<!--quoteo(post=1697296:date=Jan 7 2009, 05:57 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 7 2009, 05:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697296"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I always just felt that the skulk just needed a little buff considering they are a defensive class at hive 1. What I mean by buff is simply some more armor or HP, and just a slight amount to increase the skulk value. Another way to buff skulks are to increase respawn times, but I think that would be too drastic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you think it's just not right for a hive 1 defensive class to be so fragile? How is that different from "ridiculousness" again? And in what way does buffing skulks not restrict play? Every buff substantial enough to change gameplay results in reduced effectiveness of some strategies and increased effectiveness of others. Stronger skulks means increased risk for rambos which makes that strategy less viable.
<!--quoteo(post=1697309:date=Jan 7 2009, 08:08 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 7 2009, 08:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697309"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So you think it's just not right for a hive 1 defensive class to be so fragile? How is that different from "ridiculousness" again? And in what way does buffing skulks not restrict play? Every buff substantial enough to change gameplay results in reduced effectiveness of some strategies and increased effectiveness of others. Stronger skulks means increased risk for rambos which makes that strategy less viable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, I wlll elaborate
First, Skulks aren't terrible the way they are, if they went unchanged that would be fine. But there are several factors to consider why buffing skulks could be justified.
1. Hive 1 are a defensive class. Meaning that skulks outside bhop pretty much have to ambush in order to get kills. A slight buff would help the transition to hive 2.
2. A follow up to point 1 is that skulks really have no offensive power, if a skulk had to charge head on, some extra health would help a skulk close the gap.
Again, this is something that would be nice, but not required. It has nothing to do with "Ridiculous" or "not the way its supposed to be". A buff would be nice, but it is not necessary.
It won't revolutionize, or restrict gameplay, but just give the hive 1 skulk some additional options.
<!--quoteo(post=1697314:date=Jan 7 2009, 09:27 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 7 2009, 09:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697314"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ok, I wlll elaborate
First, Skulks aren't terrible the way they are, if they went unchanged that would be fine. But there are several factors to consider why buffing skulks could be justified.
1. Hive 1 are a defensive class. Meaning that skulks outside bhop pretty much have to ambush in order to get kills. A slight buff would help the transition to hive 2.
2. A follow up to point 1 is that skulks really have no offensive power, if a skulk had to charge head on, some extra health would help a skulk close the gap.
Again, this is something that would be nice, but not required. It has nothing to do with "Ridiculous" or "not the way its supposed to be". A buff would be nice, but it is not necessary.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well you're implying that skulks having to ambush in order to get kills at hive 1 isn't the way it's supposed to be, which is entirely a matter of opinion. Personally I think not being able to win a fair fight makes them a much more interesting class. If anything the problem with the transition to hive 2 is that marines become increasingly impervious to ambushes with armor upgrades and guns, which IMHO is a design flaw itself.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It won't revolutionize, or restrict gameplay, but just give the hive 1 skulk some additional options.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It makes them flat out more likely to win in every situation. Every buff is an indirect nerf to the other team, and every nerf restricts gameplay.
<!--quoteo(post=1697316:date=Jan 7 2009, 10:25 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 7 2009, 10:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697316"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well you're implying that skulks having to ambush in order to get kills at hive 1 isn't the way it's supposed to be, which is entirely a matter of opinion. Personally I think not being able to win a fair fight makes them a much more interesting class. If anything the problem with the transition to hive 2 is that marines become increasingly impervious to ambushes with armor upgrades and guns, which IMHO is a design flaw itself.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What I am stating is that Marines can create conflict, skulks that don't bhop have to wait for conflict to come near them (unless of course the marines are really bad).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It makes them flat out more likely to win in every situation. Every buff is an indirect nerf to the other team, and every nerf restricts gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A slight health boost doesn't make them more likely win in every situation. I'm talking maybe an additional 10 health points. This nerf does not restrict gameplay.
I mean I get what you are trying to do. Trying to reverse my argument against me because you feel I am using similar logic to your "reasons" why rambos should minimized.
Its two different scenarios. I'm talking about a simple HP tweak, you are talking about drastic gameplay changes because you feel that rambos are a problem (only if the aliens suck).
It was a good try, I was going to tell you earlier, but I didn't think that you would take it that far. Sorry to disappoint.
<!--quoteo(post=1697319:date=Jan 7 2009, 10:43 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 7 2009, 10:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697319"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What I am stating is that Marines can create conflict, skulks that don't bhop have to wait for conflict to come near them (unless of course the marines are really bad).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, and that's part of the asymmetry of the teams. That's why skulks have easy and fast map access while marines have to slowly roam outwards from their base.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A slight health boost doesn't make them more likely win in every situation. I'm talking maybe an additional 10 health points. This nerf does not restrict gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course it does, at least in every situation where they take damage. Ambush or rushing, solo or group, the deciding factor of every fight is HP. More HP = better chance of winning. And by making skulk fights more difficult for the marines you restrict their gameplay because the risks of certain strats, such as ramboing, may become prohibitive.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I mean I get what you are trying to do. Trying to reverse my argument against me because you feel I am using similar logic to your "reasons" why rambos should minimized.
Its two different scenarios. I'm talking about a simple HP tweak, you are talking about drastic gameplay changes because you feel that rambos are a problem (only if the aliens suck).
It was a good try, I was going to tell you earlier, but I didn't think that you would take it that far. Sorry to disappoint.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's completely the same thing except in scope. We both have an opinion of how the game should play and think that changes should be made towards that, and your idea isn't any more noble-minded than mine. I happen to think that mine is closer to the intended mechanics of the original game - I don't expect players to concern themselves with that when they're playing a finished game, but it's certainly relevant in discussing the game design of a sequel. And in either case, NS2 is making so many significant changes that it seems silly to talk about tiny number tweaks, now's the time to set the design goals and the details can be worked out later.
We already established that ramboing(defined IMHO as marines operating solo on the field, even if it is doing the comm's errands) is a tactic employed even in the highest level scrims, and it happens even more often in pubs(aka 99% of games) of all skill levels. Obviously there will always be behavioral problems with bad players doing it when they shouldn't, which I think is a separate issue that can also be addressed in more subtle ways than the OP suggested, but my problem is with how effective it is, especially in balanced games.
<!--quoteo(post=1697327:date=Jan 8 2009, 07:38 AM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 8 2009, 07:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697327"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We both have an opinion of how the game should play and think that changes should be made towards that, and your idea isn't any more noble-minded than mine. I happen to think that mine is closer to the intended mechanics of the original game - I don't expect players to concern themselves with that when they're playing a finished game, but it's certainly relevant in discussing the game design of a sequel.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What makes your idea closer to the intented? I have absolutely no clue how the devs have intented the present system. I like it because it's flexible, rewarding and creative here and there, but I haven't seen any comments from the devs on how they would change the game if the had the time, resoucres and modifiable game build.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We already established that ramboing(defined IMHO as marines operating solo on the field, even if it is doing the comm's errands) is a tactic employed even in the highest level scrims, and it happens even more often in pubs(aka 99% of games) of all skill levels. Obviously there will always be behavioral problems with bad players doing it when they shouldn't, which I think is a separate issue that can also be addressed in more subtle ways than the OP suggested, but my problem is with how effective it is, especially in balanced games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I thought we've concluded that it isn't that effective in balanced games. It's a strategy and it's enforced by the situation here and there, but it definitely isn't something instantly effective. Sometimes it's a good idea to have one guy somewhere, but that's all part of the strategy. I've lost way more games because of spread out marines than won because of them.
The problem is that some people are way above the rest in individual skill. Whether they should have such a big effect on outcome, whether they should be playing on the same servers with the usual players and whether it's a learning curve issue are much more open for discussion if you ask me.
<!--quoteo(post=1697329:date=Jan 8 2009, 04:03 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bacillus @ Jan 8 2009, 04:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697329"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What makes your idea closer to the intented? I have absolutely no clue how the devs have intented the present system. I like it because it's flexible, rewarding and creative here and there, but I haven't seen any comments from the devs on how they would change the game if the had the time, resoucres and modifiable game build.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Mostly speculation based on the marine team description, it's not like the devs have made an official statement either way.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I thought we've concluded that it isn't that effective in balanced games. It's a strategy and it's enforced by the situation here and there, but it definitely isn't something instantly effective. Sometimes it's a good idea to have one guy somewhere, but that's all part of the strategy. I've lost way more games because of spread out marines than won because of them.
