<!--quoteo(post=1717991:date=Jul 18 2009, 06:08 PM:name=Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot @ Jul 18 2009, 06:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717991"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is not meant as an insult or sarcasm but I think some of us are having a communication problem or reading comprehension issue.
I am <b><u>not</u> saying</b>, multiple commanders is unworkable as a gameplay idea.
I <b><u>am</u> saying</b>, I think 2 or more commanders is a bad idea because it was hard enough to find 1 commander.
The Alpha doesn't reveal anything because the majority of testers will be veteran clanners and experienced pubbers, the commander:troop ratio with this group of hardcore players shouldn't be a problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Someones reply in this thread already answered your concerns. We don't know what the responsibilities for the commanders will be in NS2. It can very well be that the marine team can function without a commander their every step of the way. That the marine weapons are powerful enough that we don't need sieges every time we find a room full of ocs. That the "commanders" are more like the "operator" in the movie "The Matrix"... or like "Lt. Gorman" in the movie "Aliens"... that they just watch the battle and give advice / orders and assist only in small ways.
Perhaps commanders have to hack in to systems or open locked doors or reroute power from different rooms, etc... like disable lighting in some areas so the motion tracking built into the office areas of the colonist complex are functioning... or to get lifesupport up and running.
The coolest thing would be the ability to track a squad and see the firstperson view from the "sergeant" in that squad in a small window docked on the side of your screen.
In short we don't know and cannot go off half cocked because of two words "multiple commanders".
<!--quoteo(post=1718013:date=Jul 18 2009, 07:55 PM:name=Cheezy104)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cheezy104 @ Jul 18 2009, 07:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718013"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What if the two commanders are arguing with each other and can't decide on where to go etc etc
I really see no reason at all to have two commanders Also, I hope the commander isn't able to magically spam medpacks in NS2<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
aeroripperJoin Date: 2005-02-25Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
I don't know about you, but imagine the feeling of winning an intense 8v8 or 10v10 game with multiple commanders on each side all doing their part. I think its a great idea to have them, especially in a public setting where many people get a chance to learn how to command in a more forgiving setting than what it is in NS1. This ultimately helps the game get better comms a lot faster since you introduce people into it slowly. I'm still a believer in having the main commander limit the abilities of the sub-comms, or even allow them at all. I imagine it should go something like this:
1) Spectate only (great for beginner comms and shoutcasts). 2) Primary comm can offload med\ammo marine requests and AI welderbots, or if they're slower put them in charge of research. 3) Full comm abilities outside of building placement.
If the primary comm chair is destroyed or he is out of the chair after say 10-15 seconds, the sub commander gets promoted to primary commander.
<!--quoteo(post=1717999:date=Jul 19 2009, 07:36 AM:name=Tesseract)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tesseract @ Jul 19 2009, 07:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717999"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your problem seems to very much be, "People are dumb so this idea can't work because people are dumb so the idea is dumb."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> True though.
I think multiple commanders could work, I'd like to know <b>how</b> it works, though. Is there a 'supreme commander' and sub-commanders (the ideal implementation)? Or are all commanders <b>equal</b>?
<!--quoteo(post=1718027:date=Jul 19 2009, 04:19 AM:name=FocusedWolf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FocusedWolf @ Jul 19 2009, 04:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718027"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That can be fixed in many many many ways...
1. some things can cost no res at all, just time... i.e. researching armor... or it can cost very little res, just a lot of time.
2. each commander can have a personal cache of res to work with, just as each alien in NS1 had a personal cache of res.
we have to trust the developers on this one because they are fully aware of the situation more then any of us can be.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah i was thinking the same thing (for som reason i was thinking about it when i whent to bed lol) Nr 2 would be the best scenario in this case. all though as many have said in this post: it's hard to find one good commander. But then agein with 2 commanders it will open up a new way to learn how to be a commander since everything isen't relying on you(the ocmmander) but also the other commander(i personally have never been a commander in ns because i have no way of learning)
Topic starter's off his rocker. He's made the assumption that NS2 commanding is going to be exactly the same as NS1 commanding, with multiple commanders the only exception.
Of the very little we know about commanding, we already know that comms don't have to worry about weapon drops- no more LMG-only games or an early AA followed by 10 GLs.
I'd say one of UWE's primary goals with NS2 is making a gentler learning curve- it's going to apply to field grunts and aliens and I see no reason why it won't apply to commanders too.
<!--quoteo(post=1718038:date=Jul 19 2009, 06:44 AM:name=aeroripper)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aeroripper @ Jul 19 2009, 06:44 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718038"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know about you, but imagine the feeling of winning an intense 8v8 or 10v10 game with multiple commanders on each side all doing their part.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay but the thing now is that if we substitute 'sglorbsqonkz' to 'commander' it would mean the same thing as in:
'I don't know about you, but imagine the feeling of winning an intense 8v8 or 10v10 game with multiple sglorbsqonkzes on each side all doing their part.'
This to say since we know Absolutely Nothing besides the fact that it will be top down view, it's too soon to even argue about the commander role in NS2. This has nothing to do with you aero, I just grabbed a sentence from your post. :)
The concept of allowing only one commander is entirely a subset of the concept of allowing more than one, as all that is required from the commander is that he simply *allow* more than one commander. So logically speaking, any disadvantages presented having multiple commanders can be fixed simply because the first commander does not wish these disadvantages. At that point, you get into the discussion of whether or not the commander has good intentions in mind or intends to sabotage the game, but how has this discussion been any different before with a single commander recycling all structures?
Have a little faith in this idea. At best, it can allow commanding to a broader group of players, it can allow far easier micro-management for human players, yet does not unbalance the game for requiring a 2nd human player to do this role. At worst, you have the same thing you've always had before. I think for the most part you won't see a lot of 2nd commanders anyway since it could be considered an unnecessary waste of players to do something the 1st comm could do anyway. I wouldn't worry about it too much. If the situation ever arises that the comm build a 2nd comm chair and the game went to hell because of it, you can just bash the comm's decision to even build a 2nd comm chair like you would bash the comm for whatever millions of reasons you might have to bash him.
I can imagine the multiple commanders working out more for the Aliens. It does not seem like that role has much base-building or tech-tree related influence. So if you have multiple commanders, the chances of them getting up in each others grill is somewhat minimal.
This is off-topic, but FocusedWolf, a edit button does exist. Do that instead of replying three times in a row.
