<!--quoteo(post=1758661:date=Mar 10 2010, 03:51 PM:name=Razagal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Razagal @ Mar 10 2010, 03:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1758661"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Most of today's players have been playing for years. NS never was a simple game, but now it is even harder 'cause only the vets are left. Back in the day there were far more newbies around which made things easier.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I picked it up around 2005, but it was with a bunch of friends at a LAN party. I definitely got owned my first, oh, 4-5 games, but eventually I got the hang of it.
I'm still not a pro top-of-the-score killer, but I think I'm OK.
And yeah, the fact that most of the players are pretty solid at the game already doesn't help much. Definitely get a buddy to help you out.
NS2's goal, at least initially, was 1/3old, 1/3new, 1/3 changed. So, several basic things will still be in, but we've already seen huge gameplay changes. Most, already detailed above, but here's a full list of know things: <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/wiki/index.php/What%27s_new_from_NS1" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/wiki/inde...7s_new_from_NS1</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1758798:date=Mar 11 2010, 04:50 PM:name=TrC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TrC @ Mar 11 2010, 04:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1758798"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Removing skill-based things to make the game easier for those who do not wish to improve and adding illusion of a "strategy" which is in reality is A or B isnt good. NS provided a lot of variables in tactics and each move opponent made forced you react that is part of the depth we wish to see.
Again you are not making sense.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say TF2 removed skill based things and added strategy, I said it removed the reflex based skills and <i>left only strategy.</i> All games can have strategy but a game where your performace is based on your reflex skills will make it a bit irrelevant, because you don't need it to win, you can just out-twitch your enemy. If you remove twitch you only have strategy left.
The only real way to be 'better' than other players in TF2 <i>is</i> to strategise, because there aren't any other options avilable to you. You can't really out-bunnyhop or out-aim your enemy because nearly all the guns are pretty easy to aim and many of the classes are slow, and others are entirely based around intelligent use of your abilities such as the medic, spy, and pyro. You can only succeed with those by thinking about your positoning and in the case of the medic, you need another good player to work with you.
It has plenty of strategic depth, just as much as NS does really, NS has the RTS aspect but that has little bearing on the player strategy, the RTS strategy is only really applicable to the commander, players themselves still need to do the TF2 things while the commander provides the objectives, where TF2 has control points NS has forward bases to build and destroy, the commander makes the control points essentially.
The main difference is that NS has a huge reflex element, in NS you do have to aim and control your character precisely, in fact you have to do that much more than you have to strategiese because a good twitch player will be able to kill any other player in almost any situation, avoid turret farms and huge clusters of marines and you're more or less untouchable.
If it's twitch skill you want, then NS is probably the paragon of the skillset, short of maybe DDR, if you want strategic possibility, TF2 doesn't have anything else in it other than strategy, although in public games it doesn't have that either because strategy as I said, only works if the enemy is doing it as well. If the enemy is inherently unpredictable because he isn't thinking about what he's doing you can't really strategise against him, so TF2s strategy would only really occur in competitive play I think. Otherwise its only value is that you hit the buttons and the pretty flashes happen and the mans explode into red bits ha ha ha and whatnot.
I would say much the same about starcraft, from what I've seen starcraft is about how fast you can click, how much faster you can micromanage than your opponent, the strategy element takes a rather large backseat because you basically have to handle all your units combat AI whenever they fight if you want to win. Compare that to something like supreme commander where you have very little micromanagement beyond telling your dudes to shoot the big giant robot rather than the little tank, and you get supreme commander being the better strategy game because the only way to win is to attack when and where your enemy is weak, while starcraft is the better action game because a vital way to win is to micromanage your units so much that their numerical or statistical weakness is made much less relevant, just like in an FPS game in fact. Although with those two it's less concrete, starcraft still has a lot of territory to manage and you can still benefit from attacking weaker areas and thinking about your moves, TF2 on the other hand has almost no twitch while NS has almost all twitch, or at least it has it to such an extent that it completely overshadows the strategy.
So you are saying that when you play TF2 you always hit every shot and never miss? When you play star craft you always do all the right things you just aren't clicking fast enough? When you play NS you always make the right moves but just can't aim?
I think you are over generalizing or seeing distinctions where there aren't any or something...
<!--quoteo(post=1758850:date=Mar 12 2010, 01:17 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Mar 12 2010, 01:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1758850"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I didn't say TF2 removed skill based things and added strategy, I said it removed the reflex based skills and left only strategy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> And I'm telling you there is no real strategy positioning yourself or choosing which one to target aint strategy (CTF) more of a choice as it doesnt effect enemy. Reflexes are part of the skill you need to improve them as well as your intution that is a part of getting better. Removing this only makes game easier for players who barely play any games and I think they shouldnt be rewarded doing so.
TF2 has a high enough skill cap that 99% of the posters on this forum have not reached it. Don't be so full of yourselves. True it's not actually a very team oriented game but it's not at all devoid of twitch skill either. The people you're talking about who never learn to play properly are more often than not the people like the OP who simply do not want to be stuck in a learning curve for so long and won't stick around for a game like NS.
The "problem" you guys are referring to is that the game is fun enough at a low skill level that many players don't go out of their way to get better. The obvious downside to that is that not everybody gets as good as they can be - the upside is that lots of people like the OP who don't want to deal with a frustrating learning curve won't ragequit after the first handful of games. A game that isn't fun at all when playing with better players always slowly but surely drifts towards an exclusive elite community where newbies either get shouted out of the game by their own team or hopelessly dominated by the enemies - either way what reason do they have to keep playing and get better when they're not having fun to begin with?
NS2 of course won't be as simple as TF2, but NS1 had a lot of legitimate problems with accessibility that needed to be addressed. Being stuck with bad gear because the comm wouldn't spend res on you was one. I think the way aliens were balanced for high speed over durability had a lot to do with it - newbie marines couldn't even hit them at all which was extremely frustrating. Since their aim isn't good enough to even do any damage it just makes the whole game feel hopeless. Likewise when they die in a split second as an alien even following an ambush they're left with no idea what they could have done better. I think toning the speed down a notch will help a lot with that, there are other ways to add skill to aliens.
I know that myself whenever a "pro" is fading and swooshes around and I can't even scratch him.(ps they can push the game around in public far too easily) Also I tried to get some friends to try out ns.... or even some which already had played ns for years but the response overall "I suck, they are too good"
Almost every multiplayer FPS goes through this series of phases.
<b>1) Release --> 2 months. </b> Lots of experts and rookies enjoy the game together in a learning environment. Generally a great time is had by all.
