Unless you're managing to force people to actually think while playing, it's no more enjoyable public for me if the grouping is forced. I really enjoy teamwork, but on public level it doesn't really exist at all. Adjusting learning curve might work, but then again it could help people actually elimitate the rambos instead of just elimininating them with the set of rules.
<!--quoteo(post=1695805:date=Dec 10 2008, 08:44 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Dec 10 2008, 08:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695805"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So pub players will just stick in groups and good players will use squad tactics. What's the problem?
<!--quoteo(post=1695824:date=Dec 11 2008, 04:45 AM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Dec 11 2008, 04:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695824"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So pub players will just stick in groups and good players will use squad tactics. What's the problem?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why put them in groups in the first place? Just because? Good players will use squad tactics regardless of any additional mechanics.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Okay, true.. technically if we wanted to, we could change the rules of the game to that of starcraft in which the commander has absolute control over how you play. That doesn't mean you should do it, however. I see your argument, but absolute rules of gameplay should dictate what a player can and cannot do, not what a player should and should not do. That freedom *IS* being a player. So hurting a player merely by vicinity to other players by some arbitrary rule to encourage teamplay doesn't make sense.
A player should always be allowed to make mistakes. What I intend to say is that we should encourage players which adopt likely winning strategies (and deviate from there when they become veterans), not discourage players for doing something which will likely not even wind up well anyway. And you could say that elites do fairly well on their own. To that I say that this is exactly what I propose to reduce, as it shouldn't be a rational strategy unless you were really <i>that</i> good.
<!--quoteo(post=1695824:date=Dec 10 2008, 11:45 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Dec 10 2008, 11:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695824"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So pub players will just stick in groups and good players will use squad tactics. What's the problem?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is that you're enforcing a skill wall where there is a) no need for one and b) no benefit from its introduction.
<!--quoteo(post=1695844:date=Dec 11 2008, 10:42 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Dec 11 2008, 10:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695844"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A player should always be allowed to make mistakes. What I intend to say is that we should encourage players which adopt likely winning strategies (and deviate from there when they become veterans), not discourage players for doing something which will likely not even wind up well anyway. And you could say that elites do fairly well on their own. To that I say that this is exactly what I propose to reduce, as it shouldn't be a rational strategy unless you were really <i>that</i> good.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> You don't need to encourage winning tactics.
You're right. I guess I meant to say that winning tactics shouldn't be to go ramboing. The fact that so many players still do that is a testament to the fact that they do so because they are largely successful at it (the better players of course). Most new players often get killed by elite ramboers and think this is how they should be playing, as the elites are obviously playing the game well. I think in natural selection 2, the elites will (or should) all be with mics moving in at least 2-man teams around the map.
If you rambo, you die quickly, making that strategy quickly turn into the newbie strategy (as it should be, really).
All elite players "rambo off" because their teammates die in combat/stay behind to cap RTs/circlejerk in unimportant locations, not because they are antisocial ######. I know that whenever I had a friend on a server who could keep up with me, we always moved together and rolled fades with lmgs.
Right well, not to say that they should have to go back to the base, but they shouldn't keep being able to out-survive their marine partner and continue to kill. The very next or the one after the next encounter should be the one which finishes him off. Otherwise gameplay begins to get a little "wanna shotgun rush the hive?"-ish. Things you really *shouldn't* be able to do unless you were working well with your squad like take out a hive on your own provided your comm gives you ammo, not only can you do them but it's rather easy for elites.
Shouldn't be so. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/marine.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::marine::" border="0" alt="marine.gif" />
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
Why should a series of absolutely horrible alien players be able to take out a fully capable marine that works on his own? As it stands right now, it is already difficult for marines to rambo against a competent alien team. This has been reiterated several times now, including in this thread, and the point keeps getting brushed aside.. The problem is with a massive skill gap and skill concentration in public servers in the late phases of NS1's lifetime (as described in #58).
<!--quoteo(post=1695834:date=Dec 11 2008, 02:38 AM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Dec 11 2008, 02:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695834"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why put them in groups in the first place? Just because? Good players will use squad tactics regardless of any additional mechanics.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Except the whole start of the debate is that in NS good players frequently roam the map by themselves.
<!--quoteo(post=1695982:date=Dec 12 2008, 02:28 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Dec 12 2008, 02:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695982"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why should a series of absolutely horrible alien players be able to take out a fully capable marine that works on his own? As it stands right now, it is already difficult for marines to rambo against a competent alien team. This has been reiterated several times now, including in this thread, and the point keeps getting brushed aside.. The problem is with a massive skill gap and skill concentration in public servers in the late phases of NS1's lifetime (as described in #58).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why do you even care what happens in the event of a massive skillgap? Marines are gonna win anyway. We should focus on balanced games, where sending lone players to rambo still happens all the time.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
edited December 2008
Bad alien players roam the maps by themselves as well. Even worse, when they do not, they often attack single-file in situations when they are at the greatest disadvantage. The fundamental question is whether this is the fault of the marine or of the aliens, and why the capable player must be crippled due to the inadequacies of those who are incapable.
Re: #72, it isn't about what happens <i>in the event of a massive skill gap</i>. There IS a prevalent massive skill gap due to the learning curve and now also due to the demographics of the current player base ever since NS1 started going downhill.
<!--quoteo(post=1695871:date=Dec 11 2008, 12:35 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Dec 11 2008, 12:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695871"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem is that you're enforcing a skill wall where there is a) no need for one and b) no benefit from its introduction.
In other words, "Your idea is not fun."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The benefit is that in my opinion it would be more fun. Clearly the competitive minority doesn't agree but I'm certainly not alone here. If you've played Left 4 Dead, that game is a good example of an extremely steep skill wall for solo players(much moreso than I'm suggesting) and it's doing quite well. Knowing that you're screwed by yourself fosters a lot of impromptu teamwork even among strangers. Admittedly it doesn't have much potential for competitive play, but that's because of its heavy reliance on AI and randomness which is another issue.
<!--quoteo(post=1695995:date=Dec 12 2008, 03:50 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Dec 12 2008, 03:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695995"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Bad alien players roam the maps by themselves as well. Even worse, when they do not, they often attack single-file in situations when they are at the greatest disadvantage. The fundamental question is whether this is the fault of the marine or of the aliens, and why the capable player must be crippled due to the inadequacies of those who are incapable.
