A greater perspective of this is that the game simply does not work as intended. Nobody really cooperates, there needs to be more benefits to working in a team other than having a potential meatshield and extra fire power (which you would think is an enticement enough, but apparently not).
So this runs down the stream and results in the following: - People view their body as expendable - Everyone do the rambo - Weapon distribution mismatch (all rifle, all shotgun, all grenadier, all flamer) - Poor coordination of team mates
In the average pub game (the only type I play since I lack any real gamer friends *sadface*). As a commander you can't really do anything, you have no power (reminds me of a hilarious suggestion that we should be able to shock bad team players, the idea sucked but the imagery is colourful) and the commander ends up as the slackey. They provide *some* tactical oversight and support the marines. Which puts the marines in power, they push out and expect the commander to cover there asses when they get in 1v3 fights against aliens because they rambo'd.
The only real power the commander has is to alert them when critical points on the map are under attack (res, marine start... that's it I think). I guess it's a matter of psychology how you deal with these issues. You can't force it on people because they won't play and it'll ruin the game. You can only nudge people in the right direction with positive reinforcement, like how you give a child a sticker when they 'dus gud'.
I recall UWE saying they were going to experiment with squad-based armour boosting. So, I presume, if you're in a squad of 2 you damage multiplier is 0.95 (so you take 95% of normal damage) and for 3 is 0.9, etc. I can see how this would work in an "out in the field" situation. But then there is the issue of "ironwalling", if everyone is in a room together, they'll all be stronger and possibly impossible to beat. If you limit the damage multiplier to say 0.85, that is still every marine getting 15% less damage. It'd still be the same sort of issue if you provided an attack bonus.
In regards to the original suggestion; I think with some of the follow up ideas about "free but takes time" and "guidance" is great. But fundamentally flawed because of the points I made before; everyone goes rambo - so nobody will pay attention to "suggested" load outs and players won't like the dictated load out either because they don't like being told what to do.
<!--quoteo(post=1836512:date=Mar 8 2011, 05:05 PM:name=Zuriki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zuriki @ Mar 8 2011, 05:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1836512"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In regards to the original suggestion; I think with some of the follow up ideas about "free but takes time" and "guidance" is great. But fundamentally flawed because of the points I made before; everyone goes rambo - so nobody will pay attention to "suggested" load outs and players won't like the dictated load out either because they don't like being told what to do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you're advocating a more dictorial Comm power (i.e. direct dropping/purchasing).
Really though I don't think our goal in the game design should be to try to stamp out bad behavior as much as reward good behavior. So, the teams that do follow the comm's orders and suggestions will do better, and we should enable the comm to provide direction and guidance.
My biggest problem with direct comm control is that there eventually becomes too much reliance on the comm, as in NS1. This in turn means people get very picky about their comms, insta kicking any "noob" comms, and in general no new blood gets trained. Which leads to sometimes having no competent comm, which means gg for the Marines. I'd rather the comm and marines were more detached so that they can work more independently, but great synergy when working together. Thus in NS2 personal res for Marines, MACs, and many more design choices.
Absolutely not, the last statement makes it clear: players won't like the dictated load out option, because they don't like being told what to do. I abhor the idea of commander dropped weapons too, having the option to switch to shotgun when the situation calls for it is great. I wouldn't mind having the option for the commander to drop weapons though (at double the weapon cost in PRes to the commander, to prevent flamer spam and stuff...), of course, using said weapons is entirely optional.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but cant more the one marine be in a command chair if there is more than 1 chair? In alot of games that I have played, it would improve a teams chance if the commander occaisionally left his post to tend to battle; complicating the gun dispersal is NOT a good idea, IMO
<!--quoteo(post=1836512:date=Mar 8 2011, 08:05 PM:name=Zuriki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zuriki @ Mar 8 2011, 08:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1836512"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A greater perspective of this is that the game simply does not work as intended. Nobody really cooperates, there needs to be more benefits to working in a team other than having a potential meatshield and extra fire power (which you would think is an enticement enough, but apparently not).
So this runs down the stream and results in the following: - People view their body as expendable - Everyone do the rambo - Weapon distribution mismatch (all rifle, all shotgun, all grenadier, all flamer) - Poor coordination of team mates<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Spawn ground units in waves, so that you're more likely to start in a squad? Provide a squad benefit that makes the player rely on his teammates? Hate to copypasta, but the guys that made Left4Dead knows what their doing. Give squads colored outline wall-hack sight, and the ability to revive dead teammates.
UWE also said they intended to explore re-spawning next to your squad, Halo Co-op style, so I imagine that would give squads a little more cohesion and prevent the sort of assembly line death-march you see in pubs, where players fail to wait for a reinforcements to respawn and make a solo trip to their deaths.
<!--quoteo(post=1836550:date=Mar 8 2011, 11:18 PM:name=KuBaN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KuBaN @ Mar 8 2011, 11:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1836550"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Spawn ground units in waves, so that you're more likely to start in a squad? Provide a squad benefit that makes the player rely on his teammates? Hate to copypasta, but the guys that made Left4Dead knows what their doing. Give squads colored outline wall-hack sight, and the ability to revive dead teammates.
