<!--quoteo(post=1933483:date=May 4 2012, 02:17 PM:name=Xarius)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Xarius @ May 4 2012, 02:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933483"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Would be cool if marine HUD and minimap started flickering/spassing out, maybe even have false red dots appear, lose connection with commander, etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i thought of this similar idea as a replacment for any marine existing or proposed slowdown mechanic. i support this concept.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actively soliciting ideas for the Shade "Ink Cloud" ability which allows the aliens to "confuse and deceive". DM me please. Go.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe rename it to "Haze", just for coolness :P
I am on board with abilities that "confuse and deceive" while not actually inflecting debuffs on Marines. Umbra does a good job at that, since it buffs lifeforms instead.
I think if Disorient is combined with Ink Cloud, the Shade wouldn't be as exposed as it is now (being in range gives away Shade presence). Having played around with Ink Cloud (dev 1), I like the massive veil of darkness it creates; it gives Marines the clear message of "Stay out of the dark!"- you never know what's lurking within...
Aside from visibility and auditory distortion, I agree with Wheeee about blocking Scan/Obs radar + minimap blips. It would create situations where ARCs require direct LOS from each other or Marines to lock onto targets, so it's a way to delay ARC sieges. Perhaps, only grant lock-on capability if a Marine/AI unit is inside the cloud, enter the dark side for the sake of your team!
Besides, if Cloak is structure-only now, the Shade would be able to provide another way for lifeforms to remain undetected (especially if they don't have Silence or Camouflage).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actively soliciting ideas for the Shade "Ink Cloud" ability which allows the aliens to "confuse and deceive". DM me please. Go.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Disables the Power of any Powered Structures/Entities within the cloud (might need an ARCs range). Targeting Power Points will only disable the lights in the location (not the power), but Structures will become Unpowered if directly caughtin the cloud.
Any alien players or buildings inside the effect show up only as an indistinct black mass to marines (though they can still be identified by how they move). Could either be "while inside effect", or a buff sort of thing that lasts for a while regardless of how you move.
<!--quoteo(post=1933552:date=May 4 2012, 11:23 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zek @ May 4 2012, 11:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933552"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Ink" doesn't sound very alien to me, and by calling it that it seems like the only thing it can logically do is obscure visibility which isn't much different from spores.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The look of the alien structures, are all very much based on underwater life. The shade is reminiscent of a jellyfish / cuddlefish / squid combo, so the ink cloud, while maybe not sounding particularly alien, is meant to evoke the ink that those creatures squirt out as a defensive mechanism. <!--quoteo(post=1933552:date=May 4 2012, 11:23 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zek @ May 4 2012, 11:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933552"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Going with the Cloud idea, what if being inside the cloud causes the positions of aliens to appear displaced to marines? Say, they see the aliens where they were a second ago as opposed to where they are now, or they see them as being a few feet to the left/right of where they actually are, etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> We already have this ability in the game. It's called lag :P
Is it possible for the ink to disable all light sources(and lights from the outside from affecting) within the radius of effect? If not, could you emulate that by covering everything that enters within in a new material shader? The hard thing there would be a clean cut with the level geometry.
Not sure how particularly useful it would all be though, but we're kinda locked in with the name and theme of the ability.
Like we discussed in the negative abilities thread, it's probably better to come up with a positive solutions (buff aliens in some way) instead of hurting even more marines senses. For example, a modification of alien vision where you see the marines lines of sight.
<!--quoteo(post=1933869:date=May 6 2012, 12:01 PM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ May 6 2012, 12:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933869"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Like we discussed in the negative abilities thread, it's probably better to come up with a positive solutions (buff aliens in some way) instead of hurting even more marines senses. For example, a modification of alien vision where you see the marines lines of sight.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some people discussed how they disliked "negative abilities", I don't think one can assume its better to appease those select few.
The thing with positive effects is, they rarely have the desired atmospheric impact. For example, gorge standing next to a crag. Hes being constantly healed by it, it might even umbra. The gorge clearly has advantage. Yet that doesn't stop most marines from charging in and taking him on. Even if they die, it won't stop them from doing it in the future. This is because positive effects which other players have are difficult to convey to those who are being attacked. That is to say, when you buff a player, you cause his enemies to fight at a disadvantage in most cases. When you debuff a player, you cause him to flee combat. Far more "cinematic" in my opinion.