<b>2) 2 Months --> 6 months.</b> The player community is established, it is mostly made up of people who ended up enjoying the game AND felt they have a reasonable level of skill in the game. Players who felt they did not have any skill will generally stop playing entirely or return as a rookie every few months and leave again. New Players (FPS veterans and rookies alike) are barely tolerated now, even while learning the ropes. Even people who were rookies one or two months earlier will openly attack (kick or slander) these new players.
<b>3) 6 months --> 1 Year. </b> Almost everyone who remains will have a functional and expert knowledge of the game and its main rotation maps. New players are never allowed to have critical roles, and will be instantly kicked for attempting to play a strategic or central role. They will often be kicked just for being there and not being able to perform as well as the veterans. In team based games you will often be kicked for doing anything not of an established pattern or strategy.
<b>4) 1 year --> Expansion or Forever after.</b> If the game is still popular phase 3 carries over. If the game community dwindles, often the community will become more supportive, if no less tolerant of rookie behavior. New players will still not be tolerated in critical roles, or given any slack for under performance, but they won't be openly ridiculed or kicked. Instead they will be left to try and get past what appears to be a severe learning curve to join the community. Almost all new players at this point won't survive this phase more than a few days.
<b>5) Expansion. </b>When this is released go back to phase 1 and cut the time in half it takes to progress from each stage to the next.
The OP is mostly wrong in his survey, he is just experiencing the effects of phase 4... where it is difficult to get into the game. Really the only way to prevent this is to either provide a way for even the most rookie players to have in impact or to foster a community that does not ostracize the newbies. In many ways the player should be responsible to find a community (playing constantly on the same server, or with a group of friends from a forum) and find people he or she knows who can help him learn the ropes. The only other way I can see to fight this is to have a strong in depth tutorial (campaign) that forces the player to learn the basics to complete it. Sort of how Zelda gives you a weapon, then forces you to use the weapon to defeat that boss.
Can i make an assumption and say most ns players play other games that like ns1 are completely and utterly broken?
Has any one ever played the hidden? probably not, there's a reason The hidden was like ns1, built on the source engine, and completely broken invisible guy w/ knife vs swat team w/shotgun who comes up with this stuff?
<!--quoteo(post=1758850:date=Mar 11 2010, 10:17 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Mar 11 2010, 10:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1758850"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I didn't say TF2 removed skill based things and added strategy, I said it removed the reflex based skills and <i>left only strategy.</i> All games can have strategy but a game where your performace is based on your reflex skills will make it a bit irrelevant, because you don't need it to win, you can just out-twitch your enemy. If you remove twitch you only have strategy left.
The only real way to be 'better' than other players in TF2 <i>is</i> to strategise, because there aren't any other options avilable to you. You can't really out-bunnyhop or out-aim your enemy because nearly all the guns are pretty easy to aim and many of the classes are slow, and others are entirely based around intelligent use of your abilities such as the medic, spy, and pyro. You can only succeed with those by thinking about your positoning and in the case of the medic, you need another good player to work with you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Speaking as a competitive TF2 player, this isn't really true. Assuming both teams are running a viable class lineup (usually meaning lots of Soldiers/Demos/Scouts/Heavies, enough Medics, and only a few utilities played by people who are good at them) and understand basic teamwork (basically meaning they aren't leaving the Medics to die), strategy only matters assuming the teams are very close to even in terms of overall deathmatching skills. Xensity went from being a high-level NS team to one of the best teams in the early days of competitive TF2 while making a running joke out of their lack of teamwork, simply because their raw DM skills overwhelmed anything but the best opposition. If teams are sufficiently stacked, even class lineup isn't important; I've personally won 6v6 scrims using 3 Engineers on Granary (and yes, that was breaking the class limits, but at that point it didn't matter) or rushing Gravelpit B with 2 Heavies, 2 Spies, and 2 Pyros. Only in very close games does strategy become significant.
The only real difference made by TF2's lack of depth is that individual players have a limited impact on the outcome of the game, so it's more about which team has better overall deathmatching skills rather than a 30-player game being decided by a handful of pubstars while the rest of the server is mostly cannon fodder.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If it's twitch skill you want, then NS is probably the paragon of the skillset, short of maybe DDR, if you want strategic possibility, TF2 doesn't have anything else in it other than strategy, although in public games it doesn't have that either because strategy as I said, only works if the enemy is doing it as well. If the enemy is inherently unpredictable because he isn't thinking about what he's doing you can't really strategise against him, so TF2s strategy would only really occur in competitive play I think. Otherwise its only value is that you hit the buttons and the pretty flashes happen and the mans explode into red bits ha ha ha and whatnot.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's a lot of small-scale tactical tricks that work at any skill level, and bad players are usually pretty predictable in this regard because they tend to make the obvious choices. On a larger level, TF2 doesn't have that much strategic diversity; 2 Soldiers, 2 Scouts, 1 Demo, 1 Medic, occasionally sub out a Scout or a Soldier for a Sniper if the map is appropriate and you have a good Sniper on your team, and use the other classes every now and then if there's an appropriate time for them. The biggest strategic decision is generally whether or not you're going to use the Kritzkrieg, since it requires your team to play very differently to use it effectively. Gravelpit sees a good deal of gimmicky strategies because it has a well-defined metagame and the utility classes are more viable on it, and that's one of the reasons I like it.
Other than that, TF2 is mostly a 6v6 team deathmatch where both teams have a similar strategy, and the ability to read the situation and adapt to it is more important than having a set plan (and all of this is less important than being good at clicking on things).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would say much the same about starcraft, from what I've seen starcraft is about how fast you can click, how much faster you can micromanage than your opponent, the strategy element takes a rather large backseat because you basically have to handle all your units combat AI whenever they fight if you want to win. Compare that to something like supreme commander where you have very little micromanagement beyond telling your dudes to shoot the big giant robot rather than the little tank, and you get supreme commander being the better strategy game because the only way to win is to attack when and where your enemy is weak, while starcraft is the better action game because a vital way to win is to micromanage your units so much that their numerical or statistical weakness is made much less relevant, just like in an FPS game in fact. Although with those two it's less concrete, starcraft still has a lot of territory to manage and you can still benefit from attacking weaker areas and thinking about your moves, TF2 on the other hand has almost no twitch while NS has almost all twitch, or at least it has it to such an extent that it completely overshadows the strategy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Starcraft is actually a very macro-centric game. Although you <i>can</i> compensate for being at a strategic disadvantage by out-microing your opponent (which is part of what makes the game better than a glorified form of rock-paper-scissors), it's still determined primarily at the strategic level. No amount of clicks is going to save you from fast Dark Templar if they're in your mineral line before you've built detection. In general though, I guess you could say that it's not enough simply to have a good plan; you're also required to execute it well, or else there's still room for your opponent to steal a win. Trying to play Starcraft without thinking is a surefire way to lose unless you're playing with people who are very very very bad.
