<b><u>Devour:</u></b> <b>Pro:</b> * unique for this game * was fun in ns1
<b>Contra:</b> * very punishing for the marine because of spawn penalty and * feels helplessly because of one hit kill
<b>Tweaks:</b> * add long cool down and use all energy * marine enters spawn queue right away but can be freed until he is respawned.
The Gore right now is also kind of an insta kill. You may need more than one attack, but after the marine was hit the first time you have all time to finish him. And he can't do anything about it.
<!--quoteo(post=1900937:date=Feb 8 2012, 10:37 AM:name=Wheeee)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wheeee @ Feb 8 2012, 10:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900937"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i think in this case, the "victory condition" against an onos can include anything from actually killing it to escaping from it without dying. right now there are things you can do to escape from an onos, but they are very circumstantial. we'll just have to see what the final implementation of the onos looks like.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, I think that's fine. They just need to be careful with the whole team going onos thing. Just like when the fade was ridiculously overpowered and people were saying "it should take 3 guys to kill a fade", but then the whole team goes fade and you can't do anything about it.
<!--quoteo(post=1900878:date=Feb 8 2012, 04:37 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Feb 8 2012, 04:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900878"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Devour (an essentially one-hit kill move with an extra respawn time penalty) will not be compatible with NS2's current resource system, because there is no <b>pooled</b> resource scarcity and therefore no unit scarcity. What this means is that once oni become unlocked, almost everyone will be able to go oni all at once. So devour would essentially be giving the alien team the ability to take the entire marine team out of the game all at once.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a very good point. Flayra did say he wanted a system where getting higher lifeforms easier by giving you credit towards a higher lifeform at the cost of the current. Being a lerk allows for the onos to cosr 30 res less or being a fade 50 less. This is a great idea but would make it so you could have all onos very easily. Once the above is fixed the devour might be plossible.
New suggestion for devour: Make it cost for each use, and make it require a modicum of skill.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Devour, Xenocide as consumables.
For both: 1) Relatively high cost, e.g. around mine cost. 2) Cost per single use/upgrade, i.e. has to be re-purchased after each use. 3) A little extra time to evolve. 4) Skill required to use. 5) Indication of the upgrade on the 3rd person model. 6) Uses all or almost all of the energy on the bar.
For Devour: 1) Small attack-box. 2) Can miss (i.e. be pointlessly wasted).
For Xenocide: 1) Decreasing damage with blast radius.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1900960:date=Feb 8 2012, 08:28 PM:name=Wilson)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wilson @ Feb 8 2012, 08:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900960"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah, I think that's fine. They just need to be careful with the whole team going onos thing. Just like when the fade was ridiculously overpowered and people were saying "it should take 3 guys to kill a fade", but then the whole team goes fade and you can't do anything about it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly.
If you are going to have any super-units, there <b>has to be</b> fail-safes, so that people always have a fighting chance. Making it so that you can <b>always</b> <i>reliably</i> run away from a fight you know you can't win is one kind of fail-safe, but you have to be wary of the fact that running away is generally not very fun, and also be aware that the approach is not really sustainable: what about 6 marines coming up against 6 aliens, and yet the 6 marines must always run? In a way, it works because it just means that the marines will have to play it safe until they can afford upgrades. Still, not very fun for either side.
The "it costs twice as much so it should always be worth twice as much" argument is a bad one, because the only real requirement for getting a powerful upgrade is <b>to save up</b>, and that requires very little effort or risk (often none).
<!--quoteo(post=1900970:date=Feb 8 2012, 08:56 PM:name=Iacto)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Iacto @ Feb 8 2012, 08:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900970"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the biggest issue here is that everyone is pluralising Onos wrong. It should be Oni, not Onuses.
This is almost as bad as people saying 'collossuses' instead of 'colossi'<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Agreed.
<!--quoteo(post=1900894:date=Feb 8 2012, 12:36 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Feb 8 2012, 12:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900894"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because you never get (almost) whole teams of lerks or whole teams of fades, right?
Aliens don't even have to all go oni together, because with devour he will have such high survivability as a hit-and-run unit, he can just wait until the rest of the team gets oni, and he won't even have to wait long.
The point is, entire teams evolving into oni is going to be a far more likely occurrence in NS2 than it would have been in NS1 (because in NS1, you <i>essentially</i> spent resources out of a team pool, so you going onos was a <b>team expense</b> - which is precisely why if you died right away as an onos, the whole team would be incredibly ###### with you), and devour would not be compatible with this possibility.
There should be no easy one-hit kills in NS2.
Devour is a skill-less weapon anyway.
Exactly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, you really don't get entire teams of clerk or fade, unless team size is small. If you manage to get an entire team of onus then the other team is tucked, and this is ignoring the other guy's point of their size etc. It's. Also takes no less skill then Gore, just run up and click mouse. It wasn't a problem in NS1, and is good against heavies.
<!--quoteo(post=1900971:date=Feb 8 2012, 12:57 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Feb 8 2012, 12:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900971"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Agreed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You've missed the sarcasm in Iacto's post. Both colossus and colossi are correct, unless you have a better reference than Oxford Dictionary.
Plural of onos had been a controversial topic for ages now. Check up this ancient thread <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t9048.html" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/lofive....php/t9048.html</a> . The correct form would be oni only if singular was onus, like servus (pl. servi). Since it is onos we can settle for onoses, which is both intuitive and convenient, and it's all that really matters with such a new word.
<!--quoteo(post=1900933:date=Feb 8 2012, 11:15 AM:name=Wilson)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wilson @ Feb 8 2012, 11:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900933"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think so. Team play will always win over solo players ramboing even in a game where the player has the possibility to beat anything. Try playing counter strike with some random pub players against any organised team and you won't get very far. You don't need to force players to work together, as working together will always be beneficial for your team. I think forcing players to require their team mates co-operation in order for them to do things will just lead to frustration.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't even know why you drag counter strike for such an example in here. Counter Strike is a game where the player skill ceiling is barely limited by game design, in counter strike a single well skilled player can play 1 on 12 and still stand a theoretical chance to win. Now try to do the same in NS or NS2: 1 on 12, yeah not gonna happen.
