NS into Mario Party. I'm totally opposed to crits in TF2, for example, because I think using random numbers to decide a fight in an action game is silly.
And what "hard programming" are you even talking about? You keep saying this but changes to game balance with a particular objective in mind is not the same thing as artificially preventing players from using the most effective strategy.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You seem to adopt a mindset that solo players are not contributing to the well being of the team, and that all pro players want to do is go solo and pick on casual players. While I agree that sometimes there are solo players who are ineffective at what they do. The natural consequence in NS1 is that the player returns to the spawn queue and the aliens get some easy resources. You also assume that the pressure ability that one skilled player can provide is not affecting how the rest of the team is interacting with each other. If one player is capable of taking down several skulks in one life, I would maximize that players talents so that the rest of the team can do other things more quickly with the least amount of conflict, such as cap nodes, or even better, destroy enemy nodes. If one player can do the job of many, I have no idea why people would want to limit that player (especially if they are on the marines). Just because a player is not in arms range of another player (again skewed definition of teamwork, which has yet to be addressed) does not mean he or she is not contributing to the team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> We are talking about NS2. Solo players are fine in NS because they are very effective in NS. Too effective, in fact. I'm suggesting that the current incentives to stick with your team are not sufficient. And like Sirot said, it doesn't matter if you nerf lone marines or buff squad marines because the end result will be the same, since aliens will have to be balanced to compensate for any buffs to marine squads.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't believe it, because skill is relative to the players one is playing against. If you truly understood NS at its roots and the dynamics of gameplay, there is no forseeable logical counter argument you can use to dispute the points I have presented. The "Its more fun" argument seems to be thesis of your argument. Many others would argue that working as a team that maximizing talent instead of hampering it would be more fun then play a game where the better you are at something, the more you have to penalized because "other players need kills too" (Skill Communism). I'm all for teamwork, as if everyone runs off their own with no logical plan then the marines are done for. What I am not for is limiting the abilities of players based on the idiotic argument of "Its not fun for me when someone kills aliens while they are not around me" logic. As for whether you are jealous of me or not jealous, both options are of equal value.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Quit making strawmen, I never said anything about making things fair for weaker players. I think that given the kind of game NS is, moving in tight squads and covering for eachother makes more sense and is more fun than individual marines running around being action heroes. Yes there is teamwork involved in being in the right place at the right time, but it's not the same thing as tight squad-based gameplay i.e. Left 4 Dead. Having to remain in close proximity to your teammates absolutely encourages teamwork and inspires a much closer "team spirit" in general.
I was going to write a wall of text, but that was too much work and was too boring to read. Here is the short version:
1) Solo marines are already penalized in the form of not being able to get welded until they return to society. This penalty is severe enough not to warrant any additional penalties. The other penalty comes in the fact of catastrophic failure upon death. If one out of two marines dies, you still have the other one to finish the mission. If the solo guy dies, you are looking at another 30 seconds before you get another shot.
2) Solo play only adds to the pool of strategies and tactics. Say a fade got very hurt after running into two LMG marines seconds before the second hive is dropped. Fade runs to hive, turns the corner and runs into Chuck. 10 bullets later, fade is dead and marines walk into the now dropped second hive. How pissed do you think the marine team would be if Chuck's gun crapped its pants and jammed or something?
3) Skill communism is what you ultimately get if you add mechanics that compensate for lack of skill.
4) People will buy NS2 if it is properly advertised. It has no actual bearing on how much skill is required to play it.
5) It won't help new players, it will only penalize them and make them hate the game when they run into whatever glass wall you are proposing when their teammates die.
The issue is that you are assuming this penalty is going to be a bomb strapped to the backs of marines which will detonate as soon as they are outside the group. You are exaggerating it to the point that it seems ridiculous (also known as the straw man argument). The point of the penalty is to reduce the effectiveness of the marine when he is alone but be designed in such a way that it won't be problem when he is in a group. If the lone marine has a strong advantage such as a clear sight and high ground against a lone skulk, of course he will win. It would be insulting if he couldn't. Same thing applies to the fade example, he should be able to kill that fade if its already severely damaged.
A simple way of making it more dangerous to be a marine is to reduce the mobility of the player so he can't so easily dodge when he is the sole target of the attackers. This is such a change that will not hamper the groups ability to be effective but only the individuals. A good player will still be able to be effective, but not to the point it is unreasonable.
<!--quoteo(post=1695641:date=Dec 8 2008, 07:28 PM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sirot @ Dec 8 2008, 07:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695641"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A good player will still be able to be effective, but not to the point it is unreasonable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If my aim, movement skills, game sense, whatever is twice as good as the average player (And lets assume the average player can fight the average skulk evenly), why <b>shouldn't</b> I be able fight two average skulks on parity? Who are you to determine what is reasonable and unreasonable? What is your obsession with making marines holding their hands everywhere they go, like teenage girls? Why are you trying to penalize everybody that doesn't play to your ideal of "teamwork"?
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
First off I would like to say I think punishments are a bad idea. Second it's true UWE is trying to lessen the impact of commander on marines and vice versa.
However relabeling teamwork as "skill communism" does not make it a bad paradigm to include in NS2. It is available in abundance in NS1 and is a major draw of the game. So while I think punishing skilled players is bad, I don't think teamwork is a bad idea.
This is just jealously rearing its ugly head because the cool kids got jet packs, got to ninja hives and build phase gates, and everyone else had to set up the turret factory.
<!--quoteo(post=1695677:date=Dec 9 2008, 03:25 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Dec 9 2008, 03:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695677"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->First off I would like to say I think punishments are a bad idea. Second it's true UWE is trying to lessen the impact of commander on marines and vice versa.
However relabeling teamwork as "skill communism" does not make it a bad paradigm to include in NS2. It is available in abundance in NS1 and is a major draw of the game. So while I think punishing skilled players is bad, I don't think teamwork is a bad idea.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> teamwork =!= skill communism skill communism = skill communism
Teamwork in NS is definitely not humping your teammates.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
edited December 2008
This post went from the comm labeling marines with a harmless icon that prevented them from 'scoring' points -- all the way to crippling marines that stray away from teammates. Completely hijacked and split in half, bravo!
This argument is completely unproductive so far - all that is happening is that there is a push to impose one group's philosophy about NS onto another group. It's not about what is fair and what is unfair, reasonable and unreasonable, but rather about a desire to change the underlying mechanics of the game. There is a push towards forcing more teamwork in marine gameplay and a pull from the other side to keep it as it is.
But there is no justification of <b>why</b> the marines must be forced into this kind of proposed teamwork. Why, according to Zek, are "rambos inherently against the concept of marines"? Why <i>can't</i>, or rather <i>shouldn't</i>, a good marine fend off basic aliens that do not know any better than to rush him head on single-file? Why is it "common sense" for space marine squads to move together?
