<!--quoteo(post=1707038:date=May 16 2009, 10:48 PM:name=Wither)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wither @ May 16 2009, 10:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1707038"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->However, I fail to see how the new marine power grid changes the main "economic" background of the game - resource currency? Identical. Way of gathering it? Identical. Concept of resource nodes? Pretty much.. identical.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->No.
In NS: res nodes are independant of eachother and can be secured/stolen independantly. In NS2, sounds like the key capturable is the closest Power Node a.k.a. CC. This seems to indicate that teams will be attacking and defending very central points instead of having to defend a broad territory. This is one of the reasons NS was strong versus other games such as DoD and CS: there was no one, singular area or chokepoint to defend; the key areas were blurred and dynamic. In NS2 it sounds like we're dealing with very opaque and very predestined key locations, which makes for static gameplay... ...which is totally different to what makes gameplay in NS great.
Level design will have a significant role in how static the gameplay is, but the fact the general design lends itself to staticity (word?) is enough to support an argument that NS2 will be dramatically different to NS.
<!--quoteo(post=1707038:date=May 16 2009, 03:48 PM:name=Wither)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wither @ May 16 2009, 03:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1707038"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only thing I've seen you say is that this fundamentally changes the game and this will ruin all that is NS. Care to elaborate?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gad, you must be in mensa. Yeah that's what I mean. You got it. Pretty clear, not elaboration needed, is blatantly a pretty bad flip with a lot of awesome eyecandy and a cheesy bizarre mixture of weird random unrelated games; this... thing... is becoming a turret farming campers uber yawn... With strobo screens when chewed but who freaking cares, you lost the damn gps of the community, (WTH alien commander) for reals. Get back to your roots Flayra, remember what you thought then when you made the first version, forget all else.
<!--quoteo(post=1707038:date=May 16 2009, 03:48 PM:name=Wither)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wither @ May 16 2009, 03:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1707038"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And yes, like everyone else has been saying for the past 11 pages.. whenever something didn't work in previous NS versions, it was altered or removed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly, that's the problem, bravo. Absolutely NOTHING was wrong in NS, is THE perfect game. If something, I can say, the crappy netcode. Period. Why you had to trash this game we love so much is what I scream, why. Freaking money, ok, it is fine, good luck, we are tired of the same and NS was absolutely different. I think the opera prima was a classy piece of art, and that's why I reject this one as a worthless fancy fashion effort. Let the flaming start.
In NS: res nodes are independant of eachother and can be secured/stolen independantly. In NS2, sounds like the key capturable is the closest Power Node a.k.a. CC. This seems to indicate that teams will be attacking and defending very central points instead of having to defend a broad territory. This is one of the reasons NS was strong versus other games such as DoD and CS: there was no one, singular area or chokepoint to defend; the key areas were blurred and dynamic. In NS2 it sounds like we're dealing with very opaque and very predestined key locations, which makes for static gameplay... ...which is totally different to what makes gameplay in NS great.
Level design will have a significant role in how static the gameplay is, but the fact the general design lends itself to staticity (word?) is enough to support an argument that NS2 will be dramatically different to NS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, I personally think that it will make for less static gameplay. Yes, you need to build a second CC if you want to build a base on the other side of the map but you're going to be building these anyway in order to tech up. I seriously doubt the map layout with the tech points on it represents every single map, meaning there's still a whole lot of wiggle room in map design and how dynamic or static the gameplay actually is. Which is pretty much identical to NS1, since map layout really did dictate gameplay there as well. And in NS1 we also already had "predestined key locations" - the hives. Now we have more of them, which I think does quite the opposite and will make for more dynamic gameplay.
I never said NS2 won't be drastically different from NS. From the sound of it there definitely will be some major changes - I don't see how there couldn't be. NS is a mod on an 11 year old engine while NS2 will be a standalone game, and I think a lot of things that the devs wanted to do with NS1 simply weren't possible due to engine constraints and it being a mod. That's no longer the case here and so it's logical for them to adapt or improve things that they believe could use a change. I'm eager to see how it turns out before I make any sort of judgment on whether or not it's a worthy sequel.
I guess I could write a whole book about how I would design the gameplay, but I hope a few words will give you a hint at this late hour.
I really dont like how the whole developement is going towards combat, leaving the commanding/strategy aspect behind. Linked RT's powering a room, fixed building-spots etc. create imho no benefit to dynamic gameplay. I personally would go back to the roots, what natural selection was all about: commanding combined with fps not the other way around. I've never found a compareable game working as well as ns combining the two aspects. Thats why I am really disappointed hearing the latest developement/ideas in gameplay!!!
The commander should hold the power of who gets a weapon, where to build TF's, PG's etc. thats what it is all about: interaction between commander and soldiers. (Beginners will - as it has been with ns1 - have a hard time getting into the game, but that is no reason to push ns2 too much into the combat genre.)
<!--quoteo(post=1707131:date=May 18 2009, 09:22 PM:name=Wither)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wither @ May 18 2009, 09:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1707131"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actually, I personally think that it will make for less static gameplay. Yes, you need to build a second CC if you want to build a base on the other side of the map but you're going to be building these anyway in order to tech up. I seriously doubt the map layout with the tech points on it represents every single map, meaning there's still a whole lot of wiggle room in map design and how dynamic or static the gameplay actually is. Which is pretty much identical to NS1, since map layout really did dictate gameplay there as well. And in NS1 we also already had "predestined key locations" - the hives. Now we have more of them, which I think does quite the opposite and will make for more dynamic gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->You said resource nodes in NS2 will be pretty much identical. <!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Wither)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wither)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Concept of resource nodes? Pretty much.. identical.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->This, despite the fact the team have said you will need an active CC to 'power' the res nodes which will in turn generate currency. This means unlike NS where every res node was independant, res nodes in NS2 are dependant on centralised locations for them to even function. It doesn't matter if you have 4 or 5 or 7 tech nodes, the resource model will be a lot less fluid if it depends on centralised locations to generate any resources at all.
<!--quoteo(post=1707224:date=May 19 2009, 05:33 PM:name=Crispy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Crispy @ May 19 2009, 05:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1707224"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->the resource model will be a lot less fluid if it depends on centralised locations to generate any resources at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It already does depend on centralized locations. Now it just means you have to hold these locations and you can't just throw up an RT.
It seems you're saying the resource model is the same thing as gameplay as a whole, while it's only part of it - important, but still just a part. I don't disagree that this will make the resource system less fluid, since it definitely does add a level of dependency, but I just don't think it's THAT different from NS. You weren't going to hold a resource tower on the other side of the map in NS for very long unless you had an established presence there or were constantly passing by it, this just reinforces that. It also sets the stage for more fluid motion across the map, since you're already going to have semi-established outposts in other places - meaning your starting base doesn't necessarily have to be the end all, be all, location to be.
In the end this puts a new limitation on the resource model, but I think gameplay-wise it'll balance out.
<!--quoteo(post=1707227:date=May 19 2009, 05:09 PM:name=Wither)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wither @ May 19 2009, 05:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1707227"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It already does depend on centralized locations. Now it just means you have to hold these locations and you can't just throw up an RT.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have never posted on these forums before, mostly because everything I've seen comes down to people saying what I would have said anyway or people saying NS2 will suck because it's not NS and therefore bad. However, I noticed from the news page that KFS made an explaining post here, and I have a lot of respect from him from back when we used to talk in the VERC IRC channel (I went by Fiend then). So I have only read from his post on, and if someone has already stated any of this, I apologize in advance for making you read it again.
I like the powergrid concept in theory. However, I think the "grid" part may make gameplay too strongly favoring the Kharaa, as a small strike force hitting an underdefended RT can cut off several and make them easy bait (I don't believe hitting a CC will do as much, as explained below). A better option, in my opinion, would be to make each RT power the room it is in. That way, if you can hit the RT any forward base they established there is kaput, and any defenses for it would become easy prey as well. Also, regardless of how you do it, phase gates should have their own internal power supply so Ninja PG is still an option. If that seems too much (which would probably require playtesting to find out), making a phase gate that is two way but requires power and an exit that is only an out but doesn't need power might also be an option. On a related note, making the PGs bring up a map so you can choose which to go to would be awesomely better than doing them in order and hoping you get to the right one when you want to.