In counter strike the only limit on how well a single player performs is his own performance, there are no game mechanics in place that give teamplayers statistical advantages over non-teamplayers. It's a different game by design and it places a different role on the single player on the map.
I just get annoyed when people go "It's not fun, i do not like it", because that's a bad rule to design a game around. If you make a game only "all fun and enjoyable moments" then the player will never get the real feeling of getting an accomplishment. Without challenge and frustration the feeling of success won't last or even set in.
A good game frustrates it's players on purpose in the right situations and rewards them with "fun" in other situations, when they play by the games mechanics. Sure you can have a game that's all "fun moments" and no frustration but then you end up with something like Saints Row 3 ;)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->L4D is actually not a very well designed game. It's fun to play causally with your friends but not much more than that. The competitive scene had to make many modifications as it was too easy at first and good teams would survive every round. It is also famous for having the most rage quits out of any game that I've played. Even organized teams would all quit after 1 mistake and almost no public game finishes with the same people who started playing. If anything it is direct evidence that those mechanics lead to frustrating gameplay for many players.
L4Ds infected side was also pretty boring to play (after the novelty wore off) as you had to rely on your team in order to have any kind of success. The individual classes are basically useless if they attack alone and there is no skill involved in their attacks. It basically all centres around teamwork and timing your attacks together. While teamwork is fun, I don't think it alone is enough to make a game enjoyable. For me the most enjoyable games are ones in which I can distinguish myself as a player as well as co-operate with team mates. A game like counter strike is the perfect example of this. There are no mechanics that directly force the players to work together and yet it still involves lots of team work.
IMO any time you feel like there was nothing you could or that the game was limiting you then that just leads to frustration, pure and simple. That doesn't mean a player would be able to just run off and kill the entire enemy team any more than they could in counter strike or most other team fps games. Things like defending RTs and attacking tech points already herd the players together - you don't need to force them by limiting their abilities.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay... i don't even know what to answer to this, i only used the stun mechanics and the survivor interaction as an example of a game mechanic beeing well designed in such a way that it leads players to a somewhat natural teamplay. It's the only mechanic of L4D i've been talking about and only as an example of designing gameplay mechanics.
So i won't comment on all the other jadajada about how "l4d is a bad game, and nobody played with you, because it's not such a great competive game". Because at this point i think we are speaking different languages :)
<!--quoteo(post=1900878:date=Feb 8 2012, 06:37 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Feb 8 2012, 06:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900878"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Devour (an essentially one-hit kill move with an extra respawn time penalty) will not be compatible with NS2's current resource system, because there is no <b>pooled</b> resource scarcity and therefore no unit scarcity. What this means is that once oni become unlocked, almost everyone will be able to go oni all at once. So devour would essentially be giving the alien team the ability to take the entire marine team out of the game all at once.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dang haven't thought that far yet.. because i consider the current khamm - gorge implementation on the alien site all kinds of broken so i didn't think up to the metagame yet when thinking about fun abilities for the lifeforms :/
But now that you mention that and i read about the fade issues then i'm confused why we try to design the lifeforms abilities around an issues that seems clearly to be rooted in the alien metagame/resource system. Because if it stays at it is it will be really difficult to balance the higher lifeforms in such a way that the players still get the impression of an asymmetric teambalance in terms of playernumbers and unit strength.
And i consider this one of the key elements that made NS so unique and successfull :/
Btw: The plural clearly should allways be "OH NOES!!1" :P
<!--quoteo(post=1900947:date=Feb 8 2012, 11:37 AM:name=LUSITANER)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (LUSITANER @ Feb 8 2012, 11:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900947"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, i say here again that the 1st view model of onos needs fixing, it is not bounded to an "onos" i can see gaps through it, making it separated of a body and floating.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is because when you currently change resolution to a non widescreen format the game adds more vertical space, rather then removing horizontal space. So, running in a res that has a lot of vertical space shows more of the bottom of the view model (which is just the horn, there's no Onos attached to it, the same way the marine arms in the view model are just arms that are floating) and in some extreme cases of animation where it moves a lot, you may be seeing the bottom of the model, where there is no geometry.
The way we'll probably address this, and what is planned, is to have the resolution add more horizontal viewing space in widescreen formats, rather then changing the vertical viewing space. And that should solve the Onos view model issue.
<!--quoteo(post=1901079:date=Feb 8 2012, 06:36 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Feb 8 2012, 06:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901079"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't even know why you drag counter strike for such an example in here. Counter Strike is a game where the player skill ceiling is barely limited by game design, in counter strike a single well skilled player can play 1 on 12 and still stand a theoretical chance to win. Now try to do the same in NS or NS2: 1 on 12, yeah not gonna happen.
In counter strike the only limit on how well a single player performs is his own performance, there are no game mechanics in place that give team players statistical advantages over non team players. It's a different game by design and it places a different role on the single player on the map.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
sorry to continue this counter-strike derail but this just bothered me so much I'm going to rant a bit.
First, the skill ceiling is determined by the game. What else would it be determined by?
And that second bit makes me think you've never actually played counter-strike. What do you mean teamplay doesn't give an advantage? how can that even make sense? If i set up a crossfire with my teammate and you come out the door we are watching, you can't shoot both of us. At best you will shoot one of us and more likely you will just instantly die because 2x your bullets are coming at you. There are so many situations where having good teamwork pays off that it's just absurd to think it doesn't. At the really high level, most players can instantly kill you if they see you, so aiming no longer becomes the skill to practice and the focus becomes player positioning and synchronization with teammates. You need to cover each others backs and communicate. You need to use smokes and flashes to help teamates advance or fall back. Peeking a corner with 2+ people simultaneously and from different spots is overwhelmingly more effective than peeking by yourself. The list goes on.
This doesn't contribute at all to the conversation but I dedicated a large portion of my teenage years to mastering counter-strike so this post was really offensive to me.