Re: #72, it isn't about what happens <i>in the event of a massive skill gap</i>. There IS a prevalent massive skill gap due to the learning curve and now also due to the demographics of the current player base ever since NS1 started going downhill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Bad players are bad players, that's irrelevant. But are you suggesting skulks should have to be in an organized pack just to handle a rambo marine that can aim? Because the whole team premise of aliens is that they're more independent and action-oriented while marines are supposed to act as a team. Yes, skulks that charge head on should die. But a good skulk knows how to set up a good ambush, and yet in NS a decent marine can still thwart them more often than not.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
Aliens become more independent and action-oriented starting with the second hive and fades. Marines then become more dependent on teamwork to survive. In the opening stages of alien play with one hive, alien teamwork is still paramount and this is where MOST alien players fail, especially the baddies and especially as skulks. This is very relevant, since in addressing the topic of successful solo marines you inevitably have to confront the reasons why a solo skulk fails. I think at this point it is pretty clear that grievances originate in solo marine-skulk conflicts in ambushes where the solo marine wins. If this is the problem, then it is mostly caused by map design and hitboxes than anything else.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Really? I play games to have fun as well, I just have more fun when I am good at them. Ideas like yours will actually hurt sales because it will not allow players to play how they choose. Also, if NS2 has the same PT crew that NS has, I hope that Charlie and Co. can do some more contract work, because they will be in SERIOUS trouble.
Either way, since we are using the "More Fun" and "Ridiculousness" hypotheses as a basis of said gameplay changes, as well as everyone forming their arguments based on NS1 gameplay I suggest that we test it out. I will contact the people at ModNS.org to see if they can whip up a plugin to mimic the effects of an anti-rambo system proposed for NS2. This way we can test to see if the game would be more fun or if would actually restrict enjoyment in other players.
I would of course, need to have participants to play in trials of "more fun" and "Ridiculousness". Any takers? I am sure I can get a server up and I am more than sure that the modNS.org people would be willing to cooperate and code something that would be similar to the NS2 proposed restrictions.
<!--quoteo(post=1696085:date=Dec 14 2008, 03:01 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Dec 14 2008, 03:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696085"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Really? I play games to have fun as well, I just have more fun when I am good at them. Ideas like yours will actually hurt sales because it will not allow players to play how they choose. Also, if NS2 has the same PT crew that NS has, I hope that Charlie and Co. can do some more contract work, because they will be in SERIOUS trouble.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, because competitive players care so deeply about the game's public appeal... Every game design choice is a decision that sacrifices somebody else's enjoyment. Allowing more emphasis on solo marines inherently reduces the emphasis on squad teamwork and makes the game less fun for people who prefer that style of play. Squad-based games have been increasingly popular lately, and L4D is selling quite well last I heard. I really don't understand why you equate increased dependence on the team with the removal of skill from the game. It just means it's more important that your teammates are skilled as well and not just you. I also get good at games by the way even though I don't enjoy playing competitively, I really don't care if you believe me or not.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Either way, since we are using the "More Fun" and "Ridiculousness" hypotheses as a basis of said gameplay changes, as well as everyone forming their arguments based on NS1 gameplay I suggest that we test it out. I will contact the people at ModNS.org to see if they can whip up a plugin to mimic the effects of an anti-rambo system proposed for NS2. This way we can test to see if the game would be more fun or if would actually restrict enjoyment in other players.
I would of course, need to have participants to play in trials of "more fun" and "Ridiculousness". Any takers? I am sure I can get a server up and I am more than sure that the modNS.org people would be willing to cooperate and code something that would be similar to the NS2 proposed restrictions.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't know why you would suggest that since I never claimed NS would work with such changes. NS2 is a brand new game with a whole new set of rules. What I'm talking about is a conceptual change which the game can be designed around in any number of ways. IIRC the devs already discussed other squad-based changes like marines being able to respawn with their squad on the field. There's no reason to use NS as set of shackles to shoot down new features for NS2.
It was suggested because all of your claims are based of inferences from NS1 Solo Marine play. If your knowledge is not from that, how can you possibly make an argument for NS2 that will use virtually the same game style as NS1?
Also, I am not asking for MORE marine benefits by solo play. I am just saying that the game should not limit a player because he or she is by his or herself. The only limiting factor should be that particular solo player's skill.
NS2 is a new game, but MOST of its rules will be borrowed from NS1. The concept you want changed from NS1 can be done so by coding a simple plugin (at least in theory). If your theory is testable, why would you not want to prove to everyone that it is sound in theory?
L4D works because you only have 4 players on each team. Try enforcing a similar style of play with 10 on each team, see how well the L4D reference will do then.
Also contrary to popular belief, I want the game to sell well. I also want for people to get the most amount of enjoyment out of the game. I see this idea as a BAD one. There is no logical reason why if one player uses his or her weapons efficiently that they should "eventually die off" because of "ridculousness" There has been no argument worth any measure that states why a player should not be able to survive on his or her own, and STILL contribute to the team. It basically comes down to "Fun" (subjective to every player, thus moot) and Ridiculousness (Jealousy).
However, since I want what is best for NS2, I would be willing to put some time into this by having a server setup as well as convincing the ModNS people that this would be a worthy concept to test.
<!--quoteo(post=1696094:date=Dec 14 2008, 04:56 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Dec 14 2008, 04:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696094"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It was suggested because all of your claims are based of inferences from NS1 Solo Marine play. If your knowledge is not from that, how can you possibly make an argument for NS2 that will use virtually the same game style as NS1? ... NS2 is a new game, but MOST of its rules will be borrowed from NS1. The concept you want changed from NS1 can be done so by coding a simple plugin (at least in theory). If your theory is testable, why would you not want to prove to everyone that it is sound in theory?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Even if you argue that NS2 will simply be a remake of NS with no drastic changes, there will have to be balance and design tweaks to adjust for any change. You can't just apply a nerf to NS and expect it to work the same way. If NS2 marines were to be shifted to focus more heavily on squad combat then it would be more than just nerfing solo marines. Like the example I gave earlier, marines being able to respawn directly with their squad like in BF2. Maybe buffing resource node survivability to compensate for the increased difficulty in recapping. Whatever, the point is that I'm aware the change has widespread implications on game balance that will need to be addressed for it to actually work, so my suggestion was in that context.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, I am not asking for MORE marine benefits by solo play. I am just saying that the game should not limit a player because he or she is by his or herself. The only limiting factor should be that particular solo player's skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're still missing the point. The game already limits a player because he's by himself, because if multiple aliens or a Fade or Onos find him he's screwed. There is no game that doesn't place its own arbitrary limits on players. The only disagreement is over what those limits should be.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->L4D works because you only have 4 players on each team. Try enforcing a similar style of play with 10 on each team, see how well the L4D reference will do then.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You can have multiple smaller squads, I never suggested that the marine team should always have to move around the map as one giant blob. And of course NS isn't L4D, the point is that tighter teamwork is a concept plenty of people find fun.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also contrary to popular belief, I want the game to sell well. I also want for people to get the most amount of enjoyment out of the game. I see this idea as a BAD one. There is no logical reason why if one player uses his or her weapons efficiently that they should "eventually die off" because of "ridculousness" There has been no argument worth any measure that states why a player should not be able to survive on his or her own, and STILL contribute to the team. It basically comes down to "Fun" (subjective to every player, thus moot) and <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/nerd-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::nerdy::" border="0" alt="nerd-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It is "ridiculous" relative to the intended concept behind the marine team. Says it right in the manual:
<i>"The Frontiersmen--elite marines using advanced technology and weaponry to take back human ships and bases. Victory requires <b>intense teamwork and excellent tactics</b>.