Battlefield 3 is a good example. In all FPS games, if someone begins firing at you, you are naturally at a "disadvantage". Being fired at is bad. Most players didn't care though, and just swung around and started firing back. What BF3 did was to make the game almost unplayable while you are under heavy fire, by introducing a suppressed debuff. This forces players to dive behind cover when being attacked, making for quite an immersive experience.
At the end of the day, their is no difference between debuffing you or buffing your enemy. Both leave you at a disadvantage. The only difference is, its far easier to perceive something which directly affects you, rather than something that directly affects someone else.
<!--quoteo(post=1933869:date=May 6 2012, 08:01 PM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ May 6 2012, 08:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933869"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Like we discussed in the negative abilities thread, it's probably better to come up with a positive solutions (buff aliens in some way) instead of hurting even more marines senses. For example, a modification of alien vision where you see the marines lines of sight.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1933873:date=May 6 2012, 08:30 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ May 6 2012, 08:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933873"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Some people discussed how they disliked "negative abilities", I don't think one can assume its better to appease those select few.
At the end of the day, their is no difference between debuffing you or buffing your enemy. Both leave you at a disadvantage. The only difference is, its far easier to perceive something which directly affects you, rather than something that directly affects someone else.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This. Plus as the ability is called "Ink Cloud", it's essentially locking into being something based around impairing the marine senses. If the tweet was asking for us to suggest a new shade ability from scratch our responses would be different :)
<!--quoteo(post=1933873:date=May 6 2012, 11:30 AM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ May 6 2012, 11:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933873"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->At the end of the day, their is no difference between debuffing you or buffing your enemy. Both leave you at a disadvantage. The only difference is, its far easier to perceive something which directly affects you, rather than something that directly affects someone else.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> To me it's about giving players interesting choises and possibilities. The problem with negative effects is that far too often they end up taking your versatility and leave you with very limited ways to react and adapt in a situation. For example in SC2 many of the mobility denying abilitites have been critisized heavily because they make the engagements very binary all in or nothing situations and take away the players ability to adapt to an ongoing fight. It's part of the reason why so many games are either won in one quick fight or go to 200/200 armies eyeballing each other for 15 minutes.
As usual, I'd say you can pull them off with careful planning and deep understanding of the game mechanics (Dota2 for example), but in case of doubt it's usually much better to leave them out. If you want negative abilities, you have to build them as a big part of a sound plan. Just slapping them around is most likely lead to a more frustrating and limited game.
I really like this. Reminds me how the <a href="http://cnc.wikia.com/wiki/Gap_generator_%28Red_Alert_2%29" target="_blank">Gap Generator</a> worked in the Red Alert games where it generated its own fog of war. It would only trigger when being scanned, making the shade a full blown anti-siege structure. Make this happen!
<!--quoteo(post=1933886:date=May 6 2012, 02:09 PM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ May 6 2012, 02:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933886"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To me it's about giving players interesting choises and possibilities. The problem with negative effects is that far too often they end up taking your versatility and leave you with very limited ways to react and adapt in a situation. For example in SC2 many of the mobility denying abilitites have been critisized heavily because they make the engagements very binary all in or nothing situations and take away the players ability to adapt to an ongoing fight. It's part of the reason why so many games are either won in one quick fight or go to 200/200 armies eyeballing each other for 15 minutes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like I said, it really only <b>appears </b>to be this way, because of how obvious negative effects are. Take a negative effect so profound that it completely blinds you, leaving you with only one option; leave the area immediately. Lets take the other approach, an equally strong benefit, but instead it works only as a buff to the enemy. A buff that is equally as strong as an outright blinding attack is essentially something that kills a marine from range very quickly. If you choose to respond to this, your only option is... to run away.