<!--quoteo(post=1901083:date=Feb 8 2012, 11:04 PM:name=Squeal_Like_A_Pig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squeal_Like_A_Pig @ Feb 8 2012, 11:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901083"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is because when you currently change resolution to a non widescreen format the game adds more vertical space, rather then removing horizontal space. So, running in a res that has a lot of vertical space shows more of the bottom of the view model (which is just the horn, there's no Onos attached to it, the same way the marine arms in the view model are just arms that are floating) and in some extreme cases of animation where it moves a lot, you may be seeing the bottom of the model, where there is no geometry.
The way we'll probably address this, and what is planned, is to have the resolution add more horizontal viewing space in widescreen formats, rather then changing the vertical viewing space. And that should solve the Onos view model issue.
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good that will be fixed. I know its because of my resolution, but it is the one which suits best to my pc and settings. Also, this only happened with the onos first person view model.
<!--quoteo(post=1901085:date=Feb 9 2012, 12:10 AM:name=Norton)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Norton @ Feb 9 2012, 12:10 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901085"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->sorry to continue this counter-strike derail but this just bothered me so much I'm going to rant a bit.
First, the skill ceiling is determined by the game. What else would it be determined by?
And that second bit makes me think you've never actually played counter-strike. What do you mean teamplay doesn't give an advantage? how can that even make sense? If i set up a crossfire with my teammate and you come out the door we are watching, you can't shoot both of us. At best you will shoot one of us and more likely you will just instantly die because 2x your bullets are coming at you. There are so many situations where having good teamwork pays off that it's just absurd to think it doesn't. At the really high level, most players can instantly kill you if they see you, so aiming no longer becomes the skill to practice and the focus becomes player positioning and synchronization with teammates. You need to cover each others backs and communicate. You need to use smokes and flashes to help teamates advance or fall back. Peeking a corner with 2+ people simultaneously and from different spots is overwhelmingly more effective than peeking by yourself. The list goes on.
This doesn't contribute at all to the conversation but I dedicated a large portion of my teenage years to mastering counter-strike so this post was really offensive to me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In a good competitive game the only skill ceiling should be that of your enemy team and not one the game sets, because competitive gamers don't like any skill ceilings at all. A good game always makes you feel like you could improve on something while playing it, giving you <b>the impression</b> there might be some imbalance hidden in there you just have to discover. But in terms of raw gameplay mechanics it's all more or less just a big equation...
That's why in a perfectly balanced game two equally skilled teams will always tie or end up in an endless struggle.
In my previous post i tried to explain gameplay mechanics that give players an advantage, for interacting with each other, by adding resources back to the game. This mechanic would be an direct disadvantage to an solo player in terms of pure theoretical balance. This can be used to create mechanics that balance out individual player skill by giving players with "lower skill" the option of using game mechanics to even out the overall balance against an higher skilled individual player who can't access these options without also using "teamplay".
Your example of "setting up crossfire" is advantage trough player behavior by applying coordinated human coordination, but the game itself doesn't reward teamplay/coordination in any kind of statistical/measurable way trough gameplay mechanics.
Having another player next besides you in counter strike gives you no advantage at all in terms of numbers over the other guy who stands alone, because there are no mechanics build in counter strike that allow for direct interaction between teammates, that could lead to a statistical advantage for any of them.
The simplest example for such an game mechanic in NS2 would be the marine ability to weld each other, giving both players an statistical advantage over 2 players that wouldn't weld each other.
Imagine people in counter strike could repair each others vests, allowing them to take more shots before they die if they keep getting "repaired", then in the above example of an 1 vs 13 match the statistical odds would heavily disfavor the guy who's fighting alone, because unlike all the other 13 guys he can't use the gameplay mechanic of "repairing each other" so in that situation the gameplay mechanics would work to his disadvantage.
If we are talking about balance and gameplay mechanics then too many people are dragging examples of situational player behavior into the mechanics discussions. Just like you did by using the "setting up crossfire" example or the smoke grenades (very situational advantage that can also end up as an disadvantage). You have to take situational player behavior out of the picture for a moment if you want to break a game down to it's mechanics to discuss them and their impact on the overall game balance. But for the sake of creating balanced game mechanics you always have to assume that teams are equal in player skill and both teams try to min-max out all involved game mechanics to their favor.
And I've played Counter Strike since beta 5.0 and for quite some time on a professional level, i know very well how the game works and what dynamics make it tick. But unlike many other people i don't look at games like "videogames", but rather a collection of interesting mechanics that key into each other. I guess that's why you seem to have missed my point with the counter strike example and the other one with the L4D example.
In counter strike a single skilled player can (and will) steamroll a team of noobs, it's that easy and simple. If the skill difference is too big then you need a giant number of players to compensate out that skill difference because there are no gameplay mechanics that give a less skilled individual player an advantage who cooperates with another less skilled one.
Now try to play that same scenario to Natural Selection: 1 Very skilled player vs a team of noobs It doesn't even matter who is playing on which side, the guy who is alone on his team won't stand a chance in hell no matter how good he is. The gameplay mechanics build into NS prevent him from having even remotely a chance no matter how high his personal skill might be.
I guess the problem is that english is not my native language so sometimes i have trouble getting my point across in the way i intend to. I'm really sorry about that and i will try to keep my toughts more organized and readable in the future :)
<!--quoteo(post=1901073:date=Feb 9 2012, 05:17 AM:name=reh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (reh @ Feb 9 2012, 05:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901073"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You've missed the sarcasm in Iacto's post. Both colossus and colossi are correct, unless you have a better reference than Oxford Dictionary.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What sarcasm?
<!--quoteo(post=1901073:date=Feb 9 2012, 05:17 AM:name=reh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (reh @ Feb 9 2012, 05:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901073"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Plural of onos had been a controversial topic for ages now. Check up this ancient thread <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t9048.html" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/lofive....php/t9048.html</a> . The correct form would be oni only if singular was onus, like servus (pl. servi). Since it is onos we can settle for onoses, which is both intuitive and convenient, and it's all that really matters with such a new word.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sorry, you're wrong. It's <b>oni</b>.