The Kharaa--alien creatures with powerful evolutionary and biological abilities, who hunt and destroy all intruders to their new territory. Victory requires skillful adaptation and <b>deadly combat proficiency</b>."</i>
Running around solo is not intense teamwork even if it is the best way to help your team win. Lone combat skills were supposed to be the aliens' forte. The logical reason is that in a spaceship infected by an unknown alien species evolved for the sole purpose of killing you, it should be dangerous to be by yourself.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
This whole reliance on the example of L4D to support the argument of squad play being more fun for people than solo play is misleading at best. Just because a successful game has a reliance on a form of squad play tells you nothing about whether or not people like that aspect of the game or if that aspect makes the game sell more or less than it otherwise would. It is a form of bad argumentation.
Beyond this, this topic is just repeating earlier posts.. 1. There is already marine teamwork. 1*. Forcing marines to move together does not equate to teamwork and can actually be counterproductive and un-fun, especially in a fast paced environment like NS. 2. Solo marines are already challenged as it is, just more so after second hive. 3. Most alien players are terrible at handling their lifeforms or making strategic decisions - this should not be a reason to nerf marines, but rather to strive towards educating alien players more effectively. There is a problem with the alien learning curve, not with solo marine players. 4. Map design and HL engine physics creates problems for alien movement, which makes fighting marines more difficult than it should be. 5. Things like the skulk bite animation are a trademark of the NS 'style', but are stupid and maladaptive when new players have to use the skulk.
<!--quoteo(post=1696099:date=Dec 14 2008, 06:16 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Dec 14 2008, 06:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696099"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Even if you argue that NS2 will simply be a remake of NS with no drastic changes, there will have to be balance and design tweaks to adjust for any change. You can't just apply a nerf to NS and expect it to work the same way. If NS2 marines were to be shifted to focus more heavily on squad combat then it would be more than just nerfing solo marines. Like the example I gave earlier, marines being able to respawn directly with their squad like in BF2. Maybe buffing resource node survivability to compensate for the increased difficulty in recapping. Whatever, the point is that I'm aware the change has widespread implications on game balance that will need to be addressed for it to actually work, so my suggestion was in that context.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your suggestion is based on the premise that "Teamwork is more fun, solo play is not" which is an inference you draw from NS1 gameplay. So why not test said inference in NS1? You are not making any sense.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're still missing the point. The game already limits a player because he's by himself, because if multiple aliens or a Fade or Onos find him he's screwed. There is no game that doesn't place its own arbitrary limits on players. The only disagreement is over what those limits should be. You can have multiple smaller squads, I never suggested that the marine team should always have to move around the map as one giant blob. And of course NS isn't L4D, the point is that tighter teamwork is a concept plenty of people find fun.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The limits are should be what the players put on themselves. I am not saying teamwork is not effective, nor should it be ruled out (A common misconception). I am saying that the players should decide how far that teamwork goes as far as squads and movement. If players want to move out in squads and elect not to use solo players, thats fine. But if a team has a few solo players they accept both the benefits and BURDENS of using said players.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It is "ridiculous" relative to the intended concept behind the marine team. Says it right in the manual:<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've had the respect of taking full quotes of your posts, clearly expecting that courtesy would be returned is my fault.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><i>"The Frontiersmen--elite marines using advanced technology and weaponry to take back human ships and bases. Victory requires <b>intense teamwork and excellent tactics</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see a definition of teamwork, and Solo players that are doing well contribute to the team provided their kills are towards forward progress.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The Kharaa--alien creatures with powerful evolutionary and biological abilities, who hunt and destroy all intruders to their new territory. Victory requires skillful adaptation and <b>deadly combat proficiency</b>."</i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see anything in there that says the Kharaa require less teamwork. You even said yourself that taking away teamwork is not taking away skill.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Running around solo is not intense teamwork even if it is the best way to help your team win. Lone combat skills were supposed to be the aliens' forte. The logical reason is that in a spaceship infected by an unknown alien species evolved for the sole purpose of killing you, it should be dangerous to be by yourself.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree. Solo players and I guess we can call squad players have a symbiont relationship. The solo players requires the squad players to cap nodes and take care of their side of the map, including destroying enemy nodes. The a good solo player can draw away Kharaa so that the squad players can do their job quicker and more effective. I don't understand why that is not teamwork.
Your method of teamwork is similar to an old basketball method of teamwork of "Making 4 passes before shooting the ball". With this method, the coach forces his or her players to make 4 passes before shooting the ball. If a player attempts to score before the 4th pass, that player is benched. Is there "teamwork"? You bet but just on the surface, as chances are 3 or 4 different players are going to touch the ball. Is it teamwork for the sake of teamwork? Yep. Is that a maladaptive system that causes teams to lose basketball games? Just ask the 1972 USA Olympic Basketball Team.
Teamwork means that all of the players that are playing are contributing in different ways to reach the goal of victory. Restricting solo play as a means of increasing "teamwork" takes away one of those ways that one or several players can contribute to the team.
I have a question for you Zek, what good is your definition of "Teamwork" if a team who uses it does not win?