UWE also said they intended to explore re-spawning next to your squad, Halo Co-op style, so I imagine that would give squads a little more cohesion and prevent the sort of assembly line death-march you see in pubs, where players fail to wait for a reinforcements to respawn and make a solo trip to their deaths.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why not add a diaper to the marine model while your at it?
Seems like squad-based re-spawning would fix most of these issues. The appeal of recovering your gear at no cost and not having to walk from Marine Start provides an immediate gratification system for cooperation. Equipment prices would probably be increased to balance the drop in purchases, which would place further value on keeping your equipment, which you can only do by remaining in a squad.
This makes being alone less secure, and thus more frightening, like it should be.
It would make it less realistic; what would be the point in several years of development to manafacture a new engine, implementing off-world simulation physics etc just to make serious game modifications so that players can have it 'easy'?
If I had a magic ###### lamp with a goddamn genie inside it would fix alot of my issues.. But I don't, do you know why?
The thing is, my extension to Svenpa's idea <b>encourages</b> certain behaviours, and if you encourage it, players will 'learn', or rather, sticking to suggested team load-outs will become habitual. If you <b>enforce</b> it (by having the commander stock up, or dole out weappns), that's merely the game telling you what you can and can't do, and players will not improve their behaviour. If people want to rambo*, and consistently rambo, until the end of time - that's just the sort of player they are, attempting to change that is wishful thinking. * Related to (a subset of), but not exactly the same as, a 'selfish' player. But armoury stocks just means that, chances are, the selfless players don't get the equipment, and the selfish players do. This hardly seems ideal. This could be overcome if you additionally allow blacklisting of marines, but that just adds a whole new layer of annoying, cumbersome complexity which is in fact less complex than NS1 equipment drops - which achieve the same thing, so you might as well just have that. But they probably will not make a return, and we should all resign ourselves to this fact.
<b>Our idea changes nothing</b>, because it adds no restrictions, and preserves marine autonomy/freedom. However, <b>it allows the commander to essentially create a set of guidelines</b>. It is similar in principle to a concept that already exists in NS1/NS2 commanding: the order way-point. Marines don't *have to* follow them, and could go a different way if they wish, but there's a good chance they will. <b>The idea is essentially a form of communication</b>, and nothing more. Just as way-points allow a form of communication that does not replace, but is a recommended alternative for, giving orders through text and voice chat, similarly, this does not replace, but is a recommended alternative for, planning weapon roll-outs through text and voice chat.
You don't even really need the commander's input if you give players a readout of what the rest of the team is using, assuming of course you balance the guns so that a mix is preferable to everyone using the same gun. It should be obvious to players that if they pick a gun nobody else is using, it will get them more kills because it will fill an important role nobody else is playing.
<!--quoteo(post=1836717:date=Mar 10 2011, 10:31 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Mar 10 2011, 10:31 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1836717"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You don't even really need the commander's input if you give players a readout of what the rest of the team is using, assuming of course you balance the guns so that a mix is preferable to everyone using the same gun. It should be obvious to players that if they pick a gun nobody else is using, it will get them more kills because it will fill an important role nobody else is playing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're expecting players to be well versed in team weapon loadout diversity and the ability to think like the commander and know his plans. This is a bad assumption. Mass shotgun play? Mass HMG? Do we need more or less flamethrowers?
Adding the tool has no disadvantage and a huge amount of advantages.
<!--quoteo(post=1836725:date=Mar 11 2011, 03:15 AM:name=Ender_74)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ender_74 @ Mar 11 2011, 03:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1836725"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I like Harimau's idea... Should it be available for the marine commander too ?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Did you mean, available for the alien commander too? Like, delegating which lifeforms and the number that are currently existing/recommended, in very much the same manner. I personally have no problem with this, and would welcome this. Some might say that it takes away from the individualistic alien playstyle though...
Chris: Not necessary, but useful, recommended. Just as waypoints are not necessary, but useful, recommended. Just as any sort of communication is not strictly necessary, but useful, recommended.
<!--quoteo(post=1836794:date=Mar 11 2011, 05:45 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Mar 11 2011, 05:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1836794"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Did you mean, available for the alien commander too?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes of course I meant Alien Commander... I really need to read my post before validating.
I like this way the the players to see the commander's will. But if he forgets to update it they can always bypass it. Then the aliens will be able to see that the commander is in favor of gorge rush.... or than he thinks 2 Skulks, 2 Lerks and 1 Fade suits what he wants for the big picture.
Anyway you definitely need to see when you choose life form/weapon the number of teammates in each category.
What about 'restocking'? When the Armory is initially upgraded to adv. It only has a limited supply of Adv. weopons. When/if adv. weopons are lost, the armory needs 'restock'. This ensures that every mofo isn't running around with FT..
<!--quoteo(post=1836837:date=Mar 11 2011, 04:59 PM:name=measles)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (measles @ Mar 11 2011, 04:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1836837"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What about 'restocking'? When the Armory is initially upgraded to adv. It only has a limited supply of Adv. weopons. When/if adv. weopons are lost, the armory needs 'restock'. This ensures that every mofo isn't running around with FT..<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I doubt they will, considering it does crummy damage versus armor. Not that I can predict what 6-10 of those at once would do to a fade...
In any case, this would be essentially the same as dealing out weapons manually, since you restrict which types you want to be equipped.