A debuff that limits your options is going to be just as powerful and as option limiting when applied as a buff to the enemy. You just can't tell. Typically, if people have a serious problem with a "negative ability", its simply because its overpowered, and if turned into an enemy buff somehow, would be just as annoying. The problem is that in a long term game like NS2, people often can't tell the work that goes into an ability. The Onos' stomp for example. To the person being stomped, somebody just went a certain alien life form, ran in, and right clicked, ruining their day. That's all they can perceive. When in actual fact that person needed to save to 75 res, sacrifice the use of that res on lerks or fades, protect res towers to get it quickly, augment the hive for abilities. But all of this is transparent to the victim. No disrespect, bit its a COD mentality. "If I can't beat someone, regardless of what came before, then the game isn't balanced". That just isn't natural selection.
<!--quoteo(post=1933937:date=May 6 2012, 07:23 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ May 6 2012, 07:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933937"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Like I said, it really only <b>appears </b>to be this way, because of how obvious negative effects are. Take a negative effect so profound that it completely blinds you, leaving you with only one option; leave the area immediately. Lets take the other approach, an equally strong benefit, but instead it works only as a buff to the enemy. A buff that is equally as strong as an outright blinding attack is essentially something that kills a marine from range very quickly. If you choose to respond to this, your only option is... to run away.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> These 100% thingys never work. By this logic in NS1 you'd kill 7 skulks with a vanilla marine before reloading. If possible, it's much better to look things actually happening in the games.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No disrespect, bit its a COD mentality. "If I can't beat someone, regardless of what came before, then the game isn't balanced". That just isn't natural selection.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I could really unleash the gates of hell on you for that, but I guess I'll keep it civilized for now... Let's just say that to me Chess, Brood War, NS and Quake are really the games to go for, not the least because of how brutal they are for players in some ways.
---
Anyway, let me illustrate it this way (just to contradict my argument of using real examples... oh well):
Basic fight, you've got two options, A and B. Your opponent has got options X and Y.
Negative ability steals away A, you're left fighting with B against X and Y. All you can do is B. It's a bad and dull situation, either you don't pick any fight or you pick a fight and do B.
Meanwhile adding Z to your opponent repertoire leaves you free to combine A and B with any possible combination to deal with your opponent's variating X Y Z combination. It's much more interesting and creative situation for both players.
The disadvantage can be exactly the same percentual balance wise, but you're left with a much more meaningful set of tool to deal with whatever your opponent throws at you.
---
Obviously that's a very simplistic model, but in general it's very bad to shut down additional options in a game that already seems to have some limitations compared to its predecessor.
In a perfect game scenario you could surely steal away some abilities and people would still have more than enough options, but in general modern games seem to struggle more with the lack of possibilities than the other way round. That's where I get really touchy about the negative abilities.
You could look at it a different way. Say you have A and B, your opponent has X, Y and Z. A and B effectively cancel out X and Y. All that's left is Z.
<!--quoteo(post=1933959:date=May 6 2012, 09:03 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ May 6 2012, 09:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933959"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You could look at it a different way. Say you have A and B, your opponent has X, Y and Z. A and B effectively cancel out X and Y. All that's left is Z.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> A and B will not cancel out X and Y because A and B are already designed to dance with X and Y in regular situations where the Z buff doesn't apply. Also, surely you can mess up everything by designing some absurd Z ability, but that's hardly purposeful.
There are not any strict no-go rules, but the negative abilities generally drive the game into less interesting situations. You better have a good reasoning to go there. Certainly badly designed positive abilities can do harm, but in general there's more loose roaming space there. You've got more tools to cope with things on both sides.
We can dig up some real game scenarios if you want. For now, we can for example compare Brood War and SC2 engagements and see how the negative abilities affect the diversity there.
So Imbalanxd, if negative abilities do the same thing as positive abilities except alter the perception (you can see it happening to you), then what's wrong with avoiding them? I don't get why people invest time into defending negative abilities with this argument because, according to this logic, it wouldn't matter either way.
Even without all the gameplay reasons for not adding them (which are true, by the way), the perceived effect of abilities that you highlight as the only distinction is the very perception that frustrates so many people. It's a horrible sensation to not be in control of your senses and if we truly think that this is a price worth paying for atmosphere, I despair. As for immersion, being unable to see and unable to move actually remind me that i'm playing a game because i'm so annoyed at the mechanics.