The problem is that some people are way above the rest in individual skill. Whether they should have such a big effect on outcome, whether they should be playing on the same servers with the usual players and whether it's a learning curve issue are much more open for discussion if you ask me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The fact that even high level teams seriously consider it as a strategy means it's at least relatively effective, and it certainly happens a lot in pubs given that even a small skill advantage on the part of the marine is enough to reliably counter skulk ambushes. Besides, if it's not an effective a strategy in even games then all the more reason that losing it won't be an issue for competitive teams. I say a marine wandering around alone being ambushed by a prepared skulk should be an encounter that's massively in favor of the skulk, moreso than just "if they're even the skulk has the upper hand." IMHO the skulk should win if he knows what he's doing and doesn't screw up. I don't think the right of competitive players to pubstomp is important enough to overrule real pub gameplay.
<!--quoteo(post=1697327:date=Jan 8 2009, 02:38 AM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 8 2009, 02:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697327"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah, and that's part of the asymmetry of the teams. That's why skulks have easy and fast map access while marines have to slowly roam outwards from their base.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That asymmetrical portion of the game is what costs most aliens victory.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Of course it does, at least in every situation where they take damage. Ambush or rushing, solo or group, the deciding factor of every fight is HP. More HP = better chance of winning.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope, only the early game. The 10 extra HP will not help in every fight. Especially considering upgraded weapons, as well as Shotguns, HMGs, and GLs. It would only vs LMGs and pistols. Shotgun/HMG can do more damage and the time at the extra 10hp would add would be neglible to those wielding those weapons.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And by making skulk fights more difficult for the marines you restrict their gameplay because the risks of certain strats, such as ramboing, may become prohibitive. It's completely the same thing except in scope. We both have an opinion of how the game should play and think that changes should be made towards that, and your idea isn't any more noble-minded than mine. I happen to think that mine is closer to the intended mechanics of the original game - I don't expect players to concern themselves with that when they're playing a finished game, but it's certainly relevant in discussing the game design of a sequel. And in either case, NS2 is making so many significant changes that it seems silly to talk about tiny number tweaks, now's the time to set the design goals and the details can be worked out later.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope again, sorry. Buffing skulk HP does not mean that marines cannot still go off on their own. I mean I appreciate the kind lawyering you are trying to do, but Its getting really far fetched to the point where I don't even think you want to convince others of your side of the argument, you just want to disprove mine.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We already established that ramboing(defined IMHO as marines operating solo on the field, even if it is doing the comm's errands) is a tactic employed even in the highest level scrims, and it happens even more often in pubs(aka 99% of games) of all skill levels. Obviously there will always be behavioral problems with bad players doing it when they shouldn't, which I think is a separate issue that can also be addressed in more subtle ways than the OP suggested, but my problem is with how effective it is, especially in balanced games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Solo play is effective in certain stages of the game. Once the aliens get a lerk (common in both pub and competitive play) a solo player's effectiveness drops based on how well that lerk is used in conjunction with other assets on the team. Marine's solo play is usually based on what kind of alien tech they are fighting.
Again, solo marines are only a problem for those who cannot fight well 1v1 or cannot for some reason get a team of players together to assault the solo player.
<!--quoteo(post=1697349:date=Jan 8 2009, 05:00 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 8 2009, 05:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697349"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That asymmetrical portion of the game is what costs most aliens victory.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's also what costs most marines victory. If only they could leap and regenerate HP...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nope, only the early game. The 10 extra HP will not help in every fight. Especially considering upgraded weapons, as well as Shotguns, HMGs, and GLs. It would only vs LMGs and pistols. Shotgun/HMG can do more damage and the time at the extra 10hp would add would be neglible to those wielding those weapons.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Negligible perhaps, but it has an impact. 10 HP could still lead to them surviving an extra HMG bullet or shotty blast even in the endgame, which could in turn cause the marine to lose or at least take another bite. I don't really see why you're disputing this.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nope again, sorry. Buffing skulk HP does not mean that marines cannot still go off on their own. I mean I appreciate the kind lawyering you are trying to do, but Its getting really far fetched to the point where I don't even think you want to convince others of your side of the argument, you just want to disprove mine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It means that the odds are stacked against lone marines more than they were before, which could well push the risk over the edge to the point that it's not a feasible strategy anymore. I didn't say it would have the same impact, but it does restrict play just like any other buff or nerf would. Every time the developers make any effort at game balance, it restricts play - which is the point I was trying to make before, game design in and of itself is inherently about restricting players to a certain type of gameplay. The competitive community may have worked hard to establish what the best strategies are, but the result of that was determined entirely by the game balance created by the developers in an attempt to control gameplay. Even sports have rules that are decided by a committee for a specific purpose.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Solo play is effective in certain stages of the game. Once the aliens get a lerk (common in both pub and competitive play) a solo player's effectiveness drops based on how well that lerk is used in conjunction with other assets on the team. Marine's solo play is usually based on what kind of alien tech they are fighting.
Again, solo marines are only a problem for those who cannot fight well 1v1 or cannot for some reason get a team of players together to assault the solo player.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Are you honestly telling me that you've never executed a perfect ambush as a skulk on an LMG marine and been defeated anyway? Having to get a team of aliens together to reliably topple a lone marine is a problem in and of itself. A Lerk has a tech advantage over a lone vanilla marine, of course he should win, but even then you're still talking about a combined team effort to beat a marine who is playing alone.
<!--quoteo(post=1697350:date=Jan 8 2009, 05:35 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 8 2009, 05:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697350"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's also what costs most marines victory. If only they could leap and regenerate HP...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah and if aliens could have access to HMGs and shotguns they would win a lot more as well. Hive 1 skulks are not on an even kiel with vanilla marines. Asymmetrical or not is irrelevant. To achieve proper balance, both teams need to be able to go on the offensive in the beginning. In this case (outside of bhopping) skulks pretty much have to ambush.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Negligible perhaps, but it has an impact. 10 HP could still lead to them surviving an extra HMG bullet or shotty blast even in the endgame, which could in turn cause the marine to lose or at least take another bite. I don't really see why you're disputing this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When does a skulk EVER survive an extra shotgun blast? You cannot be serious with your argument.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It means that the odds are stacked against lone marines more than they were before, which could well push the risk over the edge to the point that it's not a feasible strategy anymore. I didn't say it would have the same impact, but it does restrict play just like any other buff or nerf would. Every time the developers make any effort at game balance, it restricts play - which is the point I was trying to make before, game design in and of itself is inherently about restricting players to a certain type of gameplay. The competitive community may have worked hard to establish what the best strategies are, but the result of that was determined entirely by the game balance created by the developers in an attempt to control gameplay. Even sports have rules that are decided by a committee for a specific purpose. Are you honestly telling me that you've never executed a perfect ambush as a skulk on an LMG marine and been defeated anyway? Having to get a team of aliens together to reliably topple a lone marine is a problem in and of itself. A Lerk has a tech advantage over a lone vanilla marine, of course he should win, but even then you're still talking about a combined team effort to beat a marine who is playing alone.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
An extra 10 hp will not discourage rambo, and may have minimal impact on it if at all. However, it DOES NOT restrict play. Our arguments are NOT equal.
As for the perfect ambush, I define the effectiveness of an ambush by whether or not the skulk achieves success or not. If I get the kill it was a good ambush, and if I don't, it was a bad ambush.
Players who think they are doing ambushs perfectly and still get rolled, need to seriously re-evaluate their definition of "perfect ambush".