Starcraft is a decent comparison in that it is decided by strategy at equal levels of skill, but the differences in sheer physical output of better players breaks the game when there's a skill gap. A really pro player can beat the pants off of someone who's simply good even using a complete joke strat. I think that's forgivable in a game like Starcraft where skill matchmaking can be done pretty effectively, but it can be disastrous in a game with full teams like NS where one pro thrown in turns all the unit interactions on their head.
As it should be. This isn't a rectifiable problem: either you dumb the game down and open the flood gates for noobs or you tighten the curve and give the pros room to grow.
I don't have any patience for someone who quits after being "owned" many times. It's a pathetic attitude and I don't want to see any game compromised to accommodate these sucks. Some may say a NS 1.0 experience isn't the same since everyone was beginning then, but consider I spent the first several matches forced kharaa/skulk because the rine team was stacked with counter-strike nubs who wanted to pew-pew. My sig speaks for itself. Spending 50% of the time as REIN and 5 minutes walking around lost only to experience 5 seconds of battle before dieing made me rage, but not rage-quit. I got frustrated, but used it to fuel my strength and resolve to master the game. Pretty soon I was able to take out one marine before dying, then two and so forth.
That's been the story with every game I've ever found challenging. And I know it has been for many of the vet NS players in our community. It's an attitude thing, and I wouldn't play with anyone else who felt less.
Case-in-point: my 2-day TF2 experience. Headshotting the same noobs 15 times in a row only to be 'crit'd by some random skill-less shot is an abomination of competition. I don't play games designed by soccer-mom-special-olympics-everyone's-a-winner bs.
tl;dr: you're not going to please everyone, but who you do aim to please may alienate others and shows wear your loyalties lie.
<!--quoteo(post=1758913:date=Mar 12 2010, 05:21 AM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zek @ Mar 12 2010, 05:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1758913"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Starcraft is a decent comparison in that it is decided by strategy at equal levels of skill, but the differences in sheer physical output of better players breaks the game when there's a skill gap. A really pro player can beat the pants off of someone who's simply good even using a complete joke strat. I think that's forgivable in a game like Starcraft where skill matchmaking can be done pretty effectively, but it can be disastrous in a game with full teams like NS where one pro thrown in turns all the unit interactions on their head.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even in an ultra-casual game like TF2, it's entirely possible to upset class dynamics simply by outplaying your opponent. I have horrible aim by competitive standards and I can win 1v1s with noncombat classes. Like I've said, I've been in countless winning teams using absolutely ridiculous joke strategies simply because we were better players and we didn't have to try.
An FPS wouldn't even be fun to play if it boiled down to binary encounters determined by class or equipment. If you want a literal game of rock-paper-scissors, why don't you go play rock-paper-scissors?
I don't play games designed by soccer-mom-special-olympics-everyone's-a-winner bs.
FYI you realize TF2 has a server side option to disable crits right?
Anyway, I think that NS2 needs to allow for noobies to sell, not everyone is a hardcore fps gamer. If it allows for competitive play and causal then you have the holy grail.
A good game should be easy to pick up and incredibly hard to master.
I haven't read every post in this thread so forgive me if it's been stated before..
But to the OP.. are you playing custom combat or vanilla ns? Because as most of the ns populous (bar those that DO play custom combat) will tell you; custom combat is rubbish and has ruined the game. Don't play it if you want to have fun. Only if you want to tear your hair out and break your fingers from punching walls and computer screens.
The game is 'balanced' for vanilla ns, not combat- let alone CUSTOM (shudder) combat.
Note: this is not coming from someone who's been railed by 'pro gais' in the custom combat servers.
<!--quoteo(post=1758941:date=Mar 12 2010, 09:08 AM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Mar 12 2010, 09:08 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1758941"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It could be because rock-paper-scissors isn't a very good video game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1758928:date=Mar 12 2010, 01:27 AM:name=Voyager I)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Voyager I @ Mar 12 2010, 01:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1758928"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Even in an ultra-casual game like TF2, it's entirely possible to upset class dynamics simply by outplaying your opponent. I have horrible aim by competitive standards and I can win 1v1s with noncombat classes. Like I've said, I've been in countless winning teams using absolutely ridiculous joke strategies simply because we were better players and we didn't have to try.
An FPS wouldn't even be fun to play if it boiled down to binary encounters determined by class or equipment. If you want a literal game of rock-paper-scissors, why don't you go play rock-paper-scissors?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, I'm just saying that NS is a full team game unlike Starcraft, so in a game with 8+ players per team there should be a limit to the ability of one individual to ditch his team and control the game by himself. I don't think a marine should ever be rewarded for disregarding his teammates and ramboing for kills, regardless of how good he is, because that's just now what the game is supposed to be about. Lone pubstomping isn't an activity that's worth defending at the expense of newbies IMO. It's not just a team FPS either, it's a team FPS/RTS, so encounters should be decided by strategy/tactics moreso than they are in a typical twitch FPS.
<!--quoteo(post=1759021:date=Mar 12 2010, 10:12 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zek @ Mar 12 2010, 10:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759021"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think a marine should ever be rewarded for disregarding his teammates and ramboing for kills<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If someone is that good or opponent that bad why not? It is obvious that teamwork has its pros and con so does soloing, opponent has to adapt to this and this is why the game can be interesting.
<!--quoteo(post=1759021:date=Mar 12 2010, 01:12 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zek @ Mar 12 2010, 01:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759021"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah, I'm just saying that NS is a full team game unlike Starcraft, so in a game with 8+ players per team there should be a limit to the ability of one individual to ditch his team and control the game by himself. I don't think a marine should ever be rewarded for disregarding his teammates and ramboing for kills, regardless of how good he is, because that's just now what the game is supposed to be about. Lone pubstomping isn't an activity that's worth defending at the expense of newbies IMO. It's not just a team FPS either, it's a team FPS/RTS, so encounters should be decided by strategy/tactics moreso than they are in a typical twitch FPS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Soooooo what are you suggesting? If marines are by themselves too long they just die or what?
<!--quoteo(post=1759032:date=Mar 12 2010, 01:46 PM:name=Norton)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Norton @ Mar 12 2010, 01:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759032"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Soooooo what are you suggesting? If marines are by themselves too long they just die or what?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't know, I haven't played NS2. I think the trick jumping and mid-air bite knockback in NS makes it a little too easy for marines to bail themselves out after walking into an ambush though. 1v1, if a vanilla marine walks through a door and a skulk is ready for him, that marine should die IMO unless the skulk really sucks. Or maybe some changes to static defenses instead? No idea where they're going with that.