It's not that I dislike negative abilities per se. I just feel like there are way too many, that the design goals can be achieved in a thousand different ways, and that there's very little to lose from toning them down but a lot to gain.
<!--quoteo(post=1933976:date=May 6 2012, 10:23 PM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ May 6 2012, 10:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933976"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There are not any strict no-go rules, but the negative abilities generally drive the game into less interesting situations.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its this that I'm still not convinced of. I still see no reason for this to be the case
<!--quoteo(post=1933983:date=May 6 2012, 10:58 PM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ May 6 2012, 10:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933983"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So Imbalanxd, if negative abilities do the same thing as positive abilities except alter the perception (you can see it happening to you), then what's wrong with avoiding them? I don't get why people invest time into defending negative abilities with this argument because, according to this logic, it wouldn't matter either way.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your argument defeats itself. If I admit that it doesn't matter either way, then you must admit the same. Unfortunately, I am not rallying for the exclusion or inclusion of either, I recognise both as viable game mechanics. If you admit that it doesn't matter either way, why are you against the inclusion of one of them?
This is funny because I was just repeating your sentiments (look below) and then you go and say that its self-defeating. I think that's pretty much the epitome of self-defeat.
<!--quoteo(post=1933873:date=May 6 2012, 11:30 AM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ May 6 2012, 11:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933873"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->At the end of the day, their is no difference between debuffing you or buffing your enemy. Both leave you at a disadvantage. The only difference is, its far easier to perceive something which directly affects you, rather than something that directly affects someone else.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1933937:date=May 6 2012, 07:23 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ May 6 2012, 07:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933937"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Like I said, it really only <b>appears </b>to be this way, because of how obvious negative effects are. Take a negative effect so profound that it completely blinds you, leaving you with only one option; leave the area immediately. Lets take the other approach, an equally strong benefit, but instead it works only as a buff to the enemy. A buff that is equally as strong as an outright blinding attack is essentially something that kills a marine from range very quickly. If you choose to respond to this, your only option is... to run away.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1933937:date=May 6 2012, 07:23 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ May 6 2012, 07:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933937"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A debuff that limits your options is going to be just as powerful and as option limiting when applied as a buff to the enemy. You just can't tell.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I argued that, even if the only difference is perception, that the perception itself is what sucks about it. That's my second paragraph.
<!--quoteo(post=1933976:date=May 6 2012, 10:23 PM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ May 6 2012, 10:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933976"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A and B will not cancel out X and Y because A and B are already designed to dance with X and Y in regular situations where the Z buff doesn't apply. Also, surely you can mess up everything by designing some absurd Z ability, but that's hardly purposeful.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, I think I have thought up a better example. One person has standard abilities A and B, and a third evasive ability C. His enemy has standard abilities X and Y, and negative ability Z. A, B, X and Y interact as before, while one attempts to disable the other, and the other uses his ability to evade the disable.
That is essentially the point behind negative abilities. It forces you to flee, which is a difficult thing to get players to do. It can also be an important part of a game.
<!--quoteo(post=1933990:date=May 6 2012, 11:27 PM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ May 6 2012, 11:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933990"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is funny because I was just repeating your sentiments and then you go and say that its self-defeating. I think that's pretty much the epitome of self-defeat.
I argued that, even if the only difference is perception, that the perception itself is what sucks about it. That's my second paragraph.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, that's kind of the point. We share the same sentiment, yet you are completely against the introduction of negative abilities, whereas I don't have a preference either way. In my case, the sentiment is logical, in your case it is not.
You are also doing what a lot of the people on these forums tend to do. You think that because you feel a certain way about something, everyone must, and those that do not, are wrong. This, I'm afraid, is not necessarily the case.
<!--quoteo(post=1933991:date=May 6 2012, 10:29 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ May 6 2012, 10:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933991"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ok, I think I have thought up a better example. One person has standard abilities A and B, and a third evasive ability C. His enemy has standard abilities X and Y, and negative ability Z. A, B, X and Y interact as before, while one attempts to disable the other, and the other uses his ability to evade the disable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> By making C explicitly interact with Z rather than add two general-purpose abilities, you've killed the number of permutations possible.