<!--quoteo(post=1697366:date=Jan 8 2009, 09:15 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 8 2009, 09:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697366"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah and if aliens could have access to HMGs and shotguns they would win a lot more as well. Hive 1 skulks are not on an even kiel with vanilla marines. Asymmetrical or not is irrelevant. <u>To achieve proper balance, both teams need to be able to go on the offensive in the beginning.</u> In this case (outside of bhopping) skulks pretty much have to ambush.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't think that's true at all. Neither team is easily capable of ending the game in five minutes, but they can both be beaten if they all die elsewhere and are spawncamped. In the early game marines are offense and aliens are defense, why don't you think that can be balanced? There are many games with balanced offense/defense scenarios. When aliens need to assault a position in the early game, it's because they already failed at their chance to defend that position - skulks have first dibs to every node on the map besides the ones immediately outside marine spawn. And all they really need to do is hold a hive room and an extra node, and they're in good shape. Even if they blow it, as long as they're not getting completely wrecked they'll live to get a Fade and have a chance to fight back before marines tech too much. I think you're greatly exaggerating the need for symmetric teams to achieve balance. The vanilla units don't need to be on an even kiel with eachother directly, as long as the other ways in which the teams differ make up for it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When does a skulk EVER survive an extra shotgun blast? You cannot be serious with your argument.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Uh, when it's not a direct hit? That less-than-perfect shotgun blast which would have one-shotted a skulk anyway before will now spare him, buying him a lot more time before the second shot. Every little bit counts, high tech or not.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->An extra 10 hp will not discourage rambo, and may have minimal impact on it if at all. However, it DOES NOT restrict play. Our arguments are NOT equal.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wherever the impact on the game may be, it will have one, otherwise you wouldn't have suggested it. The greater the risk marines face in combat, the fewer their viable options are. Every change to the game balance restricts play one way or another. Doing it in little babysteps doesn't change that. In any case, we're not talking about changing NS, we're talking about NS2. How is it productive to discuss tiny balance tweaks when the whole game is being turned on its head in ways we don't even know about yet?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for the perfect ambush, I define the effectiveness of an ambush by whether or not the skulk achieves success or not. If I get the kill it was a good ambush, and if I don't, it was a bad ambush.
Players who think they are doing ambushs perfectly and still get rolled, need to seriously re-evaluate their definition of "perfect ambush"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's nonsense. Do the alien players get progressively worse at ambushing as the marines get more upgrades? Of course not, well-executed ambushes simply become less likely to succeed. There's only so much a skulk can do right in an ambush, the rest is up to the victim. There's an element of luck in which way he's facing as he enters, and then if his reflexes and aim are good enough he has a pretty solid chance at beating an ambush by the best skulk in the world. The way things are, it's the marine's fight to lose.
<!--quoteo(post=1697345:date=Jan 8 2009, 08:44 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 8 2009, 08:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697345"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The fact that even high level teams seriously consider it as a strategy means it's at least relatively effective<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Let's clear this one up. High level teams are mostly able to use lone marines because they've got the advantage of organising the whole gameplay. Lone marine is never effective itself. Combine it with a 2-4 man pressure push and/or some marines positioned on chokepoints and you might be able to cap a node or get a pg up, but that's definitely something you're doing because of the teamwork is used to control the map and distract the alien team. That's more advanced teamwork than just sticking on a group and playing for the squad only if you ask me.
<!--quoteo(post=1697369:date=Jan 8 2009, 11:57 PM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bacillus @ Jan 8 2009, 11:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697369"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Let's clear this one up. High level teams are mostly able to use lone marines because they've got the advantage of organising the whole gameplay. Lone marine is never effective itself. Combine it with a 2-4 man pressure push and/or some marines positioned on chokepoints and you might be able to cap a node or get a pg up, but that's definitely something you're doing because of the teamwork is used to control the map and distract the alien team. That's more advanced teamwork than just sticking on a group and playing for the squad only if you ask me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's not the same kind of teamwork, but I didn't say it was easy against top notch aliens. I don't think using a lone marine should be impossible provided you're sure nobody will hassle him, but one free skulk should be enough to reliably counter it, and right now it just isn't. We're talking mainly about the early game btw, things change with hive 2 and higher tech. In any case, I made the suggestion for the sake of public play and not competitive, so I won't say it's necessarily an improvement.
<!--quoteo(post=1697371:date=Jan 9 2009, 07:19 AM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 9 2009, 07:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697371"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think using a lone marine should be impossible provided you're sure nobody will hassle him, but one free skulk should be enough to reliably counter it, <u>and right now it just isn't.</u><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> what
this is drivel<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You tell me then, what can a single ambushing skulk do to ensure a kill against a marine with great aim who knows how to evade and knows the ambush spots? The skulk's aim and technique only matters up to a certain point, after that you're just praying the marine isn't quick enough, especially with armor 1. At best the skulk has the upper hand but it's not reliable, and that's given equal skill which is only half the problem.
<!--quoteo(post=1697441:date=Jan 10 2009, 09:02 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 10 2009, 09:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697441"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You tell me then, what can a single ambushing skulk do to ensure a kill against a marine with great aim who knows how to evade and knows the ambush spots? The skulk's aim and technique only matters up to a certain point, after that you're just praying the marine isn't quick enough, especially with armor 1. At best the skulk has the upper hand but it's not reliable, and that's given equal skill which is only half the problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If a marine is capping a node, you wait for him to hit E, then wait, wait for him to hit E again, wait again and then attack him the next time he hits E. By the time he gets his gun out, you will already have a bite on him. If the marine is not capping, you bait him into a gorge/lerk/bad teammate and kill him when he's low on ammo.
Your advantage will be so great that if you don't miss/delay any bites, you will surely win. Try to bite downwards to prevent knockback.
<!--quoteo(post=1697444:date=Jan 10 2009, 04:55 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Jan 10 2009, 04:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697444"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If a marine is capping a node, you wait for him to hit E, then wait, wait for him to hit E again, wait again and then attack him the next time he hits E. By the time he gets his gun out, you will already have a bite on him.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Depends entirely on his distance from the nearest entrance. And already having a bite on him is not always enough to win.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If the marine is not capping, you bait him into a gorge/lerk/bad teammate and kill him when he's low on ammo.
Your advantage will be so great that if you don't miss/delay any bites, you will surely win. Try to bite downwards to prevent knockback.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Did I not specifically say "one skulk"? I meant "one alien who is a skulk," if it wasn't clear.
<!--quoteo(post=1697441:date=Jan 10 2009, 04:02 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 10 2009, 04:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697441"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You tell me then, what can a single ambushing skulk do to ensure a kill against a marine with great aim who knows how to evade and knows the ambush spots? The skulk's aim and technique only matters up to a certain point, after that you're just praying the marine isn't quick enough, especially with armor 1. At best the skulk has the upper hand but it's not reliable, and that's given equal skill which is only half the problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wouldn't that be all the reason to give the skulks some more offensive capability in the early game like I suggested earlier? Or are you still sticking with your "Skulks can move around the map fast" defense.
A perfect ambush doesn't necessarily result in killing your target. If you do everything within your abilities as a skulk with the intelligence you know to plan an ambush and still die, it wasn't because you didn't do something right. Believe it or not, a lmg marine can still die from an onos despite his exceptional playing skill, and it isn't because he screwed something up but because your opponent outmatched you. However, an lmg marine dying from an onos is balanced. A skulk dying from executing a perfect ambush is not.
Of course there are no such things as perfect ambushes and perfect playing, so we must look at your average case, and on an average basis, I can kill an ambushing skulk more than half the time with no more warning than the knowledge that a room may have good ambush spots and the first bite or walking of a skulk trying to ambush. I'm a skilled player, but I'm no elite. The fact that I can do this is not a testament that I'm some gaming god, but rather that balanced is a little skewed.
I won't get into the details on higher classes and upgrades as far as balanced is concerned, but one thing should be sure: the base lifeform alien should be able to kill a base marine in an ambush situation <b>*most*</b> of the time, and likewise that same base marine should be able to kill a base lifeform alien playing cautious and covering distance between a possible assault in hallways or whatnot <b>*most*</b> of the time.
<!--quoteo(post=1697512:date=Jan 11 2009, 07:11 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Firewater @ Jan 11 2009, 07:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697512"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wouldn't that be all the reason to give the skulks some more offensive capability in the early game like I suggested earlier? Or are you still sticking with your "Skulks can move around the map fast" defense.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your suggestion was specifically targeted at making skulks not have to ambush so much, which to me is really backwards. Make them as good at ambushing as they should be, and nerf their direct combat if necessary to make that balanced. If they're not moving around the map fast enough, fine, make them faster. Maybe it's Skulks that should have the non-combat sprinting like was discussed for marines.