Second, relating to the current discussion in this thread, losing your CC in NS and NS2 doesn't sound very different. Sure, in the latter your RTs cease to function, unless they can draw power from a different CC. Remember, just because they are currently drawing power from one CC doesn't mean they can't from a second. Actually losing more than one or two RTs sounds as if it will be reasonably rare, assuming good map design. And if you lose your only chair, well then there is no difference at all. In NS1 you can't build anything with your resources you are getting, and in NS2 you can't build anything with the resources you aren't getting. Huge difference. I don't know how the marines will manage (to be fair, if they have lost their only chair, they probably won't manage very well at all. But maybe they should have thought of that beforehand.)
Also, I love the idea of dynamic infestation making things more advantageous for the Kharaa, but that has it's own thread, so there is no need to talk about it here.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Exactly, that's the problem, bravo. Absolutely NOTHING was wrong in NS, is THE perfect game. If something, I can say, the crappy netcode. Period.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You think NS was perfect? Personally, in public games (where the vast majority of people play) I found the resource model to be extremely lacking. The game mechanics in NS never encouraged teamwork - it was all up to the players to use voice communication. NS2 has a chance to improve upon this. If someone wants to be a team player, they should be able to look at their HUD, or some pop-up HUD, and know exactly what's going on and where to go to help out the most in a 5 second time span -- all without the aid of player communication. The game itself should encourage teamwork by providing a more clear frontline. Flanks, rambo'ing, strike teams, etc would all still be possible but the game definitely needs some focus.
Granted, I don't know if the power-grid system is the right way to go about it (especially if the maps are going to be as boringly simplistic as the one provided as an example) but a new system is needed.
<!--quoteo(post=1707227:date=May 20 2009, 12:09 AM:name=Wither)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wither @ May 20 2009, 12:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1707227"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It already does depend on centralized locations. Now it just means you have to hold these locations and you can't just throw up an RT.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Having more Hive locations is the positive side of this design. The res model is the negative.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You weren't going to hold a resource tower on the other side of the map in NS for very long unless you had an established presence there or were constantly passing by it, this just reinforces that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->The given map design has no 'out-of-the-way' res nodes on outlying routes. Having a balance between res nodes in high-traffic areas and res nodes in low-traffic areas is part of what I like about NS map design. It means if the chips are down for your team you can still harass the other team without being forced into a direct confrontation. The map shown doesn't do this, and even though I know this is just a concept/placeholder I'm referring to it more to make sure KFS and the team don't turn NS into one big DoD-style chokefest. If NS2 gets dumbed down you risk alienating its original supporters, which is dangerous for an indie release. But even sadder than that is you are moving away from what actually makes NS original.
<!--quoteo(post=1707495:date=May 23 2009, 01:25 PM:name=Crispy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Crispy @ May 23 2009, 01:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1707495"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->... But even sadder than that is you are moving away from what actually makes NS original.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think so too. Shoudn't changes be made in order to improve NS's gameplay/concept in NS2? With all the new feaures I feel like many good concepts are thrown overboard, pushing the game in the mainstream - which on one hand might be good, because the game ll be simpler to understand, but on the other hand, it'll become more and more like all the other games out there, which ll raise the question:" Do I really need to buy this game? How is it so different from all the others?"
I really reject the idea of designing a game without the need of communication by creating frontlines/chokes. By increasing the importance of RTs I dont believe NS2 will have the same fun battles as NS. I just imagine how more or less every RT has to be secured by marines and if the PG is not selfpowering (I dont hope so) one of the most important strategic ways of playing the game will be lost.
To me it looks like the game will be designed as a room by room fight thingy, to be over dramatic. Natural Selection always implied team communication, without it - most of the time - the team would fail badly. Thats what made it so much fun, players HAD to talk to eachother, HAD to get orders and tell the others where the action was going on.
The idea of random/more spawn points and dynamic investation is great, but WHY moving one step backwards by creating resnode-grids? This is pretty much a paradox!
This sounds absolutely <b>awesome.</b> Not only is this game going to be atmospheric, tense, and just provide an overall immersion into your surroundings, it's taking on a whole new strategical element to it as well. Natural Selection always felt like a shooter <i>first</i> and an RTS second, and I think this new, base gameplay element tweak is going to bring the RTS feeling home. I am loving it.
My only concern is the number of players present on the field and the overall scale of the game. I'm a fan of a lot of players -- when I play Red Orchestra, I don't join any server running less than fifty players (same goes for Battlefield 2). I'll wait if the servers are full. With multiple commanders giving orders, it's going to be pulling players off the field and into the background, forfeiting their "physical" presence on the battlefield for a flashing sprite on your HUD and a voice in your ear. Assuming the player number limitations server wise stay the same, that's going to give each commander, if two are present, seven troops to command. With three, three commanders with four, four and five troops to command. Is that enough?
Will we ever be seeing any sort of "advanced AI" that'll let Marine players command small AI squads of their own? Will we ever be seeing any sort of "advanced AI" that'll let Alien players control small AI squads of their own? ...maybe just a "tier 3" upgrade?
Regardless, I am officially watching this website on a regular basis now with a <b>meaty</b> update like that. Holy smokes.
<!--quoteo(post=1707611:date=May 25 2009, 12:58 AM:name=Haze)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Haze @ May 25 2009, 12:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1707611"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This sounds absolutely <b>awesome.</b> Not only is this game going to be atmospheric, tense, and just provide an overall immersion into your surroundings, it's taking on a whole new strategical element to it as well. Natural Selection always felt like a shooter <i>first</i> and an RTS second, and I think this new, base gameplay element tweak is going to bring the RTS feeling home. I am loving it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hmm, everyone is making their own intepretations of the system. I felt the power grid was going to take NS2 more into the FPS direction. At least I think that the power grid is going to gather up big fights in the few major routes. At that point the fights become the biggest importance while in original NS setting up the fights in your favor was a big importance.
Could you explain how the RTS is going to improve with power grid? It's very possible that it actually happens, but I haven't managed to figure it out yet.
The irony is how increasing the importance of resource gathering through these fixed map node locations and linking them, will actually lessen the impact a good strategic game plan has. Oh well, my hardware will be 10 years outdated by the time of release so it's not like I will have a chance to try the game anyway.
<!--quoteo(post=1707622:date=May 25 2009, 12:47 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ May 25 2009, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1707622"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hmm, everyone is making their own intepretations of the system. I felt the power grid was going to take NS2 more into the FPS direction. At least I think that the power grid is going to gather up big fights in the few major routes. At that point the fights become the biggest importance while in original NS setting up the fights in your favor was a big importance.
Could you explain how the RTS is going to improve with power grid? It's very possible that it actually happens, but I haven't managed to figure it out yet.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the original NS, there were really only three rooms that, if locked down or defended long enough, would change the overall flow of the game -- hive locations. With this new grid system, we now have <i>six</i> of these rooms. They aren't just dedicated to the aliens this time, they're also able to be used by marines, and not only are they used for teching (like hive locations are now), they also represent a supply route. It's these two core principles -- biracial tech rooms and supply routes -- that open up a wealth of new strategic options that Natural Selection has never seen before.
Say your team is down a few chips early on. You've lost some key engagements and your opponent has pushed out to begin capping a significantly larger amount of RTs than you have. With supply routes in mind, you can sneak a sizable force inside a hole in your enemy's front, and attack a linking tech point between them and their growing RT farm. You severe that connection by destroying the RT on that tech point, then hold out as long as possible while your team, on the other side of the map, scrambles to establish an equally impressive RT farm, trying to regain a foothold in the game that was once lost.
That's a new strategical element that you won't see playing original NS -- right now, you can't shut down a team's entire resource income with one surgical strike, instead you have to go after each node individually. With the new power grid system more than one option is given to players when they need to take their opponents' economy down a few notches. That's strategy.