<!--quoteo(post=1718082:date=Jul 19 2009, 04:42 AM:name=Skydancer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Skydancer @ Jul 19 2009, 04:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718082"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Okay but the thing now is that if we substitute 'sglorbsqonkz' to 'commander' it would mean the same thing as in:<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As soon as I heard about sqlorbsqonkz, I knew they were a bad idea. How often do you see sqlorbsqonkz being used in NS1? Clearly, they won't be used right in NS2 either.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sirot)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It does not seem like that role has much base-building or tech-tree related influence.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I know what you mean, because like you I base my conceptions about aliens and sqlorbsqonkz entirely on NS1. There is no chance either will be revamped in the new game!
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><i>Ok, sorry about the jokes, it's Sunday morning.</i><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
Making sure there's enough depth and importance within a RTS/FPS game for a single commander is hard enough. NS1 wasn't even able to stop the commander from turning into a baby sitter whilst following predetermined cookie cutter builds.
I hope there's some big secret UWE has yet to reveal about the RTS side, because if there isn't, two comms is going to be really redundant and boring.
Aside from previous points already mentioned, multiple commanders will be bad simply because there is no reason to have more than one because it takes more than one people away from shooting aliens with the rest of the team. In NS1 a second commander wasn't needed if the commander was competent, so the would-be second commander instead served his team better by joining the rest of the team. Unless there are loads of more things for a comm to do (which some commanders might be able to do solo anyway), a second commander will only hurt a team.
I think it could work really well, but it should be a large game only thing. No way is trying to balance it for 6v6 a good idea. No need to actually restrict it, but just let it be a crappy strategy. If you've got a game of 12v12 or more though, maintaining all those players becomes a full time job and the lone comm has his hands full. In that case it's not too hard to find one volunteer, and a single player isn't so big a cost. Just leave his privileges up to the original commander - combat support only or full comm abilities. That way if the comm trusts the guy he can let him use his judgment to drop nodes and stuff, or he can just be restricted to handling meds/ammo while the real one does the infrastructure. It also helps people who prefer the RTS over the FPS contribute even when they don't get the main seat. I don't really want to see it ever becoming required though, a subcomm should be of roughly equal value to a single marine on the field.
<!--quoteo(post=1718117:date=Jul 19 2009, 12:13 PM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sirot @ Jul 19 2009, 12:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718117"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is off-topic, but FocusedWolf, a edit button does exist. Do that instead of replying three times in a row.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes don't ask my why but my forum settings for a week or so had a sort of treeview setup on the bottom, so instead of viewing all posts in one long stream i only saw the original post and a organized tree on the bottom that showed who replied to who. So now it's back to the old style... and it looks like i posted 4 times one after the other... so ya that was unintended for it to look like that...
From my point of view it was like my replies were getting nested below other peoples responses instead of stacking up in the order they were posted... ya that was weird lol.
For one thing, we know it's much more area based. We also know that they went to some effort to makes some things that were just placed before now have their non-depolyed state look mobile.
So, put these two things together and you can easily surmise a command structure where the commander can only place things within his/her powered area, and then marines have to move it along themselves to the desired destination.
Want to place something in an area faster? Get a second commander in that area.
Or perhaps its just that some pieces of tech are extremely expensive, but if you have a commander in the area, he can take control of the item and have it move to a new location when need be.
Not to mention one thing we know for sure is that resource towers power the command chair, and the command chair powers its own sector plus provides power to the neighboring sectors. If you want to power up more than just the immediate neighbours, however, you'll need another occupied command chair.
And in any event, if the problem is a shortage of people who know how to command, secondary or sub-commanders gives an excellent way to teach people, and so boost the population of commanders.
<!--quoteo(post=1718070:date=Jul 19 2009, 10:20 AM:name=sherpa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sherpa @ Jul 19 2009, 10:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718070"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd say one of UWE's primary goals with NS2 is making a gentler learning curve<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can see it now - About to dive round the corner to take on the enemy *popup* "Are you sure you want to go round this corner, you might get attacked!" [Continue] [Retreat] ;)
I can't comment about multiple commanders having not experienced it yet. However, all this information thats going around about how the game is going to be easier than NS, is something I don't understand. NS was never difficult to understand, or play. Its hardly the fastest FPS game out there (yet they are slowing it down D:) and its hardly the most complicated RTS game out there (yet they feel the RTS mode requires support) - far from it on both counts.
I don't think they should take weapon drops away from the commander, unless of course he loads them into a structure for marines to take them from, thats not so different and makes sense really. I do understand, where this topics concerns are coming from. Since in the majority of public FPS and RTS games you can't depend on your team to help out in the slightest. As you hardly ever get cover from the guys 3 feet from you in most FPS, and you can bet your left arm that in RTS games your team mates are still tech one when they should be almost three by then.
Anyway, NS has a far smaller learning curve than alot of fps and rts games. From what I see on servers now though, is that people refuse to learn. You cannot develop a game for people like this, or everyone and anyone who wants to play the game to any kind of higher level (higher than casual) won't tollerate it.
Too many developers now pander to the "new" player. The fact of the matter is, with every game having essentially the same mechanics as the eachother, the chances are a "new" player to the game will advance reletavely quickly within a few days. If they don't, you'll probably find they are just that bad at all other games (omg not politically correct to say that!) and have accepted this and don't mind it.
As for the consoles, allow the keyboard and mouse to be used, and highly recomend it. That way if they play with a control pad, the rest of us don't have to suffer the "dumbing down" of the rest of the game for this control interface - see Unreal tournament 3 and Enemy Territory quake wars (1.4 I think), both of these were "destroyed" by the developers making them for consoles and PC's. Now I happened to like quake wars, and I witnessed first hand the server list going from thousands, to less than 100 over the course of a week after they patched the game. (of my own filters) They alienated alot of experienced players for the sake of a few (can't think of a better word there sorry) new and console players.
Between consoles and forum posters, we aren't going to have any games worth playing eventually. (although I expect consoles will advance at some point)
At the end of the day, its Charlie's call what goes into the game, and I urge people to try before they criticise. Because just reading about something and experiencing it first hand (regardless of how experienced you may, or think you may, be) are two completely different things.
Frost nail's it on the head. Far too many games are dumbed down to the point of unplayability. This notion of making the skulk slower for more HP, it seems....off. Why not make it faster with less hp? Would have the same effect no?