I would have to disagree - it isn't about this imagined 'nature' of NS - the fact is that NS is defined by its <b>maps</b> and <b>gameplay mechanics</b> that are based on its characters, weapons, and tech. It is the way that NS is as a <b>game</b> and the <b>players</b> who participate that make rambos possible. But <b>why should it change?</b>
Any adaptive player will know that it is not a good idea to rush a lone marine head on as a skulk. Any adaptive player will know that the chances of beating a competent fade with lmg w1/a1 are not very great. There are many of these examples on both sides of the game. So why should one side suddenly be changed to force more teamwork (and especially a very inefficient type of teamwork)? It is maladaptive in that it cripples functional teamwork by limiting the options that marines have and it also hurts the chances of marines to win.
And then there is a complete diversion from the actual topic - random rambos that do not achieve anything for the team. That is what the OP was referring to, not just any player that is contributing to the team's interests individually.
Before splitting into a thousand tangents, consider what it is that is being argued and especially <b>why</b>. If there is no good reason to support a particular change, then there will always be resistance from those who can see the negative effects of your ideas.
Subtlety is in order here. Skill communism is not a good idea, and I'll explain why. You're turning what would otherwise be bad tactics into gameplay rules which practically dictate that you *cannot* do that. Whether it is bad tactics or not should be up to the player to decide. More often than not, staying in groups makes more effective players, but not necessarily.
That "not necessarily" is an open window for a million tactics for a million situations, most of which are at best awful. However, being able to decide those things is called strategy. If I decided that marines would die if they ventured more than 100 meters away from one another and that an unbuilt resource node left unbuilt for more than 30 seconds would begin to cause health degeneration until it was built, maybe it'd promote teamwork but it's not a game I'd ever want to play.
If you want to increase teamplay, you need to not hurt those players who are doing otherwise but simply make general gameplay reward more frequently the teams which are organized, even if they aren't necessarily together. Take counterstrike as a perfectly good example of a mod in which organized teams are usually the winning teams.
Teamwork in NS is definitely not humping your teammates.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Then don't reduce <b>Hawkeye</b> and <b>Zek</b>'s posts to "skill communism" or "humping your teammates". Covering your teammates is a part of teamwork, it's not all teamwork is but it is a part of it. You're right teamwork =!= skill communism that's just the strawman you're building.
While this brought the thread in a much different direction than originally intended (but covering the same idea), but using that to subtract from the argument is silly.
The main idea is that the <u>decrease</u> of the efficiency a single marine means that immediately he becomes useless. I am repeating this again because its being ignored. Sending a marine alone should be a gambit. It shouldn't be impossible, but should be discouraged at a simple mechanical level. If you're so pants-on-head amazing at NS2 in this environment, you still will be to be effective alone but not to the point that is ridiculous. You're still going to be better than someone who is less skilled than you if he attempts the same thing. The idea is to increase the barrier of entry for solo play so that new players are encouraged to stay together but a higher barrier of entry means it will be more challenging to do it overall. You will be more effective when in a group, but if you need to do something reasonable in solo, you should but it will be hard.
There are many benefits for squad gameplay, most predominately because it bridges skill gaps and allows more people to have fun (since ya know, it's a game). You have to cater to both the new/casual players and those who play out competitively, you can't expect everyone to be able invest the same time into the game.
What bugs me even more is that you're throwing things around like communism acting like its 1945 and all should be doing the red scare. The system used in every aspect of live, is flawed, yes. But many systems in governments all around the world have been socialized systems that are more effective than they would be privately controlled.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
edited December 2008
First, the observation about thread hijacking is just that - it isn't really an attempt to claw at your argument because the argument is not well defined to begin with. The main point that I have raised has yet to be addressed: <b>why</b> do any of this? Why is this better than what we have?
<!--quoteo(post=1695699:date=Dec 9 2008, 01:36 PM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sirot @ Dec 9 2008, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695699"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The main idea is that the <u>decrease</u> of the efficiency a single marine means that immediately he becomes useless. I am repeating this again because its being ignored. Sending a marine alone should be a gambit. It shouldn't be impossible, but should be discouraged at a simple mechanical level. If you're so pants-on-head amazing at NS2 in this environment, you still will be to be effective alone but not to the point that is ridiculous. You're still going to be better than someone who is less skilled than you if he attempts the same thing. The idea is to increase the barrier of entry for solo play so that new players are encouraged to stay together but a higher barrier of entry means it will be more challenging to do it overall. You will be more effective when in a group, but if you need to do something reasonable in solo, you should but it will be hard.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why should it be harder? Why should solo play be discouraged? Why should skulks and all alien lifeforms be made relatively stronger to limit the effectiveness of good marine players? Who defines what is and what is not ridiculous and why does that person have this privilege?
<!--quoteo(post=1695699:date=Dec 9 2008, 01:36 PM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sirot @ Dec 9 2008, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695699"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There are many benefits for squad gameplay, most predominately because its a strong base to build mechanics. Biggest thing is that it allows more people to have fun together because it bridges skill gaps. You have to cater to both the new/casual players and those who play out competitively, you can't expect everyone to be able invest the same time into the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What exactly are 'mechanics'? Why exactly does playing together make the game more fun? It could mean a bigger slaughter just the same. How exactly does a teamwork requirement bridge skill gaps? Aliens <i>need</i> to play together in the opening stages of the game - how does that usually work out in public servers and how fun is it really? Do you have some kind of empirical evidence that shows that the average person finds teamplay to be more 'fun' than more individualized play?
<!--quoteo(post=1695699:date=Dec 9 2008, 01:36 PM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sirot @ Dec 9 2008, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695699"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What bugs me even more is that you're throwing things around like skill communism and acting like its 1945 and all should be doing the red scare. The system used in every aspect of live, is flawed, yes. But many systems in governments all around the world have been socialized systems that are more effective than they would be privately controlled.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As inappropriate as it is to use communism as a negative label to describe an idea, understanding the context of the label is what is most important here to appreciate the metaphor.
Is the only thing you can do is ask questions? Most of the questions you asked were in answered in this thread. Hell, I answered why it bridges skill gaps was answered in post 26 and 32.
<!--quoteo(post=1695702:date=Dec 9 2008, 02:00 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Dec 9 2008, 02:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695702"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->First, the observation about thread hijacking is just that - it isn't really an attempt to claw at your argument because the argument is not well defined to begin with. The main point that I have raised has yet to be addressed: <b>why</b> do any of this? Why is this better than what we have?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Would you prefer if we never tried out new ideas? Tried out different mechanics? Game development is not being married to a single idea and only improving it incrementally every sequel. A lot of games and intellectual properties suffer because they don't try improving the basic concepts. The developers at NS2 are experimenting and trying to make NS2 competitive not only in the gameplay but in the market as well. We very little about the game itself right now and it already has changed dramatically. The current marine "style" is not perfect and has issues. Why not try to find ways to make it better? There is a lot more to lose by not trying.