<!--quoteo(post=1836570:date=Mar 9 2011, 02:17 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Mar 9 2011, 02:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1836570"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The thing is, my extension to Svenpa's idea <b>encourages</b> certain behaviours, and if you encourage it, players will 'learn', or rather, sticking to suggested team load-outs will become habitual. If you <b>enforce</b> it (by having the commander stock up, or dole out weappns), that's merely the game telling you what you can and can't do, and players will not improve their behaviour. If people want to rambo*, and consistently rambo, until the end of time - that's just the sort of player they are, attempting to change that is wishful thinking. * Related to (a subset of), but not exactly the same as, a 'selfish' player. But armoury stocks just means that, chances are, the selfless players don't get the equipment, and the selfish players do. This hardly seems ideal. This could be overcome if you additionally allow blacklisting of marines, but that just adds a whole new layer of annoying, cumbersome complexity which is in fact less complex than NS1 equipment drops - which achieve the same thing, so you might as well just have that. But they probably will not make a return, and we should all resign ourselves to this fact.
<b>Our idea changes nothing</b>, because it adds no restrictions, and preserves marine autonomy/freedom. However, <b>it allows the commander to essentially create a set of guidelines</b>. It is similar in principle to a concept that already exists in NS1/NS2 commanding: the order way-point. Marines don't *have to* follow them, and could go a different way if they wish, but there's a good chance they will. <b>The idea is essentially a form of communication</b>, and nothing more. Just as way-points allow a form of communication that does not replace, but is a recommended alternative for, giving orders through text and voice chat, similarly, this does not replace, but is a recommended alternative for, planning weapon roll-outs through text and voice chat.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> But although it sounds self defeating, ns 2 should have very limited to do with marine weapon skill but instead with tactical use of the weapons at the right times, in sync with the commanders plans. Even with your idea this cannot be accomplished fully, as having access to all weapons at all times defeats the nessesity of going with the plan, and ns is part rts afterall.
I don't agree that there is such a necessity. What you want is the traditional RTS mechanic of pumping out new units. Unfortunately, the traditional RTS doesn't have units that move and think for themselves.
<!--quoteo(post=1838631:date=Mar 24 2011, 02:52 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Mar 24 2011, 02:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1838631"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't agree that there is such a necessity. What you want is the traditional RTS mechanic of pumping out new units. Unfortunately, the traditional RTS doesn't have units that move and think for themselves.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It worked in NS1 where the commander got to choose what guns to give his soldiers, why wouldn't it work in NS2 even if it is implemented in a new way?
<!--quoteo(post=1839005:date=Mar 28 2011, 09:41 AM:name=Nex Carnifex)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nex Carnifex @ Mar 28 2011, 09:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1839005"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It worked in NS1 where the commander got to choose what guns to give his soldiers, why wouldn't it work in NS2 even if it is implemented in a new way?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree though a lot of people only came to ns with combat mode, so they want the cs style chose your own kit out option. The difference between combat and traditional NS players has been an issue to address since the release of combat mode.
I like the idea that the commander can chose which weapons are available...so if he wants to set up a shottie rush he only makes shotties available.
The commander for marines is meant to tell them what to do...and a good marine will shut up...stop crying...and follow orders...if the comm says attach with a pocket knife well you will attack with a pocket knife...after all thats what they have been trained to do.
If you want freedom of what attack method you use...go aliens...if you want to work as part of a team and be told what you can and cant use be a marine. Its always been that way and what made playing each side so different and fun.
<!--quoteo(post=1839005:date=Mar 27 2011, 03:41 PM:name=Nex Carnifex)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nex Carnifex @ Mar 27 2011, 03:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1839005"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It worked in NS1 where the commander got to choose what guns to give his soldiers, why wouldn't it work in NS2 even if it is implemented in a new way?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mostly 2 reasons.
1) Re-unifying the res system so that team-size doesn't skew balance one way or the other. Thus, there's now personal and team resources. 2) Trying to help reduce reliance between commanders and players so that the entire game doesn't hinge on a single player.
As said above it seems to be the changes are to placate those who only played/enjoyed playing combat mode. Where you didn't have to rely on a commander.
I always liked the commander controlling what was being dished out....Sure at times I would ask for a HMG and end up with a GL or shottie...but as teh commander had the overall team picture he was better placed than me to pick what weapon would be most beneficial.
I might have preferred a HMG but if the team was stuck and needed a GL to clear a passage precious time would have been wasted.
We all talk about wanting team work...well guess what, team work means you do what best for the team not yourself.
If you really want that HMG and the commander has not stocked one into the armoury then you can use either your mic or team chat to ask the comm for one. The com might come back and say "sure hang on" or "sorry we already have 11/12 marines with HMG's...we need some GL's so no more HMG available for a while but plenty of GL are".
It seems to me that people want to run and gun like they did in combat but with a commander who is there to do very little in relation to influence the game except med spam and set way points.
The marine commander was crucial to NS1 and should be for NS2...if a bad commander does not cost the marines the game then I believe there is something fundamentally wrong.