<!--quoteo(post=1718225:date=Jul 20 2009, 09:29 AM:name=DarkFrost)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DarkFrost @ Jul 20 2009, 09:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718225"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I can see it now - About to dive round the corner to take on the enemy *popup* "Are you sure you want to go round this corner, you might get attacked!" [Continue] [Retreat] ;)
I can't comment about multiple commanders having not experienced it yet. However, all this information thats going around about how the game is going to be easier than NS, is something I don't understand. NS was never difficult to understand, or play. Its hardly the fastest FPS game out there (yet they are slowing it down D:) and its hardly the most complicated RTS game out there (yet they feel the RTS mode requires support) - far from it on both counts.
I don't think they should take weapon drops away from the commander, unless of course he loads them into a structure for marines to take them from, thats not so different and makes sense really. I do understand, where this topics concerns are coming from. Since in the majority of public FPS and RTS games you can't depend on your team to help out in the slightest. As you hardly ever get cover from the guys 3 feet from you in most FPS, and you can bet your left arm that in RTS games your team mates are still tech one when they should be almost three by then.
Anyway, NS has a far smaller learning curve than alot of fps and rts games. From what I see on servers now though, is that people refuse to learn. You cannot develop a game for people like this, or everyone and anyone who wants to play the game to any kind of higher level (higher than casual) won't tollerate it.
Too many developers now pander to the "new" player. The fact of the matter is, with every game having essentially the same mechanics as the eachother, the chances are a "new" player to the game will advance reletavely quickly within a few days. If they don't, you'll probably find they are just that bad at all other games (omg not politically correct to say that!) and have accepted this and don't mind it.
As for the consoles, allow the keyboard and mouse to be used, and highly recomend it. That way if they play with a control pad, the rest of us don't have to suffer the "dumbing down" of the rest of the game for this control interface - see Unreal tournament 3 and Enemy Territory quake wars (1.4 I think), both of these were "destroyed" by the developers making them for consoles and PC's. Now I happened to like quake wars, and I witnessed first hand the server list going from thousands, to less than 100 over the course of a week after they patched the game. (of my own filters) They alienated alot of experienced players for the sake of a few (can't think of a better word there sorry) new and console players.
Between consoles and forum posters, we aren't going to have any games worth playing eventually. (although I expect consoles will advance at some point)
At the end of the day, its Charlie's call what goes into the game, and I urge people to try before they criticise. Because just reading about something and experiencing it first hand (regardless of how experienced you may, or think you may, be) are two completely different things.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't understand this crusade against accessibility. You have to make an effort to 'pander' to the new player otherwise there will be no one from outside the already established community who will play your game. You are saying that NS1 was accessible, even suggesting "NS has a far smaller learning curve than alot of fps and rts games", but that's after playing the lovely game of NS1 for many, many years. The honest truth is that you forgot how much of a pain in the ass this game was to learn. For a long time I thought that NS1 was easy to learn, but my perception was clouded from starting to play the game since its first release. That was solved when I tried introducing friends to play it, ever since, I never believed that NS1 was easy to learn. Here is a more recent example. I play with the Penny-Arcade forum community and recently, we played a lot of NS1. We had returning players quickly find the hang of the game and then, we had players who never touched the game before. They had a hard time. These are people who play a lot of video games and they still had issues wrapping their heads around this 'apparently' easy to learn game. NS1 only has a small learning curve only if you know how to play it already.
Just saying people "refuse to learn" and the game is fine, is idealism at best, elitism at worst. A game could be complex and be extremely deep, while still making an effort NOT to scare off new players. If a new player enters the game, does not understand what's going on AND constantly feels that he is not providing for the team, that player will go more often than not "screw this". That is the fault of game design. As much as I love NS1... it has issues. Maybe NS2 will fix them.
I know that NS2 is not like NS1. It is actually very different. That is comforting for me. For many other it seems, it's terrifying and that is justification to smother all change.
Between the PC fanboys and elitist forum posters, we aren't going to have any games worth playing eventually.
P.S: Regarding consoles, the main contender to our crowd, the Xbox 360 does not have mouse and keyboard support. Developers cannot provide that support and they have to use the gamepad.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1718241:date=Jul 20 2009, 12:14 PM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sirot @ Jul 20 2009, 12:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718241"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't understand this crusade against accessibility. You have to make an effort to 'pander' to the new player otherwise there will be no one from outside the already established community who will play your game. ... use to learn" and the game is fine, is idealism at best, elitism at worst. A game could be complex and be extremely deep, while still making an effort NOT to scare off new players. If a new player enters the game, does not understand what's going on AND constantly feels that he is not providing for the team, that player will go more often than not "screw this". That is the fault of game design. As much as I love NS1... it has issues. Maybe NS2 will fix them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> QFT.
<a href="http://unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=106721&st=0" target="_blank">Corroborating evidence</a>. <!--quoteo(post=1718241:date=Jul 20 2009, 12:14 PM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sirot @ Jul 20 2009, 12:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718241"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Between the PC fanboys and elitist forum posters, we aren't going to have any games worth playing eventually.
P.S: Regarding consoles, the main contender to our crowd, the Xbox 360 does not have mouse and keyboard support. Developers cannot provide that support and they have to use the gamepad.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Disagree. In the case of console and PC games they are not like peanut butter and chocolate and do not go well with each other. They both work a lot better if they are designed separately.
<!--quoteo(post=1718241:date=Jul 20 2009, 04:14 PM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sirot @ Jul 20 2009, 04:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718241"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just saying people "refuse to learn" and the game is fine, is idealism at best, elitism at worst.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh but they do, you kill them, they rant, you make an attempt to explain to them what went wrong on their part, they rant. One guy only last night couldn't grasp the concept of strafe. And how when he thought he had bitten the marine 3 times, which turned out to be one marine hit and two wall bites, that he had died. Simple, because the marine strafed to a side. He just simply refused to acknowlege its existence. Now I may be completely wrong here, or missed something obvious, but strafe is a function I've used since the mid 90's in FPS games.
So lets take the bad guy route here, and suggest that the game be developed without strafe, because clearly that guy is put off the game because he can't get hit head round the concept of it.
Of course not. There is no point in getting into this debate, heels are well and truely dug in and heads will be hit against brick walls.
Your idealistic view on the gaming population is admirable though - Its not the players fault but the games, is worth a thought I suppose. Although I did not say that the game shouldn't be accessable to new players, I did say that it shouldn't be built arround them. I can't explain this without the possibility of insulting people (damn that political correctness again).