<!--quoteo(post=1696105:date=Dec 14 2008, 10:43 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Dec 14 2008, 10:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696105"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your suggestion is based on the premise that "Teamwork is more fun, solo play is not" which is an inference you draw from NS1 gameplay. So why not test said inference in NS1? You are not making any sense.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, it's an inference drawn from playing games in general. I never did claim it to be more than personal preference, albeit shared by a lot of people. NS is not currently designed or balanced for mandatory teamwork, that's why making such a plugin would be an empty gesture.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The limits are should be what the players put on themselves. I am not saying teamwork is not effective, nor should it be ruled out (A common misconception). I am saying that the players should decide how far that teamwork goes as far as squads and movement. If players want to move out in squads and elect not to use solo players, thats fine. But if a team has a few solo players they accept both the benefits and BURDENS of using said players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> And when did I ever suggest that players should be incapable of running solo if they want? I simply said that it should be a worse idea than it is now. Solo players should be more burden than benefit in accordance with the basic premise of the marine team. Dividing your forces to cover more ground can still be a gamble that comms occasionally decide to take, but it should be very risky. If you allow solo players to be as effective as they are now, then they will be used very frequently, as they are now.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I've had the respect of taking full quotes of your posts, clearly expecting that courtesy would be returned is my fault.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Take it easy, I reorganized your post to avoid repeating myself. I didn't respond to the last sentence because I'd already explained why there's no point in making a plugin.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't see a definition of teamwork, and Solo players that are doing well contribute to the team provided their kills are towards forward progress.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Contribute yes, <i>work</i> with no. You may be the comm's favorite player but as far as everybody else is concerned you're a loner. I've said many times I have no problem with players ramboing in NS because that's how the game is played, but I think that should be changed for NS2 which is why I'm suggesting a gameplay change in the first place rather than a punishment system like the OP.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't see anything in there that says the Kharaa require less teamwork. You even said yourself that taking away teamwork is not taking away skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's implied by its absence(not necessarily saying it's true), and the point is that the manual description clearly puts emphasis on combat prowess being crucial for alien players, in contrast with marines for whom teamwork is supposedly more important.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I disagree. Solo players and I guess we can call squad players have a symbiont relationship. The solo players requires the squad players to cap nodes and take care of their side of the map, including destroying enemy nodes. The a good solo player can draw away Kharaa so that the squad players can do their job quicker and more effective. I don't understand why that is not teamwork.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> How often do you actually communicate directly with the other marines on the field when you're playing solo? Rarely, because your tasks are only tangentially related. You don't really know what's happening over there beyond what you can deduce from their voice chat, and vice versa. You're working with the comm, not your teammates. Even if you call that teamwork on a broad scale it's not remotely on the same level as actually being in the same room and covering for your teammates on the field. Proximity is everything.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your method of teamwork is similar to an old basketball method of teamwork of "Making 4 passes before shooting the ball". With this method, the coach forces his or her players to make 4 passes before shooting the ball. If a player attempts to score before the 4th pass, that player is benched. Is there "teamwork"? You bet but just on the surface, as chances are 3 or 4 different players are going to touch the ball. Is it teamwork for the sake of teamwork? Yep. Is that a maladaptive system that causes teams to lose basketball games? Just ask the 1972 USA Olympic Basketball Team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Can you tell me specifically what suggestion of mine you think is at all comparable to that? I've never even hinted at some sort of ultimatum that will prevent players from taking an opportunity that is available to them. All I've said is that the balance of the game should be tweaked in a way that results in the marine team having less incentive to send players off on solo missions.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Teamwork means that all of the players that are playing are contributing in different ways to reach the goal of victory. Restricting solo play as a means of increasing "teamwork" takes away one of those ways that one or several players can contribute to the team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So if you're playing team deathmatch in Quake and everybody on your team is running around independently shooting anybody dressed in Blue, do you think that's an equivalent amount of teamwork to the marine team sieging a hive? And if this is the definition being used, why do you think the manual places more emphasis on teamwork for the marines than the aliens?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have a question for you Zek, what good is your definition of "Teamwork" if a team who uses it does not win?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No good, thus the problem with NS.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your method of teamwork is similar to an old basketball method of teamwork of "Making 4 passes before shooting the ball". With this method, the coach forces his or her players to make 4 passes before shooting the ball. If a player attempts to score before the 4th pass, that player is benched. Is there "teamwork"? You bet but just on the surface, as chances are 3 or 4 different players are going to touch the ball. Is it teamwork for the sake of teamwork? Yep. Is that a maladaptive system that causes teams to lose basketball games? Just ask the 1972 USA Olympic Basketball Team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I see your point, but natural selection is not the same thing as basketball aside from the teamwork aspect, and the problem with this metaphor is that teamwork in basketball behaves radically different than teamwork in natural selection. I think even you'll agree to that.
I don't think anybody's claiming to force marines together. Marines can and always should be able to do whatever the heck they want in a game. Those who play best and play wisest should be together, as that *should* (but isn't necessarily now) be the best course of actions in most situations. A game of natural selection for the marines should be seen less like a game of divide and conquer but more like navigating a minefield in that the best way not to lose all your troops is to keep them together not spread them out in every which direction.
If a symbiosis should exist for team squads and solo players in natural selection 2, at best it should be for stealth purposes, as one-man capping teams or one-man hive stormer teams should be generally a very bad idea. It can be done, and perhaps in a game in which the aliens are heavily occupied on another part of the map, splitting up marines to be more efficient would be a wise choice. But normally no.
I think that's where Zek's getting at.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No good, thus the problem with NS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1696115:date=Dec 15 2008, 10:37 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Dec 15 2008, 10:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696115"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If a symbiosis should exist for team squads and solo players in natural selection 2, at best it should be for stealth purposes, as one-man capping teams or one-man hive stormer teams should be generally a very bad idea. It can be done, and perhaps in a game in which the aliens are heavily occupied on another part of the map, splitting up marines to be more efficient would be a wise choice. But normally no.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're argumenting with your own views. I can see the point, but if I say marines should do something different we are in a deadlock. What if we give aliens new methods of teamwork to take down the marines? That seems much more reasonable to me than just weakening the marines. Combined with the learning curve and servers for various skill levels we shouldn't be experiencing that many problems.
<!--quoteo(post=1696107:date=Dec 14 2008, 11:52 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Dec 14 2008, 11:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696107"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And when did I ever suggest that players should be incapable of running solo if they want? I simply said that it should be a worse idea than it is now. <b>Solo players should be more burden than benefit in accordance with the basic premise of the marine team.</b> Dividing your forces to cover more ground can still be a gamble that comms occasionally decide to take, but it should be very risky. If you allow solo players to be as effective as they are now, then they will be used very frequently, as they are now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, like Saraph said, why should this be the case? Why are you taking a quote about the atmosphere of the TSA and trying to force it to fit the gameplay with no regard for how it would affect the fun quotient of the game on the whole?
<!--quoteo(post=1696128:date=Dec 15 2008, 02:04 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Dec 15 2008, 02:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696128"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Again, like Saraph said, why should this be the case? Why are you taking a quote about the atmosphere of the TSA and trying to force it to fit the gameplay with no regard for how it would affect the fun quotient of the game on the whole?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What is a game if not an attempt to force gameplay to fit with a particular atmosphere? There's no such thing as a game that is completely defined by its players. And I've said many times that I think squad teamplay is more fun than solo antics.
<!--quoteo(post=1696144:date=Dec 15 2008, 04:52 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Dec 15 2008, 04:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696144"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What is a game if not an attempt to force gameplay to fit with a particular atmosphere? There's no such thing as a game that is completely defined by its players. And I've said many times that I think squad teamplay is more fun than solo antics.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So your answer to "Why should solo players should be more burden than benefit?" is "I like it that way so you all should play my way."
I recognize that you enjoy squad based gameplay. I accept that and believe that you should be allowed to enjoy the game as you see fit.
Why is it so difficult for you to offer me the same design courtesy? Why do you feel the need to socialize my ability to help my team through whatever means I enjoy?
Because there is no logical explanation as to why people cannot play the way people want to, I would have to assume that solo players would ruin the "fun" for people who state that there is no teamwork in NS. Would that be correct?
<!--quoteo(post=1696149:date=Dec 15 2008, 05:09 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Dec 15 2008, 05:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696149"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So your answer to "Why should solo players should be more burden than benefit?" is "I like it that way so you all should play my way."
I recognize that you enjoy squad based gameplay. I accept that and believe that you should be allowed to enjoy the game as you see fit.