<!--quoteo(post=1839005:date=Mar 28 2011, 06:41 AM:name=Nex Carnifex)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nex Carnifex @ Mar 28 2011, 06:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1839005"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It worked in NS1 where the commander got to choose what guns to give his soldiers, why wouldn't it work in NS2 even if it is implemented in a new way?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Lmao. That's not what I said, is it? I didn't say NS1 worked or didn't work. I said that there's <b>no necessity</b>. You said that there IS a necessity, and you are wrong.
And I am of the completely opposite opinion to you. You say that "ns 2 should have very limited to do with marine weapon skill". However, the majority of the game experience is an FPS. Player-vs-player confrontations should be balanced on a player-vs-player or FPS basis, and not a team-vs-team or RTS basis. By treating the RTS and FPS components semi-discretely, you can balance each of them as you like.
If you just say that if my team has better tech, or we have more resources, or I have hard counters, then my team should kill a hundred times more effectively than my opponent's team... then that's just poor balancing. That's really fun for about two people: alien and marine comm. If on the other hand, you say that if my team has better tech, or we have more resources, or I have hard counters, then my team should <b>win</b>, but otherwise, my opponents should still have a fighting chance at killing or living... then that works out fine. That's fun for everyone.
The reason that NS1 might have worked was because all resources were shared. Resources mattered. If the aliens brought an onos into the game, that was a huge resource cost -> most likely, their <b>team</b> as a whole isn't likely to be able to field another onos any time soon. So even if the onos could, say, take on (and out) 4 players at a time, this wasn't too bad because it just encouraged people to stick together more if they knew high-level aliens were in the game. With the current resource system, that's not true. If all of the aliens each saved up 50 res or whatever it costs, then chances are, at some point in the game you're going to have an entire team of onos charging you down. If each onos is still able to take on (and out) 4 players at a time, well then the marines are pretty screwed.
What you suggest would be perfect if we were playing 1v1 (commanders) and each commander had AI units on the ground (i.e. we were playing an RTS). But we aren't, those are real players who can make their own decisions. If they <b>decide</b> to go with the commander's equipment loadout, just like when they <b>decide</b> to follow the commander's waypoints, then more power to them.
<!--quoteo(post=1839023:date=Mar 28 2011, 01:36 PM:name=hakenspit)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hakenspit @ Mar 28 2011, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1839023"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The marine commander was crucial to NS1 and should be for NS2...if a bad commander does not cost the marines the game then I believe there is something fundamentally wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I hate games where I have to rely on one person, in my team of however many, to win the game. I've played, and I do play, a number of these games. It doesn't matter how well I play, it's just a slaughter. <b>That</b> is fundamentally wrong.
<!--quoteo(post=1839035:date=Mar 28 2011, 08:36 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Mar 28 2011, 08:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1839035"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Lmao. That's not what I said, is it? I didn't say NS1 worked or didn't work. I said that there's <b>no necessity</b>. You said that there IS a necessity, and you are wrong.
And I am of the completely opposite opinion to you. You say that "ns 2 should have very limited to do with marine weapon skill". However, the majority of the game experience is an FPS. Player-vs-player confrontations should be balanced on a player-vs-player or FPS basis, and not a team-vs-team or RTS basis. By treating the RTS and FPS components semi-discretely, you can balance each of them as you like.
If you just say that if my team has better tech, or we have more resources, or I have hard counters, then my team should kill a hundred times more effectively than my opponent's team... then that's just poor balancing. That's really fun for about two people: alien and marine comm. If on the other hand, you say that if my team has better tech, or we have more resources, or I have hard counters, then my team should <b>win</b>, but otherwise, my opponents should still have a fighting chance at killingo or living... then that works out fine. That's fun for everyone.
The reason that NS1 might have worked was because all resources were shared. Resources mattered. If the aliens brought an onos into the game, that was a huge resource cost -> most likely, their <b>team</b> as a whole isn't likely to be able to field another onos any time soon. So even if the onos could, say, take on (and out) 4 players at a time, this wasn't too bad because it just encouraged people to stick together more if they knew high-level aliens were in the game. With the current resource system, that's not true. If all of the aliens each saved up 50 res or whatever it costs, then chances are, at some point in the game you're going to have an entire team of onos charging you down. If each onos is still able to take on (and out) 4 players at a time, well then the marines are pretty screwed.
What you suggest would be perfect if we were playing 1v1 (commanders) and each commander had AI units on the ground (i.e. we were playing an RTS). But we aren't, those are real players who can make their own decisions. If they <b>decide</b> to go with the commander's equipment loadout, just like when they <b>decide</b> to follow the commander's waypoints, then more power to them.
I hate games where I have to rely on one person, in my team of however many, to win the game. I've played, and I do play, a number of these games. It doesn't matter how well I play, it's just a slaughter. <b>That</b> is fundamentally wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The game should have little to do with fps skill compared to contemporary toss. This is fps/rts game, yet those 2 aspects are currently disconnected while they weren't in ns2s predessesor. Yes, if the game wants to remain true to its root idea, its a nessesity to connect the commander and the marines in more ways than just headphones. But the fact remains ns2 is less of an fps than ns1 without this nessesary component of connection, and people realized this and were complaining about it, the reason I made this thread.
<!--quoteo(post=1839035:date=Mar 28 2011, 07:36 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Mar 28 2011, 07:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1839035"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The reason that NS1 might have worked was because all resources were shared. Resources mattered. If the aliens brought an onos into the game, that was a huge resource cost -> most likely, their <b>team</b> as a whole isn't likely to be able to field another onos any time soon.