And ofcourse I remember learning the game, I remember learning it like I remember learning quake. Please, don't tell me what I don't remember.
Also making the game accessable and pandering to a certain group, are two different things. Don't confuse having a tutorial, or tool tips, with audible APT warnings and mine sprites that make APT's and mines more useless. Oh dear, there I go again with other games.
Personally I would like NS2 to be faster, not in game length, but in movement. Its not going to happen, and this is probably the first and last time I'll mention it, but such is the way of things.
I agree that a game can be deep and not scare of new players. I just whole heartedly believe that NS was not difficult to learn. Its difficult to master each class in the game, but not difficult to be average.
<a href="http://www.teamxtender.com/xfpspro/PRO-3.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.teamxtender.com/xfpspro/PRO-3.jpg</a> <--- I assume thats not standard for the xbox then? I thought it looked part of the console, sorry.
Also by forum posters, althought I obviously knew of the irony of that statement, was directed at the people who have 90% of their posts directed at changing something they don't like, or would like added. Now although this isn't a bad thing in theory, when its the people who play the game the least - unfortunately happens the be the majority most of the time - change tends to happen that pushes out those who played the game for the game, due to people moaning about the game on the forums and get it moulded into what they want - Battlefield 2.
Developers make games, I play games, I don't feel I have the right to tell them what I want in their games. I just witness the after effects of those who do feel they have the right to dictate, and have witnessed it for more than ten years. I am a great believer in patches for bug fixes. Not patches for what is deemed an exploit by the casual gamers, but has been in the game for longer than they have been able to turn on a computer. (Sorry for being harsh)
There is new players and new players. One side will learn the game, because they are only new to the game, not gaming. The other is new to both the game and gaming, in both cases I don't see much loss if they refuse to learn, and I for one would help them to the best of my ability if they do want to learn.
Anyways enough of this.
My true stance on this subject is - Let him (them) make the game how he (they) see fit. Trust his (their) judgements. If you don't like it after you've played the game fine, have a rant about it. But you have to play the game first before any arguments for and against his (their) decisions about the game and its features can hold any weight.
I can see where you're coming from in saying developers think less of gamers than they should, but I totally disagree in saying NS is easy to learn.
The fundamentals are easy- the tech tree is easy to learn, aiming and shooting/biting is easy, alien abilities are easy to understand; but NS evolved to a point where things that should never be fundamentals became fundamentals.
Take bunnyhopping as an example. A smart newbie dies to a bunnyhopping skulk. He goes into spectator and sees the skulk bhop- "move left and right smoothly- got it". Try as he might- he won't recreate it.
There's also less obvious whackyness- who would +use a hive? Who would pancake a lerk and know to keep energy levels high? Who would know how to interchange blink and swipe effectively? How can you know how crucial that 30 res lerk or 50 res fade is in the context of the game? You need to be in the mindset of the newbie and it's totally unintuitive. You need experience to pick these things up, but without this experience you can't appreciate the depth of NS so there's no desire to stick at it. Also, you'll get booted out of public servers for trying to learn some of these things and- intially- failing miserably (fading, commanding).
As a postnote- the sale numbers speak for theirselves with regards to easy/shallow games and hard/complex games: Halo and Gears of War never exceed mediocrity but they sell by the bucketload. ...I'm trying to think of a complex game on the same system (xbox360) that sold poorly to validate my point but I can't think of a complex console game :< It's a poor comparison but let's go with QuakeLive on the PC- the pinnacle of deathmatching with no quarter given to newbies, and I bet it can't hold a candle to Halo (or Counter-Strike/TF2 for a PC comparison).
P.P.S.
Console mice aren't proper mice- they're basically thumbsticks in that the range of motion is small: exceeding a certain movement speed won't increase the rate at which you move/turn.
Starcraft is a game that is also extremely hard to learn(a lot harder than NS in fact) and it takes years of practice to get decent in competitive play. However, Starcraft is the most bought RTS game in the world.
Comparing NS to Counter-Strike is stupid. CS is meant to be simple and secondly, games like these attract younger gamers. We don't want idiot 12 year olds spamming the mic in NS2, now do we?
In addition to the things sherpa mentioned, there's also a certain lack of feedback that separates NS from most games. You can play very similar games yourself and yet the outcome changes a lot depending on very close individual performances that even further are often affected by connections and such. For example as a commander you can sometimes get away with ridiculously bad games just because the field players played good, but then again lose near perfect games and feel totally overrun. A fade can fail to defend the 2nd hive because skulks didn't bite enough nodes two minutes earlier.
Competetive play gives a bit more feedback as you know the teammates better and you've got a chance to discuss and analyze more with them, but it's still sometimes difficult to see whether you could've done your part notably better or did someone else decide the game by his plays. HLTV is useful for seeing the big picture, but even there you'd basically have to watch the game multiple times to understand how everyone contributed to the outcome.
<!--quoteo(post=1718290:date=Jul 20 2009, 09:30 PM:name=Cheezy104)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cheezy104 @ Jul 20 2009, 09:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718290"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Starcraft is a game that is also extremely hard to learn(a lot harder than NS in fact) and it takes years of practice to get decent in competitive play. However, Starcraft is the most bought RTS game in the world.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Take out the masochistic Koreans- who have inexplicably turned it into a national past-time- and see how SC stands up. I'd wager money when SC was being designed that it was never aimed at a competitive Korean audience. A one-off fluke.
<!--quoteo(post=1717931:date=Jul 18 2009, 03:52 PM:name=Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot @ Jul 18 2009, 03:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717931"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This issues doesn't even require a long discourse on game design theory.
Finding one good commander is hard enough on public servers; if it is necessary to find one for each team or multiple commanders for each team, the game could be lost before anyone is spawned.
It concerns me as a longtime NS pubber that you guys don't immediately see the flaw considering it was one of the major challenges with NS1 and the commander concept in general.
If I am missing something please let me know. From where I stand this looks like a problem you will not see in game testing with veteran clanners and experienced pubbers, but only once you have released it to the masses.
I think its a bad idea to prejudge an idea when there isn't even an alpha out. For larger games, perhaps a second commander is not a bad thing, but for smaller games I could see a problem potentially. All of these problems can be avoided if the primary commander has all the powers that the secondary commander could have. I say allow it as an option, and allow the teams to decide whether or not to use the option.