Even the new tech points provide an overall strategy we've never seen before, allowing players to play aggressively or defensively depending on where they construct their second tech point. Construct it near your original start location and you can play a more careful game, probably assuring the round will make it to Tier 3 gameplay. However, if you'd like to take a risk, you can construct your tech building on a tech point close to your opponent's initial spawn with the same spirit of an early marine relocation near the initial hive. Instead of the game playing out at a more leisurely pace as both of your forces headbutt each other over the center of the map and slowly progress up your tech trees (targeting RTs more than actual tech locations due to the proximity of your forces and the nature of your tech racey game), the aggressive player will find himself locked three feet away from his opponent's initial spawn. Rather than most of the conflict playing out over RTs, it will instead play out over tech rooms and the important choke points leading to them, both teams really trying to strangle each other before the game has even started.
The best part about the tech points is that any of these sort of battles can take place at any point in the game. You may start out cautious early on, but throw your third tech building up near your opponent's 1st and 2nd. Let's take the hypothetical a step further -- your opponent saw the aggressive location, and took advantage of it by circling around to your initial spawn and quickly overwhelming it. Now the game stands with the both of you neck and neck, both in Tier 2, both mere inches from each other, locked in a desperate struggle of tech points, trying to prevent one another from reaching Tier 3 and constantly fighting over choke points to that precious third tech point. The game's pace has changed from a more careful start into a very desperate bid for survival between the two races. Perhaps both teams will pull off of eachother and recede back into their corners to quickly tech to T3 and return to the more linear fashion of playing the early game represented, or maybe they'll go for each other's throats immediately and the intense standoff will stay until the game finally ends. The possibilities are endless!
<!--quoteo(post=1707808:date=May 26 2009, 05:38 PM:name=Haze)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Haze @ May 26 2009, 05:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1707808"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's gonna be <i>awesome.</i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->This design only -and I mean only- works if the maps aren't constructed like the concept shown, which for each tech node has two (in some cases 1 due to two tech nodes being linked to eachother), easily defensible fronts and a horrible double-chokepoint in the centre eliminating any attempt at stealth or surprise flanking.
How does it eliminate alien stealth or surprise flanking? I don't doubt that there will be a network of vents running underneath this map that'll allow aliens to move to any point virtually unhindered. What it really eliminates is <i>marine</i> stealth and surprise flanking, which, in my opinion, is going to highlight the differences between the races very well.
Ok, all my NS2 logic is very speculative and there's no way to figure anything out until the tech trees and decisions are revealed. A lot of my NS1 arguments are based on my vision of the gameplay as it could go at its best.
<!--quoteo(post=1707808:date=May 26 2009, 04:38 PM:name=Haze)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Haze @ May 26 2009, 04:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1707808"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In the original NS, there were really only three rooms that, if locked down or defended long enough, would change the overall flow of the game -- hive locations. With this new grid system, we now have <i>six</i> of these rooms. They aren't just dedicated to the aliens this time, they're also able to be used by marines, and not only are they used for teching (like hive locations are now), they also represent a supply route. It's these two core principles -- biracial tech rooms and supply routes -- that open up a wealth of new strategic options that Natural Selection has never seen before.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's not about the number of rooms. In NS you controlled the hive rooms AND the map. On NS2 it might turn out that the map control becomes more of an instant gain as the map progresses as few big fronts. At best NS' map control turns out to be an interesting piece of lifeform co-operation and pressure rules. Meanwhile in NS2 there might be a lot less of that as most lifeforms are stuck on the battle lines.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Say your team is down a few chips early on. You've lost some key engagements and your opponent has pushed out to begin capping a significantly larger amount of RTs than you have. With supply routes in mind, you can sneak a sizable force inside a hole in your enemy's front, and attack a linking tech point between them and their growing RT farm. You severe that connection by destroying the RT on that tech point, then hold out as long as possible while your team, on the other side of the map, scrambles to establish an equally impressive RT farm, trying to regain a foothold in the game that was once lost.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The problem is that there might not be any holes. Even in NS1 it's difficult to sneak through the map on a big server. Now that there are basically two routes instead of 3-4. A lot of the stuff you described was more likely to happen in NS1, but people weren't using it even then. Also note that the max distance between the battlefront and sneakthrough force is something like 2 rooms. There's no way you're getting that much damage done unless the buildings are made of paper.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's a new strategical element that you won't see playing original NS -- right now, you can't shut down a team's entire resource income with one surgical strike, instead you have to go after each node individually. With the new power grid system more than one option is given to players when they need to take their opponents' economy down a few notches. That's strategy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I wonder how the strategical part is going to work reasonably. There aren't that many nodes or links to protect and slipping them away would be stupid. There's most likely no way to tell the timing when the nodes are unprotected and if there is a way, how are marines going to be able to counter that? You can keep flanking until until the enemy team makes a mistake, but that's pretty much it on my logic.
NS1 handled a lot of the res war by a combination of teamwork and strategy. Marines tried to maintain a balance of capping and pressure. Aliens on the other hand tried to free skulks and higher lifeforms to fight the res war on the marine side. It involved some risk taking, but most of all it had a plenty of teamwork in combination with the right timing and pace.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Even the new tech points provide an overall strategy we've never seen before, allowing players to play aggressively or defensively depending on where they construct their second tech point. Construct it near your original start location and you can play a more careful game, probably assuring the round will make it to Tier 3 gameplay. However, if you'd like to take a risk, you can construct your tech building on a tech point close to your opponent's initial spawn with the same spirit of an early marine relocation near the initial hive. Instead of the game playing out at a more leisurely pace as both of your forces headbutt each other over the center of the map and slowly progress up your tech trees (targeting RTs more than actual tech locations due to the proximity of your forces and the nature of your tech racey game), the aggressive player will find himself locked three feet away from his opponent's initial spawn. Rather than most of the conflict playing out over RTs, it will instead play out over tech rooms and the important choke points leading to them, both teams really trying to strangle each other before the game has even started.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If the teams are going to be any equal, there won't be a slightest chance that you can get up a tech point next to your enemy main base. The supply line is too long. Maybe there could be tech points in the middle, but I can't see them being that interesting either. Once one team secures the middle, it's GG for the other most likely, as the maps are mirrored.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The best part about the tech points is that any of these sort of battles can take place at any point in the game. You may start out cautious early on, but throw your third tech building up near your opponent's 1st and 2nd. Let's take the hypothetical a step further -- your opponent saw the aggressive location, and took advantage of it by circling around to your initial spawn and quickly overwhelming it. Now the game stands with the both of you neck and neck, both in Tier 2, both mere inches from each other, locked in a desperate struggle of tech points, trying to prevent one another from reaching Tier 3 and constantly fighting over choke points to that precious third tech point. The game's pace has changed from a more careful start into a very desperate bid for survival between the two races. Perhaps both teams will pull off of eachother and recede back into their corners to quickly tech to T3 and return to the more linear fashion of playing the early game represented, or maybe they'll go for each other's throats immediately and the intense standoff will stay until the game finally ends. The possibilities are endless!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree that NS1 was quite predictable in the types of battles, but then again how does the map help here? It's an issue of the tech tree and res system more than the actual map layout and power grid system. Most of the stuff you described could be pulled off in a NS1 styled map if you replaced a few nodes with tech areas and tweaked the tech and res models a bit.
I processed my thoughts while writing, so the resonses are most likely mixed up and ect, but my few main points are: 1.) Most of your gameplay visions are based on the fact that the nature of tech is going to change. The power grid is only bringing in some flanking strategies that could be done by many different sets of rules even on the old styled NS maps. I also feel that the flanking alone isn't going to replace the strategical depth lost in map control, not to speak of pre-fight setups.
2.) You're ignoring some of the great elements of NS1. It's often difficult to organise such co-operation and plays even in competetive enviroment and some of my logic is purely theory. Nevertheless, NS1 has a lot of potential that never got used because of the brutal learning curve, lack of tutorials and ect.
3. The tech tree and res system were more limiting factors that the maps themselves when it comes to tactical verstatility.
Oh and to avoid sounding completely negative: I give big credit to the UWE in general and respect their decisions whatever they may be in NS2, but I need to see more of the gameplay structure until I can see this as a positive feature for the strategies.