<!--quoteo(post=1697371:date=Jan 8 2009, 11:19 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zek @ Jan 8 2009, 11:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697371"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think using a lone marine should be impossible provided you're sure nobody will hassle him, but one free skulk should be enough to reliably counter it, and right now it just isn't.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think it makes perfect sense to have aliens constantly shifting about to overwhelm separate groups of marines. How do you propose to even maintain balance when the baseline alien is equal to one marine, and higher lifeforms are able to counter multiple well-equipped marines? Not only will the sum of alien combat power be larger than that of the marines, they will be able to redistribute it around the map faster.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Believe it or not, a lmg marine can still die from an onos despite his exceptional playing skill, and it isn't because he screwed something up but because your opponent outmatched you. However, an lmg marine dying from an onos is balanced. A skulk dying from executing a perfect ambush is not.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, and an onos costs 75 res, whereas a skulk costs 0. Marines don't always win when a skulk bhops straight in, why should skulks always win when they ambush? If a marine gets 12 res of medpacks, why shouldn't he win the encounter?
<!--quoteo(post=1697558:date=Jan 12 2009, 06:40 PM:name=Underwhelmed)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Underwhelmed @ Jan 12 2009, 06:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697558"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think it makes perfect sense to have aliens constantly shifting about to overwhelm separate groups of marines. How do you propose to even maintain balance when the baseline alien is equal to one marine, and higher lifeforms are able to counter multiple well-equipped marines? Not only will the sum of alien combat power be larger than that of the marines, they will be able to redistribute it around the map faster. Yes, and an onos costs 75 res, whereas a skulk costs 0. Marines don't always win when a skulk bhops straight in, why should skulks always win when they ambush? If a marine gets 12 res of medpacks, why shouldn't he win the encounter?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because of the concepts of "It shouldn't be that way" and "Ridiculousness". Two thesis statements while used to support "logic" are not adequately explained (at least rationally) to the point where they could be considered rational. They are based on flawed and skewed perceptions of gameplay that do not appear to correspond with reality.
<!--quoteo(post=1697558:date=Jan 12 2009, 06:40 PM:name=Underwhelmed)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Underwhelmed @ Jan 12 2009, 06:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697558"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think it makes perfect sense to have aliens constantly shifting about to overwhelm separate groups of marines. How do you propose to even maintain balance when the baseline alien is equal to one marine, and higher lifeforms are able to counter multiple well-equipped marines? Not only will the sum of alien combat power be larger than that of the marines, they will be able to redistribute it around the map faster.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm proposing that the skulk's 1v1 advantage be situational, i.e. only in an ambush. As long as the marines aren't fighting higher lifeforms and walking into ambushes at the same time, they can focus on one or the other. Skulks would actually be less capable of contributing to Fade/Onos fights than they are now.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, and an onos costs 75 res, whereas a skulk costs 0. Marines don't always win when a skulk bhops straight in, why should skulks always win when they ambush? If a marine gets 12 res of medpacks, why shouldn't he win the encounter?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Medpacks are another issue since then you're still causing significant damage to the team even if you die, and the alien comm may be able to do something similar, that much remains to be seen.
Zek the problem you're referencing lies deeper in the game than ambushing.
Natural-Selection, despite its many excellent mechanics, has competitive gameplay that functions on transactional combat. What this means in nonradixism is that you don't have any opportunity to defend against any attack, ever. One exception to this is spit (projectile weapons allow dodging) but in no case can a player actually stop an attack as it executes on his model.
Contrast this with fighting games where you have the opportunity to momentarily remove your hitbox from the game (similar to how Breeze skulks) or block attacks via reflexes.
Games that function on this form of interactual skill instead of transactional (the way NS is now) are vastly superior in terms of the finesse and depth of small-scale combat. There's no reason to implement transactional combat anymore except bad habits from legacy games.
<!--quoteo(post=1697571:date=Jan 12 2009, 10:30 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jan 12 2009, 10:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697571"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Zek the problem you're referencing lies deeper in the game than ambushing.
Natural-Selection, despite its many excellent mechanics, has competitive gameplay that functions on transactional combat. What this means in nonradixism is that you don't have any opportunity to defend against any attack, ever. One exception to this is spit (projectile weapons allow dodging) but in no case can a player actually stop an attack as it executes on his model.
Contrast this with fighting games where you have the opportunity to momentarily remove your hitbox from the game (similar to how Breeze skulks) or block attacks via reflexes.
Games that function on this form of interactual skill instead of transactional (the way NS is now) are vastly superior in terms of the finesse and depth of small-scale combat. There's no reason to implement transactional combat anymore except bad habits from legacy games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not only is this an FPS and not a fighting game, but it's an FPS/RTS which means it's even further removed from the type of pure twitch contest you're talking about. The twitch contest exists within the framework of the overarching RTS structure that dictates the flow of the game. This is most obvious in huge tech gaps like LMG Marine vs. Onos, but it also applies to tactical situations like walking into a prepared ambush with no backup. That's a strategic blunder that should be punished as long as the other player is skilled enough to follow through on his end.
Also I really don't see what that has to do with the problem I'm referencing. Skulk ambushing could easily be fixed without reinventing the genre.
There does not need to be additional punishment to marines for ramboing.
In NS1, a solo marine (compared with a pair of marines) is disadvantaged in these ways:
1. More easily parasited (this is because there are fewer marines to pistol distant skulks). 2. More easily ambushed (no one to watch his back). 3. He cannot easily solo build rts and phasegates (this is because his gun vanishes while he does so). 4. He cannot weld himself. 5. He takes a large risk when reloading, as he has no team mate to cover. 6. He is very, very vulnerable to lerks (gas -> bite).
And finally, a rambo marine will get absolutely dominated once fades arrive - especially if the skulks are effectively parasiting.
Futhermore the argument that skulks =/= marines is not a problem. A skulk cannot be compared directly with a marine. The team effort of skulks, lerks, gorges and fades must be considered against the marine team as a whole.
As a solution to the 'bad aliens don't ambush well problem', put in a hint system after each death. So after each death, a player is given a hint such as: "try to ambush marines from doorways or vents" or "marines, remember to check for ambushes". This hint system would help players to learn the game without bothering to read the manual. Of course, it could be turned off (just like cl_autohelp 0).
tldr;
There is no rambo problem in ns. A hint while respawning might be a good idea.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think using a lone marine should be impossible provided you're sure nobody will hassle him, but one free skulk should be enough to reliably counter it, and right now it just isn't.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think it makes perfect sense to have aliens constantly shifting about to overwhelm separate groups of marines. How do you propose to even maintain balance when the baseline alien is equal to one marine, and higher lifeforms are able to counter multiple well-equipped marines? Not only will the sum of alien combat power be larger than that of the marines, they will be able to redistribute it around the map faster.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok, firstly, you're proposing that one skulk should not be equal to one marine? What kind of twisted sense of balance is that? If it weren't that way, in the early game, one side would always win due to sheer numbers. Make no mistake, this is the center by which balance revolves around. The base marine and base alien should kill and be killed on a 1 to 1 ratio. Higher alien life forms should likewise be countered equally (but not necessarily symmetrically) by certain higher marine upgrades (weapons, armor, etc.). Ideally, the resource cost of a weapon should have value equal to the amount of resources used to produce the average threat by the alien team. Of course that's strictly theoretical, but that's also the basis by which balance is determined.
Secondly, Zek mentioned nothing about higher life forms. You assume a 1 to 1 ratio with skulks vs marines means higher aliens can take out herds of marines at a time, which I don't even believe Zek implied in some way. The same rules apply here. Several marines should kill single higher alien life forms. It should be that way, and it should be the basis by which marines attack for that reason. "Oh noes! How will aliens counter this 1337ness!?!?!111" Simple. Aliens attack in groups as well. Thus you have the foundation for a <i>team</i> based play rather than going around killing.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, and an onos costs 75 res, whereas a skulk costs 0. Marines don't always win when a skulk bhops straight in, why should skulks always win when they ambush? If a marine gets 12 res of medpacks, why shouldn't he win the encounter?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> First, I never said "always win." You cannot possibly execute a perfect ambush, because of course perfect is impossible to obtain. We're again talking about the general case, because for the purposes of practicality, I can't take you into a natural selection game and demonstrate a thousand times that statistically skilled marine players don't die from ambushes more often than not. Even if you might have seen a skilled player die of an ambush in your entire time playing natural selection, that doesn't mean squat as we're talking about the normal trend.