<!--quoteo(post=1695704:date=Dec 9 2008, 07:24 PM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sirot @ Dec 9 2008, 07:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695704"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Is the only thing you can do is ask questions? Most of the questions you asked were in answered in this thread. Hell, I answered why it bridges skill gaps was answered in post 26 and 32. Would you prefer if we never tried out new ideas? Tried out different mechanics? Game development is not being married to a single idea and only improving it incrementally every sequel. A lot of games and intellectual properties suffer because they don't try improving the basic concepts. The developers at NS2 are experimenting and trying to make NS2 competitive not only in the gameplay but in the market as well. We very little about the game itself right now and it already has changed dramatically. The current marine "style" is not perfect and has issues. Why not try to find ways to make it better? There is a lot more to lose by not trying.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd say the individual potential has always been an important part of the NS1 entertainment. What I've seen this is also more of a learning curve issue than the game balance itself. People dominate because the oppositing team is doing absolutely nothing to stop them. No para, no communication, absolutely no lerks or skulks trying to act together. Are they supposed to die because of boredom while shooting the same skulk at the same long corridor for fifth time?
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1695704:date=Dec 9 2008, 02:24 PM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sirot @ Dec 9 2008, 02:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695704"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Is the only thing you can do is ask questions? Most of the questions you asked were in answered in this thread. Hell, I answered why it bridges skill gaps was answered in post 26 and 32.
Would you prefer if we never tried out new ideas? Tried out different mechanics? Game development is not being married to a single idea and only improving it incrementally every sequel. A lot of games and intellectual properties suffer because they don't try improving the basic concepts. The developers at NS2 are experimenting and trying to make NS2 competitive not only in the gameplay but in the market as well. We very little about the game itself right now and it already has changed dramatically. The current marine "style" is not perfect and has issues. Why not try to find ways to make it better? There is a lot more to lose by not trying.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most of the questions are not answered, a couple are not answered well and are not backed up with good arguments. I ask them because you have not really convinced me and probably others as well. If you can put forth convincing arguments, then the idea is more likely to take. This involves countering the points of the opposition while respecting their point of view.
Nobody here is completely conservative with respect to marine game play - it is just that the ideas for change are not very viable for the purpose of accomplishing the intended goals. Hence the resistance.
Why don't I agree with your reasoning for bridging skill gaps by 'forcing' teamwork and penalizing solo missions? 1. Skilled players can just as easily choose to work together as non-skilled players. If anything, skilled players would be the ones teaming up and moving in groups leaving the unskilled players behind. This actually promotes skill <i>exclusion</i> rather than bridging the skill gap. The unskilled players will huddle together while the skilled players will seek to either work in small groups or try to further improve their solo game. 2. The shortfalls of skill gaps become much more pronounced in combat when the alien team has to fight off groups of marines - that includes both small groups of highly skilled marines or bigger groups of lower-skilled marines. 3. The idea does not even address the real source of skill gaps, which have been occurring primarily due to an abnormal leaning curve and differences in playing styles between marines and aliens in NS1. If you only strive to treat the symptoms without considering the cause, you introduce unnecessary complications.
It is difficult to make a convincing argument since most people don't want to be convinced unless they are given a tangible example of it. Issue is that it is difficult to give such an example because there are very few games like NS. The few games like it (e.g. Savage) have the same problems and good examples of cooperative play (L4D, Gears of War.etc) can be easily called irrelevant by anyone who strongly believes that the game is fine as it is. The strategic requirements of a FPS-RTS immediately have cooperative strings attached and honestly, it could better done. It should be better exploited but that would require a much larger scoped thread than just an anti-rambo system, which honestly is a band-aid than a outright solution. I do think stronger cooperative roots in NS2 is going to help the issue of reducing the impact of a skill gap as part of an overall solution to the problem. It may sound like heresy but there needs to be some way leveling the playing field so more players of different skill levels can play together aside from telling them to practice more because some people might not have that luxury and just want to enjoy a round of the game without frustration.
However, it is difficult to produce a adequate example right now because none exists yet. It is up to the developers to create that solution but we know the game is getting drastic changes even with the small amount of information we have. It is certainly not enough information to make accurate predictions of how the game will play. Rambos could be a viable option in NS2 without the skill gap issues it presents due to changes they are planning without our notice.
Don't forgot that communication is part of the overall skill of a player. It not just how well you can aim and that you know all the numbers. Easier communication tools would make it better and one definite example we know of it is that the alien commander is being added to the game to help guide the aliens. But even with good communication, stuff like med-spam made it supremely difficult even with communication to take down a good rambo.
EDIT: I am going to think over a larger scale solution.
Forgive me if i've missed it but i did start skimming towards the end,
Has it not occured to anyone that somebody new to the game would follow someone else to try and learn, regardless of any +/- effects they receive, i know thats what happened the first time i played.
Also how about the solo players that go to the other side of the map and cap rts alone. I'm sure they contributing just as much as everyone else if not more.
<!--quoteo(post=1695699:date=Dec 9 2008, 10:36 AM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sirot @ Dec 9 2008, 10:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695699"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->While this brought the thread in a much different direction than originally intended (but covering the same idea), but using that to subtract from the argument is silly.
The main idea is that the <u>decrease</u> of the efficiency a single marine means that immediately he becomes useless. I am repeating this again because its being ignored. Sending a marine alone should be a gambit.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It already is a gambit when the players are close in skill. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It shouldn't be impossible, but should be discouraged at a simple mechanical level.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It already is discouraged - solo marines don't have teammates to watch different angles, cover, and weld. Anything other than a skulk or gorge will take down a solo marine of equal skill almost all the time. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you're so pants-on-head amazing at NS2 in this environment, you still will be to be effective alone but not to the point that is ridiculous. You're still going to be better than someone who is less skilled than you if he attempts the same thing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Just what the ###### do you mean by "ridiculous"? Who are you to say what is "ridiculous" and what isn't? From my perspective, this seems like somebody childishly trying to punish players for being effective because they haven't figured out how to compete with them in-game. You put forth some flimsy argument that the team with the better players is going to win "too constantly", but as far as I am concerned, the team with better players is <b>supposed</b> to win. Why don't you try to find ways to distribute the player skill more evenly instead of some "We'll give each team a equal chance to win!" bull######? <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The idea is to increase the barrier of entry for solo play so that new players are encouraged to stay together but a higher barrier of entry means it will be more challenging to do it overall. You will be more effective when in a group, but if you need to do something reasonable in solo, you should but it will be hard.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Newbies <b>already</b> tend to congregate together in large groups. You're not just increasing the barrier to entry, you're decreasing the maximum effectiveness of a player alone. If a newbie wants to explore the map and not have to stay in hand-holding distance with other marines (Who in all likelihood are making stupid decisions anyways), who are you to penalize them for it? <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There are many benefits for squad gameplay, most predominately because it bridges skill gaps and allows more people to have fun (since ya know, it's a game). You have to cater to both the new/casual players and those who play out competitively, you can't expect everyone to be able invest the same time into the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> SQUAD GAMEPLAY ALREADY EXISTS. STOP TRYING TO FORCE EVERYBODY TO ADOPT YOUR FLAWED IDEAL OF "TEAMWORK". People keep asking you questions because thus so far, you have failed to answer them satisfactorily.