<!--quoteo(post=1759055:date=Mar 13 2010, 01:44 AM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zek @ Mar 13 2010, 01:44 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759055"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the trick jumping and mid-air bite knockback in NS makes it a little too easy for marines to bail themselves out after walking into an ambush though. 1v1, if a vanilla marine walks through a door and a skulk is ready for him, that marine should die IMO unless the skulk really sucks.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Theres no knockback, ever consired that the marine > skulk and vice-versa if the marine dies. Awareness and predicting are part of the odd thing known as skill. Also if something should always happen why bother playing at all.
<!--quoteo(post=1759055:date=Mar 12 2010, 04:44 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zek @ Mar 12 2010, 04:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759055"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know, I haven't played NS2. I think the trick jumping and mid-air bite knockback in NS makes it a little too easy for marines to bail themselves out after walking into an ambush though. 1v1, if a vanilla marine walks through a door and a skulk is ready for him, that marine should die IMO unless the skulk really sucks. Or maybe some changes to static defenses instead? No idea where they're going with that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For some reason this made me think of incorporating some of the Left-4-Dead mechanics into NS2. Everyone will hate this idea but it would solve your problem of rambo marines being viable. If skulks had an incapacitating move like the hunter's pounce from L4D, solo marines would be very vulnerable to skulks because they would die in one successful attack. When the marines are in a group however the skulks would use other attacks because they don't want to remain stationary biting the same target for too long. I liked helping teamates up in Left-4-Dead and it made you stick together at all times, but I get the feeling no one that plays NS would appreciate it.
<!--quoteo(post=1758928:date=Mar 12 2010, 12:27 AM:name=Voyager I)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Voyager I @ Mar 12 2010, 12:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1758928"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->An FPS wouldn't even be fun to play if it boiled down to binary encounters determined by class or equipment. If you want a literal game of rock-paper-scissors, why don't you go play rock-paper-scissors?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Heck, most Strategy games, while they have an underlying RPS mechanic, would really stink if you had hard counters. That's what makes good strategy games different from the junk. If there's room to explore strats, combinations of units, and skilled manipulation of those units, then you're looking at a better game than Sword-Spear-Cav slugfests.
<!--quoteo(post=1759068:date=Mar 12 2010, 04:29 PM:name=Norton)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Norton @ Mar 12 2010, 04:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759068"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For some reason this made me think of incorporating some of the Left-4-Dead mechanics into NS2. Everyone will hate this idea but it would solve your problem of rambo marines being viable. If skulks had an incapacitating move like the hunter's pounce from L4D, solo marines would be very vulnerable to skulks because they would die in one successful attack. When the marines are in a group however the skulks would use other attacks because they don't want to remain stationary biting the same target for too long. I liked helping teamates up in Left-4-Dead and it made you stick together at all times, but I get the feeling no one that plays NS would appreciate it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not a matter of appreciation, it's a factor of forced teamwork mechanics. The biggest thing is no one likes to be incapacitated, thus why the Onos Devour constantly gets argued about.
L4D is king of forced teamwork, and it works well for that style since you're supposed to stay as a 4-man team and you're up against the massive zombie hoarde. However, NS wants to promote teamwork, but the lone gunner in the backlines should still be a viable position. Granted, it should be bashed with problems since we want squads of players running around typically, but such a strong smackdown as incapacitation makes most players very, very angry.
I think it's the mentality that they want to play the game and work within the rules (pushing the limits when possible), and not have the rules come up and smack them upside the head every time they walk 2 feet from a squadmate.
<!--quoteo(post=1759068:date=Mar 12 2010, 11:29 PM:name=Norton)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Norton @ Mar 12 2010, 11:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759068"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For some reason this made me think of incorporating some of the Left-4-Dead mechanics into NS2. Everyone will hate this idea but it would solve your problem of rambo marines being viable. If skulks had an incapacitating move like the hunter's pounce from L4D, solo marines would be very vulnerable to skulks because they would die in one successful attack. When the marines are in a group however the skulks would use other attacks because they don't want to remain stationary biting the same target for too long. I liked helping teamates up in Left-4-Dead and it made you stick together at all times, but I get the feeling no one that plays NS would appreciate it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Completely different games. Half point of L4D was that if you wandered off by yourself the game would make damned sure you regretted it by whatever means necessary. NS accomplishes a similar effect through subtler means. Who needs an outright incapacitation attack when you can just get rolled by a Fade?
Besides, it's just not the right sort of mechanic. The game moves faster; it's not just having a few seconds to shoot a Skulk off of your buddy; instead he's leaping around frenetically making a difficult target and occasionally biting people down in less than a second. If there were L4D-style incapacitations, what would happen to Marines in smaller servers? Six Marines have a lot of map to cover that more or less precludes them from traveling as a giant blob, and a pair of buddies could be pretty easily jumped by a similar number of Skulks.
It's really just not the same sort of game at all.
<!--quoteo(post=1759067:date=Mar 12 2010, 05:20 PM:name=TrC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TrC @ Mar 12 2010, 05:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759067"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Theres no knockback, ever consired that the marine > skulk and vice-versa if the marine dies. Awareness and predicting are part of the odd thing known as skill. Also if something should always happen why bother playing at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> There certainly is knockback, quite a lot of it sometimes. And you're missing my point - the marine already made a mistake just by walking into a trap. If he was really better, he wouldn't have. In Counter-Strike you can die instantaneously just by sticking your head out in the wrong place, NS is actually extremely arcadey given the supposed focus on teamwork.
This isn't the kind of game for L4D-style incapacitation attacks but combat could definitely stand to be more tactical.
<!--quoteo(post=1758859:date=Mar 11 2010, 10:10 PM:name=Norton)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Norton @ Mar 11 2010, 10:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1758859"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So you are saying that when you play TF2 you always hit every shot and never miss? When you play star craft you always do all the right things you just aren't clicking fast enough? When you play NS you always make the right moves but just can't aim?
I think you are over generalizing or seeing distinctions where there aren't any or something...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No when I play TF2 I get annoyed because the class based system makes my input entirely superfluous in public matches and because I hate strategy I wouldn't ever play in an organised game, I don't play starcraft, and when I played NS a very long time ago I was relatively good at aiming and got kills as a result, I was also about fourteen so I don't think I knew that strategy existed.
In TF2 you miss a lot but you miss a lot because the guns are inaccurate, you usually have close to perfect aim in the sense that your gun does close to 100% of the damage it can do at that range, but it also goes all over the place and doesn't do very much damage, even though that's the best it can do. The point is TF2 removes the need to aim on most of the classes. The TF2 heavy can't move faster than anything and it can't use any sort of finesse with its gun, but it can be very powerful when combined with intelligent use of a medic, as well as in similar situations to the pyro because the minigun does exactly the same thing the flamethrower does at close range.