Why is it so difficult for you to offer me the same design courtesy? Why do you feel the need to socialize my ability to help my team through whatever means I enjoy?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Teamwork is bred out of necessity. The more viable solo play is the weaker the cohesion of the team, and not just with those players but in general - players feel more independent and less like part of a squad even when they're with teammates. You can't have it both ways. L4D for example fosters an exponentially stronger sense of teamwork because of how often you're completely dependent on your teammates - I'm not suggesting NS2 take it as far, but the concept is the same. If I knew I could make it through the level by myself if I wanted to and those other guys can stick together if they want, it's obvious that everybody else would be affected by that mentality too. I can't imagine you guys really don't understand this, I think you're being intentionally dense just to defend your own preferences. I'm not just trying to be a jerk, I'm making this argument because the way things are in NS does hinder my enjoyment to some extent. I don't think the devs have any responsibility to maintain every aspect of gameplay from the original, even if changing things means stepping on somebody's toes.
<!--quoteo(post=1696149:date=Dec 15 2008, 05:09 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Dec 15 2008, 05:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696149"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So your answer to "Why should solo players should be more burden than benefit?" is "I like it that way so you all should play my way."
I recognize that you enjoy squad based gameplay. I accept that and believe that you should be allowed to enjoy the game as you see fit.
Why is it so difficult for you to offer me the same design courtesy? Why do you feel the need to socialize my ability to help my team through whatever means I enjoy?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's a double-edged sword, and you made the mistake of using that as your argument. So why should solo players be more burden than benefit? Answer? Why the hell not? Natural selection 2 is a blank slate right now and can be made in any way. If I had to choose whether natural selection 2 was going to be heavily teamwork-based or a bunch of players doing the minimal possible to follow comm orders, I think I'm going to pick the heavily teamwork-based, sorry to the rest of you.
As much as you might think soloing should be not only allowed but even encouraged, I only ask if this is what the original purpose of the game was supposed to be about? I seriously think not. Lets not kid ourselves here. Soloing is the opposite of teamwork in every respect. If you had killed yourself after every time you spawn, I don't think it would be any less teamwork than soloing.
So I ask again, which would you prefer? Teamwork or deathmatch? It's my personal impression that teamwork is an evolution of deathmatch and that it's easy to have a deathmatch game. More difficult to have a teamwork game, because you can't do it simply by preventing friendly fire amongst those of the same team. As Zek himself said, "Teamwork is bred out of necessity," which couldn't be more true in my opinion. Though if you insist deathmatch is more your style, you're welcome to argue that.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1696177:date=Dec 16 2008, 04:31 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Dec 16 2008, 04:31 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696177"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->... Soloing is the opposite of teamwork in every respect. If you had killed yourself after every time you spawn, I don't think it would be any less teamwork than soloing.
So I ask again, which would you prefer? Teamwork or deathmatch? It's my personal impression that teamwork is an evolution of deathmatch and that it's easy to have a deathmatch game. More difficult to have a teamwork game, because you can't do it simply by preventing friendly fire amongst those of the same team. As Zek himself said, "Teamwork is bred out of necessity," which couldn't be more true in my opinion. Though if you insist deathmatch is more your style, you're welcome to argue that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you had killed yourself every time you spawn, you would not be contributing anything to your team. I guess it comes down <i>yet again</i> to how you define teamwork - it seems like the idea proposed here is that marines have to stick together, live as a team, die as a team, etc. etc. This is teamwork as humping your teammates and surviving based on their survival - if your teammates happen to be bad at the game, I guess you're out of luck too then.
I'm going to use the same argument strategy used by Zek - but in that <i>many</i> people <u>don't</u> like the idea of a game that relies heavily on teamwork. I mean, look at everyone who <i>isn't</i> playing L4D, and is playing more death-match-like games like CS - that's proof right there for you that death-match is better for sales. Look at all the stat ######s in these games - they represent an excellent market opportunity. Therefore, we should convert NS2 to be more like CS, since that is what <i>many</i> people like. If it is more difficult to have a teamwork game than a death-match game, then more people are apt to enjoy death-match elements than teamwork elements.
If you don't agree with my line of reasoning - that's too bad, because that's what I think is best for the game and we have a difference in opinion that cannot be resolved by any rational argumentation.
Of course, I don't actually think this way, but the lesson here is that the debate topic isn't <b>black and white</b> for death-match OR team-work.. we have a blend of it in NS and the same is true in most games that are not pure death-match (like free-for-all in Quake or WoW plugin servers in CS). This is a poorly defined topic with poorly defined arguments.
Comments
So pub players will just stick in groups and good players will use squad tactics. What's the problem?
Why put them in groups in the first place? Just because? Good players will use squad tactics regardless of any additional mechanics.
Okay, true.. technically if we wanted to, we could change the rules of the game to that of starcraft in which the commander has absolute control over how you play. That doesn't mean you should do it, however. I see your argument, but absolute rules of gameplay should dictate what a player can and cannot do, not what a player should and should not do. That freedom *IS* being a player. So hurting a player merely by vicinity to other players by some arbitrary rule to encourage teamplay doesn't make sense.
A player should always be allowed to make mistakes. What I intend to say is that we should encourage players which adopt likely winning strategies (and deviate from there when they become veterans), not discourage players for doing something which will likely not even wind up well anyway. And you could say that elites do fairly well on their own. To that I say that this is exactly what I propose to reduce, as it shouldn't be a rational strategy unless you were really <i>that</i> good.
The problem is that you're enforcing a skill wall where there is a) no need for one and b) no benefit from its introduction.
In other words, "Your idea is not fun."
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> You don't need to encourage winning tactics.
If you rambo, you die quickly, making that strategy quickly turn into the newbie strategy (as it should be, really).
Shouldn't be so. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/marine.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::marine::" border="0" alt="marine.gif" />
Except the whole start of the debate is that in NS good players frequently roam the map by themselves.
<!--quoteo(post=1695982:date=Dec 12 2008, 02:28 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Dec 12 2008, 02:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695982"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why should a series of absolutely horrible alien players be able to take out a fully capable marine that works on his own? As it stands right now, it is already difficult for marines to rambo against a competent alien team. This has been reiterated several times now, including in this thread, and the point keeps getting brushed aside.. The problem is with a massive skill gap and skill concentration in public servers in the late phases of NS1's lifetime (as described in #58).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why do you even care what happens in the event of a massive skillgap? Marines are gonna win anyway. We should focus on balanced games, where sending lone players to rambo still happens all the time.
Re: #72, it isn't about what happens <i>in the event of a massive skill gap</i>. There IS a prevalent massive skill gap due to the learning curve and now also due to the demographics of the current player base ever since NS1 started going downhill.
In other words, "Your idea is not fun."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The benefit is that in my opinion it would be more fun. Clearly the competitive minority doesn't agree but I'm certainly not alone here. If you've played Left 4 Dead, that game is a good example of an extremely steep skill wall for solo players(much moreso than I'm suggesting) and it's doing quite well. Knowing that you're screwed by yourself fosters a lot of impromptu teamwork even among strangers. Admittedly it doesn't have much potential for competitive play, but that's because of its heavy reliance on AI and randomness which is another issue.