I know this because I asked a Japanese guy, and he said that it means ogre or demon. Have the Japanese ever been wrong before?
<!--quoteo(post=1901076:date=Feb 9 2012, 05:38 AM:name=kingmob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kingmob @ Feb 9 2012, 05:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901076"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->BTW I totally loved the idea of devour and xenocide as consumables.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> :) Thanks. They're extremely powerful abilities, so I believe they (each use) shouldn't come free, and that upgrading (making the choice of whether or not to get it) should be deliberate. Actually, it'd be nice if we could think of "final abilities" for every alien that are reasonably powerful consumables, to keep it consistent across the board.
<!--quoteo(post=1901079:date=Feb 9 2012, 06:36 AM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Feb 9 2012, 06:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901079"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Dang haven't thought that far yet.. because i consider the current khamm - gorge implementation on the alien site all kinds of broken so i didn't think up to the metagame yet when thinking about fun abilities for the lifeforms :/
But now that you mention that and i read about the fade issues then i'm confused why we try to design the lifeforms abilities around an issues that seems clearly to be rooted in the alien metagame/resource system. Because if it stays at it is it will be really difficult to balance the higher lifeforms in such a way that the players still get the impression of an asymmetric teambalance in terms of playernumbers and unit strength.
And i consider this one of the key elements that made NS so unique and successfull :/<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, the biggest problem with the current resource system is the lack of unit scarcity, because purchasing a higher lifeform or receiving better equipment is no longer really a team expense (it definitely was in NS1). The goal should be that there should only be, say, around 1/6~1/3 of the team being onos in play at once, once it gets unlocked.
There are ways you could overhaul the resource model to be more of a team expense (e.g. by making everyone purchase lifeforms/equipment using resources out of a team pool), but a simpler approach would be to make it so that saving up is severely discouraged: the gains from saving (for later) should be much less than the gains from spending (now). So naturally, a successful team needs to have most of the team consistently purchasing upgrades while a small portion is carried/supported by them while they save up for better stuff. If everyone on the team tries to save, the team should lose miserably. One way to approach this would be to have more consumables.
<!--quoteo(post=1901119:date=Feb 8 2012, 09:41 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Feb 8 2012, 09:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901119"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If we are talking about balance and gameplay mechanics then too many people are dragging examples of situational player behavior into the mechanics discussions. Just like you did by using the "setting up crossfire" example or the smoke grenades (very situational advantage that can also end up as an disadvantage). You have to take situational player behavior out of the picture for a moment if you want to break a game down to it's mechanics to discuss them and their impact on the overall game balance. But for the sake of creating balanced game mechanics you always have to assume that teams are equal in player skill and both teams try to min-max out all involved game mechanics to their favor.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Lol competitive tactics are anything but 'situational', if you don't do them every round you will have an automatic disadvantage. I've been in the competitive scene since 1.5 and setting up crossfires isn't situational, its standard practice. Smoke nades can be thrown every round and be used to your benefit, how exactly is that situational too? You can't lecture someone on how to break down a game when you don't even grasp the real inner-workings of it yourself. I don't know how 'professional' you sound pretty OGL to me.
<!--quoteo(post=1901079:date=Feb 8 2012, 10:36 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Feb 8 2012, 10:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901079"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In counter strike the only limit on how well a single player performs is his own performance, there are no game mechanics in place that give teamplayers statistical advantages over non-teamplayers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's why I brought it up. It's a game that doesn't have any of these mechanics to force players to work together and yet team play is still a major part of it. In any team based multiplayer game, working together will always bring you an advantage even if there aren't any mechanics forcing you to.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I just get annoyed when people go "It's not fun, i do not like it", because that's a bad rule to design a game around. If you make a game only "all fun and enjoyable moments" then the player will never get the real feeling of getting an accomplishment. Without challenge and frustration the feeling of success won't last or even set in.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I straight up disagree. The challenge comes from fighting against the other players. In a well designed game even when you die you don't feel extremely frustrated because you know you got out-played (and you feel like if you did something different you might have had a chance). If the game mechanics themselves are making players shout and scream at each other and quit out often then that's bad. L4D is the perfect example of that.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So i won't comment on all the other jadajada about how "l4d is a bad game, and nobody played with you, because it's not such a great competive game". Because at this point i think we are speaking different languages :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's pretty obvious to me that you don't have clue what you're talking about. You think that you need certain mechanics to force players to work together and to close the gap between lower skilled players and experts. IMO this approach will lead to a bad game with frustrating gameplay and a lack of depth. I have gave examples of how these mechanics haven't worked well in other games and also how you don't need these mechanics for teamplay to play a big role.
I have no idea why you would want to close the gap between a bad player and a good one as that just decreases depth. Only reason I can think for this argument is you are butt hurt from getting killed by players better than you so you want to change the mechanics instead of improving. Sacrificing depth to make the game more accessible to newbies is a huge mistake. There will always be players who are better and who have mastered the mechanics even when you reduce the difference between them. Unless you completely close the gap and then the game would have no depth at all and no one would play.
Also your example of 1 very skilled player vs team of noobs does happen in NS2. I remember being on servers countless times playing against Fana and my entire team were constantly dying and claiming he was hacking. One guy even offered to buy the first person to kill him a steam game. This situation will happen in ANY well designed game. An expert player should be able to kill noobs. Go play snooker against Ronnie O'Sullivan or chess against Magnus Carlsen and see how well you do. That's the reason these games are successful is because people can continue to practice and continue to improve their abilities. Accessibility should come from players playing against others of a similar skill level, not from mechanics which limit the players ability.
ÒŗăNģёJoin Date: 2012-02-09Member: 144437Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
The main concern I have for Onos is base speed, its far to easy to kill an Onos by making it turn and loosing its momentum, climbing over things, or just having a jetpack.