<!--quoteo(post=1707818:date=May 26 2009, 02:09 PM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ May 26 2009, 02:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1707818"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ok, all my NS2 logic is very speculative and there's no way to figure anything out until the tech trees and decisions are revealed. A lot of my NS1 arguments are based on my vision of the gameplay as it could go at its best.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fair enough, I'll skip to the summary for my points.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I processed my thoughts while writing, so the resonses are most likely mixed up and ect, but my few main points are: 1.) Most of your gameplay visions are based on the fact that the nature of tech is going to change. The power grid is only bringing in some flanking strategies that could be done by many different sets of rules even on the old styled NS maps. I also feel that the flanking alone isn't going to replace the strategical depth lost in map control, not to speak of pre-fight setups.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree, I think holding key locations to tech is a good idea if both teams have to do it. By allowing teams to break down tiers of tech, rather than the "all or nothing" strategy that is presently in NS, could create for some interesting strategical/tactical maneuvers to keep the other team guessing.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2.) You're ignoring some of the great elements of NS1. It's often difficult to organise such co-operation and plays even in competetive enviroment and some of my logic is purely theory. Nevertheless, NS1 has a lot of potential that never got used because of the brutal learning curve, lack of tutorials and ect.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The learning curve was steep true, but there were community based tutorials (i.e. NSlearn, NSGuides) that attempted to alleviate bad habits and elevate gameplay. Granted, a tutorial would have been nice, but you have to remember that NS was the most popular third party mod that NEVER went retail. I know this is for half life, but I don't know if this holds true for all FPS games. So despite those limitations, NS experienced a large amount of success.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->3. The tech tree and res system were more limiting factors that the maps themselves when it comes to tactical verstatility.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree but having both sides being able to attack "expansion" bases would add more to tactical versatility rather than hinder it in my opinion. The power grid gives more options for both sides to attack, rather than just hive rooms and marine start to destroy tech, not just resource nodes.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Oh and to avoid sounding completely negative: I give big credit to the UWE in general and respect their decisions whatever they may be in NS2, but I need to see more of the gameplay structure until I can see this as a positive feature for the strategies.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> While we may disagree, we both want whats best for NS2. Bottom line is that the community is going to have to wait for playtesters reaction before forming an opinion that holds water.
<!--quoteo(post=1707808:date=May 26 2009, 11:38 AM:name=Haze)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Haze @ May 26 2009, 11:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1707808"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In the original NS, there were really only three rooms that, if locked down or defended long enough, would change the overall flow of the game -- hive locations.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Probably because the Marines are ATTACKING THE ALIEN HIVES and the Aliens are DEFENDING THEIR HIVES FROM OUTSIDE PRESENCE.
I just don't like the idea that buildings should be dependent on one another. Making certain structures reliant not only on other structures, but now at fixed locations would make the game, IMHO, feel more constricted and restrained.
<!--quoteo(post=1707836:date=May 26 2009, 08:31 PM:name=Firewater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Firewater @ May 26 2009, 08:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1707836"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I disagree, I think holding key locations to tech is a good idea if both teams have to do it. By allowing teams to break down tiers of tech, rather than the "all or nothing" strategy that is presently in NS, could create for some interesting strategical/tactical maneuvers to keep the other team guessing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree that the change as a whole was good, but I think it could have been done without such linking that heavily directs the spread. My fear is that the key locations will end up in very prolonged battles. A little like marines trying to tech for proto vs 2 hives, except that neither of the teams has any interest in fighting outside the 1-2 chokepoints. Of course it may be a good thing, but the meat grinders certainly need some new elements at that point.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The learning curve was steep true, but there were community based tutorials (i.e. NSlearn, NSGuides) that attempted to alleviate bad habits and elevate gameplay. Granted, a tutorial would have been nice, but you have to remember that NS was the most popular third party mod that NEVER went retail. I know this is for half life, but I don't know if this holds true for all FPS games. So despite those limitations, NS experienced a large amount of success.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I was trying to say that 95% of the public players and a lot of competetive never used any big scale strategies or adaptation in NS. Haze's argumentation was based on the fact that in NS2 the teams suddenly are able to do those. I don't think we need the power grid on the basis of NS1 lacking the strategical depth. Neither of the systems is going to offer strategical depth unless people become more aware of it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree but having both sides being able to attack "expansion" bases would add more to tactical versatility rather than hinder it in my opinion. The power grid gives more options for both sides to attack, rather than just hive rooms and marine start to destroy tech, not just resource nodes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree completely that the expansion bases add positive elements in to the game. However, is it necessary to have power grid links in it? What if some nodes in Tanith get replaced with tech nodes. Once the tech tree is built so that the bases are actually worth defending, the effect should be relatively similar, just without the game clogging into 2 big chokepoints. Of course defending tech might become quite difficult on such an open map, but I don't think the links are the only solution for the defence anyway.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->While we may disagree, we both want whats best for NS2. Bottom line is that the community is going to have to wait for playtesters reaction before forming an opinion that holds water.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> True. I'm not even trying to say the whole power grid is a fail. I just don't see it as an advantage for the pure RTS part of the game, not yet at least.
I'm all for making gameplay more dynamic, but it seems to me like the power grid idea is going to be a major hamper on playing marine. A much larger emphasis being put on RTs is, imo, not a good thing. You're gonna have trouble telling pwnnoobs123 to guard this rt that's behind the front because if it gets destroyed, the front line is gonna be without power <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree completely that the expansion bases add positive elements in to the game. However, is it necessary to have power grid links in it? <b><u>What if some nodes in Tanith</u></b>--<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think that part of our disagreement hinges on the fact that you seem to be trying to fit old maps into this new mold. They were not made with the power grid in mind. Tanith will not exist in it's current form on NS 2.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Haze you have the ability to psyche me up for this game big time<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1707809:date=May 26 2009, 12:46 PM:name=Crispy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Crispy @ May 26 2009, 12:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1707809"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This design only -and I mean only- works if the maps aren't constructed like the concept shown, which for each tech node has two (in some cases 1 due to two tech nodes being linked to eachother), easily defensible fronts and a horrible double-chokepoint in the centre eliminating any attempt at stealth or surprise flanking.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We have no evidence that any map will mirror the example that the developers chose to simply show the system. The developers example will not be a map, it was just a way to show how the new system would work.
I don't understand why that is difficult to comprehend. Of course mappers are going to put their own touches on it and develop maps that would be conducive to game play (like NS1) not hamper it.
A bit of a late addition to the discussion, but I thought I'd make it anyway. The idea is interesting and may work well, how would the system as planned compare to something where there are fixed power grid lines on the map and these will work to allow power to flow - unless infestation has reached anywhere on that section of the line? Making it linked to infestation and not resource towers makes it a lot less of a restriction on the Marines, which may not be what you want, and could be underpowered for the aliens - it'd make spreading / clearing infestation rather important though and stop deep raids into alien territory unless a path were cleared first. Some overlap could be put in place by having all power lines flowing through the res nodes so taking a res-node as an alien would damage the power grid.
It'll be for the play testers to see how well the system works and improve it I suppose.