<!--quoteo(post=1695995:date=Dec 12 2008, 03:50 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Dec 12 2008, 03:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695995"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Bad alien players roam the maps by themselves as well. Even worse, when they do not, they often attack single-file in situations when they are at the greatest disadvantage. The fundamental question is whether this is the fault of the marine or of the aliens, and why the capable player must be crippled due to the inadequacies of those who are incapable.
Re: #72, it isn't about what happens <i>in the event of a massive skill gap</i>. There IS a prevalent massive skill gap due to the learning curve and now also due to the demographics of the current player base ever since NS1 started going downhill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bad players are bad players, that's irrelevant. But are you suggesting skulks should have to be in an organized pack just to handle a rambo marine that can aim? Because the whole team premise of aliens is that they're more independent and action-oriented while marines are supposed to act as a team. Yes, skulks that charge head on should die. But a good skulk knows how to set up a good ambush, and yet in NS a decent marine can still thwart them more often than not.
Really? I play games to have fun as well, I just have more fun when I am good at them. Ideas like yours will actually hurt sales because it will not allow players to play how they choose. Also, if NS2 has the same PT crew that NS has, I hope that Charlie and Co. can do some more contract work, because they will be in SERIOUS trouble.
Either way, since we are using the "More Fun" and "Ridiculousness" hypotheses as a basis of said gameplay changes, as well as everyone forming their arguments based on NS1 gameplay I suggest that we test it out. I will contact the people at ModNS.org to see if they can whip up a plugin to mimic the effects of an anti-rambo system proposed for NS2. This way we can test to see if the game would be more fun or if would actually restrict enjoyment in other players.
I would of course, need to have participants to play in trials of "more fun" and "Ridiculousness". Any takers? I am sure I can get a server up and I am more than sure that the modNS.org people would be willing to cooperate and code something that would be similar to the NS2 proposed restrictions.
Yes, because competitive players care so deeply about the game's public appeal... Every game design choice is a decision that sacrifices somebody else's enjoyment. Allowing more emphasis on solo marines inherently reduces the emphasis on squad teamwork and makes the game less fun for people who prefer that style of play. Squad-based games have been increasingly popular lately, and L4D is selling quite well last I heard. I really don't understand why you equate increased dependence on the team with the removal of skill from the game. It just means it's more important that your teammates are skilled as well and not just you. I also get good at games by the way even though I don't enjoy playing competitively, I really don't care if you believe me or not.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Either way, since we are using the "More Fun" and "Ridiculousness" hypotheses as a basis of said gameplay changes, as well as everyone forming their arguments based on NS1 gameplay I suggest that we test it out. I will contact the people at ModNS.org to see if they can whip up a plugin to mimic the effects of an anti-rambo system proposed for NS2. This way we can test to see if the game would be more fun or if would actually restrict enjoyment in other players.
I would of course, need to have participants to play in trials of "more fun" and "Ridiculousness". Any takers? I am sure I can get a server up and I am more than sure that the modNS.org people would be willing to cooperate and code something that would be similar to the NS2 proposed restrictions.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know why you would suggest that since I never claimed NS would work with such changes. NS2 is a brand new game with a whole new set of rules. What I'm talking about is a conceptual change which the game can be designed around in any number of ways. IIRC the devs already discussed other squad-based changes like marines being able to respawn with their squad on the field. There's no reason to use NS as set of shackles to shoot down new features for NS2.
Also, I am not asking for MORE marine benefits by solo play. I am just saying that the game should not limit a player because he or she is by his or herself. The only limiting factor should be that particular solo player's skill.
NS2 is a new game, but MOST of its rules will be borrowed from NS1. The concept you want changed from NS1 can be done so by coding a simple plugin (at least in theory). If your theory is testable, why would you not want to prove to everyone that it is sound in theory?
L4D works because you only have 4 players on each team. Try enforcing a similar style of play with 10 on each team, see how well the L4D reference will do then.
Also contrary to popular belief, I want the game to sell well. I also want for people to get the most amount of enjoyment out of the game. I see this idea as a BAD one. There is no logical reason why if one player uses his or her weapons efficiently that they should "eventually die off" because of "ridculousness" There has been no argument worth any measure that states why a player should not be able to survive on his or her own, and STILL contribute to the team. It basically comes down to "Fun" (subjective to every player, thus moot) and Ridiculousness (Jealousy).
However, since I want what is best for NS2, I would be willing to put some time into this by having a server setup as well as convincing the ModNS people that this would be a worthy concept to test.
...
NS2 is a new game, but MOST of its rules will be borrowed from NS1. The concept you want changed from NS1 can be done so by coding a simple plugin (at least in theory). If your theory is testable, why would you not want to prove to everyone that it is sound in theory?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even if you argue that NS2 will simply be a remake of NS with no drastic changes, there will have to be balance and design tweaks to adjust for any change. You can't just apply a nerf to NS and expect it to work the same way. If NS2 marines were to be shifted to focus more heavily on squad combat then it would be more than just nerfing solo marines. Like the example I gave earlier, marines being able to respawn directly with their squad like in BF2. Maybe buffing resource node survivability to compensate for the increased difficulty in recapping. Whatever, the point is that I'm aware the change has widespread implications on game balance that will need to be addressed for it to actually work, so my suggestion was in that context.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, I am not asking for MORE marine benefits by solo play. I am just saying that the game should not limit a player because he or she is by his or herself. The only limiting factor should be that particular solo player's skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're still missing the point. The game already limits a player because he's by himself, because if multiple aliens or a Fade or Onos find him he's screwed. There is no game that doesn't place its own arbitrary limits on players. The only disagreement is over what those limits should be.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->L4D works because you only have 4 players on each team. Try enforcing a similar style of play with 10 on each team, see how well the L4D reference will do then.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can have multiple smaller squads, I never suggested that the marine team should always have to move around the map as one giant blob. And of course NS isn't L4D, the point is that tighter teamwork is a concept plenty of people find fun.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also contrary to popular belief, I want the game to sell well. I also want for people to get the most amount of enjoyment out of the game. I see this idea as a BAD one. There is no logical reason why if one player uses his or her weapons efficiently that they should "eventually die off" because of "ridculousness" There has been no argument worth any measure that states why a player should not be able to survive on his or her own, and STILL contribute to the team. It basically comes down to "Fun" (subjective to every player, thus moot) and <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/nerd-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::nerdy::" border="0" alt="nerd-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is "ridiculous" relative to the intended concept behind the marine team. Says it right in the manual:
<i>"The Frontiersmen--elite marines using advanced technology and weaponry to take back human ships and bases. Victory requires <b>intense teamwork and excellent tactics</b>.
The Kharaa--alien creatures with powerful evolutionary and biological abilities, who hunt and destroy all intruders to their new territory. Victory requires skillful adaptation and <b>deadly combat proficiency</b>."</i>
Running around solo is not intense teamwork even if it is the best way to help your team win. Lone combat skills were supposed to be the aliens' forte. The logical reason is that in a spaceship infected by an unknown alien species evolved for the sole purpose of killing you, it should be dangerous to be by yourself.