I hate games where I have to rely on one person, in my team of however many, to win the game. I've played, and I do play, a number of these games. It doesn't matter how well I play, it's just a slaughter. That is fundamentally wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok so did you actually play classic ns1 ? if you had you would know that aliens had no team resources as such..each alien accrued res point for personal use...not shared by a team. My choice to go fade/onos did not impact any other players res availability.
Also NS has always been reliant on the comm as marines...there is no way to avoid this..its one of their traits (able to be highly organised by their commander). Also the act of relying on a team mate is often call team work.
<!--quoteo(post=1839051:date=Mar 28 2011, 10:06 PM:name=Nex Carnifex)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nex Carnifex @ Mar 28 2011, 10:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1839051"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The game should have little to do with fps skill compared to contemporary toss.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <b>Why?</b> What's the point of even having the FPS component at all then, if the FPS portion barely matters in a player-vs-player confrontation? Are freely-thinking players just a gimmick? Is the FPS part of the game just a gimmick? Maybe they should just be bots that we can babysit and order around. Hell, maybe we should go back to Starcraft.
<!--quoteo(post=1839096:date=Mar 29 2011, 08:15 AM:name=hakenspit)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hakenspit @ Mar 29 2011, 08:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1839096"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ok so did you actually play classic ns1 ? if you had you would know that aliens had no team resources as such..each alien accrued res point for personal use...not shared by a team. My choice to go fade/onos did not impact any other players res availability.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Rofl. Not shared by the team? Are you mad? When your team has harvesters, where do the resources go? Into thin air? They get split among the team - split, that means SHARED. Your very <b>presence</b> in the game does in fact impact other players' res availability. If you make a stupid purchase, e.g. you go onos, rush the marine base and immediately die - you're not the only one that has suffered, your team has - you can tell by the amount of rage you are about to receive from your teammates. If you do that in NS2, where everyone has their own personal resources which they accrue at the same rate, freely, with no opportunity cost to the team, then no one on your team suffers for your stupidity.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also the act of relying on a team mate is often call team work.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Flip the coin and it's called griefing, ramboing, noobs, frustration and losing. <b>Being able to</b> rely on others should make a team better. <b>Being forced to</b> rely on others should <u>not</u> make a team worse.
<!--quoteo(post=1839114:date=Mar 29 2011, 02:31 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Mar 29 2011, 02:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1839114"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>Why?</b> Rofl. Not shared by the team? Are you mad? When your team has harvesters, where do the resources go? Into thin air? They get split among the team - split, that means SHARED.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No shared would imply that I can use your allocation of res, the marines had a shared resource model in ns1 aliens had individual resources. If I chose to go onos and die then the only person impacted is me..I could not evolve again until I had acrrued new res...sure people might say what a waste of res but it does not impact the amount of res they have available....team size dictated teh rte at which you accrued individual res.
Me chosing to go onons and die did not stop other people in my team from choosing how to use their resources or the amount of res they had accrued.
Comments
So this runs down the stream and results in the following:
- People view their body as expendable
- Everyone do the rambo
- Weapon distribution mismatch (all rifle, all shotgun, all grenadier, all flamer)
- Poor coordination of team mates
In the average pub game (the only type I play since I lack any real gamer friends *sadface*). As a commander you can't really do anything, you have no power (reminds me of a hilarious suggestion that we should be able to shock bad team players, the idea sucked but the imagery is colourful) and the commander ends up as the slackey. They provide *some* tactical oversight and support the marines. Which puts the marines in power, they push out and expect the commander to cover there asses when they get in 1v3 fights against aliens because they rambo'd.
The only real power the commander has is to alert them when critical points on the map are under attack (res, marine start... that's it I think). I guess it's a matter of psychology how you deal with these issues. You can't force it on people because they won't play and it'll ruin the game. You can only nudge people in the right direction with positive reinforcement, like how you give a child a sticker when they 'dus gud'.
I recall UWE saying they were going to experiment with squad-based armour boosting. So, I presume, if you're in a squad of 2 you damage multiplier is 0.95 (so you take 95% of normal damage) and for 3 is 0.9, etc. I can see how this would work in an "out in the field" situation. But then there is the issue of "ironwalling", if everyone is in a room together, they'll all be stronger and possibly impossible to beat. If you limit the damage multiplier to say 0.85, that is still every marine getting 15% less damage. It'd still be the same sort of issue if you provided an attack bonus.
In regards to the original suggestion; I think with some of the follow up ideas about "free but takes time" and "guidance" is great. But fundamentally flawed because of the points I made before; everyone goes rambo - so nobody will pay attention to "suggested" load outs and players won't like the dictated load out either because they don't like being told what to do.
So you're advocating a more dictorial Comm power (i.e. direct dropping/purchasing).
Really though I don't think our goal in the game design should be to try to stamp out bad behavior as much as reward good behavior. So, the teams that do follow the comm's orders and suggestions will do better, and we should enable the comm to provide direction and guidance.