<!--quoteo(post=1718299:date=Jul 20 2009, 09:13 PM:name=sherpa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sherpa @ Jul 20 2009, 09:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718299"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Take out the masochistic Koreans- who have inexplicably turned it into a national past-time- and see how SC stands up. I'd wager money when SC was being designed that it was never aimed at a competitive Korean audience. A one-off fluke.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your point? Even without the koreans, the level of play in SC is extremely high (at least compared to other RTS games)
<!--quoteo(post=1718241:date=Jul 20 2009, 12:14 PM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sirot @ Jul 20 2009, 12:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718241"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't understand this crusade against accessibility. You have to make an effort to 'pander' to the new player otherwise there will be no one from outside the already established community who will play your game. You are saying that NS1 was accessible, even suggesting "NS has a far smaller learning curve than alot of fps and rts games", but that's after playing the lovely game of NS1 for many, many years. The honest truth is that you forgot how much of a pain in the ass this game was to learn. For a long time I thought that NS1 was easy to learn, but my perception was clouded from starting to play the game since its first release. That was solved when I tried introducing friends to play it, ever since, I never believed that NS1 was easy to learn. Here is a more recent example. I play with the Penny-Arcade forum community and recently, we played a lot of NS1. We had returning players quickly find the hang of the game and then, we had players who never touched the game before. They had a hard time. These are people who play a lot of video games and they still had issues wrapping their heads around this 'apparently' easy to learn game. NS1 only has a small learning curve only if you know how to play it already.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree, if that were the case, no one would have played NS as there was no other game like it at its time. I found the game very easy to get into. Just because people play "a lot" of video games does not mean they are necessarily good at them. That is kind of a poor argument.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just saying people "refuse to learn" and the game is fine, is idealism at best, elitism at worst. A game could be complex and be extremely deep, while still making an effort NOT to scare off new players. If a new player enters the game, does not understand what's going on AND constantly feels that he is not providing for the team, that player will go more often than not "screw this". That is the fault of game design. As much as I love NS1... it has issues. Maybe NS2 will fix them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am always a firm believer that the community can either welcome or shun the new player (depending on what circle the new player has attempted to join). If the game creates a system that panders to new players for whatever reason, that will indeed sacrifice depth/skill on other competent players part. I believe that it should be up to the game designers to educate the basics to new players, and the community to help players learn advanced techniques. Help the new players reach the standard, don't drop it down for the rest of the players.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Between the PC fanboys and elitist forum posters, we aren't going to have any games worth playing eventually.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know what that even means. Most players want to play a game that they can play to the maximum amount of enjoyment with out playing some elementary version of what could be a good game. If that point makes me and several others elitist, then so be it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Between the PC fanboys and elitist forum posters, we aren't going to have any games worth playing eventually.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This was a jab at DarkFrost's "Between consoles and forum posters, we aren't going to have any games worth playing eventually. (although I expect consoles will advance at some point)" comment. I should have been more obvious with the sarcasm. I apologize.
There is overreacting on both sides, maybe in attempt to neutralize the opposing side's argument. I am going to try to dodge that with following...
NS2 does not have to be dumbed down to be more accessible, not does it have to be inaccessible to satisfy the more hardcore player base. You can have both the new and veteran players happy with a bit of ingenuity. There is no point in arguing whether or not NS1 was accessible because each of us had a different experience when learning the game. However, since there are players who speak out that the first game had learning curve issues, it seems that there are problems which should be fixed. It's great that you can quickly learn the game, but playing NS2 shouldn't be exclusively for good players. Like you said, many people who play video games aren't necessarily good at them. That's a big market. The developers seem to be coming from this view point.
I don't see the point of designing a game to be aggressively complex. Even a simple game will have hidden complexities emerge as people play it. Something like Pac-Man, a very simple game, has a lot of depth to it. Small stuff like each ghost having its own AI patterns brought a lot of depth to the game, where the professional players can predict where the ghosts are going to move so they can act to maximize their score. NS2 should be designed as a simple game. The depth will emerge on its own. As much as I hate the word 'Starcraft' thrown around here, it was never designed to be as deep as it is. It was pure accident that such a straight forward game was given so much complexity.
Comments
I am <b><u>not</u> saying</b>, multiple commanders is unworkable as a gameplay idea.
I <b><u>am</u> saying</b>, I think 2 or more commanders is a bad idea because it was hard enough to find 1 commander.
The Alpha doesn't reveal anything because the majority of testers will be veteran clanners and experienced pubbers, the commander:troop ratio with this group of hardcore players shouldn't be a problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Someones reply in this thread already answered your concerns. We don't know what the responsibilities for the commanders will be in NS2. It can very well be that the marine team can function without a commander their every step of the way. That the marine weapons are powerful enough that we don't need sieges every time we find a room full of ocs. That the "commanders" are more like the "operator" in the movie "The Matrix"... or like "Lt. Gorman" in the movie "Aliens"... that they just watch the battle and give advice / orders and assist only in small ways.
Perhaps commanders have to hack in to systems or open locked doors or reroute power from different rooms, etc... like disable lighting in some areas so the motion tracking built into the office areas of the colonist complex are functioning... or to get lifesupport up and running.
The coolest thing would be the ability to track a squad and see the firstperson view from the "sergeant" in that squad in a small window docked on the side of your screen.
In short we don't know and cannot go off half cocked because of two words "multiple commanders".
I really see no reason at all to have two commanders
Also, I hope the commander isn't able to magically spam medpacks in NS2<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Problem solved... it's called the "Eject" button.
1) Spectate only (great for beginner comms and shoutcasts).
2) Primary comm can offload med\ammo marine requests and AI welderbots, or if they're slower put them in charge of research.
3) Full comm abilities outside of building placement.
If the primary comm chair is destroyed or he is out of the chair after say 10-15 seconds, the sub commander gets promoted to primary commander.
Wow that's <i><b>a</b></i> big <i><b>word</b></i>... <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I lol'd.
<!--quoteo(post=1717999:date=Jul 19 2009, 07:36 AM:name=Tesseract)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tesseract @ Jul 19 2009, 07:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717999"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your problem seems to very much be, "People are dumb so this idea can't work because people are dumb so the idea is dumb."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True though.
I think multiple commanders could work, I'd like to know <b>how</b> it works, though. Is there a 'supreme commander' and sub-commanders (the ideal implementation)? Or are all commanders <b>equal</b>?
1. some things can cost no res at all, just time... i.e. researching armor... or it can cost very little res, just a lot of time.