My fallacy is that I am trying to convince people of a incomplete idea. I am stepping down right now (see previous post) and going to create a thread with more explicit ideas. A "anti-rambo system" is not that strong enough alone because it assumes strengthened cooperative mechanics when there were none provided as examples. I still think its valid as a way to encourage learning and helping gap, but it needs to be part of a larger scheme to be really convincing. I have a lot more work to do.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why should it be harder? Why should solo play be discouraged? Why should skulks and all alien lifeforms be made relatively stronger to limit the effectiveness of good marine players? Who defines what is and what is not ridiculous and why does that person have this privilege?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ever watch the film Rambo? How interesting would that film had been if half the marines seen in the movie were with the skill of rambo, killing everything and not so much as getting a scratch? It would have been comical for a movie. Why is that acceptable for a multiplayer game in which the idea of the game is marines versus aliens? If you got the impression it was a "you versus all the alien team plus some bot-like human players which do some stuff on the side" game, you're sadly mistaken. I don't think it should be completely surpressed. I don't think that being alone should be a disadvantage other than the fact that you'd likely meet difficult odds without support, but I think those odds should properly reflect your situation.
In other words, if there exists a player which excels at natural selection 2 and can kill many aliens before getting killed, more power to you, but it should be less than 1% of the player base which could do such a thing, not 30%. The best a veteran player could ever hope to achieve traveling alone is being able to handle two separate 1 on 1 fights with aliens and win them.
That's not so much "skill communism" as it is simply making the game far more difficult to be "elite" in.
<!--quoteo(post=1695771:date=Dec 10 2008, 03:12 PM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Dec 10 2008, 03:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695771"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's not so much "skill communism" as it is simply making the game far more difficult to be "elite" in.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> By all means make it more challenging to frag, but I feel most of the rules are also going to limit tactical creativitiy and force most of the advanced players to play more or less competetive only. I'd still prefer to have some servers of different skill level, make communication easier, add tutorials and reward the teamwork more instead of just nullifying the solo play. About 80% of those solo marines could be easily taken out if they actually had more than one player to fight at the time. The rest are totally outskilling, outthinking and in general outplaying the publics in every aspect so bad that it's not even fun.
I'd rather pick some other way than killing the individual potential because some people have played this game competetively for years and are waaaaaaaaaay ahead of the rest of the people. You'll have similar problems in practically every FPS game if the high end competetive players end up playing public. On most games there's just some competetive community left so that they can play matches at reasonable rate against various opponents.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Don't forgot that communication is part of the overall skill of a player. It not just how well you can aim and that you know all the numbers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've been trying to play for the team on public games for years. Trust me, it's not working 95% of the time. Most of the time I end up biting most res, building most of the stuff and such while the rest of the team just goes solo and dies. If I gorge, the skulks will leave me to die and maybe attack afterwards. If I cap as a marine the rest of the team will not keep any pressure on aliens. If I try to form a group, the rest of the marines will blindly wander around without any plan and will definitely not follow me to the useful places. There's nothing more frustrating than playing for the team while the rest aren't willing to even think about the team game logic.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1695771:date=Dec 10 2008, 10:12 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Dec 10 2008, 10:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695771"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ever watch the film Rambo? How interesting would that film had been if half the marines seen in the movie were with the skill of rambo, killing everything and not so much as getting a scratch? It would have been comical for a movie. Why is that acceptable for a multiplayer game in which the idea of the game is marines versus aliens? If you got the impression it was a "you versus all the alien team plus some bot-like human players which do some stuff on the side" game, you're sadly mistaken. I don't think it should be completely surpressed. I don't think that being alone should be a disadvantage other than the fact that you'd likely meet difficult odds without support, but I think those odds should properly reflect your situation.
In other words, if there exists a player which excels at natural selection 2 and can kill many aliens before getting killed, more power to you, but it should be less than 1% of the player base which could do such a thing, not 30%. The best a veteran player could ever hope to achieve traveling alone is being able to handle two separate 1 on 1 fights with aliens and win them.
That's not so much "skill communism" as it is simply making the game far more difficult to be "elite" in.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't agree at all with limiting player potential for the purposes of ensuring that everyone works together and contributes (more or less) equally to the outcome of the game. I think you are exaggerating the concept of a rambo and generalizing what an elite marine can accomplish in <i>any</i> game of NS (ex. you use the term "aliens" - but which class(es)?). From my point of view, it is already difficult for a marine going out on his own to accomplish objectives - granted that the aliens needs to be at least somewhat competent. I agree that there is a problem with large games (>10 players per team) in NS1 since I am pretty confident that a team of elite marines will destroy a team of elite aliens. I have also already acknowledged that massive skill gaps occur due to an abnormal learning curve and great differences between the philosophy of playing the game between the alien and marine sides. That is what needs to be addressed.
With respect to the proportion of 'elites' in a game, I think you have a valid argument, but the context is questionable. When NS1 was at its prime, I would say that maybe 1% of the player population could be considered 'elite' by any standards. When the player base started to fall off, those who were most dedicated to the game stayed - and this includes many of the grief-causing elites that I think you are probably thinking of. This raised the percentage of good players appearing regularly in pubs. Further, it isn't so much so that only 1% of players should be extremely good.. but rather perhaps it can be argued that such good players should not be upsetting the new or amateur players so much. This has been discussed before in several threads about server skill balancing.
First of all I'd like to reiterate that my suggestion has absolutely nothing to do with "skill communism." What I was proposing is a shift in the nature of NS2's marine gameplay. There's a scale between "strictly squad-based shooter" (see Left 4 Dead) and "free for all deathmatch" (see Quake) and right now NS falls a little left of center. I think it should be further left, both to make it more immersive with the NS world and to make marines more fun(in my opinion). I understand you hardcore competitive guys like Quake-style because it brings twitch skills to the focus, and focusing more on squad gameplay causes squad tactics to trump individual skill, but that's just an unavoidable tradeoff to do what I'm suggesting.
<!--quoteo(post=1695692:date=Dec 9 2008, 12:34 PM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Dec 9 2008, 12:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695692"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Subtlety is in order here. Skill communism is not a good idea, and I'll explain why. You're turning <b>what would otherwise be bad tactics into gameplay rules which practically dictate that you *cannot* do that</b>. Whether it is bad tactics or not should be up to the player to decide. More often than not, staying in groups makes more effective players, but not necessarily.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What you don't seem to understand is that tactics are defined by gameplay rules. NS in its entirety is nothing but a set of gameplay rules that we all adhere to. Like any game, NS was designed with the intention of creating a certain type of gameplay, and the rules were all created with the intention of guiding players towards that. Why can't I rocket jump across the map picking up health/armor packs and guns on the way to camp the quad damage? Because some jealous newbie made up some gameplay rules to take away my rocket launcher and item spawns. There will always be rules telling you how to play. All that remains is deciding what they are.
What squad tactics do you envision public players to use? All that will end up happening is you will force players to stick in groups, just for the sake of being in groups. This is retarded.
The fact that everybody seems to be focusing on what a single marine can do over what a single alien can do suggests to me that perhaps, people are just bad at skulking.