<!--quoteo(post=1707877:date=May 27 2009, 12:56 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ May 27 2009, 12:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1707877"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree that the change as a whole was good, but I think it could have been done without such linking that heavily directs the spread. My fear is that the key locations will end up in very prolonged battles. A little like marines trying to tech for proto vs 2 hives, except that neither of the teams has any interest in fighting outside the 1-2 chokepoints. Of course it may be a good thing, but the meat grinders certainly need some new elements at that point.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree that if it breaks down to similar NS play (holding 1 or 2 key locations) then it will be a detremental system. However, good mapping with this new apparently open teching system, will create a BOAT load of strategies, rather than the two or 3 that are currently used.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I was trying to say that 95% of the public players and a lot of competetive never used any big scale strategies or adaptation in NS. Haze's argumentation was based on the fact that in NS2 the teams suddenly are able to do those. I don't think we need the power grid on the basis of NS1 lacking the strategical depth. Neither of the systems is going to offer strategical depth unless people become more aware of it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most public games lack strategical depth, as typically, the marines attempt to lock down a close hive, and battle over the second one. This a cookie-cutter strategy that does not have much depth at all. With this open ended system, it would allow for more creativity, as well as better strategy/tactics for BOTH teams as the aliens should not be bound to one of two specific teching locations.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree completely that the expansion bases add positive elements in to the game. However, is it necessary to have power grid links in it? What if some nodes in Tanith get replaced with tech nodes. Once the tech tree is built so that the bases are actually worth defending, the effect should be relatively similar, just without the game clogging into 2 big chokepoints. Of course defending tech might become quite difficult on such an open map, but I don't think the links are the only solution for the defence anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since I have the SE pre-order, I plan to be very active in the testing of this game in both phases. I would also think that I have enough respect from the developers that they will at least give a little consideration if I have a suggestion about balance, or certain features in the game. That being said, I plan organizing my own playtests for the purposes of testing this powergrid design, to see if the theory can be translated into reality.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->True. I'm not even trying to say the whole power grid is a fail. I just don't see it as an advantage for the pure RTS part of the game, not yet at least.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The advantage to the RTS side will remain to be seen of course, as we still don't have the full information on how the aliens tech (I have ideas, but not confirmed). If both teams have open ended teching, it will hugely benefit the RTS part of the game as not only FPS skill will be important, but knowing where to strike with what tech will be of equal importance.
<!--quoteo(post=1707844:date=May 26 2009, 10:21 PM:name=God_Hand)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (God_Hand @ May 26 2009, 10:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1707844"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Probably because the Marines are ATTACKING THE ALIEN HIVES and the Aliens are DEFENDING THEIR HIVES FROM OUTSIDE PRESENCE.
I just don't like the idea that buildings should be dependent on one another. Making certain structures reliant not only on other structures, but now at fixed locations would make the game, IMHO, feel more constricted and restrained.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, this thread needs the plug taking out, all the crying is making it hard to navigate without a life vest.
Second, I think your view on what NS was about is an extremely limiting one. The game is about Marines attacking aliens and aliens defending? Maybe it's just the company I kept but games varied a bit more than that, on some levels it would be a strong marine start and it would happen as you say. On other levels the aliens would get the upper hand first and it'd be about the marines trying to establish a foothold while the aliens attempt to annihilate them.
The old system meant that the best thing for marines to do was to hunker down, usually in a hive so they get a nice two for one deal, and build temporary PG links or tech up the JPs. If aliens wanted to win the ONLY option was to take the second hive and kill the rines before they teched up enough to make a come back. It also meant that for aliens it was all about one hive, not two, on top of the one you started with. If you won the second hive that was it, there was no other element involved, the victory might have taken ages to achieve depending on res towers and comm competency but generally that's what happened.
Now we're talking about a gameplay system where Marines have more control over controlling the landscape they enter, about needing to do more than just turtle a single room, and hopefully (as Firewater has been putting across quite amazingly amongst everything else) to see the Aliens need to branch out in how they consider solving the problem because of this.
We'll see what the PTs come up with, how it all goes down in the testing, but to claim that what is being talked about here will *limit* the strategy in the game, as if you could ever possibly get less strategy than we ended up with in NS once the tricks and strats were all out and well rehearsed, is monumentally naive; and probably more than slightly filled with misplaced nostalgia.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<b>Firewater</b> and <b>Bacillus</b> seem to agree about everything except that the former is optimistic[gasp!] about the actual implementation and goals and the latter is pessimistic[half-gasp].
In general I tend to learn toward optimism because the devs know how to make a good game, and I hope to be pleasantly surprised by this system. But I tend to think the goal of this system is to make the maps easier to follow and that few/predictable chokepoints are a design strategy to this end. I really hope I'm wrong, but that is the fear I, and I think <b>Crispy</b> and <b>Bacillus</b>, are trying to voice.
Comments
In NS: res nodes are independant of eachother and can be secured/stolen independantly. In NS2, sounds like the key capturable is the closest Power Node a.k.a. CC. This seems to indicate that teams will be attacking and defending very central points instead of having to defend a broad territory. This is one of the reasons NS was strong versus other games such as DoD and CS: there was no one, singular area or chokepoint to defend; the key areas were blurred and dynamic. In NS2 it sounds like we're dealing with very opaque and very predestined key locations, which makes for static gameplay... ...which is totally different to what makes gameplay in NS great.
Level design will have a significant role in how static the gameplay is, but the fact the general design lends itself to staticity (word?) is enough to support an argument that NS2 will be dramatically different to NS.
Gad, you must be in mensa. Yeah that's what I mean. You got it. Pretty clear, not elaboration needed, is blatantly a pretty bad flip with a lot of awesome eyecandy and a cheesy bizarre mixture of weird random unrelated games; this... thing... is becoming a turret farming campers uber yawn... With strobo screens when chewed but who freaking cares, you lost the damn gps of the community, (WTH alien commander) for reals. Get back to your roots Flayra, remember what you thought then when you made the first version, forget all else.
<!--quoteo(post=1707038:date=May 16 2009, 03:48 PM:name=Wither)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wither @ May 16 2009, 03:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1707038"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And yes, like everyone else has been saying for the past 11 pages.. whenever something didn't work in previous NS versions, it was altered or removed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly, that's the problem, bravo. Absolutely NOTHING was wrong in NS, is THE perfect game. If something, I can say, the crappy netcode. Period. Why you had to trash this game we love so much is what I scream, why. Freaking money, ok, it is fine, good luck, we are tired of the same and NS was absolutely different. I think the opera prima was a classy piece of art, and that's why I reject this one as a worthless fancy fashion effort. Let the flaming start.
In NS: res nodes are independant of eachother and can be secured/stolen independantly. In NS2, sounds like the key capturable is the closest Power Node a.k.a. CC. This seems to indicate that teams will be attacking and defending very central points instead of having to defend a broad territory. This is one of the reasons NS was strong versus other games such as DoD and CS: there was no one, singular area or chokepoint to defend; the key areas were blurred and dynamic. In NS2 it sounds like we're dealing with very opaque and very predestined key locations, which makes for static gameplay... ...which is totally different to what makes gameplay in NS great.
Level design will have a significant role in how static the gameplay is, but the fact the general design lends itself to staticity (word?) is enough to support an argument that NS2 will be dramatically different to NS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, I personally think that it will make for less static gameplay. Yes, you need to build a second CC if you want to build a base on the other side of the map but you're going to be building these anyway in order to tech up. I seriously doubt the map layout with the tech points on it represents every single map, meaning there's still a whole lot of wiggle room in map design and how dynamic or static the gameplay actually is. Which is pretty much identical to NS1, since map layout really did dictate gameplay there as well. And in NS1 we also already had "predestined key locations" - the hives. Now we have more of them, which I think does quite the opposite and will make for more dynamic gameplay.
I never said NS2 won't be drastically different from NS. From the sound of it there definitely will be some major changes - I don't see how there couldn't be. NS is a mod on an 11 year old engine while NS2 will be a standalone game, and I think a lot of things that the devs wanted to do with NS1 simply weren't possible due to engine constraints and it being a mod. That's no longer the case here and so it's logical for them to adapt or improve things that they believe could use a change. I'm eager to see how it turns out before I make any sort of judgment on whether or not it's a worthy sequel.
I really dont like how the whole developement is going towards combat, leaving the commanding/strategy aspect behind. Linked RT's powering a room, fixed building-spots etc. create imho no benefit to dynamic gameplay. I personally would go back to the roots, what natural selection was all about: commanding combined with fps not the other way around. I've never found a compareable game working as well as ns combining the two aspects. Thats why I am really disappointed hearing the latest developement/ideas in gameplay!!!
The commander should hold the power of who gets a weapon, where to build TF's, PG's etc. thats what it is all about: interaction between commander and soldiers.
(Beginners will - as it has been with ns1 - have a hard time getting into the game, but that is no reason to push ns2 too much into the combat genre.)