If the Onos could have an increased base speed I think it would be much more fair to play. Being an Onos building a charge to hit marines takes the appropriate amount of space to begin the charge, so when you charge into them and maybe get 1-2 kills before having to retreat makes the Onos incredibly vulnerable. I have chased down a countless amount of Onos' and killed them simple because they could not retreat fast enough or they bumped into a tiny ledge that halted the charge and forced them to build speed again, but by then its too late for the Onos because i have already killed it, its quite sad when it takes just one marine with any gun to kill an Onos.
On the other hand Onos can be very powerful when supported by aliens. Building the charge speed and plowing through 4 marines knocking them down is extremely overpowering at times, because before they regain focus of what their model is actually doing they are being hit by the Onos or other aliens.
My suggestion is to remove the gore ability to knock marines to the ground and making them disoriented at the same time. Increase the base speed for Onos and possibly give it a shift ability, such as original NS charge, so if it does happen to bump into a ledge and loose all its momentum it can still have a chance to escape quickly. Possibly a quick charge, that could be useful for an Onos that uses cloak, if you come out of cloak you are slow until you have enough room to build speed which just isnt the case most of the time and you will die unless you can kill the marine squad before they tear the pathetic Onos health to shreds. With the LMG/GL combo its nearly impossible to survive an encounter of 4 or so marines(Marines that actually play the game correctly, synergy of guns).
All in all the onos is actually fun and intuitive to play but the aspects of balance the developers have come up with just doesnt seem like a good idea. Basically loosing control or speed means certain death for both sides.
<!--quoteo(post=1901083:date=Feb 9 2012, 12:04 AM:name=Squeal_Like_A_Pig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squeal_Like_A_Pig @ Feb 9 2012, 12:04 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901083"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The way we'll probably address this, and what is planned, is to have the resolution add more horizontal viewing space in widescreen formats, rather then changing the vertical viewing space. And that should solve the Onos view model issue. --Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uhh, are you sure about that? That means that players with a widescreen will get a higher FOV as players with 4:3 or such. I'm not sure if this will keep it fair. Besides, I have a 16:9 screen, so it won't hurt me. But having a lower FOV with 4:3 will be a huge disadvantage for a player.
<!--quoteo(post=1901165:date=Feb 9 2012, 05:24 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Feb 9 2012, 05:24 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901165"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah, the biggest problem with the current resource system is the lack of unit scarcity, because purchasing a higher lifeform or receiving better equipment is no longer really a team expense (it definitely was in NS1). The goal should be that there should only be, say, around 1/6~1/3 of the team being onos in play at once, once it gets unlocked.
There are ways you could overhaul the resource model to be more of a team expense (e.g. by making everyone purchase lifeforms/equipment using resources out of a team pool), but a simpler approach would be to make it so that saving up is severely discouraged: the gains from saving (for later) should be much less than the gains from spending (now). So naturally, a successful team needs to have most of the team consistently purchasing upgrades while a small portion is carried/supported by them while they save up for better stuff. If everyone on the team tries to save, the team should lose miserably. One way to approach this would be to have more consumables.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Imho i still think it would be kida counter-productive to fix an imbalance in the metagame by trying to mess around with the single units abilities, because then you have think about more variables that get affected by any balance changes compred to just overhauling the resource model which is why more "up" in the chain of mechanics and the original source of the problem.
The other issue is also that Flayra tries to combine mechanics that made NS unique and at the same time follow some "new age game rules" of instant gratification for every single player. Making the higher lifeforms more accessible is one of these examples, while for the individual player that change might sound/look good for somebody who likes/understands the mechanics behind the original NS this idea instantly looks like all kinds of trouble.
<!--quoteo(post=1901168:date=Feb 9 2012, 05:51 AM:name=coldsmoke)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (coldsmoke @ Feb 9 2012, 05:51 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901168"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Lol competitive tactics are anything but 'situational', if you don't do them every round you will have an automatic disadvantage. I've been in the competitive scene since 1.5 and setting up crossfires isn't situational, its standard practice. Smoke nades can be thrown every round and be used to your benefit, how exactly is that situational too? You can't lecture someone on how to break down a game when you don't even grasp the real inner-workings of it yourself. I don't know how 'professional' you sound pretty OGL to me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once again... stop looking at these things as "videogames" but rather as actual "games" as in mechanics that key into each other. Basicly try applying <a href="http://www.sfb504.uni-mannheim.de/glossary/game.htm" target="_blank">game theory</a> (nope, nothing to do with VIDEOgames) to game design as that's the very first basic step to see why a game works for the player and why it's not working. It's also an really usefull tool to discover imbalances on a metascale between two asynchronous build teams.
People keep on dragging anecdotal examples of situational player behavior into this discusion when in game theory player behavior and skill differences are subtracted to very basic terms as in: skill = equal, skill != equal, a game designer only knows these two states of difference in player skill. If you break it down anymore then it becomes useless in the whole game theory process because you will add too many random variables by weighting random player behavior so heavily.
These examples also matter to discover abusive/exploitable mechanics but these mechanics usually get discovered by players in playtesting through simple crowdsourcing mechanics. But they do not matter if you are talking purely on a theoretical level about game mechanics, which is what we do right now right here imho.
Because it's better to think mechanics and how they key into reach other trough on a theoretical level first, instead of just "throwing them into the game, to see how it works", it saves alot of effort and workload on the actual developing side.
<!--quoteo(post=1901182:date=Feb 9 2012, 06:48 AM:name=Wilson)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wilson @ Feb 9 2012, 06:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901182"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's why I brought it up. It's a game that doesn't have any of these mechanics to force players to work together and yet team play is still a major part of it. In any team based multiplayer game, working together will always bring you an advantage even if there aren't any mechanics forcing you to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hate to do this because i know it makes me look/sound like some prick who is full of himself or something like that, but i believe we are still talking past each other. And i've allready used up all the easy examples to explain what i'm trying to explain, so i'm kinda lost on my end as to how else i should explain to you this very simple difference in game design between CS and NS.