<!--quoteo(post=1933991:date=May 6 2012, 10:29 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ May 6 2012, 10:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933991"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That is essentially the point behind negative abilities. It forces you to flee, which is a difficult thing to get players to do. It can also be an important part of a game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It doesn't force you to flee, it forces you to not engage. I quite like my engagements, thanks!
<!--quoteo(post=1933993:date=May 6 2012, 11:33 PM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ May 6 2012, 11:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933993"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It doesn't force you to flee, it forces you to not engage. I quite like my engagements, thanks!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can understand that, though not everyone is the same. In my opinion, sneaking around an onos is 10 times more rewarding than charging it head on and killing it. But, once again, that's just my take on it.
<!--quoteo(post=1933991:date=May 6 2012, 10:29 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ May 6 2012, 10:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933991"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, that's kind of the point. We share the same sentiment, yet you are completely against the introduction of negative abilities, whereas I don't have a preference either way. In my case, the sentiment is logical, in your case it is not.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm arguing that there IS a difference, crikey! If you don't have a preference either way, then stop defending it.
I like A instead of B I say so You don't mind either way You defend B B Stays I'm unhappy You remain unchanged
I like A instead of B I say so You don't mind either way You keep quiet B Goes I'm happy You remain unchanged
JUST LET ME BE HAPPY :(
<!--quoteo(post=1933991:date=May 6 2012, 10:29 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ May 6 2012, 10:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933991"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You are also doing what a lot of the people on these forums tend to do. You think that because you feel a certain way about something, everyone must, and those that do not, are wrong. This, I'm afraid, is not necessarily the case.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're doing what a lot of people do on these forums tend to do. You're assuming that I think you have to feel a certain way about something. This, I'm afraid, is not necessarily the case.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actively soliciting ideas for the Shade "Ink Cloud" ability which allows the aliens to "confuse and deceive". DM me please. Go.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Give aliens and/or structures a dark, "blink"-like shader effect. During the effects the alien and/or structure will never show up on the marine minimap. This includes being scanned and while attacking marines. This allows the aliens and/or structures to be invisible on the map, but remain easily visible by eye. This doesn't debuff the marines directly, yet it gives the aliens another variant of a cloaking mechanism.
<!--quoteo(post=1934145:date=May 7 2012, 07:53 AM:name=ssjsonic1)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ssjsonic1 @ May 7 2012, 07:53 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1934145"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Give aliens and/or structures a dark, "blink"-like shader effect. During the effects the alien and/or structure will never show up on the marine minimap. This includes being scanned and while attacking marines. This allows the aliens and/or structures to be invisible on the map, but remain easily visible by eye. This doesn't debuff the marines directly, yet it gives the aliens another variant of a cloaking mechanism.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is pretty much the idea Wheeee was going for I think, or at least how I interpreted it up above, but those posts got lost in the Tweadle vs Imbalanxd Grudge Match 2012. It really represents an "Ink Cloud" best. You could say it actively obscures obtrusive nanites!
Comments
i thought of this similar idea as a replacment for any marine existing or proposed slowdown mechanic. i support this concept.
Maybe rename it to "Haze", just for coolness :P
I am on board with abilities that "confuse and deceive" while not actually inflecting debuffs on Marines. Umbra does a good job at that, since it buffs lifeforms instead.
I think if Disorient is combined with Ink Cloud, the Shade wouldn't be as exposed as it is now (being in range gives away Shade presence). Having played around with Ink Cloud (dev 1), I like the massive veil of darkness it creates; it gives Marines the clear message of "Stay out of the dark!"- you never know what's lurking within...
Aside from visibility and auditory distortion, I agree with Wheeee about blocking Scan/Obs radar + minimap blips. It would create situations where ARCs require direct LOS from each other or Marines to lock onto targets, so it's a way to delay ARC sieges. Perhaps, only grant lock-on capability if a Marine/AI unit is inside the cloud, enter the dark side for the sake of your team!
Besides, if Cloak is structure-only now, the Shade would be able to provide another way for lifeforms to remain undetected (especially if they don't have Silence or Camouflage).