2. each commander can have a personal cache of res to work with, just as each alien in NS1 had a personal cache of res.
we have to trust the developers on this one because they are fully aware of the situation more then any of us can be.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah i was thinking the same thing (for som reason i was thinking about it when i whent to bed lol) Nr 2 would be the best scenario in this case.
all though as many have said in this post: it's hard to find one good commander.
But then agein with 2 commanders it will open up a new way to learn how to be a commander since everything isen't relying on you(the ocmmander) but also the other commander(i personally have never been a commander in ns because i have no way of learning)
//matrix
Of the very little we know about commanding, we already know that comms don't have to worry about weapon drops- no more LMG-only games or an early AA followed by 10 GLs.
I'd say one of UWE's primary goals with NS2 is making a gentler learning curve- it's going to apply to field grunts and aliens and I see no reason why it won't apply to commanders too.
Okay but the thing now is that if we substitute 'sglorbsqonkz' to 'commander' it would mean the same thing as in:
'I don't know about you, but imagine the feeling of winning an intense 8v8 or 10v10 game with multiple sglorbsqonkzes on each side all doing their part.'
This to say since we know Absolutely Nothing besides the fact that it will be top down view, it's too soon to even argue about the commander role in NS2. This has nothing to do with you aero, I just grabbed a sentence from your post. :)
Have a little faith in this idea. At best, it can allow commanding to a broader group of players, it can allow far easier micro-management for human players, yet does not unbalance the game for requiring a 2nd human player to do this role. At worst, you have the same thing you've always had before. I think for the most part you won't see a lot of 2nd commanders anyway since it could be considered an unnecessary waste of players to do something the 1st comm could do anyway. I wouldn't worry about it too much. If the situation ever arises that the comm build a 2nd comm chair and the game went to hell because of it, you can just bash the comm's decision to even build a 2nd comm chair like you would bash the comm for whatever millions of reasons you might have to bash him.
This is off-topic, but FocusedWolf, a edit button does exist. Do that instead of replying three times in a row.
As soon as I heard about sqlorbsqonkz, I knew they were a bad idea. How often do you see sqlorbsqonkz being used in NS1? Clearly, they won't be used right in NS2 either.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sirot)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It does not seem like that role has much base-building or tech-tree related influence.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know what you mean, because like you I base my conceptions about aliens and sqlorbsqonkz entirely on NS1. There is no chance either will be revamped in the new game!
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><i>Ok, sorry about the jokes, it's Sunday morning.</i><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
I hope there's some big secret UWE has yet to reveal about the RTS side, because if there isn't, two comms is going to be really redundant and boring.
Yes don't ask my why but my forum settings for a week or so had a sort of treeview setup on the bottom, so instead of viewing all posts in one long stream i only saw the original post and a organized tree on the bottom that showed who replied to who. So now it's back to the old style... and it looks like i posted 4 times one after the other... so ya that was unintended for it to look like that...
From my point of view it was like my replies were getting nested below other peoples responses instead of stacking up in the order they were posted... ya that was weird lol.
/hijack
For one thing, we know it's much more area based. We also know that they went to some effort to makes some things that were just placed before now have their non-depolyed state look mobile.
So, put these two things together and you can easily surmise a command structure where the commander can only place things within his/her powered area, and then marines have to move it along themselves to the desired destination.
Want to place something in an area faster? Get a second commander in that area.
Or perhaps its just that some pieces of tech are extremely expensive, but if you have a commander in the area, he can take control of the item and have it move to a new location when need be.
Not to mention one thing we know for sure is that resource towers power the command chair, and the command chair powers its own sector plus provides power to the neighboring sectors. If you want to power up more than just the immediate neighbours, however, you'll need another occupied command chair.
And in any event, if the problem is a shortage of people who know how to command, secondary or sub-commanders gives an excellent way to teach people, and so boost the population of commanders.
I can see it now - About to dive round the corner to take on the enemy *popup* "Are you sure you want to go round this corner, you might get attacked!" [Continue] [Retreat] ;)
I can't comment about multiple commanders having not experienced it yet. However, all this information thats going around about how the game is going to be easier than NS, is something I don't understand. NS was never difficult to understand, or play. Its hardly the fastest FPS game out there (yet they are slowing it down D:) and its hardly the most complicated RTS game out there (yet they feel the RTS mode requires support) - far from it on both counts.
I don't think they should take weapon drops away from the commander, unless of course he loads them into a structure for marines to take them from, thats not so different and makes sense really. I do understand, where this topics concerns are coming from. Since in the majority of public FPS and RTS games you can't depend on your team to help out in the slightest. As you hardly ever get cover from the guys 3 feet from you in most FPS, and you can bet your left arm that in RTS games your team mates are still tech one when they should be almost three by then.
Anyway, NS has a far smaller learning curve than alot of fps and rts games. From what I see on servers now though, is that people refuse to learn. You cannot develop a game for people like this, or everyone and anyone who wants to play the game to any kind of higher level (higher than casual) won't tollerate it.
Too many developers now pander to the "new" player. The fact of the matter is, with every game having essentially the same mechanics as the eachother, the chances are a "new" player to the game will advance reletavely quickly within a few days. If they don't, you'll probably find they are just that bad at all other games (omg not politically correct to say that!) and have accepted this and don't mind it.
As for the consoles, allow the keyboard and mouse to be used, and highly recomend it. That way if they play with a control pad, the rest of us don't have to suffer the "dumbing down" of the rest of the game for this control interface - see Unreal tournament 3 and Enemy Territory quake wars (1.4 I think), both of these were "destroyed" by the developers making them for consoles and PC's. Now I happened to like quake wars, and I witnessed first hand the server list going from thousands, to less than 100 over the course of a week after they patched the game. (of my own filters) They alienated alot of experienced players for the sake of a few (can't think of a better word there sorry) new and console players.
Between consoles and forum posters, we aren't going to have any games worth playing eventually. (although I expect consoles will advance at some point)
At the end of the day, its Charlie's call what goes into the game, and I urge people to try before they criticise. Because just reading about something and experiencing it first hand (regardless of how experienced you may, or think you may, be) are two completely different things.
I can't comment about multiple commanders having not experienced it yet. However, all this information thats going around about how the game is going to be easier than NS, is something I don't understand. NS was never difficult to understand, or play. Its hardly the fastest FPS game out there (yet they are slowing it down D:) and its hardly the most complicated RTS game out there (yet they feel the RTS mode requires support) - far from it on both counts.