My biggest problem with direct comm control is that there eventually becomes too much reliance on the comm, as in NS1. This in turn means people get very picky about their comms, insta kicking any "noob" comms, and in general no new blood gets trained. Which leads to sometimes having no competent comm, which means gg for the Marines. I'd rather the comm and marines were more detached so that they can work more independently, but great synergy when working together. Thus in NS2 personal res for Marines, MACs, and many more design choices.
Just my thoughts.
I really think though that shouldn't prevent us from putting it in as a powerful, elegant tool for the teamwork players to use.
In alot of games that I have played, it would improve a teams chance if the commander occaisionally left his post to tend to battle;
complicating the gun dispersal is NOT a good idea, IMO
So this runs down the stream and results in the following:
- People view their body as expendable
- Everyone do the rambo
- Weapon distribution mismatch (all rifle, all shotgun, all grenadier, all flamer)
- Poor coordination of team mates<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Spawn ground units in waves, so that you're more likely to start in a squad?
Provide a squad benefit that makes the player rely on his teammates? Hate to copypasta, but the guys that made Left4Dead knows what their doing. Give squads colored outline wall-hack sight, and the ability to revive dead teammates.
UWE also said they intended to explore re-spawning next to your squad, Halo Co-op style, so I imagine that would give squads a little more cohesion and prevent the sort of assembly line death-march you see in pubs, where players fail to wait for a reinforcements to respawn and make a solo trip to their deaths.
Provide a squad benefit that makes the player rely on his teammates? Hate to copypasta, but the guys that made Left4Dead knows what their doing. Give squads colored outline wall-hack sight, and the ability to revive dead teammates.
UWE also said they intended to explore re-spawning next to your squad, Halo Co-op style, so I imagine that would give squads a little more cohesion and prevent the sort of assembly line death-march you see in pubs, where players fail to wait for a reinforcements to respawn and make a solo trip to their deaths.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why not add a diaper to the marine model while your at it?
This makes being alone less secure, and thus more frightening, like it should be.
If I had a magic ###### lamp with a goddamn genie inside it would fix alot of my issues.. But I don't, do you know why?
If you <b>enforce</b> it (by having the commander stock up, or dole out weappns), that's merely the game telling you what you can and can't do, and players will not improve their behaviour.
If people want to rambo*, and consistently rambo, until the end of time - that's just the sort of player they are, attempting to change that is wishful thinking.
* Related to (a subset of), but not exactly the same as, a 'selfish' player. But armoury stocks just means that, chances are, the selfless players don't get the equipment, and the selfish players do. This hardly seems ideal.
This could be overcome if you additionally allow blacklisting of marines, but that just adds a whole new layer of annoying, cumbersome complexity which is in fact less complex than NS1 equipment drops - which achieve the same thing, so you might as well just have that. But they probably will not make a return, and we should all resign ourselves to this fact.
<b>Our idea changes nothing</b>, because it adds no restrictions, and preserves marine autonomy/freedom. However, <b>it allows the commander to essentially create a set of guidelines</b>. It is similar in principle to a concept that already exists in NS1/NS2 commanding: the order way-point. Marines don't *have to* follow them, and could go a different way if they wish, but there's a good chance they will. <b>The idea is essentially a form of communication</b>, and nothing more. Just as way-points allow a form of communication that does not replace, but is a recommended alternative for, giving orders through text and voice chat, similarly, this does not replace, but is a recommended alternative for, planning weapon roll-outs through text and voice chat.
Harimau, I continue to appreciate you as a voice of sensible reason in this forum. <3
Harimau for President.
You're expecting players to be well versed in team weapon loadout diversity and the ability to think like the commander and know his plans. This is a bad assumption. Mass shotgun play? Mass HMG? Do we need more or less flamethrowers?
Adding the tool has no disadvantage and a huge amount of advantages.
Did you mean, available for the alien commander too?
Like, delegating which lifeforms and the number that are currently existing/recommended, in very much the same manner.
I personally have no problem with this, and would welcome this. Some might say that it takes away from the individualistic alien playstyle though...
Chris: Not necessary, but useful, recommended. Just as waypoints are not necessary, but useful, recommended. Just as any sort of communication is not strictly necessary, but useful, recommended.
Yes of course I meant Alien Commander... I really need to read my post before validating.
I like this way the the players to see the commander's will. But if he forgets to update it they can always bypass it.
Then the aliens will be able to see that the commander is in favor of gorge rush.... or than he thinks 2 Skulks, 2 Lerks and 1 Fade suits what he wants for the big picture.
Anyway you definitely need to see when you choose life form/weapon the number of teammates in each category.
When the Armory is initially upgraded to adv. It only has a limited supply of Adv. weopons.
When/if adv. weopons are lost, the armory needs 'restock'.
This ensures that every mofo isn't running around with FT..
When the Armory is initially upgraded to adv. It only has a limited supply of Adv. weopons.
When/if adv. weopons are lost, the armory needs 'restock'.
This ensures that every mofo isn't running around with FT..<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I doubt they will, considering it does crummy damage versus armor. Not that I can predict what 6-10 of those at once would do to a fade...
In any case, this would be essentially the same as dealing out weapons manually, since you restrict which types you want to be equipped.
If you <b>enforce</b> it (by having the commander stock up, or dole out weappns), that's merely the game telling you what you can and can't do, and players will not improve their behaviour.
If people want to rambo*, and consistently rambo, until the end of time - that's just the sort of player they are, attempting to change that is wishful thinking.