Disables the Power of any Powered Structures/Entities within the cloud (might need an ARCs range). Targeting Power Points will only disable the lights in the location (not the power), but Structures will become Unpowered if directly caughtin the cloud.
The look of the alien structures, are all very much based on underwater life. The shade is reminiscent of a jellyfish / cuddlefish / squid combo, so the ink cloud, while maybe not sounding particularly alien, is meant to evoke the ink that those creatures squirt out as a defensive mechanism.
<!--quoteo(post=1933552:date=May 4 2012, 11:23 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zek @ May 4 2012, 11:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933552"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Going with the Cloud idea, what if being inside the cloud causes the positions of aliens to appear displaced to marines? Say, they see the aliens where they were a second ago as opposed to where they are now, or they see them as being a few feet to the left/right of where they actually are, etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We already have this ability in the game. It's called lag :P
--Cory
Not sure how particularly useful it would all be though, but we're kinda locked in with the name and theme of the ability.
Some people discussed how they disliked "negative abilities", I don't think one can assume its better to appease those select few.
The thing with positive effects is, they rarely have the desired atmospheric impact.
For example, gorge standing next to a crag. Hes being constantly healed by it, it might even umbra. The gorge clearly has advantage. Yet that doesn't stop most marines from charging in and taking him on. Even if they die, it won't stop them from doing it in the future. This is because positive effects which other players have are difficult to convey to those who are being attacked. That is to say, when you buff a player, you cause his enemies to fight at a disadvantage in most cases. When you debuff a player, you cause him to flee combat. Far more "cinematic" in my opinion.
Battlefield 3 is a good example. In all FPS games, if someone begins firing at you, you are naturally at a "disadvantage". Being fired at is bad. Most players didn't care though, and just swung around and started firing back. What BF3 did was to make the game almost unplayable while you are under heavy fire, by introducing a suppressed debuff. This forces players to dive behind cover when being attacked, making for quite an immersive experience.
At the end of the day, their is no difference between debuffing you or buffing your enemy. Both leave you at a disadvantage. The only difference is, its far easier to perceive something which directly affects you, rather than something that directly affects someone else.
<!--quoteo(post=1933873:date=May 6 2012, 08:30 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ May 6 2012, 08:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933873"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Some people discussed how they disliked "negative abilities", I don't think one can assume its better to appease those select few.
At the end of the day, their is no difference between debuffing you or buffing your enemy. Both leave you at a disadvantage. The only difference is, its far easier to perceive something which directly affects you, rather than something that directly affects someone else.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This. Plus as the ability is called "Ink Cloud", it's essentially locking into being something based around impairing the marine senses. If the tweet was asking for us to suggest a new shade ability from scratch our responses would be different :)
To me it's about giving players interesting choises and possibilities. The problem with negative effects is that far too often they end up taking your versatility and leave you with very limited ways to react and adapt in a situation. For example in SC2 many of the mobility denying abilitites have been critisized heavily because they make the engagements very binary all in or nothing situations and take away the players ability to adapt to an ongoing fight. It's part of the reason why so many games are either won in one quick fight or go to 200/200 armies eyeballing each other for 15 minutes.
As usual, I'd say you can pull them off with careful planning and deep understanding of the game mechanics (Dota2 for example), but in case of doubt it's usually much better to leave them out. If you want negative abilities, you have to build them as a big part of a sound plan. Just slapping them around is most likely lead to a more frustrating and limited game.
I really like this. Reminds me how the <a href="http://cnc.wikia.com/wiki/Gap_generator_%28Red_Alert_2%29" target="_blank">Gap Generator</a> worked in the Red Alert games where it generated its own fog of war. It would only trigger when being scanned, making the shade a full blown anti-siege structure. Make this happen!
Like I said, it really only <b>appears </b>to be this way, because of how obvious negative effects are. Take a negative effect so profound that it completely blinds you, leaving you with only one option; leave the area immediately. Lets take the other approach, an equally strong benefit, but instead it works only as a buff to the enemy. A buff that is equally as strong as an outright blinding attack is essentially something that kills a marine from range very quickly. If you choose to respond to this, your only option is... to run away.