I don't think they should take weapon drops away from the commander, unless of course he loads them into a structure for marines to take them from, thats not so different and makes sense really. I do understand, where this topics concerns are coming from. Since in the majority of public FPS and RTS games you can't depend on your team to help out in the slightest. As you hardly ever get cover from the guys 3 feet from you in most FPS, and you can bet your left arm that in RTS games your team mates are still tech one when they should be almost three by then.
Anyway, NS has a far smaller learning curve than alot of fps and rts games. From what I see on servers now though, is that people refuse to learn. You cannot develop a game for people like this, or everyone and anyone who wants to play the game to any kind of higher level (higher than casual) won't tollerate it.
Too many developers now pander to the "new" player. The fact of the matter is, with every game having essentially the same mechanics as the eachother, the chances are a "new" player to the game will advance reletavely quickly within a few days. If they don't, you'll probably find they are just that bad at all other games (omg not politically correct to say that!) and have accepted this and don't mind it.
As for the consoles, allow the keyboard and mouse to be used, and highly recomend it. That way if they play with a control pad, the rest of us don't have to suffer the "dumbing down" of the rest of the game for this control interface - see Unreal tournament 3 and Enemy Territory quake wars (1.4 I think), both of these were "destroyed" by the developers making them for consoles and PC's. Now I happened to like quake wars, and I witnessed first hand the server list going from thousands, to less than 100 over the course of a week after they patched the game. (of my own filters) They alienated alot of experienced players for the sake of a few (can't think of a better word there sorry) new and console players.
Between consoles and forum posters, we aren't going to have any games worth playing eventually. (although I expect consoles will advance at some point)
At the end of the day, its Charlie's call what goes into the game, and I urge people to try before they criticise. Because just reading about something and experiencing it first hand (regardless of how experienced you may, or think you may, be) are two completely different things.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't understand this crusade against accessibility. You have to make an effort to 'pander' to the new player otherwise there will be no one from outside the already established community who will play your game. You are saying that NS1 was accessible, even suggesting "NS has a far smaller learning curve than alot of fps and rts games", but that's after playing the lovely game of NS1 for many, many years. The honest truth is that you forgot how much of a pain in the ass this game was to learn. For a long time I thought that NS1 was easy to learn, but my perception was clouded from starting to play the game since its first release. That was solved when I tried introducing friends to play it, ever since, I never believed that NS1 was easy to learn. Here is a more recent example. I play with the Penny-Arcade forum community and recently, we played a lot of NS1. We had returning players quickly find the hang of the game and then, we had players who never touched the game before. They had a hard time. These are people who play a lot of video games and they still had issues wrapping their heads around this 'apparently' easy to learn game. NS1 only has a small learning curve only if you know how to play it already.
Just saying people "refuse to learn" and the game is fine, is idealism at best, elitism at worst. A game could be complex and be extremely deep, while still making an effort NOT to scare off new players. If a new player enters the game, does not understand what's going on AND constantly feels that he is not providing for the team, that player will go more often than not "screw this". That is the fault of game design. As much as I love NS1... it has issues. Maybe NS2 will fix them.
I know that NS2 is not like NS1. It is actually very different. That is comforting for me. For many other it seems, it's terrifying and that is justification to smother all change.
Between the PC fanboys and elitist forum posters, we aren't going to have any games worth playing eventually.
P.S: Regarding consoles, the main contender to our crowd, the Xbox 360 does not have mouse and keyboard support. Developers cannot provide that support and they have to use the gamepad.
QFT.
<a href="http://unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=106721&st=0" target="_blank">Corroborating evidence</a>.
<!--quoteo(post=1718241:date=Jul 20 2009, 12:14 PM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sirot @ Jul 20 2009, 12:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718241"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Between the PC fanboys and elitist forum posters, we aren't going to have any games worth playing eventually.
P.S: Regarding consoles, the main contender to our crowd, the Xbox 360 does not have mouse and keyboard support. Developers cannot provide that support and they have to use the gamepad.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Disagree. In the case of console and PC games they are not like peanut butter and chocolate and do not go well with each other. They both work a lot better if they are designed separately.
Oh but they do, you kill them, they rant, you make an attempt to explain to them what went wrong on their part, they rant. One guy only last night couldn't grasp the concept of strafe. And how when he thought he had bitten the marine 3 times, which turned out to be one marine hit and two wall bites, that he had died. Simple, because the marine strafed to a side. He just simply refused to acknowlege its existence. Now I may be completely wrong here, or missed something obvious, but strafe is a function I've used since the mid 90's in FPS games.
So lets take the bad guy route here, and suggest that the game be developed without strafe, because clearly that guy is put off the game because he can't get hit head round the concept of it.
Of course not. There is no point in getting into this debate, heels are well and truely dug in and heads will be hit against brick walls.
Your idealistic view on the gaming population is admirable though - Its not the players fault but the games, is worth a thought I suppose. Although I did not say that the game shouldn't be accessable to new players, I did say that it shouldn't be built arround them. I can't explain this without the possibility of insulting people (damn that political correctness again).
And ofcourse I remember learning the game, I remember learning it like I remember learning quake. Please, don't tell me what I don't remember.
Also making the game accessable and pandering to a certain group, are two different things. Don't confuse having a tutorial, or tool tips, with audible APT warnings and mine sprites that make APT's and mines more useless. Oh dear, there I go again with other games.
Personally I would like NS2 to be faster, not in game length, but in movement. Its not going to happen, and this is probably the first and last time I'll mention it, but such is the way of things.
I agree that a game can be deep and not scare of new players. I just whole heartedly believe that NS was not difficult to learn. Its difficult to master each class in the game, but not difficult to be average.
<a href="http://www.teamxtender.com/xfpspro/PRO-3.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.teamxtender.com/xfpspro/PRO-3.jpg</a> <--- I assume thats not standard for the xbox then? I thought it looked part of the console, sorry.
Also by forum posters, althought I obviously knew of the irony of that statement, was directed at the people who have 90% of their posts directed at changing something they don't like, or would like added. Now although this isn't a bad thing in theory, when its the people who play the game the least - unfortunately happens the be the majority most of the time - change tends to happen that pushes out those who played the game for the game, due to people moaning about the game on the forums and get it moulded into what they want - Battlefield 2.