Beyond this, this topic is just repeating earlier posts..
1. There is already marine teamwork.
1*. Forcing marines to move together does not equate to teamwork and can actually be counterproductive and un-fun, especially in a fast paced environment like NS.
2. Solo marines are already challenged as it is, just more so after second hive.
3. Most alien players are terrible at handling their lifeforms or making strategic decisions - this should not be a reason to nerf marines, but rather to strive towards educating alien players more effectively. There is a problem with the alien learning curve, not with solo marine players.
4. Map design and HL engine physics creates problems for alien movement, which makes fighting marines more difficult than it should be.
5. Things like the skulk bite animation are a trademark of the NS 'style', but are stupid and maladaptive when new players have to use the skulk.
Your suggestion is based on the premise that "Teamwork is more fun, solo play is not" which is an inference you draw from NS1 gameplay. So why not test said inference in NS1? You are not making any sense.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're still missing the point. The game already limits a player because he's by himself, because if multiple aliens or a Fade or Onos find him he's screwed. There is no game that doesn't place its own arbitrary limits on players. The only disagreement is over what those limits should be.
You can have multiple smaller squads, I never suggested that the marine team should always have to move around the map as one giant blob. And of course NS isn't L4D, the point is that tighter teamwork is a concept plenty of people find fun.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The limits are should be what the players put on themselves. I am not saying teamwork is not effective, nor should it be ruled out (A common misconception). I am saying that the players should decide how far that teamwork goes as far as squads and movement. If players want to move out in squads and elect not to use solo players, thats fine. But if a team has a few solo players they accept both the benefits and BURDENS of using said players.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It is "ridiculous" relative to the intended concept behind the marine team. Says it right in the manual:<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've had the respect of taking full quotes of your posts, clearly expecting that courtesy would be returned is my fault.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><i>"The Frontiersmen--elite marines using advanced technology and weaponry to take back human ships and bases. Victory requires <b>intense teamwork and excellent tactics</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see a definition of teamwork, and Solo players that are doing well contribute to the team provided their kills are towards forward progress.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The Kharaa--alien creatures with powerful evolutionary and biological abilities, who hunt and destroy all intruders to their new territory. Victory requires skillful adaptation and <b>deadly combat proficiency</b>."</i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see anything in there that says the Kharaa require less teamwork. You even said yourself that taking away teamwork is not taking away skill.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Running around solo is not intense teamwork even if it is the best way to help your team win. Lone combat skills were supposed to be the aliens' forte. The logical reason is that in a spaceship infected by an unknown alien species evolved for the sole purpose of killing you, it should be dangerous to be by yourself.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree. Solo players and I guess we can call squad players have a symbiont relationship. The solo players requires the squad players to cap nodes and take care of their side of the map, including destroying enemy nodes. The a good solo player can draw away Kharaa so that the squad players can do their job quicker and more effective. I don't understand why that is not teamwork.
Your method of teamwork is similar to an old basketball method of teamwork of "Making 4 passes before shooting the ball". With this method, the coach forces his or her players to make 4 passes before shooting the ball. If a player attempts to score before the 4th pass, that player is benched. Is there "teamwork"? You bet but just on the surface, as chances are 3 or 4 different players are going to touch the ball. Is it teamwork for the sake of teamwork? Yep. Is that a maladaptive system that causes teams to lose basketball games? Just ask the 1972 USA Olympic Basketball Team.
Teamwork means that all of the players that are playing are contributing in different ways to reach the goal of victory. Restricting solo play as a means of increasing "teamwork" takes away one of those ways that one or several players can contribute to the team.
I have a question for you Zek, what good is your definition of "Teamwork" if a team who uses it does not win?
No, it's an inference drawn from playing games in general. I never did claim it to be more than personal preference, albeit shared by a lot of people. NS is not currently designed or balanced for mandatory teamwork, that's why making such a plugin would be an empty gesture.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The limits are should be what the players put on themselves. I am not saying teamwork is not effective, nor should it be ruled out (A common misconception). I am saying that the players should decide how far that teamwork goes as far as squads and movement. If players want to move out in squads and elect not to use solo players, thats fine. But if a team has a few solo players they accept both the benefits and BURDENS of using said players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And when did I ever suggest that players should be incapable of running solo if they want? I simply said that it should be a worse idea than it is now. Solo players should be more burden than benefit in accordance with the basic premise of the marine team. Dividing your forces to cover more ground can still be a gamble that comms occasionally decide to take, but it should be very risky. If you allow solo players to be as effective as they are now, then they will be used very frequently, as they are now.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I've had the respect of taking full quotes of your posts, clearly expecting that courtesy would be returned is my fault.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Take it easy, I reorganized your post to avoid repeating myself. I didn't respond to the last sentence because I'd already explained why there's no point in making a plugin.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't see a definition of teamwork, and Solo players that are doing well contribute to the team provided their kills are towards forward progress.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Contribute yes, <i>work</i> with no. You may be the comm's favorite player but as far as everybody else is concerned you're a loner. I've said many times I have no problem with players ramboing in NS because that's how the game is played, but I think that should be changed for NS2 which is why I'm suggesting a gameplay change in the first place rather than a punishment system like the OP.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't see anything in there that says the Kharaa require less teamwork. You even said yourself that taking away teamwork is not taking away skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's implied by its absence(not necessarily saying it's true), and the point is that the manual description clearly puts emphasis on combat prowess being crucial for alien players, in contrast with marines for whom teamwork is supposedly more important.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I disagree. Solo players and I guess we can call squad players have a symbiont relationship. The solo players requires the squad players to cap nodes and take care of their side of the map, including destroying enemy nodes. The a good solo player can draw away Kharaa so that the squad players can do their job quicker and more effective. I don't understand why that is not teamwork.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How often do you actually communicate directly with the other marines on the field when you're playing solo? Rarely, because your tasks are only tangentially related. You don't really know what's happening over there beyond what you can deduce from their voice chat, and vice versa. You're working with the comm, not your teammates. Even if you call that teamwork on a broad scale it's not remotely on the same level as actually being in the same room and covering for your teammates on the field. Proximity is everything.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your method of teamwork is similar to an old basketball method of teamwork of "Making 4 passes before shooting the ball". With this method, the coach forces his or her players to make 4 passes before shooting the ball. If a player attempts to score before the 4th pass, that player is benched. Is there "teamwork"? You bet but just on the surface, as chances are 3 or 4 different players are going to touch the ball. Is it teamwork for the sake of teamwork? Yep. Is that a maladaptive system that causes teams to lose basketball games? Just ask the 1972 USA Olympic Basketball Team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you tell me specifically what suggestion of mine you think is at all comparable to that? I've never even hinted at some sort of ultimatum that will prevent players from taking an opportunity that is available to them. All I've said is that the balance of the game should be tweaked in a way that results in the marine team having less incentive to send players off on solo missions.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Teamwork means that all of the players that are playing are contributing in different ways to reach the goal of victory. Restricting solo play as a means of increasing "teamwork" takes away one of those ways that one or several players can contribute to the team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So if you're playing team deathmatch in Quake and everybody on your team is running around independently shooting anybody dressed in Blue, do you think that's an equivalent amount of teamwork to the marine team sieging a hive? And if this is the definition being used, why do you think the manual places more emphasis on teamwork for the marines than the aliens?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have a question for you Zek, what good is your definition of "Teamwork" if a team who uses it does not win?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No good, thus the problem with NS.