Comments
I find a group of marines cooperating together to lock down a hive to be better teamwork and fun for more people. Traveling inside a group is more immersive and is a way to ease new players into the game. Players who are not practiced enough to decide fights by themselves can assist more experienced players and fulfill a support role. This kind of gameplay helps builds community in a literal sense. This is not much as an issue for the aliens because the gorge class gives newer players a way to contribute to the team without having to be directly in combat but still oversee it. This gives the player a chance to learn the different mechanics of the game safely. As a marine, you just get snuffed out if you are alone without as much opportunity to learn. Encouraging them to stay together is a step to ensure a long life to the game.
This is all in addition to the gameplay reasoning I gave in my earlier post. I am curious to see what retort will be given to it since I don’t labeling anything as communist is a mature way of discussing matters.
It's irrelevant to the discussion because this isn't about the commander. And arguing "Well, we've already started moving towards solo play, may as well keep going" is nonsense.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lowering dependence on the game's commander is not a step towards more autonomy for the individual marine player? I don't know how you could not interpret that is allowing more independence towards the players. Furthermore the effect of solo players has had will not change unless the developers hardcode strict penalities for doing so, which would destroy the gameplay for the core.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yup.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I see, then I would refer to the following quote:
<!--quoteo(post=1695573:date=Dec 8 2008, 05:55 AM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Dec 8 2008, 05:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695573"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Skill communism. The two above posts are made with 100% helen keller.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Referencing of course posts 25 and 26 in the current thread. This statement maybe a bit immature but I'm sure that is just because of the frustration of the quality of argument (or lack there of) that has been presented for limiting the effect of solo players based on hard programming.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm sorry that I prioritize the fun of the game over pro players winning as easily as they deserve. This is a team game first and foremost and of course a rock star is going to be brought down by unskilled teammates, that's life. Nobody's stopping him from using his skills to cover his teammates. And I never proposed penalizing them outside the fact that if they mess up they're dead - I'm suggesting making it easier for them to mess up. Even newbs learn what does and doesn't work, and the stronger the reinforcement against rambo behavior the less likely they are to do it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You seem to adopt a mindset that solo players are not contributing to the well being of the team, and that all pro players want to do is go solo and pick on casual players. While I agree that sometimes there are solo players who are ineffective at what they do. The natural consequence in NS1 is that the player returns to the spawn queue and the aliens get some easy resources. You also assume that the pressure ability that one skilled player can provide is not affecting how the rest of the team is interacting with each other. If one player is capable of taking down several skulks in one life, I would maximize that players talents so that the rest of the team can do other things more quickly with the least amount of conflict, such as cap nodes, or even better, destroy enemy nodes. If one player can do the job of many, I have no idea why people would want to limit that player (especially if they are on the marines). Just because a player is not in arms range of another player (again skewed definition of teamwork, which has yet to be addressed) does not mean he or she is not contributing to the team.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->P.S. Believe it or not I'm also capable of playing solo and no, I'm not jealous of you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't believe it, because skill is relative to the players one is playing against. If you truly understood NS at its roots and the dynamics of gameplay, there is no forseeable logical counter argument you can use to dispute the points I have presented. The "Its more fun" argument seems to be thesis of your argument. Many others would argue that working as a team that maximizing talent instead of hampering it would be more fun then play a game where the better you are at something, the more you have to penalized because "other players need kills too" (Skill Communism). I'm all for teamwork, as if everyone runs off their own with no logical plan then the marines are done for. What I am not for is limiting the abilities of players based on the idiotic argument of "Its not fun for me when someone kills aliens while they are not around me" logic. As for whether you are jealous of me or not jealous, both options are of equal value.
I said this once before, increasing the independence between commander and marines <i>does not</i> mean that individual marines are become independent from each other. Another assumption you are making is that they are going to be strict penalties like reducing the movement speed of the marine. This can entirely done using softer balancing techniques such as removing the effectiveness of motion tracking and increasing the time to reload a weapon. In addition, the aliens could gain abilities that exploit a marine player when is alone. The idea is to make sending a marine a solo mission a gamble, not to make them completely ineffective. If the lone marine can still do well in the new environment, more power to him.
<!--quoteo(post=1695621:date=Dec 8 2008, 04:41 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Dec 8 2008, 04:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695621"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Referencing of course posts 25 and 26 in the current thread. This statement maybe a bit immature but I'm sure that is just because of the frustration of the quality of argument (or lack there of) that has been presented for limiting the effect of solo players based on hard programming.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There have been valid arguments made and I'll say right now that you ignored two of the purely mechanical additions. It gives newer player opportunities to serve a support role so they can learn the game from more experienced players and that it stabilizes the player value economy so that players of different skill levels could play together. This is actually a very large design issue that modern games started using ranking systems to ensure players of the same skill worked together. The issue is that in a PC world, you cannot easily have specific servers available dynamically for certain skill sets, especially on a independent game that has a small budget. It is not currently viable. The only other suggestion I heard aside from balancing fixes is to have servers themselves as casual and competitive, which is a horrible solution. You are segregating a community and not only that, doing it poorly so that either side can join each others game to wreck havoc on the balance. Competitive players will complain whenever a casual player starts to try out on their servers and casual players will probably wonder why they get the euphonized version of being called incompetent.
I never said I didn't interpret it that way, I said it's irrelevant to the argument. What point are you trying to make? I don't see how the fact that the devs made one change so far that increases player independence can be used as an argument in favor of every other shift towards solo play. How the marines buy their weapons has nothing to do with whether or not they can run out alone without dying.
And the effectiveness of solo players will change if you change the game balance to make it more difficult to survive without cover. Like for example, nerfing the jumping quirks that allow you to walk into an ambush and still escape back into shooting range.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I see, then I would refer to the following quote:
Referencing of course posts 25 and 26 in the current thread. This statement maybe a bit immature but I'm sure that is just because of the frustration of the quality of argument (or lack there of) that has been presented for limiting the effect of solo players based on hard programming.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I play games to have fun. You play games to measure skill. Sorry, but my side brings the $$$. More importantly, the two are not mutually exclusive and what I'm talking about is a very minor reduction in the importance of twitch skill which you guys are blowing way out of proportion. Nobody's trying to turn NS into Mario Party. I'm totally opposed to crits in TF2, for example, because I think using random numbers to decide a fight in an action game is silly.