A debuff that limits your options is going to be just as powerful and as option limiting when applied as a buff to the enemy. You just can't tell. Typically, if people have a serious problem with a "negative ability", its simply because its overpowered, and if turned into an enemy buff somehow, would be just as annoying. The problem is that in a long term game like NS2, people often can't tell the work that goes into an ability. The Onos' stomp for example. To the person being stomped, somebody just went a certain alien life form, ran in, and right clicked, ruining their day. That's all they can perceive. When in actual fact that person needed to save to 75 res, sacrifice the use of that res on lerks or fades, protect res towers to get it quickly, augment the hive for abilities. But all of this is transparent to the victim. No disrespect, bit its a COD mentality. "If I can't beat someone, regardless of what came before, then the game isn't balanced". That just isn't natural selection.
These 100% thingys never work. By this logic in NS1 you'd kill 7 skulks with a vanilla marine before reloading. If possible, it's much better to look things actually happening in the games.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No disrespect, bit its a COD mentality. "If I can't beat someone, regardless of what came before, then the game isn't balanced". That just isn't natural selection.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I could really unleash the gates of hell on you for that, but I guess I'll keep it civilized for now... Let's just say that to me Chess, Brood War, NS and Quake are really the games to go for, not the least because of how brutal they are for players in some ways.
---
Anyway, let me illustrate it this way (just to contradict my argument of using real examples... oh well):
Basic fight, you've got two options, A and B. Your opponent has got options X and Y.
Negative ability steals away A, you're left fighting with B against X and Y. All you can do is B. It's a bad and dull situation, either you don't pick any fight or you pick a fight and do B.
Meanwhile adding Z to your opponent repertoire leaves you free to combine A and B with any possible combination to deal with your opponent's variating X Y Z combination. It's much more interesting and creative situation for both players.
The disadvantage can be exactly the same percentual balance wise, but you're left with a much more meaningful set of tool to deal with whatever your opponent throws at you.
---
Obviously that's a very simplistic model, but in general it's very bad to shut down additional options in a game that already seems to have some limitations compared to its predecessor.
In a perfect game scenario you could surely steal away some abilities and people would still have more than enough options, but in general modern games seem to struggle more with the lack of possibilities than the other way round. That's where I get really touchy about the negative abilities.
A and B will not cancel out X and Y because A and B are already designed to dance with X and Y in regular situations where the Z buff doesn't apply. Also, surely you can mess up everything by designing some absurd Z ability, but that's hardly purposeful.
There are not any strict no-go rules, but the negative abilities generally drive the game into less interesting situations. You better have a good reasoning to go there. Certainly badly designed positive abilities can do harm, but in general there's more loose roaming space there. You've got more tools to cope with things on both sides.
We can dig up some real game scenarios if you want. For now, we can for example compare Brood War and SC2 engagements and see how the negative abilities affect the diversity there.
Even without all the gameplay reasons for not adding them (which are true, by the way), the perceived effect of abilities that you highlight as the only distinction is the very perception that frustrates so many people. It's a horrible sensation to not be in control of your senses and if we truly think that this is a price worth paying for atmosphere, I despair. As for immersion, being unable to see and unable to move actually remind me that i'm playing a game because i'm so annoyed at the mechanics.
It's not that I dislike negative abilities per se. I just feel like there are way too many, that the design goals can be achieved in a thousand different ways, and that there's very little to lose from toning them down but a lot to gain.
Its this that I'm still not convinced of. I still see no reason for this to be the case
<!--quoteo(post=1933983:date=May 6 2012, 10:58 PM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ May 6 2012, 10:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933983"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So Imbalanxd, if negative abilities do the same thing as positive abilities except alter the perception (you can see it happening to you), then what's wrong with avoiding them? I don't get why people invest time into defending negative abilities with this argument because, according to this logic, it wouldn't matter either way.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your argument defeats itself. If I admit that it doesn't matter either way, then you must admit the same. Unfortunately, I am not rallying for the exclusion or inclusion of either, I recognise both as viable game mechanics. If you admit that it doesn't matter either way, why are you against the inclusion of one of them?