The other problem is that it seems like you just want to missunderstand me, because i believe other people around here like Harimau have no trouble understanding the terms i use to desrcibe the mechanics i'm talking about.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I straight up disagree. <b>The challenge comes from fighting against the other players. </b>In a well designed game even when you die you don't feel extremely frustrated because you know you got out-played (and you feel like if you did something different you might have had a chance). If the game mechanics themselves are making players shout and scream at each other and quit out often then that's bad. L4D is the perfect example of that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay now you have given me an example to work with by repeating such a "rule" like the one i marked bold above. What you fail to realize that just "fighting against other players" as an simple mechanic offers no challenge on it's own.
What makes this feel challenging and "fun" to players are other mechanics that tie into a competetive game where "players fight each other". Or to break it down into an even easier example:
Fighting against other players is fun <b>IF</b>:
..both teams are equal in player skill. Nobody has fun steamrolling a team of noobs because there is no challenge involved that forces the winning team to rethink their approach. They can just steamroll the enemyteam with the same effective tactic again and again, because of this repetive game dynamics build up that make the game feel "boring/frustrating" for both sides of the game in the long run.
...both teams play by the same rules/have the same resources to start out with. Playing against somebody who has an advantage just because he has chosen another team doesn't feel fun. That's why you need to make sure that both teams are equal in term of the pure raw numbers. And if you decide tho put mechanics into your game that give players a situational advantage under certain conditions then you have to make sure that such mechanics are there for both teams, otherwise the game will be "imbalanced".
If these (and a few other things) do not apply then no matter how much "playing against other players"mechanics you add to your game, it still won't be fun because the pure basics of the metagame are allready broken (imbalanced) if one of the two sides has an advantage in terms of player skill or game mechanics.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's pretty obvious to me that you don't have clue what you're talking about. You think that you need certain mechanics to force players to work together and to close the gap between lower skilled players and experts. IMO this approach will lead to a bad game with frustrating gameplay and a lack of depth. I have gave examples of how these mechanics haven't worked well in other games and also how you don't need these mechanics for teamplay to play a big role.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think that we "need" mechanics, i simply understand that a "game" is mostly just a collection of mechanics that key into each other. The difficult and troublesome part is where these mechanics start meeting player interaction, because unlike game mechanics players NEVER behave in a very predictable way. That is why you have to design games in such a way that you naturally lead the player into a situation you can predict by giving them incentive to go that way, the easiest way to give a player incentive to move somewhere is by giving him the impression that he will get an advantage (for himself) trough that kind of behavior.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>I have no idea why you would want to close the gap between a bad player and a good one as that just decreases depth. </b>Only reason I can think for this argument is you are butt hurt from getting killed by players better than you so you want to change the mechanics instead of improving. Sacrificing depth to make the game more accessible to newbies is a huge mistake. There will always be players who are better and who have mastered the mechanics even when you reduce the difference between them. Unless you completely close the gap and then the game would have no depth at all and no one would play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? I'm using a game mechanic as an example to start an discussion and throw ideas around. And suddenly i "want to do something"? Right now i'm only throwing ideas around and discussing things, sadly it's so far very one sided because too many people around here can't keep this discussion on a theoretical level and instead instantly think things like "WHAT YOU WANT TO ADD FLYING UNICORNS LIKE THESE FROM L2D TO MY NS2?!! NOO L4D IS A ###### GAME YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT".
People are dragging subjective thinking into a discussion i tried to keep objective by having it stay on a very theoretical level..
Once again using the bold part of your quote:
Even NS1 and NS2 currently have mechanics in place that give players using teamplay a real meassurable statistical advantage over a more skilled team not using the tool of "teamplay". This is a direct result of how the games mechanics key into each other..
Simple example: Imagine 2 very skilled vs 2 players that lack skills in term of "reaction time" or "twitch". In a game like counter strike the second team tjhe "noobs" would be at an direct disadvantage.
In an game like NS/NS2 the 2 lesser skilled people can still beat the better skilled team IF: The lesser skilled team discovers/makes use of teamplay mechanics that give them a direct statistical advantage over the 2 players not using/knowing that same mechanic and instead only depend on their "twitch skills" to win.
What will happen? The less skilled team will turn the imbalance around into their favor, at least for 1 round. In the next round the 2 players with the "twitch skills" will now also know that teamplay mechanic and also use it, leveling the playing field in terms of knowledge about game mechanics once again.
Using the above mechanic you can give players an advantage that posses others skills besides just beeing "twitchy", it's that kind of "skill" that makes NS so fun. Because every player can play a usefull role to the team even if he is not the "best twitcher" on the world.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also your example of 1 very skilled player vs team of noobs does happen in NS2. I remember being on servers countless times playing against Fana and my entire team were constantly dying and claiming he was hacking. One guy even offered to buy the first person to kill him a steam game. This situation will happen in ANY well designed game. An expert player should be able to kill noobs. Go play snooker against Ronnie O'Sullivan or chess against Magnus Carlsen and see how well you do. That's the reason these games are successful is because people can continue to practice and continue to improve their abilities. Accessibility should come from players playing against others of a similar skill level, not from mechanics which limit the players ability.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes anecdotal evidence.. how usefull and helpfull that stuff is for theorycrafting and game theory :/
This isn't about it beeing "mechanicaly impossible to happen!" it's about the likeness of it happening, it's about frequency distribution. And for somebody to win a 1 on 13 in NS the imbalance in terms of player skill has to be GIANT for him to be able to win or the other team needs to be AFK/not aware of how the game works (which also just means giant imbalance in player skill in theory terms). The mechanics inside the game make sure that such a giant discrepancy between player skill and playernumbers is required for such an unlikely outcome to happen.
Now i could go into details which mechanic exactly and how they key into each other, but then i would be writing a design document about NS1 and i believe we don't need anything like that because flayra should have something like that allready for years :P
gotta agree with wilson here. game theory is all well and good, but either the wrong principles are being talked about or they don't translate directly into ACTUAL gameplay. what you call anecdotal evidence is actually empirical data denying the "hypothesis" that your game theory reduction is positing.