And what "hard programming" are you even talking about? You keep saying this but changes to game balance with a particular objective in mind is not the same thing as artificially preventing players from using the most effective strategy.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You seem to adopt a mindset that solo players are not contributing to the well being of the team, and that all pro players want to do is go solo and pick on casual players. While I agree that sometimes there are solo players who are ineffective at what they do. The natural consequence in NS1 is that the player returns to the spawn queue and the aliens get some easy resources. You also assume that the pressure ability that one skilled player can provide is not affecting how the rest of the team is interacting with each other. If one player is capable of taking down several skulks in one life, I would maximize that players talents so that the rest of the team can do other things more quickly with the least amount of conflict, such as cap nodes, or even better, destroy enemy nodes. If one player can do the job of many, I have no idea why people would want to limit that player (especially if they are on the marines). Just because a player is not in arms range of another player (again skewed definition of teamwork, which has yet to be addressed) does not mean he or she is not contributing to the team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We are talking about NS2. Solo players are fine in NS because they are very effective in NS. Too effective, in fact. I'm suggesting that the current incentives to stick with your team are not sufficient. And like Sirot said, it doesn't matter if you nerf lone marines or buff squad marines because the end result will be the same, since aliens will have to be balanced to compensate for any buffs to marine squads.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't believe it, because skill is relative to the players one is playing against. If you truly understood NS at its roots and the dynamics of gameplay, there is no forseeable logical counter argument you can use to dispute the points I have presented. The "Its more fun" argument seems to be thesis of your argument. Many others would argue that working as a team that maximizing talent instead of hampering it would be more fun then play a game where the better you are at something, the more you have to penalized because "other players need kills too" (Skill Communism). I'm all for teamwork, as if everyone runs off their own with no logical plan then the marines are done for. What I am not for is limiting the abilities of players based on the idiotic argument of "Its not fun for me when someone kills aliens while they are not around me" logic. As for whether you are jealous of me or not jealous, both options are of equal value.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quit making strawmen, I never said anything about making things fair for weaker players. I think that given the kind of game NS is, moving in tight squads and covering for eachother makes more sense and is more fun than individual marines running around being action heroes. Yes there is teamwork involved in being in the right place at the right time, but it's not the same thing as tight squad-based gameplay i.e. Left 4 Dead. Having to remain in close proximity to your teammates absolutely encourages teamwork and inspires a much closer "team spirit" in general.
1) Solo marines are already penalized in the form of not being able to get welded until they return to society. This penalty is severe enough not to warrant any additional penalties. The other penalty comes in the fact of catastrophic failure upon death. If one out of two marines dies, you still have the other one to finish the mission. If the solo guy dies, you are looking at another 30 seconds before you get another shot.
2) Solo play only adds to the pool of strategies and tactics. Say a fade got very hurt after running into two LMG marines seconds before the second hive is dropped. Fade runs to hive, turns the corner and runs into Chuck. 10 bullets later, fade is dead and marines walk into the now dropped second hive. How pissed do you think the marine team would be if Chuck's gun crapped its pants and jammed or something?
3) Skill communism is what you ultimately get if you add mechanics that compensate for lack of skill.
4) People will buy NS2 if it is properly advertised. It has no actual bearing on how much skill is required to play it.
5) It won't help new players, it will only penalize them and make them hate the game when they run into whatever glass wall you are proposing when their teammates die.
The issue is that you are assuming this penalty is going to be a bomb strapped to the backs of marines which will detonate as soon as they are outside the group. You are exaggerating it to the point that it seems ridiculous (also known as the straw man argument). The point of the penalty is to reduce the effectiveness of the marine when he is alone but be designed in such a way that it won't be problem when he is in a group. If the lone marine has a strong advantage such as a clear sight and high ground against a lone skulk, of course he will win. It would be insulting if he couldn't. Same thing applies to the fade example, he should be able to kill that fade if its already severely damaged.
A simple way of making it more dangerous to be a marine is to reduce the mobility of the player so he can't so easily dodge when he is the sole target of the attackers. This is such a change that will not hamper the groups ability to be effective but only the individuals. A good player will still be able to be effective, but not to the point it is unreasonable.
Also, Zek, movement ability in a fight is what makes NS a fun and original game.
If my aim, movement skills, game sense, whatever is twice as good as the average player (And lets assume the average player can fight the average skulk evenly), why <b>shouldn't</b> I be able fight two average skulks on parity? Who are you to determine what is reasonable and unreasonable? What is your obsession with making marines holding their hands everywhere they go, like teenage girls? Why are you trying to penalize everybody that doesn't play to your ideal of "teamwork"?
Skill communism indeed.
However relabeling teamwork as "skill communism" does not make it a bad paradigm to include in NS2. It is available in abundance in NS1 and is a major draw of the game. So while I think punishing skilled players is bad, I don't think teamwork is a bad idea.
However relabeling teamwork as "skill communism" does not make it a bad paradigm to include in NS2. It is available in abundance in NS1 and is a major draw of the game. So while I think punishing skilled players is bad, I don't think teamwork is a bad idea.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
teamwork =!= skill communism
skill communism = skill communism
Teamwork in NS is definitely not humping your teammates.
This argument is completely unproductive so far - all that is happening is that there is a push to impose one group's philosophy about NS onto another group. It's not about what is fair and what is unfair, reasonable and unreasonable, but rather about a desire to change the underlying mechanics of the game. There is a push towards forcing more teamwork in marine gameplay and a pull from the other side to keep it as it is.
But there is no justification of <b>why</b> the marines must be forced into this kind of proposed teamwork. Why, according to Zek, are "rambos inherently against the concept of marines"? Why <i>can't</i>, or rather <i>shouldn't</i>, a good marine fend off basic aliens that do not know any better than to rush him head on single-file? Why is it "common sense" for space marine squads to move together?
I would have to disagree - it isn't about this imagined 'nature' of NS - the fact is that NS is defined by its <b>maps</b> and <b>gameplay mechanics</b> that are based on its characters, weapons, and tech. It is the way that NS is as a <b>game</b> and the <b>players</b> who participate that make rambos possible. But <b>why should it change?</b>
Any adaptive player will know that it is not a good idea to rush a lone marine head on as a skulk. Any adaptive player will know that the chances of beating a competent fade with lmg w1/a1 are not very great. There are many of these examples on both sides of the game.
So why should one side suddenly be changed to force more teamwork (and especially a very inefficient type of teamwork)? It is maladaptive in that it cripples functional teamwork by limiting the options that marines have and it also hurts the chances of marines to win.
And then there is a complete diversion from the actual topic - random rambos that do not achieve anything for the team. That is what the OP was referring to, not just any player that is contributing to the team's interests individually.
Before splitting into a thousand tangents, consider what it is that is being argued and especially <b>why</b>. If there is no good reason to support a particular change, then there will always be resistance from those who can see the negative effects of your ideas.
That "not necessarily" is an open window for a million tactics for a million situations, most of which are at best awful. However, being able to decide those things is called strategy. If I decided that marines would die if they ventured more than 100 meters away from one another and that an unbuilt resource node left unbuilt for more than 30 seconds would begin to cause health degeneration until it was built, maybe it'd promote teamwork but it's not a game I'd ever want to play.
If you want to increase teamplay, you need to not hurt those players who are doing otherwise but simply make general gameplay reward more frequently the teams which are organized, even if they aren't necessarily together. Take counterstrike as a perfectly good example of a mod in which organized teams are usually the winning teams.
skill communism = skill communism
Teamwork in NS is definitely not humping your teammates.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then don't reduce <b>Hawkeye</b> and <b>Zek</b>'s posts to "skill communism" or "humping your teammates". Covering your teammates is a part of teamwork, it's not all teamwork is but it is a part of it. You're right teamwork =!= skill communism that's just the strawman you're building.