* Related to (a subset of), but not exactly the same as, a 'selfish' player. But armoury stocks just means that, chances are, the selfless players don't get the equipment, and the selfish players do. This hardly seems ideal.
This could be overcome if you additionally allow blacklisting of marines, but that just adds a whole new layer of annoying, cumbersome complexity which is in fact less complex than NS1 equipment drops - which achieve the same thing, so you might as well just have that. But they probably will not make a return, and we should all resign ourselves to this fact.
<b>Our idea changes nothing</b>, because it adds no restrictions, and preserves marine autonomy/freedom. However, <b>it allows the commander to essentially create a set of guidelines</b>. It is similar in principle to a concept that already exists in NS1/NS2 commanding: the order way-point. Marines don't *have to* follow them, and could go a different way if they wish, but there's a good chance they will. <b>The idea is essentially a form of communication</b>, and nothing more. Just as way-points allow a form of communication that does not replace, but is a recommended alternative for, giving orders through text and voice chat, similarly, this does not replace, but is a recommended alternative for, planning weapon roll-outs through text and voice chat.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But although it sounds self defeating, ns 2 should have very limited to do with marine weapon skill but instead with tactical use of the weapons at the right times, in sync with the commanders plans. Even with your idea this cannot be accomplished fully, as having access to all weapons at all times defeats the nessesity of going with the plan, and ns is part rts afterall.
It worked in NS1 where the commander got to choose what guns to give his soldiers, why wouldn't it work in NS2 even if it is implemented in a new way?
I agree though a lot of people only came to ns with combat mode, so they want the cs style chose your own kit out option. The difference between combat and traditional NS players has been an issue to address since the release of combat mode.
I like the idea that the commander can chose which weapons are available...so if he wants to set up a shottie rush he only makes shotties available.
The commander for marines is meant to tell them what to do...and a good marine will shut up...stop crying...and follow orders...if the comm says attach with a pocket knife well you will attack with a pocket knife...after all thats what they have been trained to do.
If you want freedom of what attack method you use...go aliens...if you want to work as part of a team and be told what you can and cant use be a marine.
Its always been that way and what made playing each side so different and fun.
Mostly 2 reasons.
1) Re-unifying the res system so that team-size doesn't skew balance one way or the other. Thus, there's now personal and team resources.
2) Trying to help reduce reliance between commanders and players so that the entire game doesn't hinge on a single player.
I always liked the commander controlling what was being dished out....Sure at times I would ask for a HMG and end up with a GL or shottie...but as teh commander had the overall team picture he was better placed than me to pick what weapon would be most beneficial.
I might have preferred a HMG but if the team was stuck and needed a GL to clear a passage precious time would have been wasted.
We all talk about wanting team work...well guess what, team work means you do what best for the team not yourself.
If you really want that HMG and the commander has not stocked one into the armoury then you can use either your mic or team chat to ask the comm for one. The com might come back and say "sure hang on" or "sorry we already have 11/12 marines with HMG's...we need some GL's so no more HMG available for a while but plenty of GL are".
It seems to me that people want to run and gun like they did in combat but with a commander who is there to do very little in relation to influence the game except med spam and set way points.
The marine commander was crucial to NS1 and should be for NS2...if a bad commander does not cost the marines the game then I believe there is something fundamentally wrong.
Lmao. That's not what I said, is it? I didn't say NS1 worked or didn't work. I said that there's <b>no necessity</b>. You said that there IS a necessity, and you are wrong.
And I am of the completely opposite opinion to you. You say that "ns 2 should have very limited to do with marine weapon skill". However, the majority of the game experience is an FPS. Player-vs-player confrontations should be balanced on a player-vs-player or FPS basis, and not a team-vs-team or RTS basis. By treating the RTS and FPS components semi-discretely, you can balance each of them as you like.
If you just say that if my team has better tech, or we have more resources, or I have hard counters, then my team should kill a hundred times more effectively than my opponent's team... then that's just poor balancing. That's really fun for about two people: alien and marine comm.
If on the other hand, you say that if my team has better tech, or we have more resources, or I have hard counters, then my team should <b>win</b>, but otherwise, my opponents should still have a fighting chance at killing or living... then that works out fine. That's fun for everyone.
The reason that NS1 might have worked was because all resources were shared. Resources mattered. If the aliens brought an onos into the game, that was a huge resource cost -> most likely, their <b>team</b> as a whole isn't likely to be able to field another onos any time soon. So even if the onos could, say, take on (and out) 4 players at a time, this wasn't too bad because it just encouraged people to stick together more if they knew high-level aliens were in the game. With the current resource system, that's not true. If all of the aliens each saved up 50 res or whatever it costs, then chances are, at some point in the game you're going to have an entire team of onos charging you down. If each onos is still able to take on (and out) 4 players at a time, well then the marines are pretty screwed.
What you suggest would be perfect if we were playing 1v1 (commanders) and each commander had AI units on the ground (i.e. we were playing an RTS). But we aren't, those are real players who can make their own decisions. If they <b>decide</b> to go with the commander's equipment loadout, just like when they <b>decide</b> to follow the commander's waypoints, then more power to them.