Secondly, you want to add commander into the equation? Why shouldn't two players take out an alien? Why shouldn't five players take out an alien? Of course they can. Of course they should. That's the whole idea. If we're talking about a rambo player, we're talking about a player by definition alone and not getting med pack spams as if the success of a lone rambo with an alien were a matter of winning the game. Don't change the scenario.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because of the concepts of "It shouldn't be that way" and "Ridiculousness". Two thesis statements while used to support "logic" are not adequately explained (at least rationally) to the point where they could be considered rational. They are based on flawed and skewed perceptions of gameplay that do not appear to correspond with reality.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I fail to see the logic in "natural selection is fine the way it is." You're basing most of your arguments, and a few of your tasteless insults on the fact that natural selection 2 should be left "as is" when we don't even know what "as is" is. The rules of natural selection 2 have not been defined yet, and "leave it as it is" cannot possibly apply here. As far as you know, unknown worlds is taking steps to ensure Natural Selection 2 is more team-friendly, which would mean you'd have to explain why rambos *should* be in the game, and if "natural selection is fine the way it is" doesn't work, what will your argument be?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In NS1, a solo marine (compared with a pair of marines) is disadvantaged in these ways: ...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Then I ask, why aren't they so frequent? You tell me? Go into observer mode sometime and follow the marine in top position for a while. If you're honest, you'd notice that more often than not, he doesn't organize teams to attack the aliens. Rather, he grabs a couple extra rounds of ammo and goes bunny hopping off to resource nodes or gorge building sites. If he discovers other marines, he rarely follows them unless it happens to be where he was going, and in doing so, he's sure to use the one in front like a meat shield. Once he reaches his destination, he camps. To convince me that rambos are so worthless, you have to first demonstrate that nobody plays rambo (other than perhaps newbs). If it's not that way, it's for a very good reason. Natural Selection encourages ramboing. Whether that is a good thing is no doubt subject to opinion, but you can't deny facts.
I said that marines that solo are already heavily disadvantaged in NS1 (this is without the introduction of any additional Anti-Rambo system).
I didn't say that a good marine isn't capable of ramboing if he so chooses.
Are you proposing that a good marine shouldn't have an advantage over incompetent aliens? You are completely ignoring the skill factor of ns!
As for the one skulk should be equal to one marine: This argument is nonsense. Ns is a team game and a skillful game, therefore the team AS A WHOLE must be considered.
If you do not consider the speed of skulks (as well as fades and lerks) to be an advantage in map control, then we are clearly playing a different online game. For example, if I am a lerk, and my teammate parasites a marine near the hive (which may have taken a good 20-30 seconds walking), I will come and gas him, then bite him (taking about 5 seconds). The speed factor (as well as the synergistic nature of the alien team) MUST be considered in a debate about balance! One skulk should not be the perfect equal of one marine. If it were, aliens would NEVER lose!!!
Overall, there are plenty of reasons why working with a team mate is superior to ramboing in many situations. In some cases, a solo marine is more appropriate. Fundamentally, it is about choices and consequences. I like to be able to choose whether to follow a team-mate, or solo off on my own. I also understand that there are consequences as a result of my choices. I like it this way. There is no good reason for an Anti-Rambo feature in NS2 (no 'fear' feature etc).
<!--quoteo(post=1697684:date=Jan 14 2009, 04:50 PM:name=themeatshield)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(themeatshield @ Jan 14 2009, 04:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1697684"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Overall, there are plenty of reasons why working with a team mate is superior to ramboing in many situations. In some cases, a solo marine is more appropriate. Fundamentally, it is about choices and consequences. I like to be able to choose whether to follow a team-mate, or solo off on my own. I also understand that there are consequences as a result of my choices. I like it this way. There is no good reason for an Anti-Rambo feature in NS2 (no 'fear' feature etc).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree, choices are good. The question is about the consequences. I would argue that the current consequences for running around solo are insufficient. It's no different from all the other myriad of bad choices you can make in NS resulting in terrible consequences, just a small shift in what works and what doesn't. As for the reason, it's simply because it would make the marine team less arcadey and more about tactical action, and the aliens more independent rambo types, which reinforces the original asymmetric concepts of the teams.
Comments
So you think it's just not right for a hive 1 defensive class to be so fragile? How is that different from "ridiculousness" again? And in what way does buffing skulks not restrict play? Every buff substantial enough to change gameplay results in reduced effectiveness of some strategies and increased effectiveness of others. Stronger skulks means increased risk for rambos which makes that strategy less viable.
Ok, I wlll elaborate
First, Skulks aren't terrible the way they are, if they went unchanged that would be fine. But there are several factors to consider why buffing skulks could be justified.
1. Hive 1 are a defensive class. Meaning that skulks outside bhop pretty much have to ambush in order to get kills. A slight buff would help the transition to hive 2.
2. A follow up to point 1 is that skulks really have no offensive power, if a skulk had to charge head on, some extra health would help a skulk close the gap.
Again, this is something that would be nice, but not required. It has nothing to do with "Ridiculous" or "not the way its supposed to be". A buff would be nice, but it is not necessary.
It won't revolutionize, or restrict gameplay, but just give the hive 1 skulk some additional options.
First, Skulks aren't terrible the way they are, if they went unchanged that would be fine. But there are several factors to consider why buffing skulks could be justified.
1. Hive 1 are a defensive class. Meaning that skulks outside bhop pretty much have to ambush in order to get kills. A slight buff would help the transition to hive 2.
2. A follow up to point 1 is that skulks really have no offensive power, if a skulk had to charge head on, some extra health would help a skulk close the gap.
Again, this is something that would be nice, but not required. It has nothing to do with "Ridiculous" or "not the way its supposed to be". A buff would be nice, but it is not necessary.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well you're implying that skulks having to ambush in order to get kills at hive 1 isn't the way it's supposed to be, which is entirely a matter of opinion. Personally I think not being able to win a fair fight makes them a much more interesting class. If anything the problem with the transition to hive 2 is that marines become increasingly impervious to ambushes with armor upgrades and guns, which IMHO is a design flaw itself.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It won't revolutionize, or restrict gameplay, but just give the hive 1 skulk some additional options.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It makes them flat out more likely to win in every situation. Every buff is an indirect nerf to the other team, and every nerf restricts gameplay.
What I am stating is that Marines can create conflict, skulks that don't bhop have to wait for conflict to come near them (unless of course the marines are really bad).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It makes them flat out more likely to win in every situation. Every buff is an indirect nerf to the other team, and every nerf restricts gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A slight health boost doesn't make them more likely win in every situation. I'm talking maybe an additional 10 health points. This nerf does not restrict gameplay.
I mean I get what you are trying to do. Trying to reverse my argument against me because you feel I am using similar logic to your "reasons" why rambos should minimized.
Its two different scenarios. I'm talking about a simple HP tweak, you are talking about drastic gameplay changes because you feel that rambos are a problem (only if the aliens suck).
It was a good try, I was going to tell you earlier, but I didn't think that you would take it that far. Sorry to disappoint.
Yeah, and that's part of the asymmetry of the teams. That's why skulks have easy and fast map access while marines have to slowly roam outwards from their base.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A slight health boost doesn't make them more likely win in every situation. I'm talking maybe an additional 10 health points. This nerf does not restrict gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course it does, at least in every situation where they take damage. Ambush or rushing, solo or group, the deciding factor of every fight is HP. More HP = better chance of winning. And by making skulk fights more difficult for the marines you restrict their gameplay because the risks of certain strats, such as ramboing, may become prohibitive.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I mean I get what you are trying to do. Trying to reverse my argument against me because you feel I am using similar logic to your "reasons" why rambos should minimized.
Its two different scenarios. I'm talking about a simple HP tweak, you are talking about drastic gameplay changes because you feel that rambos are a problem (only if the aliens suck).
It was a good try, I was going to tell you earlier, but I didn't think that you would take it that far. Sorry to disappoint.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's completely the same thing except in scope. We both have an opinion of how the game should play and think that changes should be made towards that, and your idea isn't any more noble-minded than mine. I happen to think that mine is closer to the intended mechanics of the original game - I don't expect players to concern themselves with that when they're playing a finished game, but it's certainly relevant in discussing the game design of a sequel. And in either case, NS2 is making so many significant changes that it seems silly to talk about tiny number tweaks, now's the time to set the design goals and the details can be worked out later.