All TF2 classes have is thoughtful positioning, attack patterns, and cooperation with support classes. The best way to play a heavy is to play it with a medic and use the heavy as a meat shield while at the same time, being aware of the limits of the heal gun. A good heavy medic combo will get a lot of kills and they only get that because they work together intelligently, they can't do anything else.
<!--quoteo(post=1759089:date=Mar 13 2010, 12:47 AM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zek @ Mar 13 2010, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759089"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->...In Counter-Strike you can die instantaneously just by sticking your head out in the wrong place...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And if he misses then you can turn the tables and put a bullet in his face. No good game hands you free wins every time you're at a strategic or tactical advantage; it's just that; an <i>advantage</i> in the fight that makes it easier for you to win and harder for your opponent. Binary hard-counter situations where you auto-win if you have the right unit and auto-lose if you don't are boring, make for stale gameplay, and will stifle the community because they essentially kill the depth that experienced players stick around for.
Again, it's not enough just to have a plan, good games demand that you <i>execute</i> as well. The excitement of playing comes not just from making plans, but from the uncertainty of their success based on the performance of yourselves and your opponents. An FPS game where the only distinction between players was decision making would be stunningly bad; not even TF2 takes it <i>that</i> far. In fact, as I've already explained, even casual games like TF2 are determined primarily by raw fragging skills, with strategy only tipping the scales in matchups that were already close.
<!--quoteo(post=1759076:date=Mar 12 2010, 10:52 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ Mar 12 2010, 10:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759076"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->L4D is king of forced teamwork, and it works well for that style since you're supposed to stay as a 4-man team and you're up against the massive zombie hoarde. However, NS wants to promote teamwork, but the lone gunner in the backlines should still be a viable position. Granted, it should be bashed with problems since we want squads of players running around typically, but such a strong smackdown as incapacitation makes most players very, very angry.
I think it's the mentality that they want to play the game and work within the rules (pushing the limits when possible), and not have the rules come up and smack them upside the head every time they walk 2 feet from a squadmate.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NS has always had the same mechanics as L4D, running out at the start on your own is harrowing, because you can't fight skulks on your own unless you're very confident in your abiltiies, whereas two players can take on much more. L4D just makes it impossible to fight off enemies on your own, or at least very, very, very hard. NS does the same, albeit a bit less hard, but it's still the same idea. One skulk is a threat much like a hunter to a lone player, if you don't spot it and react quickly you're dead, but to two it's quite easy, because two stand a greater chance of spotting it and they can afford to be twice as inaccurate with their fire.
<!--quoteo(post=1759093:date=Mar 12 2010, 06:58 PM:name=Voyager I)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Voyager I @ Mar 12 2010, 06:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759093"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And if he misses then you can turn the tables and put a bullet in his face. No good game hands you free wins every time you're at a strategic or tactical advantage; it's just that; an <i>advantage</i> in the fight that makes it easier for you to win and harder for your opponent. Binary hard-counter situations where you auto-win if you have the right unit and auto-lose if you don't are boring, make for stale gameplay, and will stifle the community because they essentially kill the depth that experienced players stick around for.
Again, it's not enough just to have a plan, good games demand that you <i>execute</i> as well. The excitement of playing comes not just from making plans, but from the uncertainty of their success based on the performance of yourselves and your opponents. An FPS game where the only distinction between players was decision making would be stunningly bad; not even TF2 takes it <i>that</i> far. In fact, as I've already explained, even casual games like TF2 are determined primarily by raw fragging skills, with strategy only tipping the scales in matchups that were already close.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Skulks can miss bites too, happens to pros all the time. I didn't say anything about binary encounters, but there's no way the fight between the marine and skulk in that situation should be fair - the skulk starts in his best possible scenario and the marine in his worst, and you think it should be 50/50? If the marine is sitting at the end of a hallway and a skulk charges him head on, it's physically impossible for the skulk to ever win unless the marine really sucks at aiming.
Comments
NS never was a simple game, but now it is even harder 'cause only the vets are left.
Back in the day there were far more newbies around which made things easier.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I picked it up around 2005, but it was with a bunch of friends at a LAN party. I definitely got owned my first, oh, 4-5 games, but eventually I got the hang of it.
I'm still not a pro top-of-the-score killer, but I think I'm OK.
And yeah, the fact that most of the players are pretty solid at the game already doesn't help much. Definitely get a buddy to help you out.
NS2's goal, at least initially, was 1/3old, 1/3new, 1/3 changed. So, several basic things will still be in, but we've already seen huge gameplay changes. Most, already detailed above, but here's a full list of know things:
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/wiki/index.php/What%27s_new_from_NS1" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/wiki/inde...7s_new_from_NS1</a>
Again you are not making sense.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say TF2 removed skill based things and added strategy, I said it removed the reflex based skills and <i>left only strategy.</i> All games can have strategy but a game where your performace is based on your reflex skills will make it a bit irrelevant, because you don't need it to win, you can just out-twitch your enemy. If you remove twitch you only have strategy left.
The only real way to be 'better' than other players in TF2 <i>is</i> to strategise, because there aren't any other options avilable to you. You can't really out-bunnyhop or out-aim your enemy because nearly all the guns are pretty easy to aim and many of the classes are slow, and others are entirely based around intelligent use of your abilities such as the medic, spy, and pyro. You can only succeed with those by thinking about your positoning and in the case of the medic, you need another good player to work with you.
It has plenty of strategic depth, just as much as NS does really, NS has the RTS aspect but that has little bearing on the player strategy, the RTS strategy is only really applicable to the commander, players themselves still need to do the TF2 things while the commander provides the objectives, where TF2 has control points NS has forward bases to build and destroy, the commander makes the control points essentially.
The main difference is that NS has a huge reflex element, in NS you do have to aim and control your character precisely, in fact you have to do that much more than you have to strategiese because a good twitch player will be able to kill any other player in almost any situation, avoid turret farms and huge clusters of marines and you're more or less untouchable.
If it's twitch skill you want, then NS is probably the paragon of the skillset, short of maybe DDR, if you want strategic possibility, TF2 doesn't have anything else in it other than strategy, although in public games it doesn't have that either because strategy as I said, only works if the enemy is doing it as well. If the enemy is inherently unpredictable because he isn't thinking about what he's doing you can't really strategise against him, so TF2s strategy would only really occur in competitive play I think. Otherwise its only value is that you hit the buttons and the pretty flashes happen and the mans explode into red bits ha ha ha and whatnot.