<b>Both sides are right.</b> The plural of Onos is typed <i>Oni</i> and pronounced <i>Oh-######</i> (American) or <i>Oh-Nigh</i> (Everywhere Else). Both are correct. Oni/Oh-######, tomato/tom-oh-######
Continue debating gamplay-defining mechanics if you wish; I think the real question of the thread has been solved.
<!--quoteo(post=1901206:date=Feb 9 2012, 09:53 AM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Feb 9 2012, 09:53 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901206"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Uhh, are you sure about that? That means that players with a widescreen will get a higher FOV as players with 4:3 or such. I'm not sure if this will keep it fair. Besides, I have a 16:9 screen, so it won't hurt me. But having a lower FOV with 4:3 will be a huge disadvantage for a player.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes. The reasons you state were why we implemented it the other way, first, so that players running the game in widescreen didn't get an unfair advantage. However, the majority of players have requested it be changed, since many people are running in widescreen. Also, NS2 is actually a bit different from other games, and having more vertical space can actually give players more of an advantage then horizontal space, with skulks running around below your view on the floor and up on the ceilings. So, really, there's no perfect way to do it, but for a variety of reasons we think it will be better to change it for widescreen formats.
<!--quoteo(post=1901208:date=Feb 9 2012, 05:38 AM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Feb 9 2012, 05:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901208"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Once again... stop looking at these things as "videogames" but rather as actual "games" as in mechanics that key into each other. Basicly try applying <a href="http://www.sfb504.uni-mannheim.de/glossary/game.htm" target="_blank">game theory</a> (nope, nothing to do with VIDEOgames) to game design as that's the very first basic step to see why a game works for the player and why it's not working. It's also an really usefull tool to discover imbalances on a metascale between two asynchronous build teams.
People keep on dragging anecdotal examples of situational player behavior into this discusion when in game theory player behavior and skill differences are subtracted to very basic terms as in: skill = equal, skill != equal, a game designer only knows these two states of difference in player skill. If you break it down anymore then it becomes useless in the whole game theory process because you will add too many random variables by weighting random player behavior so heavily.
These examples also matter to discover abusive/exploitable mechanics but these mechanics usually get discovered by players in playtesting through simple crowdsourcing mechanics. But they do not matter if you are talking purely on a theoretical level about game mechanics, which is what we do right now right here imho.
Because it's better to think mechanics and how they key into reach other trough on a theoretical level first, instead of just "throwing them into the game, to see how it works", it saves alot of effort and workload on the actual developing side.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anecdotal examples are still better than long winded posting with lot of words but little substance. How you still call standard practices 'situational' just confirms what myself and others already know. Still sounding pretty OGL.
It goes beyond skill = equal herp derp no s***, once you reach max level the raw hardcore skill part disappears since everyone kills everyone the instant they see them, as someone else said it's all about player positioning and teammate synchronization which is where all the tactics come in that you write off as anecdotal occasional player behavior (LOL). It's ok to admit you don't know what you're talking about as you clearly are just puling things out of your butt so you don't look wrong.
Why people say they're pro then spew nonsense that sounds like rantings of a scrub with no grasp of the fundamental mechanics in the game are beyond me.
<!--quoteo(post=1900096:date=Feb 6 2012, 12:39 AM:name=Squeal_Like_A_Pig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squeal_Like_A_Pig @ Feb 6 2012, 12:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900096"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We are actually looking at changing the stomp to be the secondary attack, rather then the primary. So, Gore would be weapon 1 primary, and Smash would be weapon 2 primary, with Stomp as secondary for both.
We also have plans to have marines be affected by the Stomp in some way, as well, it just won't be the NS1 style of being locked to the ground unable to move, which was very frustrating.
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Heres a great idea have it shake their screens ie TF 1 conq grenade
<!--quoteo(post=1901250:date=Feb 9 2012, 04:27 PM:name=Wheeee)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wheeee @ Feb 9 2012, 04:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901250"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->gotta agree with wilson here. game theory is all well and good, but either the wrong principles are being talked about or they don't translate directly into ACTUAL gameplay. what you call anecdotal evidence is actually empirical data denying the "hypothesis" that your game theory reduction is positing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We are talking about the wrong principles because sadly i didn't go into detail with the "anecdotal example" in NS2. But i'm writing allready long enough posts as it is so i didn't want to add even more to that part... I also believe some people here don't understand the idea i'm talking about and because of that feel offended or something, i know that my style of writing often seems offensive to native english speakers but i'm allways talking about an opinion on my side that i try to back up with my reasons as to why i came up with that conclusion.
And the reason why i go into such details with this stuff is so people can follow my line of thought and spot errors in it, to point them out to me. But that doesn't work if people obviously can't follow my line of thinking or don't even take the time to answer in detail why i'm wrong :/
I don't wanna "preach" or anything like that but it really feels like a language barrier here because my native language is german, so please bare with me until we at least can come up with some common understanding?
And to help with that i'm gonna try to clarify why i so carelessly handled that whole "NS2 anectodal evidence" part, gonna quote it again for readings ease so we stay on topic:
<!--quoteo(post=1901182:date=Feb 9 2012, 06:48 AM:name=Wilson)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wilson @ Feb 9 2012, 06:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901182"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also your example of 1 very skilled player vs team of noobs does happen in NS2. I remember being on servers countless times playing against Fana and my entire team were constantly dying and claiming he was hacking. One guy even offered to buy the first person to kill him a steam game. This situation will happen in ANY well designed game. An expert player should be able to kill noobs. Go play snooker against Ronnie O'Sullivan or chess against Magnus Carlsen and see how well you do. That's the reason these games are successful is because people can continue to practice and continue to improve their abilities. Accessibility should come from players playing against others of a similar skill level, not from mechanics which limit the players ability.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said that it will never happen that in an 1 vs 13 round the 1 player will win. I only said that it's very unlikely to happen because the game mechanics heavily disvavor the lone player. But crowdsourcing is a ###### and will allways find the freak accident, we should be happy about that because otherwise playing lottery would be kinda pointless :)
But i would like to know more about this "Fana" guy, so he only played 1 on 13 rounds for how long? Against what people? What builds? Over what timeframe? How many of these rounds did he lose? And that's why Fana is anecdotal evidence in the context i had been trying to talk about.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->An expert player should be able to kill noobs. Go play snooker against Ronnie O'Sullivan or chess against Magnus Carlsen and see how well you do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You do realize i've been trying to talk about gameplay mechanics in multiplayer games that involve interaction between teammates that gain them a statistical advantage over an enemy team not applying same teammate interaction? Because now you are talking about games that only involve two players on opposing teams...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's the reason these games are successful is because people can continue to practice and continue to improve their abilities. Accessibility should come from players playing against others of a similar skill level, not from mechanics which limit the players ability.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What "games"? Because as you can see above you are throwing a damn lot of different games together and threat them as the same in terms of mechanics or gameplay even when they couldn't be more different.