<!--quoteo(post=1839023:date=Mar 28 2011, 01:36 PM:name=hakenspit)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hakenspit @ Mar 28 2011, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1839023"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The marine commander was crucial to NS1 and should be for NS2...if a bad commander does not cost the marines the game then I believe there is something fundamentally wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hate games where I have to rely on one person, in my team of however many, to win the game. I've played, and I do play, a number of these games. It doesn't matter how well I play, it's just a slaughter. <b>That</b> is fundamentally wrong.
And I am of the completely opposite opinion to you. You say that "ns 2 should have very limited to do with marine weapon skill". However, the majority of the game experience is an FPS. Player-vs-player confrontations should be balanced on a player-vs-player or FPS basis, and not a team-vs-team or RTS basis. By treating the RTS and FPS components semi-discretely, you can balance each of them as you like.
If you just say that if my team has better tech, or we have more resources, or I have hard counters, then my team should kill a hundred times more effectively than my opponent's team... then that's just poor balancing. That's really fun for about two people: alien and marine comm.
If on the other hand, you say that if my team has better tech, or we have more resources, or I have hard counters, then my team should <b>win</b>, but otherwise, my opponents should still have a fighting chance at killingo or living... then that works out fine. That's fun for everyone.
The reason that NS1 might have worked was because all resources were shared. Resources mattered. If the aliens brought an onos into the game, that was a huge resource cost -> most likely, their <b>team</b> as a whole isn't likely to be able to field another onos any time soon. So even if the onos could, say, take on (and out) 4 players at a time, this wasn't too bad because it just encouraged people to stick together more if they knew high-level aliens were in the game. With the current resource system, that's not true. If all of the aliens each saved up 50 res or whatever it costs, then chances are, at some point in the game you're going to have an entire team of onos charging you down. If each onos is still able to take on (and out) 4 players at a time, well then the marines are pretty screwed.
What you suggest would be perfect if we were playing 1v1 (commanders) and each commander had AI units on the ground (i.e. we were playing an RTS). But we aren't, those are real players who can make their own decisions. If they <b>decide</b> to go with the commander's equipment loadout, just like when they <b>decide</b> to follow the commander's waypoints, then more power to them.
I hate games where I have to rely on one person, in my team of however many, to win the game. I've played, and I do play, a number of these games. It doesn't matter how well I play, it's just a slaughter. <b>That</b> is fundamentally wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The game should have little to do with fps skill compared to contemporary toss. This is fps/rts game, yet those 2 aspects are currently disconnected while they weren't in ns2s predessesor. Yes, if the game wants to remain true to its root idea, its a nessesity to connect the commander and the marines in more ways than just headphones. But the fact remains ns2 is less of an fps than ns1 without this nessesary component of connection, and people realized this and were complaining about it, the reason I made this thread.
I hate games where I have to rely on one person, in my team of however many, to win the game. I've played, and I do play, a number of these games. It doesn't matter how well I play, it's just a slaughter. That is fundamentally wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok so did you actually play classic ns1 ? if you had you would know that aliens had no team resources as such..each alien accrued res point for personal use...not shared by a team. My choice to go fade/onos did not impact any other players res availability.
Also NS has always been reliant on the comm as marines...there is no way to avoid this..its one of their traits (able to be highly organised by their commander).
Also the act of relying on a team mate is often call team work.
<b>Why?</b> What's the point of even having the FPS component at all then, if the FPS portion barely matters in a player-vs-player confrontation? Are freely-thinking players just a gimmick? Is the FPS part of the game just a gimmick? Maybe they should just be bots that we can babysit and order around.
Hell, maybe we should go back to Starcraft.
<!--quoteo(post=1839096:date=Mar 29 2011, 08:15 AM:name=hakenspit)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hakenspit @ Mar 29 2011, 08:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1839096"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ok so did you actually play classic ns1 ? if you had you would know that aliens had no team resources as such..each alien accrued res point for personal use...not shared by a team. My choice to go fade/onos did not impact any other players res availability.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rofl. Not shared by the team? Are you mad? When your team has harvesters, where do the resources go? Into thin air? They get split among the team - split, that means SHARED. Your very <b>presence</b> in the game does in fact impact other players' res availability. If you make a stupid purchase, e.g. you go onos, rush the marine base and immediately die - you're not the only one that has suffered, your team has - you can tell by the amount of rage you are about to receive from your teammates. If you do that in NS2, where everyone has their own personal resources which they accrue at the same rate, freely, with no opportunity cost to the team, then no one on your team suffers for your stupidity.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also the act of relying on a team mate is often call team work.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Flip the coin and it's called griefing, ramboing, noobs, frustration and losing.
<b>Being able to</b> rely on others should make a team better. <b>Being forced to</b> rely on others should <u>not</u> make a team worse.
Rofl. Not shared by the team? Are you mad? When your team has harvesters, where do the resources go? Into thin air? They get split among the team - split, that means SHARED.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No shared would imply that I can use your allocation of res, the marines had a shared resource model in ns1 aliens had individual resources.
If I chose to go onos and die then the only person impacted is me..I could not evolve again until I had acrrued new res...sure people might say what a waste of res but it does not impact the amount of res they have available....team size dictated teh rte at which you accrued individual res.
Me chosing to go onons and die did not stop other people in my team from choosing how to use their resources or the amount of res they had accrued.