We already established that ramboing(defined IMHO as marines operating solo on the field, even if it is doing the comm's errands) is a tactic employed even in the highest level scrims, and it happens even more often in pubs(aka 99% of games) of all skill levels. Obviously there will always be behavioral problems with bad players doing it when they shouldn't, which I think is a separate issue that can also be addressed in more subtle ways than the OP suggested, but my problem is with how effective it is, especially in balanced games.
What makes your idea closer to the intented? I have absolutely no clue how the devs have intented the present system. I like it because it's flexible, rewarding and creative here and there, but I haven't seen any comments from the devs on how they would change the game if the had the time, resoucres and modifiable game build.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We already established that ramboing(defined IMHO as marines operating solo on the field, even if it is doing the comm's errands) is a tactic employed even in the highest level scrims, and it happens even more often in pubs(aka 99% of games) of all skill levels. Obviously there will always be behavioral problems with bad players doing it when they shouldn't, which I think is a separate issue that can also be addressed in more subtle ways than the OP suggested, but my problem is with how effective it is, especially in balanced games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought we've concluded that it isn't that effective in balanced games. It's a strategy and it's enforced by the situation here and there, but it definitely isn't something instantly effective. Sometimes it's a good idea to have one guy somewhere, but that's all part of the strategy. I've lost way more games because of spread out marines than won because of them.
The problem is that some people are way above the rest in individual skill. Whether they should have such a big effect on outcome, whether they should be playing on the same servers with the usual players and whether it's a learning curve issue are much more open for discussion if you ask me.
Mostly speculation based on the marine team description, it's not like the devs have made an official statement either way.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I thought we've concluded that it isn't that effective in balanced games. It's a strategy and it's enforced by the situation here and there, but it definitely isn't something instantly effective. Sometimes it's a good idea to have one guy somewhere, but that's all part of the strategy. I've lost way more games because of spread out marines than won because of them.
The problem is that some people are way above the rest in individual skill. Whether they should have such a big effect on outcome, whether they should be playing on the same servers with the usual players and whether it's a learning curve issue are much more open for discussion if you ask me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fact that even high level teams seriously consider it as a strategy means it's at least relatively effective, and it certainly happens a lot in pubs given that even a small skill advantage on the part of the marine is enough to reliably counter skulk ambushes. Besides, if it's not an effective a strategy in even games then all the more reason that losing it won't be an issue for competitive teams. I say a marine wandering around alone being ambushed by a prepared skulk should be an encounter that's massively in favor of the skulk, moreso than just "if they're even the skulk has the upper hand." IMHO the skulk should win if he knows what he's doing and doesn't screw up. I don't think the right of competitive players to pubstomp is important enough to overrule real pub gameplay.
That asymmetrical portion of the game is what costs most aliens victory.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Of course it does, at least in every situation where they take damage. Ambush or rushing, solo or group, the deciding factor of every fight is HP. More HP = better chance of winning.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope, only the early game. The 10 extra HP will not help in every fight. Especially considering upgraded weapons, as well as Shotguns, HMGs, and GLs. It would only vs LMGs and pistols. Shotgun/HMG can do more damage and the time at the extra 10hp would add would be neglible to those wielding those weapons.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And by making skulk fights more difficult for the marines you restrict their gameplay because the risks of certain strats, such as ramboing, may become prohibitive.
It's completely the same thing except in scope. We both have an opinion of how the game should play and think that changes should be made towards that, and your idea isn't any more noble-minded than mine. I happen to think that mine is closer to the intended mechanics of the original game - I don't expect players to concern themselves with that when they're playing a finished game, but it's certainly relevant in discussing the game design of a sequel. And in either case, NS2 is making so many significant changes that it seems silly to talk about tiny number tweaks, now's the time to set the design goals and the details can be worked out later.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope again, sorry. Buffing skulk HP does not mean that marines cannot still go off on their own. I mean I appreciate the kind lawyering you are trying to do, but Its getting really far fetched to the point where I don't even think you want to convince others of your side of the argument, you just want to disprove mine.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We already established that ramboing(defined IMHO as marines operating solo on the field, even if it is doing the comm's errands) is a tactic employed even in the highest level scrims, and it happens even more often in pubs(aka 99% of games) of all skill levels. Obviously there will always be behavioral problems with bad players doing it when they shouldn't, which I think is a separate issue that can also be addressed in more subtle ways than the OP suggested, but my problem is with how effective it is, especially in balanced games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Solo play is effective in certain stages of the game. Once the aliens get a lerk (common in both pub and competitive play) a solo player's effectiveness drops based on how well that lerk is used in conjunction with other assets on the team. Marine's solo play is usually based on what kind of alien tech they are fighting.
Again, solo marines are only a problem for those who cannot fight well 1v1 or cannot for some reason get a team of players together to assault the solo player.
It's also what costs most marines victory. If only they could leap and regenerate HP...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nope, only the early game. The 10 extra HP will not help in every fight. Especially considering upgraded weapons, as well as Shotguns, HMGs, and GLs. It would only vs LMGs and pistols. Shotgun/HMG can do more damage and the time at the extra 10hp would add would be neglible to those wielding those weapons.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Negligible perhaps, but it has an impact. 10 HP could still lead to them surviving an extra HMG bullet or shotty blast even in the endgame, which could in turn cause the marine to lose or at least take another bite. I don't really see why you're disputing this.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nope again, sorry. Buffing skulk HP does not mean that marines cannot still go off on their own. I mean I appreciate the kind lawyering you are trying to do, but Its getting really far fetched to the point where I don't even think you want to convince others of your side of the argument, you just want to disprove mine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It means that the odds are stacked against lone marines more than they were before, which could well push the risk over the edge to the point that it's not a feasible strategy anymore. I didn't say it would have the same impact, but it does restrict play just like any other buff or nerf would. Every time the developers make any effort at game balance, it restricts play - which is the point I was trying to make before, game design in and of itself is inherently about restricting players to a certain type of gameplay. The competitive community may have worked hard to establish what the best strategies are, but the result of that was determined entirely by the game balance created by the developers in an attempt to control gameplay. Even sports have rules that are decided by a committee for a specific purpose.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Solo play is effective in certain stages of the game. Once the aliens get a lerk (common in both pub and competitive play) a solo player's effectiveness drops based on how well that lerk is used in conjunction with other assets on the team. Marine's solo play is usually based on what kind of alien tech they are fighting.
Again, solo marines are only a problem for those who cannot fight well 1v1 or cannot for some reason get a team of players together to assault the solo player.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you honestly telling me that you've never executed a perfect ambush as a skulk on an LMG marine and been defeated anyway? Having to get a team of aliens together to reliably topple a lone marine is a problem in and of itself. A Lerk has a tech advantage over a lone vanilla marine, of course he should win, but even then you're still talking about a combined team effort to beat a marine who is playing alone.
Yeah and if aliens could have access to HMGs and shotguns they would win a lot more as well. Hive 1 skulks are not on an even kiel with vanilla marines. Asymmetrical or not is irrelevant. To achieve proper balance, both teams need to be able to go on the offensive in the beginning. In this case (outside of bhopping) skulks pretty much have to ambush.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Negligible perhaps, but it has an impact. 10 HP could still lead to them surviving an extra HMG bullet or shotty blast even in the endgame, which could in turn cause the marine to lose or at least take another bite. I don't really see why you're disputing this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When does a skulk EVER survive an extra shotgun blast? You cannot be serious with your argument.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It means that the odds are stacked against lone marines more than they were before, which could well push the risk over the edge to the point that it's not a feasible strategy anymore. I didn't say it would have the same impact, but it does restrict play just like any other buff or nerf would. Every time the developers make any effort at game balance, it restricts play - which is the point I was trying to make before, game design in and of itself is inherently about restricting players to a certain type of gameplay. The competitive community may have worked hard to establish what the best strategies are, but the result of that was determined entirely by the game balance created by the developers in an attempt to control gameplay. Even sports have rules that are decided by a committee for a specific purpose.