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Wither)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wither)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Concept of resource nodes? Pretty much.. identical.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->This, despite the fact the team have said you will need an active CC to 'power' the res nodes which will in turn generate currency. This means unlike NS where every res node was independant, res nodes in NS2 are dependant on centralised locations for them to even function. It doesn't matter if you have 4 or 5 or 7 tech nodes, the resource model will be a lot less fluid if it depends on centralised locations to generate any resources at all.
It already does depend on centralized locations. Now it just means you have to hold these locations and you can't just throw up an RT.
It seems you're saying the resource model is the same thing as gameplay as a whole, while it's only part of it - important, but still just a part. I don't disagree that this will make the resource system less fluid, since it definitely does add a level of dependency, but I just don't think it's THAT different from NS. You weren't going to hold a resource tower on the other side of the map in NS for very long unless you had an established presence there or were constantly passing by it, this just reinforces that. It also sets the stage for more fluid motion across the map, since you're already going to have semi-established outposts in other places - meaning your starting base doesn't necessarily have to be the end all, be all, location to be.
In the end this puts a new limitation on the resource model, but I think gameplay-wise it'll balance out.
<!--quoteo(post=1707234:date=May 19 2009, 07:58 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aNytiMe @ May 19 2009, 07:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1707234"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><img src="http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc15/Domining/ns2power.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
The design is most excellent. You guys are the best designers in the world.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=106343" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=106343</a>
They aren't dropping any.
I like the powergrid concept in theory. However, I think the "grid" part may make gameplay too strongly favoring the Kharaa, as a small strike force hitting an underdefended RT can cut off several and make them easy bait (I don't believe hitting a CC will do as much, as explained below). A better option, in my opinion, would be to make each RT power the room it is in. That way, if you can hit the RT any forward base they established there is kaput, and any defenses for it would become easy prey as well. Also, regardless of how you do it, phase gates should have their own internal power supply so Ninja PG is still an option. If that seems too much (which would probably require playtesting to find out), making a phase gate that is two way but requires power and an exit that is only an out but doesn't need power might also be an option. On a related note, making the PGs bring up a map so you can choose which to go to would be awesomely better than doing them in order and hoping you get to the right one when you want to.
Second, relating to the current discussion in this thread, losing your CC in NS and NS2 doesn't sound very different. Sure, in the latter your RTs cease to function, unless they can draw power from a different CC. Remember, just because they are currently drawing power from one CC doesn't mean they can't from a second. Actually losing more than one or two RTs sounds as if it will be reasonably rare, assuming good map design. And if you lose your only chair, well then there is no difference at all. In NS1 you can't build anything with your resources you are getting, and in NS2 you can't build anything with the resources you aren't getting. Huge difference. I don't know how the marines will manage (to be fair, if they have lost their only chair, they probably won't manage very well at all. But maybe they should have thought of that beforehand.)
Also, I love the idea of dynamic infestation making things more advantageous for the Kharaa, but that has it's own thread, so there is no need to talk about it here.
You think NS was perfect? Personally, in public games (where the vast majority of people play) I found the resource model to be extremely lacking. The game mechanics in NS never encouraged teamwork - it was all up to the players to use voice communication. NS2 has a chance to improve upon this. If someone wants to be a team player, they should be able to look at their HUD, or some pop-up HUD, and know exactly what's going on and where to go to help out the most in a 5 second time span -- all without the aid of player communication. The game itself should encourage teamwork by providing a more clear frontline. Flanks, rambo'ing, strike teams, etc would all still be possible but the game definitely needs some focus.
Granted, I don't know if the power-grid system is the right way to go about it (especially if the maps are going to be as boringly simplistic as the one provided as an example) but a new system is needed.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You weren't going to hold a resource tower on the other side of the map in NS for very long unless you had an established presence there or were constantly passing by it, this just reinforces that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->The given map design has no 'out-of-the-way' res nodes on outlying routes. Having a balance between res nodes in high-traffic areas and res nodes in low-traffic areas is part of what I like about NS map design. It means if the chips are down for your team you can still harass the other team without being forced into a direct confrontation. The map shown doesn't do this, and even though I know this is just a concept/placeholder I'm referring to it more to make sure KFS and the team don't turn NS into one big DoD-style chokefest. If NS2 gets dumbed down you risk alienating its original supporters, which is dangerous for an indie release. But even sadder than that is you are moving away from what actually makes NS original.
I think so too. Shoudn't changes be made in order to improve NS's gameplay/concept in NS2? With all the new feaures I feel like many good concepts are thrown overboard, pushing the game in the mainstream - which on one hand might be good, because the game ll be simpler to understand, but on the other hand, it'll become more and more like all the other games out there, which ll raise the question:" Do I really need to buy this game? How is it so different from all the others?"
I really reject the idea of designing a game without the need of communication by creating frontlines/chokes. By increasing the importance of RTs I dont believe NS2 will have the same fun battles as NS. I just imagine how more or less every RT has to be secured by marines and if the PG is not selfpowering (I dont hope so) one of the most important strategic ways of playing the game will be lost.
To me it looks like the game will be designed as a room by room fight thingy, to be over dramatic. Natural Selection always implied team communication, without it - most of the time - the team would fail badly. Thats what made it so much fun, players HAD to talk to eachother, HAD to get orders and tell the others where the action was going on.
The idea of random/more spawn points and dynamic investation is great, but WHY moving one step backwards by creating resnode-grids? This is pretty much a paradox!
Greets
This sounds absolutely <b>awesome.</b> Not only is this game going to be atmospheric, tense, and just provide an overall immersion into your surroundings, it's taking on a whole new strategical element to it as well. Natural Selection always felt like a shooter <i>first</i> and an RTS second, and I think this new, base gameplay element tweak is going to bring the RTS feeling home. I am loving it.
My only concern is the number of players present on the field and the overall scale of the game. I'm a fan of a lot of players -- when I play Red Orchestra, I don't join any server running less than fifty players (same goes for Battlefield 2). I'll wait if the servers are full. With multiple commanders giving orders, it's going to be pulling players off the field and into the background, forfeiting their "physical" presence on the battlefield for a flashing sprite on your HUD and a voice in your ear. Assuming the player number limitations server wise stay the same, that's going to give each commander, if two are present, seven troops to command. With three, three commanders with four, four and five troops to command. Is that enough?
Will we ever be seeing any sort of "advanced AI" that'll let Marine players command small AI squads of their own?
Will we ever be seeing any sort of "advanced AI" that'll let Alien players control small AI squads of their own?
...maybe just a "tier 3" upgrade?
Regardless, I am officially watching this website on a regular basis now with a <b>meaty</b> update like that. Holy smokes.
Hmm, everyone is making their own intepretations of the system. I felt the power grid was going to take NS2 more into the FPS direction. At least I think that the power grid is going to gather up big fights in the few major routes. At that point the fights become the biggest importance while in original NS setting up the fights in your favor was a big importance.
Could you explain how the RTS is going to improve with power grid? It's very possible that it actually happens, but I haven't managed to figure it out yet.
Could you explain how the RTS is going to improve with power grid? It's very possible that it actually happens, but I haven't managed to figure it out yet.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the original NS, there were really only three rooms that, if locked down or defended long enough, would change the overall flow of the game -- hive locations. With this new grid system, we now have <i>six</i> of these rooms. They aren't just dedicated to the aliens this time, they're also able to be used by marines, and not only are they used for teching (like hive locations are now), they also represent a supply route. It's these two core principles -- biracial tech rooms and supply routes -- that open up a wealth of new strategic options that Natural Selection has never seen before.
Say your team is down a few chips early on. You've lost some key engagements and your opponent has pushed out to begin capping a significantly larger amount of RTs than you have. With supply routes in mind, you can sneak a sizable force inside a hole in your enemy's front, and attack a linking tech point between them and their growing RT farm. You severe that connection by destroying the RT on that tech point, then hold out as long as possible while your team, on the other side of the map, scrambles to establish an equally impressive RT farm, trying to regain a foothold in the game that was once lost.
That's a new strategical element that you won't see playing original NS -- right now, you can't shut down a team's entire resource income with one surgical strike, instead you have to go after each node individually. With the new power grid system more than one option is given to players when they need to take their opponents' economy down a few notches. That's strategy.