I see your point, but natural selection is not the same thing as basketball aside from the teamwork aspect, and the problem with this metaphor is that teamwork in basketball behaves radically different than teamwork in natural selection. I think even you'll agree to that.
I don't think anybody's claiming to force marines together. Marines can and always should be able to do whatever the heck they want in a game. Those who play best and play wisest should be together, as that *should* (but isn't necessarily now) be the best course of actions in most situations. A game of natural selection for the marines should be seen less like a game of divide and conquer but more like navigating a minefield in that the best way not to lose all your troops is to keep them together not spread them out in every which direction.
If a symbiosis should exist for team squads and solo players in natural selection 2, at best it should be for stealth purposes, as one-man capping teams or one-man hive stormer teams should be generally a very bad idea. It can be done, and perhaps in a game in which the aliens are heavily occupied on another part of the map, splitting up marines to be more efficient would be a wise choice. But normally no.
I think that's where Zek's getting at.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No good, thus the problem with NS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well said.
You're argumenting with your own views. I can see the point, but if I say marines should do something different we are in a deadlock. What if we give aliens new methods of teamwork to take down the marines? That seems much more reasonable to me than just weakening the marines. Combined with the learning curve and servers for various skill levels we shouldn't be experiencing that many problems.
Again, like Saraph said, why should this be the case? Why are you taking a quote about the atmosphere of the TSA and trying to force it to fit the gameplay with no regard for how it would affect the fun quotient of the game on the whole?
What is a game if not an attempt to force gameplay to fit with a particular atmosphere? There's no such thing as a game that is completely defined by its players. And I've said many times that I think squad teamplay is more fun than solo antics.
So your answer to "Why should solo players should be more burden than benefit?" is "I like it that way so you all should play my way."
I recognize that you enjoy squad based gameplay. I accept that and believe that you should be allowed to enjoy the game as you see fit.
Why is it so difficult for you to offer me the same design courtesy? Why do you feel the need to socialize my ability to help my team through whatever means I enjoy?
I recognize that you enjoy squad based gameplay. I accept that and believe that you should be allowed to enjoy the game as you see fit.
Why is it so difficult for you to offer me the same design courtesy? Why do you feel the need to socialize my ability to help my team through whatever means I enjoy?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Teamwork is bred out of necessity. The more viable solo play is the weaker the cohesion of the team, and not just with those players but in general - players feel more independent and less like part of a squad even when they're with teammates. You can't have it both ways. L4D for example fosters an exponentially stronger sense of teamwork because of how often you're completely dependent on your teammates - I'm not suggesting NS2 take it as far, but the concept is the same. If I knew I could make it through the level by myself if I wanted to and those other guys can stick together if they want, it's obvious that everybody else would be affected by that mentality too. I can't imagine you guys really don't understand this, I think you're being intentionally dense just to defend your own preferences. I'm not just trying to be a jerk, I'm making this argument because the way things are in NS does hinder my enjoyment to some extent. I don't think the devs have any responsibility to maintain every aspect of gameplay from the original, even if changing things means stepping on somebody's toes.
I recognize that you enjoy squad based gameplay. I accept that and believe that you should be allowed to enjoy the game as you see fit.
Why is it so difficult for you to offer me the same design courtesy? Why do you feel the need to socialize my ability to help my team through whatever means I enjoy?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's a double-edged sword, and you made the mistake of using that as your argument. So why should solo players be more burden than benefit? Answer? Why the hell not? Natural selection 2 is a blank slate right now and can be made in any way. If I had to choose whether natural selection 2 was going to be heavily teamwork-based or a bunch of players doing the minimal possible to follow comm orders, I think I'm going to pick the heavily teamwork-based, sorry to the rest of you.
As much as you might think soloing should be not only allowed but even encouraged, I only ask if this is what the original purpose of the game was supposed to be about? I seriously think not. Lets not kid ourselves here. Soloing is the opposite of teamwork in every respect. If you had killed yourself after every time you spawn, I don't think it would be any less teamwork than soloing.
So I ask again, which would you prefer? Teamwork or deathmatch? It's my personal impression that teamwork is an evolution of deathmatch and that it's easy to have a deathmatch game. More difficult to have a teamwork game, because you can't do it simply by preventing friendly fire amongst those of the same team. As Zek himself said, "Teamwork is bred out of necessity," which couldn't be more true in my opinion. Though if you insist deathmatch is more your style, you're welcome to argue that.
Soloing is the opposite of teamwork in every respect. If you had killed yourself after every time you spawn, I don't think it would be any less teamwork than soloing.
So I ask again, which would you prefer? Teamwork or deathmatch? It's my personal impression that teamwork is an evolution of deathmatch and that it's easy to have a deathmatch game. More difficult to have a teamwork game, because you can't do it simply by preventing friendly fire amongst those of the same team. As Zek himself said, "Teamwork is bred out of necessity," which couldn't be more true in my opinion. Though if you insist deathmatch is more your style, you're welcome to argue that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you had killed yourself every time you spawn, you would not be contributing anything to your team. I guess it comes down <i>yet again</i> to how you define teamwork - it seems like the idea proposed here is that marines have to stick together, live as a team, die as a team, etc. etc. This is teamwork as humping your teammates and surviving based on their survival - if your teammates happen to be bad at the game, I guess you're out of luck too then.
I'm going to use the same argument strategy used by Zek - but in that <i>many</i> people <u>don't</u> like the idea of a game that relies heavily on teamwork. I mean, look at everyone who <i>isn't</i> playing L4D, and is playing more death-match-like games like CS - that's proof right there for you that death-match is better for sales. Look at all the stat ######s in these games - they represent an excellent market opportunity. Therefore, we should convert NS2 to be more like CS, since that is what <i>many</i> people like. If it is more difficult to have a teamwork game than a death-match game, then more people are apt to enjoy death-match elements than teamwork elements.
If you don't agree with my line of reasoning - that's too bad, because that's what I think is best for the game and we have a difference in opinion that cannot be resolved by any rational argumentation.
Of course, I don't actually think this way, but the lesson here is that the debate topic isn't <b>black and white</b> for death-match OR team-work.. we have a blend of it in NS and the same is true in most games that are not pure death-match (like free-for-all in Quake or WoW plugin servers in CS). This is a poorly defined topic with poorly defined arguments.