I would say much the same about starcraft, from what I've seen starcraft is about how fast you can click, how much faster you can micromanage than your opponent, the strategy element takes a rather large backseat because you basically have to handle all your units combat AI whenever they fight if you want to win. Compare that to something like supreme commander where you have very little micromanagement beyond telling your dudes to shoot the big giant robot rather than the little tank, and you get supreme commander being the better strategy game because the only way to win is to attack when and where your enemy is weak, while starcraft is the better action game because a vital way to win is to micromanage your units so much that their numerical or statistical weakness is made much less relevant, just like in an FPS game in fact. Although with those two it's less concrete, starcraft still has a lot of territory to manage and you can still benefit from attacking weaker areas and thinking about your moves, TF2 on the other hand has almost no twitch while NS has almost all twitch, or at least it has it to such an extent that it completely overshadows the strategy.
So you are saying that when you play TF2 you always hit every shot and never miss? When you play star craft you always do all the right things you just aren't clicking fast enough? When you play NS you always make the right moves but just can't aim?
I think you are over generalizing or seeing distinctions where there aren't any or something...
And I'm telling you there is no real strategy positioning yourself or choosing which one to target aint strategy (CTF) more of a choice as it doesnt effect enemy. Reflexes are part of the skill you need to improve them as well as your intution that is a part of getting better. Removing this only makes game easier for players who barely play any games and I think they shouldnt be rewarded doing so.
The "problem" you guys are referring to is that the game is fun enough at a low skill level that many players don't go out of their way to get better. The obvious downside to that is that not everybody gets as good as they can be - the upside is that lots of people like the OP who don't want to deal with a frustrating learning curve won't ragequit after the first handful of games. A game that isn't fun at all when playing with better players always slowly but surely drifts towards an exclusive elite community where newbies either get shouted out of the game by their own team or hopelessly dominated by the enemies - either way what reason do they have to keep playing and get better when they're not having fun to begin with?
NS2 of course won't be as simple as TF2, but NS1 had a lot of legitimate problems with accessibility that needed to be addressed. Being stuck with bad gear because the comm wouldn't spend res on you was one. I think the way aliens were balanced for high speed over durability had a lot to do with it - newbie marines couldn't even hit them at all which was extremely frustrating. Since their aim isn't good enough to even do any damage it just makes the whole game feel hopeless. Likewise when they die in a split second as an alien even following an ambush they're left with no idea what they could have done better. I think toning the speed down a notch will help a lot with that, there are other ways to add skill to aliens.
I know that myself whenever a "pro" is fading and swooshes around and I can't even scratch him.(ps they can push the game around in public far too easily)
Also I tried to get some friends to try out ns.... or even some which already had played ns for years but the response overall "I suck, they are too good"
<b>1) Release --> 2 months. </b> Lots of experts and rookies enjoy the game together in a learning environment. Generally a great time is had by all.
<b>2) 2 Months --> 6 months.</b> The player community is established, it is mostly made up of people who ended up enjoying the game AND felt they have a reasonable level of skill in the game. Players who felt they did not have any skill will generally stop playing entirely or return as a rookie every few months and leave again. New Players (FPS veterans and rookies alike) are barely tolerated now, even while learning the ropes. Even people who were rookies one or two months earlier will openly attack (kick or slander) these new players.
<b>3) 6 months --> 1 Year. </b> Almost everyone who remains will have a functional and expert knowledge of the game and its main rotation maps. New players are never allowed to have critical roles, and will be instantly kicked for attempting to play a strategic or central role. They will often be kicked just for being there and not being able to perform as well as the veterans. In team based games you will often be kicked for doing anything not of an established pattern or strategy.
<b>4) 1 year --> Expansion or Forever after.</b> If the game is still popular phase 3 carries over. If the game community dwindles, often the community will become more supportive, if no less tolerant of rookie behavior. New players will still not be tolerated in critical roles, or given any slack for under performance, but they won't be openly ridiculed or kicked. Instead they will be left to try and get past what appears to be a severe learning curve to join the community. Almost all new players at this point won't survive this phase more than a few days.
<b>5) Expansion. </b>When this is released go back to phase 1 and cut the time in half it takes to progress from each stage to the next.
The OP is mostly wrong in his survey, he is just experiencing the effects of phase 4... where it is difficult to get into the game. Really the only way to prevent this is to either provide a way for even the most rookie players to have in impact or to foster a community that does not ostracize the newbies. In many ways the player should be responsible to find a community (playing constantly on the same server, or with a group of friends from a forum) and find people he or she knows who can help him learn the ropes. The only other way I can see to fight this is to have a strong in depth tutorial (campaign) that forces the player to learn the basics to complete it. Sort of how Zelda gives you a weapon, then forces you to use the weapon to defeat that boss.
Has any one ever played the hidden? probably not, there's a reason
The hidden was like ns1, built on the source engine, and completely broken
invisible guy w/ knife vs swat team w/shotgun
who comes up with this stuff?
The only real way to be 'better' than other players in TF2 <i>is</i> to strategise, because there aren't any other options avilable to you. You can't really out-bunnyhop or out-aim your enemy because nearly all the guns are pretty easy to aim and many of the classes are slow, and others are entirely based around intelligent use of your abilities such as the medic, spy, and pyro. You can only succeed with those by thinking about your positoning and in the case of the medic, you need another good player to work with you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Speaking as a competitive TF2 player, this isn't really true. Assuming both teams are running a viable class lineup (usually meaning lots of Soldiers/Demos/Scouts/Heavies, enough Medics, and only a few utilities played by people who are good at them) and understand basic teamwork (basically meaning they aren't leaving the Medics to die), strategy only matters assuming the teams are very close to even in terms of overall deathmatching skills. Xensity went from being a high-level NS team to one of the best teams in the early days of competitive TF2 while making a running joke out of their lack of teamwork, simply because their raw DM skills overwhelmed anything but the best opposition. If teams are sufficiently stacked, even class lineup isn't important; I've personally won 6v6 scrims using 3 Engineers on Granary (and yes, that was breaking the class limits, but at that point it didn't matter) or rushing Gravelpit B with 2 Heavies, 2 Spies, and 2 Pyros. Only in very close games does strategy become significant.