Even the new tech points provide an overall strategy we've never seen before, allowing players to play aggressively or defensively depending on where they construct their second tech point. Construct it near your original start location and you can play a more careful game, probably assuring the round will make it to Tier 3 gameplay. However, if you'd like to take a risk, you can construct your tech building on a tech point close to your opponent's initial spawn with the same spirit of an early marine relocation near the initial hive. Instead of the game playing out at a more leisurely pace as both of your forces headbutt each other over the center of the map and slowly progress up your tech trees (targeting RTs more than actual tech locations due to the proximity of your forces and the nature of your tech racey game), the aggressive player will find himself locked three feet away from his opponent's initial spawn. Rather than most of the conflict playing out over RTs, it will instead play out over tech rooms and the important choke points leading to them, both teams really trying to strangle each other before the game has even started.
The best part about the tech points is that any of these sort of battles can take place at any point in the game. You may start out cautious early on, but throw your third tech building up near your opponent's 1st and 2nd. Let's take the hypothetical a step further -- your opponent saw the aggressive location, and took advantage of it by circling around to your initial spawn and quickly overwhelming it. Now the game stands with the both of you neck and neck, both in Tier 2, both mere inches from each other, locked in a desperate struggle of tech points, trying to prevent one another from reaching Tier 3 and constantly fighting over choke points to that precious third tech point. The game's pace has changed from a more careful start into a very desperate bid for survival between the two races. Perhaps both teams will pull off of eachother and recede back into their corners to quickly tech to T3 and return to the more linear fashion of playing the early game represented, or maybe they'll go for each other's throats immediately and the intense standoff will stay until the game finally ends. The possibilities are endless!
It's gonna be <i>awesome.</i>
<!--quoteo(post=1707808:date=May 26 2009, 04:38 PM:name=Haze)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Haze @ May 26 2009, 04:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1707808"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In the original NS, there were really only three rooms that, if locked down or defended long enough, would change the overall flow of the game -- hive locations. With this new grid system, we now have <i>six</i> of these rooms. They aren't just dedicated to the aliens this time, they're also able to be used by marines, and not only are they used for teching (like hive locations are now), they also represent a supply route. It's these two core principles -- biracial tech rooms and supply routes -- that open up a wealth of new strategic options that Natural Selection has never seen before.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not about the number of rooms. In NS you controlled the hive rooms AND the map. On NS2 it might turn out that the map control becomes more of an instant gain as the map progresses as few big fronts. At best NS' map control turns out to be an interesting piece of lifeform co-operation and pressure rules. Meanwhile in NS2 there might be a lot less of that as most lifeforms are stuck on the battle lines.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Say your team is down a few chips early on. You've lost some key engagements and your opponent has pushed out to begin capping a significantly larger amount of RTs than you have. With supply routes in mind, you can sneak a sizable force inside a hole in your enemy's front, and attack a linking tech point between them and their growing RT farm. You severe that connection by destroying the RT on that tech point, then hold out as long as possible while your team, on the other side of the map, scrambles to establish an equally impressive RT farm, trying to regain a foothold in the game that was once lost.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is that there might not be any holes. Even in NS1 it's difficult to sneak through the map on a big server. Now that there are basically two routes instead of 3-4. A lot of the stuff you described was more likely to happen in NS1, but people weren't using it even then. Also note that the max distance between the battlefront and sneakthrough force is something like 2 rooms. There's no way you're getting that much damage done unless the buildings are made of paper.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's a new strategical element that you won't see playing original NS -- right now, you can't shut down a team's entire resource income with one surgical strike, instead you have to go after each node individually. With the new power grid system more than one option is given to players when they need to take their opponents' economy down a few notches. That's strategy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wonder how the strategical part is going to work reasonably. There aren't that many nodes or links to protect and slipping them away would be stupid. There's most likely no way to tell the timing when the nodes are unprotected and if there is a way, how are marines going to be able to counter that? You can keep flanking until until the enemy team makes a mistake, but that's pretty much it on my logic.
NS1 handled a lot of the res war by a combination of teamwork and strategy. Marines tried to maintain a balance of capping and pressure. Aliens on the other hand tried to free skulks and higher lifeforms to fight the res war on the marine side. It involved some risk taking, but most of all it had a plenty of teamwork in combination with the right timing and pace.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Even the new tech points provide an overall strategy we've never seen before, allowing players to play aggressively or defensively depending on where they construct their second tech point. Construct it near your original start location and you can play a more careful game, probably assuring the round will make it to Tier 3 gameplay. However, if you'd like to take a risk, you can construct your tech building on a tech point close to your opponent's initial spawn with the same spirit of an early marine relocation near the initial hive. Instead of the game playing out at a more leisurely pace as both of your forces headbutt each other over the center of the map and slowly progress up your tech trees (targeting RTs more than actual tech locations due to the proximity of your forces and the nature of your tech racey game), the aggressive player will find himself locked three feet away from his opponent's initial spawn. Rather than most of the conflict playing out over RTs, it will instead play out over tech rooms and the important choke points leading to them, both teams really trying to strangle each other before the game has even started.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the teams are going to be any equal, there won't be a slightest chance that you can get up a tech point next to your enemy main base. The supply line is too long. Maybe there could be tech points in the middle, but I can't see them being that interesting either. Once one team secures the middle, it's GG for the other most likely, as the maps are mirrored.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The best part about the tech points is that any of these sort of battles can take place at any point in the game. You may start out cautious early on, but throw your third tech building up near your opponent's 1st and 2nd. Let's take the hypothetical a step further -- your opponent saw the aggressive location, and took advantage of it by circling around to your initial spawn and quickly overwhelming it. Now the game stands with the both of you neck and neck, both in Tier 2, both mere inches from each other, locked in a desperate struggle of tech points, trying to prevent one another from reaching Tier 3 and constantly fighting over choke points to that precious third tech point. The game's pace has changed from a more careful start into a very desperate bid for survival between the two races. Perhaps both teams will pull off of eachother and recede back into their corners to quickly tech to T3 and return to the more linear fashion of playing the early game represented, or maybe they'll go for each other's throats immediately and the intense standoff will stay until the game finally ends. The possibilities are endless!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree that NS1 was quite predictable in the types of battles, but then again how does the map help here? It's an issue of the tech tree and res system more than the actual map layout and power grid system. Most of the stuff you described could be pulled off in a NS1 styled map if you replaced a few nodes with tech areas and tweaked the tech and res models a bit.
I processed my thoughts while writing, so the resonses are most likely mixed up and ect, but my few main points are:
1.) Most of your gameplay visions are based on the fact that the nature of tech is going to change. The power grid is only bringing in some flanking strategies that could be done by many different sets of rules even on the old styled NS maps. I also feel that the flanking alone isn't going to replace the strategical depth lost in map control, not to speak of pre-fight setups.
2.) You're ignoring some of the great elements of NS1. It's often difficult to organise such co-operation and plays even in competetive enviroment and some of my logic is purely theory. Nevertheless, NS1 has a lot of potential that never got used because of the brutal learning curve, lack of tutorials and ect.
3. The tech tree and res system were more limiting factors that the maps themselves when it comes to tactical verstatility.
Oh and to avoid sounding completely negative: I give big credit to the UWE in general and respect their decisions whatever they may be in NS2, but I need to see more of the gameplay structure until I can see this as a positive feature for the strategies.