The main idea is that the <u>decrease</u> of the efficiency a single marine means that immediately he becomes useless. I am repeating this again because its being ignored. Sending a marine alone should be a gambit. It shouldn't be impossible, but should be discouraged at a simple mechanical level. If you're so pants-on-head amazing at NS2 in this environment, you still will be to be effective alone but not to the point that is ridiculous. You're still going to be better than someone who is less skilled than you if he attempts the same thing. The idea is to increase the barrier of entry for solo play so that new players are encouraged to stay together but a higher barrier of entry means it will be more challenging to do it overall. You will be more effective when in a group, but if you need to do something reasonable in solo, you should but it will be hard.
There are many benefits for squad gameplay, most predominately because it bridges skill gaps and allows more people to have fun (since ya know, it's a game). You have to cater to both the new/casual players and those who play out competitively, you can't expect everyone to be able invest the same time into the game.
What bugs me even more is that you're throwing things around like communism acting like its 1945 and all should be doing the red scare. The system used in every aspect of live, is flawed, yes. But many systems in governments all around the world have been socialized systems that are more effective than they would be privately controlled.
<!--quoteo(post=1695699:date=Dec 9 2008, 01:36 PM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sirot @ Dec 9 2008, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695699"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The main idea is that the <u>decrease</u> of the efficiency a single marine means that immediately he becomes useless. I am repeating this again because its being ignored. Sending a marine alone should be a gambit. It shouldn't be impossible, but should be discouraged at a simple mechanical level. If you're so pants-on-head amazing at NS2 in this environment, you still will be to be effective alone but not to the point that is ridiculous. You're still going to be better than someone who is less skilled than you if he attempts the same thing. The idea is to increase the barrier of entry for solo play so that new players are encouraged to stay together but a higher barrier of entry means it will be more challenging to do it overall. You will be more effective when in a group, but if you need to do something reasonable in solo, you should but it will be hard.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why should it be harder? Why should solo play be discouraged? Why should skulks and all alien lifeforms be made relatively stronger to limit the effectiveness of good marine players? Who defines what is and what is not ridiculous and why does that person have this privilege?
<!--quoteo(post=1695699:date=Dec 9 2008, 01:36 PM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sirot @ Dec 9 2008, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695699"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There are many benefits for squad gameplay, most predominately because its a strong base to build mechanics. Biggest thing is that it allows more people to have fun together because it bridges skill gaps. You have to cater to both the new/casual players and those who play out competitively, you can't expect everyone to be able invest the same time into the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What exactly are 'mechanics'? Why exactly does playing together make the game more fun? It could mean a bigger slaughter just the same. How exactly does a teamwork requirement bridge skill gaps? Aliens <i>need</i> to play together in the opening stages of the game - how does that usually work out in public servers and how fun is it really? Do you have some kind of empirical evidence that shows that the average person finds teamplay to be more 'fun' than more individualized play?
<!--quoteo(post=1695699:date=Dec 9 2008, 01:36 PM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sirot @ Dec 9 2008, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695699"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What bugs me even more is that you're throwing things around like skill communism and acting like its 1945 and all should be doing the red scare. The system used in every aspect of live, is flawed, yes. But many systems in governments all around the world have been socialized systems that are more effective than they would be privately controlled.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As inappropriate as it is to use communism as a negative label to describe an idea, understanding the context of the label is what is most important here to appreciate the metaphor.
<!--quoteo(post=1695702:date=Dec 9 2008, 02:00 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Dec 9 2008, 02:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695702"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->First, the observation about thread hijacking is just that - it isn't really an attempt to claw at your argument because the argument is not well defined to begin with. The main point that I have raised has yet to be addressed: <b>why</b> do any of this? Why is this better than what we have?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Would you prefer if we never tried out new ideas? Tried out different mechanics? Game development is not being married to a single idea and only improving it incrementally every sequel. A lot of games and intellectual properties suffer because they don't try improving the basic concepts. The developers at NS2 are experimenting and trying to make NS2 competitive not only in the gameplay but in the market as well. We very little about the game itself right now and it already has changed dramatically. The current marine "style" is not perfect and has issues. Why not try to find ways to make it better? There is a lot more to lose by not trying.
Would you prefer if we never tried out new ideas? Tried out different mechanics? Game development is not being married to a single idea and only improving it incrementally every sequel. A lot of games and intellectual properties suffer because they don't try improving the basic concepts. The developers at NS2 are experimenting and trying to make NS2 competitive not only in the gameplay but in the market as well. We very little about the game itself right now and it already has changed dramatically. The current marine "style" is not perfect and has issues. Why not try to find ways to make it better? There is a lot more to lose by not trying.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd say the individual potential has always been an important part of the NS1 entertainment. What I've seen this is also more of a learning curve issue than the game balance itself. People dominate because the oppositing team is doing absolutely nothing to stop them. No para, no communication, absolutely no lerks or skulks trying to act together. Are they supposed to die because of boredom while shooting the same skulk at the same long corridor for fifth time?
Would you prefer if we never tried out new ideas? Tried out different mechanics? Game development is not being married to a single idea and only improving it incrementally every sequel. A lot of games and intellectual properties suffer because they don't try improving the basic concepts. The developers at NS2 are experimenting and trying to make NS2 competitive not only in the gameplay but in the market as well. We very little about the game itself right now and it already has changed dramatically. The current marine "style" is not perfect and has issues. Why not try to find ways to make it better? There is a lot more to lose by not trying.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most of the questions are not answered, a couple are not answered well and are not backed up with good arguments. I ask them because you have not really convinced me and probably others as well. If you can put forth convincing arguments, then the idea is more likely to take. This involves countering the points of the opposition while respecting their point of view.
Nobody here is completely conservative with respect to marine game play - it is just that the ideas for change are not very viable for the purpose of accomplishing the intended goals. Hence the resistance.
Why don't I agree with your reasoning for bridging skill gaps by 'forcing' teamwork and penalizing solo missions?
1. Skilled players can just as easily choose to work together as non-skilled players. If anything, skilled players would be the ones teaming up and moving in groups leaving the unskilled players behind. This actually promotes skill <i>exclusion</i> rather than bridging the skill gap. The unskilled players will huddle together while the skilled players will seek to either work in small groups or try to further improve their solo game.
2. The shortfalls of skill gaps become much more pronounced in combat when the alien team has to fight off groups of marines - that includes both small groups of highly skilled marines or bigger groups of lower-skilled marines.
3. The idea does not even address the real source of skill gaps, which have been occurring primarily due to an abnormal leaning curve and differences in playing styles between marines and aliens in NS1. If you only strive to treat the symptoms without considering the cause, you introduce unnecessary complications.
However, it is difficult to produce a adequate example right now because none exists yet. It is up to the developers to create that solution but we know the game is getting drastic changes even with the small amount of information we have. It is certainly not enough information to make accurate predictions of how the game will play. Rambos could be a viable option in NS2 without the skill gap issues it presents due to changes they are planning without our notice.
Don't forgot that communication is part of the overall skill of a player. It not just how well you can aim and that you know all the numbers. Easier communication tools would make it better and one definite example we know of it is that the alien commander is being added to the game to help guide the aliens. But even with good communication, stuff like med-spam made it supremely difficult even with communication to take down a good rambo.
EDIT: I am going to think over a larger scale solution.
Has it not occured to anyone that somebody new to the game would follow someone else to try and learn, regardless of any +/- effects they receive, i know thats what happened the first time i played.