<!--quoteo(post=1933873:date=May 6 2012, 11:30 AM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ May 6 2012, 11:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933873"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->At the end of the day, their is no difference between debuffing you or buffing your enemy. Both leave you at a disadvantage. The only difference is, its far easier to perceive something which directly affects you, rather than something that directly affects someone else.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1933937:date=May 6 2012, 07:23 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ May 6 2012, 07:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933937"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Like I said, it really only <b>appears </b>to be this way, because of how obvious negative effects are. Take a negative effect so profound that it completely blinds you, leaving you with only one option; leave the area immediately. Lets take the other approach, an equally strong benefit, but instead it works only as a buff to the enemy. A buff that is equally as strong as an outright blinding attack is essentially something that kills a marine from range very quickly. If you choose to respond to this, your only option is... to run away.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1933937:date=May 6 2012, 07:23 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ May 6 2012, 07:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933937"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A debuff that limits your options is going to be just as powerful and as option limiting when applied as a buff to the enemy. You just can't tell.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I argued that, even if the only difference is perception, that the perception itself is what sucks about it. That's my second paragraph.
Ok, I think I have thought up a better example. One person has standard abilities A and B, and a third evasive ability C. His enemy has standard abilities X and Y, and negative ability Z. A, B, X and Y interact as before, while one attempts to disable the other, and the other uses his ability to evade the disable.
That is essentially the point behind negative abilities. It forces you to flee, which is a difficult thing to get players to do. It can also be an important part of a game.
<!--quoteo(post=1933990:date=May 6 2012, 11:27 PM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ May 6 2012, 11:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933990"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is funny because I was just repeating your sentiments and then you go and say that its self-defeating. I think that's pretty much the epitome of self-defeat.
I argued that, even if the only difference is perception, that the perception itself is what sucks about it. That's my second paragraph.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, that's kind of the point. We share the same sentiment, yet you are completely against the introduction of negative abilities, whereas I don't have a preference either way. In my case, the sentiment is logical, in your case it is not.
You are also doing what a lot of the people on these forums tend to do. You think that because you feel a certain way about something, everyone must, and those that do not, are wrong. This, I'm afraid, is not necessarily the case.
By making C explicitly interact with Z rather than add two general-purpose abilities, you've killed the number of permutations possible.
<!--quoteo(post=1933991:date=May 6 2012, 10:29 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ May 6 2012, 10:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933991"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That is essentially the point behind negative abilities. It forces you to flee, which is a difficult thing to get players to do. It can also be an important part of a game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It doesn't force you to flee, it forces you to not engage. I quite like my engagements, thanks!
I can understand that, though not everyone is the same. In my opinion, sneaking around an onos is 10 times more rewarding than charging it head on and killing it. But, once again, that's just my take on it.
I'm arguing that there IS a difference, crikey! If you don't have a preference either way, then stop defending it.
I like A instead of B
I say so
You don't mind either way
You defend B
B Stays
I'm unhappy
You remain unchanged
I like A instead of B
I say so
You don't mind either way
You keep quiet
B Goes
I'm happy
You remain unchanged
JUST LET ME BE HAPPY :(
<!--quoteo(post=1933991:date=May 6 2012, 10:29 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ May 6 2012, 10:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1933991"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You are also doing what a lot of the people on these forums tend to do. You think that because you feel a certain way about something, everyone must, and those that do not, are wrong. This, I'm afraid, is not necessarily the case.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're doing what a lot of people do on these forums tend to do. You're assuming that I think you have to feel a certain way about something. This, I'm afraid, is not necessarily the case.
more Tweet stuff man
Give aliens and/or structures a dark, "blink"-like shader effect. During the effects the alien and/or structure will never show up on the marine minimap. This includes being scanned and while attacking marines. This allows the aliens and/or structures to be invisible on the map, but remain easily visible by eye. This doesn't debuff the marines directly, yet it gives the aliens another variant of a cloaking mechanism.
This is pretty much the idea Wheeee was going for I think, or at least how I interpreted it up above, but those posts got lost in the Tweadle vs Imbalanxd Grudge Match 2012. It really represents an "Ink Cloud" best. You could say it actively obscures obtrusive nanites!