Fair enough, I'll skip to the summary for my points.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I processed my thoughts while writing, so the resonses are most likely mixed up and ect, but my few main points are:
1.) Most of your gameplay visions are based on the fact that the nature of tech is going to change. The power grid is only bringing in some flanking strategies that could be done by many different sets of rules even on the old styled NS maps. I also feel that the flanking alone isn't going to replace the strategical depth lost in map control, not to speak of pre-fight setups.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree, I think holding key locations to tech is a good idea if both teams have to do it. By allowing teams to break down tiers of tech, rather than the "all or nothing" strategy that is presently in NS, could create for some interesting strategical/tactical maneuvers to keep the other team guessing.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2.) You're ignoring some of the great elements of NS1. It's often difficult to organise such co-operation and plays even in competetive enviroment and some of my logic is purely theory. Nevertheless, NS1 has a lot of potential that never got used because of the brutal learning curve, lack of tutorials and ect.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The learning curve was steep true, but there were community based tutorials (i.e. NSlearn, NSGuides) that attempted to alleviate bad habits and elevate gameplay. Granted, a tutorial would have been nice, but you have to remember that NS was the most popular third party mod that NEVER went retail. I know this is for half life, but I don't know if this holds true for all FPS games. So despite those limitations, NS experienced a large amount of success.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->3. The tech tree and res system were more limiting factors that the maps themselves when it comes to tactical verstatility.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree but having both sides being able to attack "expansion" bases would add more to tactical versatility rather than hinder it in my opinion. The power grid gives more options for both sides to attack, rather than just hive rooms and marine start to destroy tech, not just resource nodes.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Oh and to avoid sounding completely negative: I give big credit to the UWE in general and respect their decisions whatever they may be in NS2, but I need to see more of the gameplay structure until I can see this as a positive feature for the strategies.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While we may disagree, we both want whats best for NS2. Bottom line is that the community is going to have to wait for playtesters reaction before forming an opinion that holds water.
Probably because the Marines are ATTACKING THE ALIEN HIVES and the Aliens are DEFENDING THEIR HIVES FROM OUTSIDE PRESENCE.
I just don't like the idea that buildings should be dependent on one another. Making certain structures reliant not only on other structures, but now at fixed locations would make the game, IMHO, feel more constricted and restrained.
I agree that the change as a whole was good, but I think it could have been done without such linking that heavily directs the spread. My fear is that the key locations will end up in very prolonged battles. A little like marines trying to tech for proto vs 2 hives, except that neither of the teams has any interest in fighting outside the 1-2 chokepoints. Of course it may be a good thing, but the meat grinders certainly need some new elements at that point.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The learning curve was steep true, but there were community based tutorials (i.e. NSlearn, NSGuides) that attempted to alleviate bad habits and elevate gameplay. Granted, a tutorial would have been nice, but you have to remember that NS was the most popular third party mod that NEVER went retail. I know this is for half life, but I don't know if this holds true for all FPS games. So despite those limitations, NS experienced a large amount of success.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was trying to say that 95% of the public players and a lot of competetive never used any big scale strategies or adaptation in NS. Haze's argumentation was based on the fact that in NS2 the teams suddenly are able to do those. I don't think we need the power grid on the basis of NS1 lacking the strategical depth. Neither of the systems is going to offer strategical depth unless people become more aware of it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree but having both sides being able to attack "expansion" bases would add more to tactical versatility rather than hinder it in my opinion. The power grid gives more options for both sides to attack, rather than just hive rooms and marine start to destroy tech, not just resource nodes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree completely that the expansion bases add positive elements in to the game. However, is it necessary to have power grid links in it? What if some nodes in Tanith get replaced with tech nodes. Once the tech tree is built so that the bases are actually worth defending, the effect should be relatively similar, just without the game clogging into 2 big chokepoints. Of course defending tech might become quite difficult on such an open map, but I don't think the links are the only solution for the defence anyway.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->While we may disagree, we both want whats best for NS2. Bottom line is that the community is going to have to wait for playtesters reaction before forming an opinion that holds water.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True. I'm not even trying to say the whole power grid is a fail. I just don't see it as an advantage for the pure RTS part of the game, not yet at least.
I think that part of our disagreement hinges on the fact that you seem to be trying to fit old maps into this new mold. They were not made with the power grid in mind. Tanith will not exist in it's current form on NS 2.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Haze you have the ability to psyche me up for this game big time<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
We have no evidence that any map will mirror the example that the developers chose to simply show the system. The developers example will not be a map, it was just a way to show how the new system would work.
I don't understand why that is difficult to comprehend. Of course mappers are going to put their own touches on it and develop maps that would be conducive to game play (like NS1) not hamper it.
Making it linked to infestation and not resource towers makes it a lot less of a restriction on the Marines, which may not be what you want, and could be underpowered for the aliens - it'd make spreading / clearing infestation rather important though and stop deep raids into alien territory unless a path were cleared first. Some overlap could be put in place by having all power lines flowing through the res nodes so taking a res-node as an alien would damage the power grid.
It'll be for the play testers to see how well the system works and improve it I suppose.
I agree that if it breaks down to similar NS play (holding 1 or 2 key locations) then it will be a detremental system. However, good mapping with this new apparently open teching system, will create a BOAT load of strategies, rather than the two or 3 that are currently used.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I was trying to say that 95% of the public players and a lot of competetive never used any big scale strategies or adaptation in NS. Haze's argumentation was based on the fact that in NS2 the teams suddenly are able to do those. I don't think we need the power grid on the basis of NS1 lacking the strategical depth. Neither of the systems is going to offer strategical depth unless people become more aware of it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most public games lack strategical depth, as typically, the marines attempt to lock down a close hive, and battle over the second one. This a cookie-cutter strategy that does not have much depth at all. With this open ended system, it would allow for more creativity, as well as better strategy/tactics for BOTH teams as the aliens should not be bound to one of two specific teching locations.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree completely that the expansion bases add positive elements in to the game. However, is it necessary to have power grid links in it? What if some nodes in Tanith get replaced with tech nodes. Once the tech tree is built so that the bases are actually worth defending, the effect should be relatively similar, just without the game clogging into 2 big chokepoints. Of course defending tech might become quite difficult on such an open map, but I don't think the links are the only solution for the defence anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since I have the SE pre-order, I plan to be very active in the testing of this game in both phases. I would also think that I have enough respect from the developers that they will at least give a little consideration if I have a suggestion about balance, or certain features in the game. That being said, I plan organizing my own playtests for the purposes of testing this powergrid design, to see if the theory can be translated into reality.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->True. I'm not even trying to say the whole power grid is a fail. I just don't see it as an advantage for the pure RTS part of the game, not yet at least.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The advantage to the RTS side will remain to be seen of course, as we still don't have the full information on how the aliens tech (I have ideas, but not confirmed). If both teams have open ended teching, it will hugely benefit the RTS part of the game as not only FPS skill will be important, but knowing where to strike with what tech will be of equal importance.
I just don't like the idea that buildings should be dependent on one another. Making certain structures reliant not only on other structures, but now at fixed locations would make the game, IMHO, feel more constricted and restrained.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, this thread needs the plug taking out, all the crying is making it hard to navigate without a life vest.
Second, I think your view on what NS was about is an extremely limiting one. The game is about Marines attacking aliens and aliens defending? Maybe it's just the company I kept but games varied a bit more than that, on some levels it would be a strong marine start and it would happen as you say. On other levels the aliens would get the upper hand first and it'd be about the marines trying to establish a foothold while the aliens attempt to annihilate them.
The old system meant that the best thing for marines to do was to hunker down, usually in a hive so they get a nice two for one deal, and build temporary PG links or tech up the JPs. If aliens wanted to win the ONLY option was to take the second hive and kill the rines before they teched up enough to make a come back. It also meant that for aliens it was all about one hive, not two, on top of the one you started with. If you won the second hive that was it, there was no other element involved, the victory might have taken ages to achieve depending on res towers and comm competency but generally that's what happened.
Now we're talking about a gameplay system where Marines have more control over controlling the landscape they enter, about needing to do more than just turtle a single room, and hopefully (as Firewater has been putting across quite amazingly amongst everything else) to see the Aliens need to branch out in how they consider solving the problem because of this.
We'll see what the PTs come up with, how it all goes down in the testing, but to claim that what is being talked about here will *limit* the strategy in the game, as if you could ever possibly get less strategy than we ended up with in NS once the tricks and strats were all out and well rehearsed, is monumentally naive; and probably more than slightly filled with misplaced nostalgia.
In general I tend to learn toward optimism because the devs know how to make a good game, and I hope to be pleasantly surprised by this system. But I tend to think the goal of this system is to make the maps easier to follow and that few/predictable chokepoints are a design strategy to this end. I really hope I'm wrong, but that is the fear I, and I think <b>Crispy</b> and <b>Bacillus</b>, are trying to voice.