Are you honestly telling me that you've never executed a perfect ambush as a skulk on an LMG marine and been defeated anyway? Having to get a team of aliens together to reliably topple a lone marine is a problem in and of itself. A Lerk has a tech advantage over a lone vanilla marine, of course he should win, but even then you're still talking about a combined team effort to beat a marine who is playing alone.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
An extra 10 hp will not discourage rambo, and may have minimal impact on it if at all. However, it DOES NOT restrict play. Our arguments are NOT equal.
As for the perfect ambush, I define the effectiveness of an ambush by whether or not the skulk achieves success or not. If I get the kill it was a good ambush, and if I don't, it was a bad ambush.
Players who think they are doing ambushs perfectly and still get rolled, need to seriously re-evaluate their definition of "perfect ambush".
I don't think that's true at all. Neither team is easily capable of ending the game in five minutes, but they can both be beaten if they all die elsewhere and are spawncamped. In the early game marines are offense and aliens are defense, why don't you think that can be balanced? There are many games with balanced offense/defense scenarios. When aliens need to assault a position in the early game, it's because they already failed at their chance to defend that position - skulks have first dibs to every node on the map besides the ones immediately outside marine spawn. And all they really need to do is hold a hive room and an extra node, and they're in good shape. Even if they blow it, as long as they're not getting completely wrecked they'll live to get a Fade and have a chance to fight back before marines tech too much. I think you're greatly exaggerating the need for symmetric teams to achieve balance. The vanilla units don't need to be on an even kiel with eachother directly, as long as the other ways in which the teams differ make up for it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When does a skulk EVER survive an extra shotgun blast? You cannot be serious with your argument.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh, when it's not a direct hit? That less-than-perfect shotgun blast which would have one-shotted a skulk anyway before will now spare him, buying him a lot more time before the second shot. Every little bit counts, high tech or not.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->An extra 10 hp will not discourage rambo, and may have minimal impact on it if at all. However, it DOES NOT restrict play. Our arguments are NOT equal.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wherever the impact on the game may be, it will have one, otherwise you wouldn't have suggested it. The greater the risk marines face in combat, the fewer their viable options are. Every change to the game balance restricts play one way or another. Doing it in little babysteps doesn't change that. In any case, we're not talking about changing NS, we're talking about NS2. How is it productive to discuss tiny balance tweaks when the whole game is being turned on its head in ways we don't even know about yet?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for the perfect ambush, I define the effectiveness of an ambush by whether or not the skulk achieves success or not. If I get the kill it was a good ambush, and if I don't, it was a bad ambush.
Players who think they are doing ambushs perfectly and still get rolled, need to seriously re-evaluate their definition of "perfect ambush"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's nonsense. Do the alien players get progressively worse at ambushing as the marines get more upgrades? Of course not, well-executed ambushes simply become less likely to succeed. There's only so much a skulk can do right in an ambush, the rest is up to the victim. There's an element of luck in which way he's facing as he enters, and then if his reflexes and aim are good enough he has a pretty solid chance at beating an ambush by the best skulk in the world. The way things are, it's the marine's fight to lose.
Let's clear this one up. High level teams are mostly able to use lone marines because they've got the advantage of organising the whole gameplay. Lone marine is never effective itself. Combine it with a 2-4 man pressure push and/or some marines positioned on chokepoints and you might be able to cap a node or get a pg up, but that's definitely something you're doing because of the teamwork is used to control the map and distract the alien team. That's more advanced teamwork than just sticking on a group and playing for the squad only if you ask me.
It's not the same kind of teamwork, but I didn't say it was easy against top notch aliens. I don't think using a lone marine should be impossible provided you're sure nobody will hassle him, but one free skulk should be enough to reliably counter it, and right now it just isn't. We're talking mainly about the early game btw, things change with hive 2 and higher tech. In any case, I made the suggestion for the sake of public play and not competitive, so I won't say it's necessarily an improvement.
what
this is drivel
this is drivel<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You tell me then, what can a single ambushing skulk do to ensure a kill against a marine with great aim who knows how to evade and knows the ambush spots? The skulk's aim and technique only matters up to a certain point, after that you're just praying the marine isn't quick enough, especially with armor 1. At best the skulk has the upper hand but it's not reliable, and that's given equal skill which is only half the problem.
If a marine is capping a node, you wait for him to hit E, then wait, wait for him to hit E again, wait again and then attack him the next time he hits E. By the time he gets his gun out, you will already have a bite on him. If the marine is not capping, you bait him into a gorge/lerk/bad teammate and kill him when he's low on ammo.
Your advantage will be so great that if you don't miss/delay any bites, you will surely win. Try to bite downwards to prevent knockback.
Depends entirely on his distance from the nearest entrance. And already having a bite on him is not always enough to win.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If the marine is not capping, you bait him into a gorge/lerk/bad teammate and kill him when he's low on ammo.
Your advantage will be so great that if you don't miss/delay any bites, you will surely win. Try to bite downwards to prevent knockback.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did I not specifically say "one skulk"? I meant "one alien who is a skulk," if it wasn't clear.
Wouldn't that be all the reason to give the skulks some more offensive capability in the early game like I suggested earlier? Or are you still sticking with your "Skulks can move around the map fast" defense.
Of course there are no such things as perfect ambushes and perfect playing, so we must look at your average case, and on an average basis, I can kill an ambushing skulk more than half the time with no more warning than the knowledge that a room may have good ambush spots and the first bite or walking of a skulk trying to ambush. I'm a skilled player, but I'm no elite. The fact that I can do this is not a testament that I'm some gaming god, but rather that balanced is a little skewed.
I won't get into the details on higher classes and upgrades as far as balanced is concerned, but one thing should be sure: the base lifeform alien should be able to kill a base marine in an ambush situation <b>*most*</b> of the time, and likewise that same base marine should be able to kill a base lifeform alien playing cautious and covering distance between a possible assault in hallways or whatnot <b>*most*</b> of the time.
Your suggestion was specifically targeted at making skulks not have to ambush so much, which to me is really backwards. Make them as good at ambushing as they should be, and nerf their direct combat if necessary to make that balanced. If they're not moving around the map fast enough, fine, make them faster. Maybe it's Skulks that should have the non-combat sprinting like was discussed for marines.
I think it makes perfect sense to have aliens constantly shifting about to overwhelm separate groups of marines. How do you propose to even maintain balance when the baseline alien is equal to one marine, and higher lifeforms are able to counter multiple well-equipped marines? Not only will the sum of alien combat power be larger than that of the marines, they will be able to redistribute it around the map faster.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Believe it or not, a lmg marine can still die from an onos despite his exceptional playing skill, and it isn't because he screwed something up but because your opponent outmatched you. However, an lmg marine dying from an onos is balanced. A skulk dying from executing a perfect ambush is not.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, and an onos costs 75 res, whereas a skulk costs 0. Marines don't always win when a skulk bhops straight in, why should skulks always win when they ambush? If a marine gets 12 res of medpacks, why shouldn't he win the encounter?
Yes, and an onos costs 75 res, whereas a skulk costs 0. Marines don't always win when a skulk bhops straight in, why should skulks always win when they ambush? If a marine gets 12 res of medpacks, why shouldn't he win the encounter?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because of the concepts of "It shouldn't be that way" and "Ridiculousness". Two thesis statements while used to support "logic" are not adequately explained (at least rationally) to the point where they could be considered rational. They are based on flawed and skewed perceptions of gameplay that do not appear to correspond with reality.
I'm proposing that the skulk's 1v1 advantage be situational, i.e. only in an ambush. As long as the marines aren't fighting higher lifeforms and walking into ambushes at the same time, they can focus on one or the other. Skulks would actually be less capable of contributing to Fade/Onos fights than they are now.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, and an onos costs 75 res, whereas a skulk costs 0. Marines don't always win when a skulk bhops straight in, why should skulks always win when they ambush? If a marine gets 12 res of medpacks, why shouldn't he win the encounter?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Medpacks are another issue since then you're still causing significant damage to the team even if you die, and the alien comm may be able to do something similar, that much remains to be seen.
Natural-Selection, despite its many excellent mechanics, has competitive gameplay that functions on transactional combat. What this means in nonradixism is that you don't have any opportunity to defend against any attack, ever. One exception to this is spit (projectile weapons allow dodging) but in no case can a player actually stop an attack as it executes on his model.