Developers make games, I play games, I don't feel I have the right to tell them what I want in their games. I just witness the after effects of those who do feel they have the right to dictate, and have witnessed it for more than ten years. I am a great believer in patches for bug fixes. Not patches for what is deemed an exploit by the casual gamers, but has been in the game for longer than they have been able to turn on a computer. (Sorry for being harsh)
There is new players and new players. One side will learn the game, because they are only new to the game, not gaming. The other is new to both the game and gaming, in both cases I don't see much loss if they refuse to learn, and I for one would help them to the best of my ability if they do want to learn.
Anyways enough of this.
My true stance on this subject is - Let him (them) make the game how he (they) see fit. Trust his (their) judgements. If you don't like it after you've played the game fine, have a rant about it. But you have to play the game first before any arguments for and against his (their) decisions about the game and its features can hold any weight.
The fundamentals are easy- the tech tree is easy to learn, aiming and shooting/biting is easy, alien abilities are easy to understand; but NS evolved to a point where things that should never be fundamentals became fundamentals.
Take bunnyhopping as an example. A smart newbie dies to a bunnyhopping skulk. He goes into spectator and sees the skulk bhop- "move left and right smoothly- got it". Try as he might- he won't recreate it.
There's also less obvious whackyness- who would +use a hive? Who would pancake a lerk and know to keep energy levels high? Who would know how to interchange blink and swipe effectively? How can you know how crucial that 30 res lerk or 50 res fade is in the context of the game? You need to be in the mindset of the newbie and it's totally unintuitive. You need experience to pick these things up, but without this experience you can't appreciate the depth of NS so there's no desire to stick at it. Also, you'll get booted out of public servers for trying to learn some of these things and- intially- failing miserably (fading, commanding).
As a postnote- the sale numbers speak for theirselves with regards to easy/shallow games and hard/complex games: Halo and Gears of War never exceed mediocrity but they sell by the bucketload. ...I'm trying to think of a complex game on the same system (xbox360) that sold poorly to validate my point but I can't think of a complex console game :< It's a poor comparison but let's go with QuakeLive on the PC- the pinnacle of deathmatching with no quarter given to newbies, and I bet it can't hold a candle to Halo (or Counter-Strike/TF2 for a PC comparison).
P.P.S.
Console mice aren't proper mice- they're basically thumbsticks in that the range of motion is small: exceeding a certain movement speed won't increase the rate at which you move/turn.
However, Starcraft is the most bought RTS game in the world.
Comparing NS to Counter-Strike is stupid. CS is meant to be simple and secondly, games like these attract younger gamers. We don't want idiot 12 year olds spamming the mic in NS2, now do we?
Competetive play gives a bit more feedback as you know the teammates better and you've got a chance to discuss and analyze more with them, but it's still sometimes difficult to see whether you could've done your part notably better or did someone else decide the game by his plays. HLTV is useful for seeing the big picture, but even there you'd basically have to watch the game multiple times to understand how everyone contributed to the outcome.
However, Starcraft is the most bought RTS game in the world.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Take out the masochistic Koreans- who have inexplicably turned it into a national past-time- and see how SC stands up. I'd wager money when SC was being designed that it was never aimed at a competitive Korean audience. A one-off fluke.
Finding one good commander is hard enough on public servers; if it is necessary to find one for each team or multiple commanders for each team, the game could be lost before anyone is spawned.
It concerns me as a longtime NS pubber that you guys don't immediately see the flaw considering it was one of the major challenges with NS1 and the commander concept in general.
If I am missing something please let me know. From where I stand this looks like a problem you will not see in game testing with veteran clanners and experienced pubbers, but only once you have released it to the masses.
Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think its a bad idea to prejudge an idea when there isn't even an alpha out. For larger games, perhaps a second commander is not a bad thing, but for smaller games I could see a problem potentially. All of these problems can be avoided if the primary commander has all the powers that the secondary commander could have. I say allow it as an option, and allow the teams to decide whether or not to use the option.
Your point?
Even without the koreans, the level of play in SC is extremely high (at least compared to other RTS games)
I disagree, if that were the case, no one would have played NS as there was no other game like it at its time. I found the game very easy to get into. Just because people play "a lot" of video games does not mean they are necessarily good at them. That is kind of a poor argument.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just saying people "refuse to learn" and the game is fine, is idealism at best, elitism at worst. A game could be complex and be extremely deep, while still making an effort NOT to scare off new players. If a new player enters the game, does not understand what's going on AND constantly feels that he is not providing for the team, that player will go more often than not "screw this". That is the fault of game design. As much as I love NS1... it has issues. Maybe NS2 will fix them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am always a firm believer that the community can either welcome or shun the new player (depending on what circle the new player has attempted to join). If the game creates a system that panders to new players for whatever reason, that will indeed sacrifice depth/skill on other competent players part. I believe that it should be up to the game designers to educate the basics to new players, and the community to help players learn advanced techniques. Help the new players reach the standard, don't drop it down for the rest of the players.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Between the PC fanboys and elitist forum posters, we aren't going to have any games worth playing eventually.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know what that even means. Most players want to play a game that they can play to the maximum amount of enjoyment with out playing some elementary version of what could be a good game. If that point makes me and several others elitist, then so be it.
This was a jab at DarkFrost's "Between consoles and forum posters, we aren't going to have any games worth playing eventually. (although I expect consoles will advance at some point)" comment. I should have been more obvious with the sarcasm. I apologize.
There is overreacting on both sides, maybe in attempt to neutralize the opposing side's argument. I am going to try to dodge that with following...
NS2 does not have to be dumbed down to be more accessible, not does it have to be inaccessible to satisfy the more hardcore player base. You can have both the new and veteran players happy with a bit of ingenuity. There is no point in arguing whether or not NS1 was accessible because each of us had a different experience when learning the game. However, since there are players who speak out that the first game had learning curve issues, it seems that there are problems which should be fixed. It's great that you can quickly learn the game, but playing NS2 shouldn't be exclusively for good players. Like you said, many people who play video games aren't necessarily good at them. That's a big market. The developers seem to be coming from this view point.
I don't see the point of designing a game to be aggressively complex. Even a simple game will have hidden complexities emerge as people play it. Something like Pac-Man, a very simple game, has a lot of depth to it. Small stuff like each ghost having its own AI patterns brought a lot of depth to the game, where the professional players can predict where the ghosts are going to move so they can act to maximize their score. NS2 should be designed as a simple game. The depth will emerge on its own. As much as I hate the word 'Starcraft' thrown around here, it was never designed to be as deep as it is. It was pure accident that such a straight forward game was given so much complexity.
EDIT: Grammar, durrr.