The only real difference made by TF2's lack of depth is that individual players have a limited impact on the outcome of the game, so it's more about which team has better overall deathmatching skills rather than a 30-player game being decided by a handful of pubstars while the rest of the server is mostly cannon fodder.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If it's twitch skill you want, then NS is probably the paragon of the skillset, short of maybe DDR, if you want strategic possibility, TF2 doesn't have anything else in it other than strategy, although in public games it doesn't have that either because strategy as I said, only works if the enemy is doing it as well. If the enemy is inherently unpredictable because he isn't thinking about what he's doing you can't really strategise against him, so TF2s strategy would only really occur in competitive play I think. Otherwise its only value is that you hit the buttons and the pretty flashes happen and the mans explode into red bits ha ha ha and whatnot.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's a lot of small-scale tactical tricks that work at any skill level, and bad players are usually pretty predictable in this regard because they tend to make the obvious choices. On a larger level, TF2 doesn't have that much strategic diversity; 2 Soldiers, 2 Scouts, 1 Demo, 1 Medic, occasionally sub out a Scout or a Soldier for a Sniper if the map is appropriate and you have a good Sniper on your team, and use the other classes every now and then if there's an appropriate time for them. The biggest strategic decision is generally whether or not you're going to use the Kritzkrieg, since it requires your team to play very differently to use it effectively. Gravelpit sees a good deal of gimmicky strategies because it has a well-defined metagame and the utility classes are more viable on it, and that's one of the reasons I like it.
Other than that, TF2 is mostly a 6v6 team deathmatch where both teams have a similar strategy, and the ability to read the situation and adapt to it is more important than having a set plan (and all of this is less important than being good at clicking on things).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would say much the same about starcraft, from what I've seen starcraft is about how fast you can click, how much faster you can micromanage than your opponent, the strategy element takes a rather large backseat because you basically have to handle all your units combat AI whenever they fight if you want to win. Compare that to something like supreme commander where you have very little micromanagement beyond telling your dudes to shoot the big giant robot rather than the little tank, and you get supreme commander being the better strategy game because the only way to win is to attack when and where your enemy is weak, while starcraft is the better action game because a vital way to win is to micromanage your units so much that their numerical or statistical weakness is made much less relevant, just like in an FPS game in fact. Although with those two it's less concrete, starcraft still has a lot of territory to manage and you can still benefit from attacking weaker areas and thinking about your moves, TF2 on the other hand has almost no twitch while NS has almost all twitch, or at least it has it to such an extent that it completely overshadows the strategy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Starcraft is actually a very macro-centric game. Although you <i>can</i> compensate for being at a strategic disadvantage by out-microing your opponent (which is part of what makes the game better than a glorified form of rock-paper-scissors), it's still determined primarily at the strategic level. No amount of clicks is going to save you from fast Dark Templar if they're in your mineral line before you've built detection. In general though, I guess you could say that it's not enough simply to have a good plan; you're also required to execute it well, or else there's still room for your opponent to steal a win. Trying to play Starcraft without thinking is a surefire way to lose unless you're playing with people who are very very very bad.
This isn't a rectifiable problem: either you dumb the game down and open the flood gates for noobs or you tighten the curve and give the pros room to grow.
I don't have any patience for someone who quits after being "owned" many times. It's a pathetic attitude and I don't want to see any game compromised to accommodate these sucks. Some may say a NS 1.0 experience isn't the same since everyone was beginning then, but consider I spent the first several matches forced kharaa/skulk because the rine team was stacked with counter-strike nubs who wanted to pew-pew. My sig speaks for itself. Spending 50% of the time as REIN and 5 minutes walking around lost only to experience 5 seconds of battle before dieing made me rage, but not rage-quit. I got frustrated, but used it to fuel my strength and resolve to master the game. Pretty soon I was able to take out one marine before dying, then two and so forth.
That's been the story with every game I've ever found challenging. And I know it has been for many of the vet NS players in our community. It's an attitude thing, and I wouldn't play with anyone else who felt less.
Case-in-point: my 2-day TF2 experience. Headshotting the same noobs 15 times in a row only to be 'crit'd by some random skill-less shot is an abomination of competition. I don't play games designed by soccer-mom-special-olympics-everyone's-a-winner bs.
tl;dr: you're not going to please everyone, but who you do aim to please may alienate others and shows wear your loyalties lie.
Even in an ultra-casual game like TF2, it's entirely possible to upset class dynamics simply by outplaying your opponent. I have horrible aim by competitive standards and I can win 1v1s with noncombat classes. Like I've said, I've been in countless winning teams using absolutely ridiculous joke strategies simply because we were better players and we didn't have to try.
An FPS wouldn't even be fun to play if it boiled down to binary encounters determined by class or equipment. If you want a literal game of rock-paper-scissors, why don't you go play rock-paper-scissors?
FYI you realize TF2 has a server side option to disable crits right?
Anyway, I think that NS2 needs to allow for noobies to sell, not everyone is a hardcore fps gamer. If it allows for competitive play and causal then you have the holy grail.
A good game should be easy to pick up and incredibly hard to master.
But to the OP.. are you playing custom combat or vanilla ns? Because as most of the ns populous (bar those that DO play custom combat) will tell you; custom combat is rubbish and has ruined the game. Don't play it if you want to have fun. Only if you want to tear your hair out and break your fingers from punching walls and computer screens.
The game is 'balanced' for vanilla ns, not combat- let alone CUSTOM (shudder) combat.
Note: this is not coming from someone who's been railed by 'pro gais' in the custom combat servers.
=]
<a href="http://www.addictinggames.com/rockpaperscissors.html" target="_blank">Problem solved.</a>
An FPS wouldn't even be fun to play if it boiled down to binary encounters determined by class or equipment. If you want a literal game of rock-paper-scissors, why don't you go play rock-paper-scissors?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, I'm just saying that NS is a full team game unlike Starcraft, so in a game with 8+ players per team there should be a limit to the ability of one individual to ditch his team and control the game by himself. I don't think a marine should ever be rewarded for disregarding his teammates and ramboing for kills, regardless of how good he is, because that's just now what the game is supposed to be about. Lone pubstomping isn't an activity that's worth defending at the expense of newbies IMO. It's not just a team FPS either, it's a team FPS/RTS, so encounters should be decided by strategy/tactics moreso than they are in a typical twitch FPS.
If someone is that good or opponent that bad why not? It is obvious that teamwork has its pros and con so does soloing, opponent has to adapt to this and this is why the game can be interesting.
Soooooo what are you suggesting? If marines are by themselves too long they just die or what?
I don't know, I haven't played NS2. I think the trick jumping and mid-air bite knockback in NS makes it a little too easy for marines to bail themselves out after walking into an ambush though. 1v1, if a vanilla marine walks through a door and a skulk is ready for him, that marine should die IMO unless the skulk really sucks. Or maybe some changes to static defenses instead? No idea where they're going with that.
Theres no knockback, ever consired that the marine > skulk and vice-versa if the marine dies. Awareness and predicting are part of the odd thing known as skill. Also if something should always happen why bother playing at all.