Contrast this with fighting games where you have the opportunity to momentarily remove your hitbox from the game (similar to how Breeze skulks) or block attacks via reflexes.
Games that function on this form of interactual skill instead of transactional (the way NS is now) are vastly superior in terms of the finesse and depth of small-scale combat. There's no reason to implement transactional combat anymore except bad habits from legacy games.
Natural-Selection, despite its many excellent mechanics, has competitive gameplay that functions on transactional combat. What this means in nonradixism is that you don't have any opportunity to defend against any attack, ever. One exception to this is spit (projectile weapons allow dodging) but in no case can a player actually stop an attack as it executes on his model.
Contrast this with fighting games where you have the opportunity to momentarily remove your hitbox from the game (similar to how Breeze skulks) or block attacks via reflexes.
Games that function on this form of interactual skill instead of transactional (the way NS is now) are vastly superior in terms of the finesse and depth of small-scale combat. There's no reason to implement transactional combat anymore except bad habits from legacy games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not only is this an FPS and not a fighting game, but it's an FPS/RTS which means it's even further removed from the type of pure twitch contest you're talking about. The twitch contest exists within the framework of the overarching RTS structure that dictates the flow of the game. This is most obvious in huge tech gaps like LMG Marine vs. Onos, but it also applies to tactical situations like walking into a prepared ambush with no backup. That's a strategic blunder that should be punished as long as the other player is skilled enough to follow through on his end.
Also I really don't see what that has to do with the problem I'm referencing. Skulk ambushing could easily be fixed without reinventing the genre.
- nsfw -
In NS1, a solo marine (compared with a pair of marines) is disadvantaged in these ways:
1. More easily parasited (this is because there are fewer marines to pistol distant skulks).
2. More easily ambushed (no one to watch his back).
3. He cannot easily solo build rts and phasegates (this is because his gun vanishes while he does so).
4. He cannot weld himself.
5. He takes a large risk when reloading, as he has no team mate to cover.
6. He is very, very vulnerable to lerks (gas -> bite).
And finally, a rambo marine will get absolutely dominated once fades arrive - especially if the skulks are effectively parasiting.
Futhermore the argument that skulks =/= marines is not a problem. A skulk cannot be compared directly with a marine. The team effort of skulks, lerks, gorges and fades must be considered against the marine team as a whole.
As a solution to the 'bad aliens don't ambush well problem', put in a hint system after each death. So after each death, a player is given a hint such as: "try to ambush marines from doorways or vents" or "marines, remember to check for ambushes". This hint system would help players to learn the game without bothering to read the manual. Of course, it could be turned off (just like cl_autohelp 0).
tldr;
There is no rambo problem in ns.
A hint while respawning might be a good idea.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think it makes perfect sense to have aliens constantly shifting about to overwhelm separate groups of marines. How do you propose to even maintain balance when the baseline alien is equal to one marine, and higher lifeforms are able to counter multiple well-equipped marines? Not only will the sum of alien combat power be larger than that of the marines, they will be able to redistribute it around the map faster.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, firstly, you're proposing that one skulk should not be equal to one marine? What kind of twisted sense of balance is that? If it weren't that way, in the early game, one side would always win due to sheer numbers. Make no mistake, this is the center by which balance revolves around. The base marine and base alien should kill and be killed on a 1 to 1 ratio. Higher alien life forms should likewise be countered equally (but not necessarily symmetrically) by certain higher marine upgrades (weapons, armor, etc.). Ideally, the resource cost of a weapon should have value equal to the amount of resources used to produce the average threat by the alien team. Of course that's strictly theoretical, but that's also the basis by which balance is determined.
Secondly, Zek mentioned nothing about higher life forms. You assume a 1 to 1 ratio with skulks vs marines means higher aliens can take out herds of marines at a time, which I don't even believe Zek implied in some way. The same rules apply here. Several marines should kill single higher alien life forms. It should be that way, and it should be the basis by which marines attack for that reason. "Oh noes! How will aliens counter this 1337ness!?!?!111" Simple. Aliens attack in groups as well. Thus you have the foundation for a <i>team</i> based play rather than going around killing.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, and an onos costs 75 res, whereas a skulk costs 0. Marines don't always win when a skulk bhops straight in, why should skulks always win when they ambush? If a marine gets 12 res of medpacks, why shouldn't he win the encounter?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, I never said "always win." You cannot possibly execute a perfect ambush, because of course perfect is impossible to obtain. We're again talking about the general case, because for the purposes of practicality, I can't take you into a natural selection game and demonstrate a thousand times that statistically skilled marine players don't die from ambushes more often than not. Even if you might have seen a skilled player die of an ambush in your entire time playing natural selection, that doesn't mean squat as we're talking about the normal trend.
Secondly, you want to add commander into the equation? Why shouldn't two players take out an alien? Why shouldn't five players take out an alien? Of course they can. Of course they should. That's the whole idea. If we're talking about a rambo player, we're talking about a player by definition alone and not getting med pack spams as if the success of a lone rambo with an alien were a matter of winning the game. Don't change the scenario.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because of the concepts of "It shouldn't be that way" and "Ridiculousness". Two thesis statements while used to support "logic" are not adequately explained (at least rationally) to the point where they could be considered rational. They are based on flawed and skewed perceptions of gameplay that do not appear to correspond with reality.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I fail to see the logic in "natural selection is fine the way it is." You're basing most of your arguments, and a few of your tasteless insults on the fact that natural selection 2 should be left "as is" when we don't even know what "as is" is. The rules of natural selection 2 have not been defined yet, and "leave it as it is" cannot possibly apply here. As far as you know, unknown worlds is taking steps to ensure Natural Selection 2 is more team-friendly, which would mean you'd have to explain why rambos *should* be in the game, and if "natural selection is fine the way it is" doesn't work, what will your argument be?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In NS1, a solo marine (compared with a pair of marines) is disadvantaged in these ways:
...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then I ask, why aren't they so frequent? You tell me? Go into observer mode sometime and follow the marine in top position for a while. If you're honest, you'd notice that more often than not, he doesn't organize teams to attack the aliens. Rather, he grabs a couple extra rounds of ammo and goes bunny hopping off to resource nodes or gorge building sites. If he discovers other marines, he rarely follows them unless it happens to be where he was going, and in doing so, he's sure to use the one in front like a meat shield. Once he reaches his destination, he camps. To convince me that rambos are so worthless, you have to first demonstrate that nobody plays rambo (other than perhaps newbs). If it's not that way, it's for a very good reason. Natural Selection encourages ramboing. Whether that is a good thing is no doubt subject to opinion, but you can't deny facts.
I said that marines that solo are already heavily disadvantaged in NS1 (this is without the introduction of any additional Anti-Rambo system).
I didn't say that a good marine isn't capable of ramboing if he so chooses.
Are you proposing that a good marine shouldn't have an advantage over incompetent aliens? You are completely ignoring the skill factor of ns!
As for the one skulk should be equal to one marine:
This argument is nonsense. Ns is a team game and a skillful game, therefore the team AS A WHOLE must be considered.
If you do not consider the speed of skulks (as well as fades and lerks) to be an advantage in map control, then we are clearly playing a different online game. For example, if I am a lerk, and my teammate parasites a marine near the hive (which may have taken a good 20-30 seconds walking), I will come and gas him, then bite him (taking about 5 seconds). The speed factor (as well as the synergistic nature of the alien team) MUST be considered in a debate about balance! One skulk should not be the perfect equal of one marine. If it were, aliens would NEVER lose!!!
Overall, there are plenty of reasons why working with a team mate is superior to ramboing in many situations. In some cases, a solo marine is more appropriate. Fundamentally, it is about choices and consequences. I like to be able to choose whether to follow a team-mate, or solo off on my own. I also understand that there are consequences as a result of my choices. I like it this way. There is no good reason for an Anti-Rambo feature in NS2 (no 'fear' feature etc).
I agree, choices are good. The question is about the consequences. I would argue that the current consequences for running around solo are insufficient. It's no different from all the other myriad of bad choices you can make in NS resulting in terrible consequences, just a small shift in what works and what doesn't. As for the reason, it's simply because it would make the marine team less arcadey and more about tactical action, and the aliens more independent rambo types, which reinforces the original asymmetric concepts of the teams.