Also how about the solo players that go to the other side of the map and cap rts alone. I'm sure they contributing just as much as everyone else if not more.
The main idea is that the <u>decrease</u> of the efficiency a single marine means that immediately he becomes useless. I am repeating this again because its being ignored. Sending a marine alone should be a gambit.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It already is a gambit when the players are close in skill.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It shouldn't be impossible, but should be discouraged at a simple mechanical level.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It already is discouraged - solo marines don't have teammates to watch different angles, cover, and weld. Anything other than a skulk or gorge will take down a solo marine of equal skill almost all the time.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you're so pants-on-head amazing at NS2 in this environment, you still will be to be effective alone but not to the point that is ridiculous. You're still going to be better than someone who is less skilled than you if he attempts the same thing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just what the ###### do you mean by "ridiculous"? Who are you to say what is "ridiculous" and what isn't? From my perspective, this seems like somebody childishly trying to punish players for being effective because they haven't figured out how to compete with them in-game. You put forth some flimsy argument that the team with the better players is going to win "too constantly", but as far as I am concerned, the team with better players is <b>supposed</b> to win. Why don't you try to find ways to distribute the player skill more evenly instead of some "We'll give each team a equal chance to win!" bull######?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The idea is to increase the barrier of entry for solo play so that new players are encouraged to stay together but a higher barrier of entry means it will be more challenging to do it overall. You will be more effective when in a group, but if you need to do something reasonable in solo, you should but it will be hard.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Newbies <b>already</b> tend to congregate together in large groups. You're not just increasing the barrier to entry, you're decreasing the maximum effectiveness of a player alone. If a newbie wants to explore the map and not have to stay in hand-holding distance with other marines (Who in all likelihood are making stupid decisions anyways), who are you to penalize them for it?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There are many benefits for squad gameplay, most predominately because it bridges skill gaps and allows more people to have fun (since ya know, it's a game). You have to cater to both the new/casual players and those who play out competitively, you can't expect everyone to be able invest the same time into the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
SQUAD GAMEPLAY ALREADY EXISTS. STOP TRYING TO FORCE EVERYBODY TO ADOPT YOUR FLAWED IDEAL OF "TEAMWORK". People keep asking you questions because thus so far, you have failed to answer them satisfactorily.
Ever watch the film Rambo? How interesting would that film had been if half the marines seen in the movie were with the skill of rambo, killing everything and not so much as getting a scratch? It would have been comical for a movie. Why is that acceptable for a multiplayer game in which the idea of the game is marines versus aliens? If you got the impression it was a "you versus all the alien team plus some bot-like human players which do some stuff on the side" game, you're sadly mistaken. I don't think it should be completely surpressed. I don't think that being alone should be a disadvantage other than the fact that you'd likely meet difficult odds without support, but I think those odds should properly reflect your situation.
In other words, if there exists a player which excels at natural selection 2 and can kill many aliens before getting killed, more power to you, but it should be less than 1% of the player base which could do such a thing, not 30%. The best a veteran player could ever hope to achieve traveling alone is being able to handle two separate 1 on 1 fights with aliens and win them.
That's not so much "skill communism" as it is simply making the game far more difficult to be "elite" in.
By all means make it more challenging to frag, but I feel most of the rules are also going to limit tactical creativitiy and force most of the advanced players to play more or less competetive only. I'd still prefer to have some servers of different skill level, make communication easier, add tutorials and reward the teamwork more instead of just nullifying the solo play. About 80% of those solo marines could be easily taken out if they actually had more than one player to fight at the time. The rest are totally outskilling, outthinking and in general outplaying the publics in every aspect so bad that it's not even fun.
I'd rather pick some other way than killing the individual potential because some people have played this game competetively for years and are waaaaaaaaaay ahead of the rest of the people. You'll have similar problems in practically every FPS game if the high end competetive players end up playing public. On most games there's just some competetive community left so that they can play matches at reasonable rate against various opponents.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Don't forgot that communication is part of the overall skill of a player. It not just how well you can aim and that you know all the numbers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've been trying to play for the team on public games for years. Trust me, it's not working 95% of the time. Most of the time I end up biting most res, building most of the stuff and such while the rest of the team just goes solo and dies. If I gorge, the skulks will leave me to die and maybe attack afterwards. If I cap as a marine the rest of the team will not keep any pressure on aliens. If I try to form a group, the rest of the marines will blindly wander around without any plan and will definitely not follow me to the useful places. There's nothing more frustrating than playing for the team while the rest aren't willing to even think about the team game logic.
In other words, if there exists a player which excels at natural selection 2 and can kill many aliens before getting killed, more power to you, but it should be less than 1% of the player base which could do such a thing, not 30%. The best a veteran player could ever hope to achieve traveling alone is being able to handle two separate 1 on 1 fights with aliens and win them.
That's not so much "skill communism" as it is simply making the game far more difficult to be "elite" in.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't agree at all with limiting player potential for the purposes of ensuring that everyone works together and contributes (more or less) equally to the outcome of the game. I think you are exaggerating the concept of a rambo and generalizing what an elite marine can accomplish in <i>any</i> game of NS (ex. you use the term "aliens" - but which class(es)?). From my point of view, it is already difficult for a marine going out on his own to accomplish objectives - granted that the aliens needs to be at least somewhat competent. I agree that there is a problem with large games (>10 players per team) in NS1 since I am pretty confident that a team of elite marines will destroy a team of elite aliens. I have also already acknowledged that massive skill gaps occur due to an abnormal learning curve and great differences between the philosophy of playing the game between the alien and marine sides. That is what needs to be addressed.
With respect to the proportion of 'elites' in a game, I think you have a valid argument, but the context is questionable. When NS1 was at its prime, I would say that maybe 1% of the player population could be considered 'elite' by any standards. When the player base started to fall off, those who were most dedicated to the game stayed - and this includes many of the grief-causing elites that I think you are probably thinking of. This raised the percentage of good players appearing regularly in pubs. Further, it isn't so much so that only 1% of players should be extremely good.. but rather perhaps it can be argued that such good players should not be upsetting the new or amateur players so much. This has been discussed before in several threads about server skill balancing.
<!--quoteo(post=1695692:date=Dec 9 2008, 12:34 PM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Dec 9 2008, 12:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695692"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Subtlety is in order here. Skill communism is not a good idea, and I'll explain why. You're turning <b>what would otherwise be bad tactics into gameplay rules which practically dictate that you *cannot* do that</b>. Whether it is bad tactics or not should be up to the player to decide. More often than not, staying in groups makes more effective players, but not necessarily.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What you don't seem to understand is that tactics are defined by gameplay rules. NS in its entirety is nothing but a set of gameplay rules that we all adhere to. Like any game, NS was designed with the intention of creating a certain type of gameplay, and the rules were all created with the intention of guiding players towards that. Why can't I rocket jump across the map picking up health/armor packs and guns on the way to camp the quad damage? Because some jealous newbie made up some gameplay rules to take away my rocket launcher and item spawns. There will always be rules telling you how to play. All that remains is deciding what they are.