For some reason this made me think of incorporating some of the Left-4-Dead mechanics into NS2. Everyone will hate this idea but it would solve your problem of rambo marines being viable. If skulks had an incapacitating move like the hunter's pounce from L4D, solo marines would be very vulnerable to skulks because they would die in one successful attack. When the marines are in a group however the skulks would use other attacks because they don't want to remain stationary biting the same target for too long. I liked helping teamates up in Left-4-Dead and it made you stick together at all times, but I get the feeling no one that plays NS would appreciate it.
Heck, most Strategy games, while they have an underlying RPS mechanic, would really stink if you had hard counters. That's what makes good strategy games different from the junk. If there's room to explore strats, combinations of units, and skilled manipulation of those units, then you're looking at a better game than Sword-Spear-Cav slugfests.
<!--quoteo(post=1759068:date=Mar 12 2010, 04:29 PM:name=Norton)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Norton @ Mar 12 2010, 04:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759068"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For some reason this made me think of incorporating some of the Left-4-Dead mechanics into NS2. Everyone will hate this idea but it would solve your problem of rambo marines being viable. If skulks had an incapacitating move like the hunter's pounce from L4D, solo marines would be very vulnerable to skulks because they would die in one successful attack. When the marines are in a group however the skulks would use other attacks because they don't want to remain stationary biting the same target for too long. I liked helping teamates up in Left-4-Dead and it made you stick together at all times, but I get the feeling no one that plays NS would appreciate it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not a matter of appreciation, it's a factor of forced teamwork mechanics. The biggest thing is no one likes to be incapacitated, thus why the Onos Devour constantly gets argued about.
L4D is king of forced teamwork, and it works well for that style since you're supposed to stay as a 4-man team and you're up against the massive zombie hoarde. However, NS wants to promote teamwork, but the lone gunner in the backlines should still be a viable position. Granted, it should be bashed with problems since we want squads of players running around typically, but such a strong smackdown as incapacitation makes most players very, very angry.
I think it's the mentality that they want to play the game and work within the rules (pushing the limits when possible), and not have the rules come up and smack them upside the head every time they walk 2 feet from a squadmate.
Completely different games. Half point of L4D was that if you wandered off by yourself the game would make damned sure you regretted it by whatever means necessary. NS accomplishes a similar effect through subtler means. Who needs an outright incapacitation attack when you can just get rolled by a Fade?
Besides, it's just not the right sort of mechanic. The game moves faster; it's not just having a few seconds to shoot a Skulk off of your buddy; instead he's leaping around frenetically making a difficult target and occasionally biting people down in less than a second. If there were L4D-style incapacitations, what would happen to Marines in smaller servers? Six Marines have a lot of map to cover that more or less precludes them from traveling as a giant blob, and a pair of buddies could be pretty easily jumped by a similar number of Skulks.
It's really just not the same sort of game at all.
There certainly is knockback, quite a lot of it sometimes. And you're missing my point - the marine already made a mistake just by walking into a trap. If he was really better, he wouldn't have. In Counter-Strike you can die instantaneously just by sticking your head out in the wrong place, NS is actually extremely arcadey given the supposed focus on teamwork.
This isn't the kind of game for L4D-style incapacitation attacks but combat could definitely stand to be more tactical.
I think you are over generalizing or seeing distinctions where there aren't any or something...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No when I play TF2 I get annoyed because the class based system makes my input entirely superfluous in public matches and because I hate strategy I wouldn't ever play in an organised game, I don't play starcraft, and when I played NS a very long time ago I was relatively good at aiming and got kills as a result, I was also about fourteen so I don't think I knew that strategy existed.
In TF2 you miss a lot but you miss a lot because the guns are inaccurate, you usually have close to perfect aim in the sense that your gun does close to 100% of the damage it can do at that range, but it also goes all over the place and doesn't do very much damage, even though that's the best it can do. The point is TF2 removes the need to aim on most of the classes. The TF2 heavy can't move faster than anything and it can't use any sort of finesse with its gun, but it can be very powerful when combined with intelligent use of a medic, as well as in similar situations to the pyro because the minigun does exactly the same thing the flamethrower does at close range.
All TF2 classes have is thoughtful positioning, attack patterns, and cooperation with support classes. The best way to play a heavy is to play it with a medic and use the heavy as a meat shield while at the same time, being aware of the limits of the heal gun. A good heavy medic combo will get a lot of kills and they only get that because they work together intelligently, they can't do anything else.
And if he misses then you can turn the tables and put a bullet in his face. No good game hands you free wins every time you're at a strategic or tactical advantage; it's just that; an <i>advantage</i> in the fight that makes it easier for you to win and harder for your opponent. Binary hard-counter situations where you auto-win if you have the right unit and auto-lose if you don't are boring, make for stale gameplay, and will stifle the community because they essentially kill the depth that experienced players stick around for.
Again, it's not enough just to have a plan, good games demand that you <i>execute</i> as well. The excitement of playing comes not just from making plans, but from the uncertainty of their success based on the performance of yourselves and your opponents. An FPS game where the only distinction between players was decision making would be stunningly bad; not even TF2 takes it <i>that</i> far. In fact, as I've already explained, even casual games like TF2 are determined primarily by raw fragging skills, with strategy only tipping the scales in matchups that were already close.
I think it's the mentality that they want to play the game and work within the rules (pushing the limits when possible), and not have the rules come up and smack them upside the head every time they walk 2 feet from a squadmate.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NS has always had the same mechanics as L4D, running out at the start on your own is harrowing, because you can't fight skulks on your own unless you're very confident in your abiltiies, whereas two players can take on much more. L4D just makes it impossible to fight off enemies on your own, or at least very, very, very hard. NS does the same, albeit a bit less hard, but it's still the same idea. One skulk is a threat much like a hunter to a lone player, if you don't spot it and react quickly you're dead, but to two it's quite easy, because two stand a greater chance of spotting it and they can afford to be twice as inaccurate with their fire.
Again, it's not enough just to have a plan, good games demand that you <i>execute</i> as well. The excitement of playing comes not just from making plans, but from the uncertainty of their success based on the performance of yourselves and your opponents. An FPS game where the only distinction between players was decision making would be stunningly bad; not even TF2 takes it <i>that</i> far. In fact, as I've already explained, even casual games like TF2 are determined primarily by raw fragging skills, with strategy only tipping the scales in matchups that were already close.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Skulks can miss bites too, happens to pros all the time. I didn't say anything about binary encounters, but there's no way the fight between the marine and skulk in that situation should be fair - the skulk starts in his best possible scenario and the marine in his worst, and you think it should be 50/50? If the marine is sitting at the end of a hallway and a skulk charges him head on, it's physically impossible for the skulk to ever win unless the marine really sucks at aiming.