Accessibility can be achieved trough a ton of ways and should be really important if you want an commercial viable product. And I don't think i'm the only one with the opinion that it's also one of NS1 biggest weakpoints that prevents the game from reaching "mainstrean status". So shouldn't accessibility be one of the focus points for NS2? At least i remember flayra saying something like that at some point, but i've been out of the loop for quite some time now.
But when accessibility is such an important aspect, then shouldn't we aknowledge that there are more options to reach this then just tacking tooltipps on to everything and telling players "to read the forums"? Because accessibility also has alot to do with how you design a game, not just in an "UI, informational"way but also in the way the game world works and interacts with each other because this affects directly how a game "feels" to a new player when he's experiencing it for the first time without guidance.
And please once again: I do not intend to preach, all the things i write are IMHO and if anybody sees a logical flaw with them he should point that out in an detailed way! After that's what an discussion should be about so all the involved sides learn something new :)
I feel we've tracked off an awfully off from the original topic so i'm trying to bring it back to the Onos and how all this keys into this discussion:
Is the goal to make the onos as strong as in NS1 so that in terms of theoretical value it heavily outweights a single lmg marine? Or is the whole alien team supposed to be onos at some point in late game even when aliens haven't won yet?
Asking these questions might sound stupid, but to me they are important to me when i'm trying to decide what's off with the onos for me :)
<!--quoteo(post=1901414:date=Feb 9 2012, 04:46 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Feb 9 2012, 04:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901414"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Unarticulated nonsense.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're essentially trying to force a concept that doesn't apply to make yourself seem so deep & intuitive but you just keep being long winded. It's best you laid off the CS topic as you were just making a fool of yourself. Condescension under the guise of language barrier combined with an inability to be concise and articulate is all you are. We can do this all day.
Comments
<b>Pro:</b>
* unique for this game
* was fun in ns1
<b>Contra:</b>
* very punishing for the marine because of spawn penalty and
* feels helplessly because of one hit kill
<b>Tweaks:</b>
* add long cool down and use all energy
* marine enters spawn queue right away but can be freed until he is respawned.
The Gore right now is also kind of an insta kill. You may need more than one attack, but after the marine was hit the first time you have all time to finish him. And he can't do anything about it.
Yeah, I think that's fine. They just need to be careful with the whole team going onos thing. Just like when the fade was ridiculously overpowered and people were saying "it should take 3 guys to kill a fade", but then the whole team goes fade and you can't do anything about it.
This is a very good point. Flayra did say he wanted a system where getting higher lifeforms easier by giving you credit towards a higher lifeform at the cost of the current. Being a lerk allows for the onos to cosr 30 res less or being a fade 50 less. This is a great idea but would make it so you could have all onos very easily. Once the above is fixed the devour might be plossible.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Devour, Xenocide as consumables.
For both:
1) Relatively high cost, e.g. around mine cost.
2) Cost per single use/upgrade, i.e. has to be re-purchased after each use.
3) A little extra time to evolve.
4) Skill required to use.
5) Indication of the upgrade on the 3rd person model.
6) Uses all or almost all of the energy on the bar.
For Devour:
1) Small attack-box.
2) Can miss (i.e. be pointlessly wasted).
For Xenocide:
1) Decreasing damage with blast radius.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1900960:date=Feb 8 2012, 08:28 PM:name=Wilson)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wilson @ Feb 8 2012, 08:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900960"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah, I think that's fine. They just need to be careful with the whole team going onos thing. Just like when the fade was ridiculously overpowered and people were saying "it should take 3 guys to kill a fade", but then the whole team goes fade and you can't do anything about it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly.
If you are going to have any super-units, there <b>has to be</b> fail-safes, so that people always have a fighting chance. Making it so that you can <b>always</b> <i>reliably</i> run away from a fight you know you can't win is one kind of fail-safe, but you have to be wary of the fact that running away is generally not very fun, and also be aware that the approach is not really sustainable: what about 6 marines coming up against 6 aliens, and yet the 6 marines must always run? In a way, it works because it just means that the marines will have to play it safe until they can afford upgrades. Still, not very fun for either side.
The "it costs twice as much so it should always be worth twice as much" argument is a bad one, because the only real requirement for getting a powerful upgrade is <b>to save up</b>, and that requires very little effort or risk (often none).
This is almost as bad as people saying 'collossuses' instead of 'colossi'
This is almost as bad as people saying 'collossuses' instead of 'colossi'<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed.
Aliens don't even have to all go oni together, because with devour he will have such high survivability as a hit-and-run unit, he can just wait until the rest of the team gets oni, and he won't even have to wait long.
The point is, entire teams evolving into oni is going to be a far more likely occurrence in NS2 than it would have been in NS1 (because in NS1, you <i>essentially</i> spent resources out of a team pool, so you going onos was a <b>team expense</b> - which is precisely why if you died right away as an onos, the whole team would be incredibly ###### with you), and devour would not be compatible with this possibility.
There should be no easy one-hit kills in NS2.
Devour is a skill-less weapon anyway.
Exactly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, you really don't get entire teams of clerk or fade, unless team size is small. If you manage to get an entire team of onus then the other team is tucked, and this is ignoring the other guy's point of their size etc. It's. Also takes no less skill then Gore, just run up and click mouse. It wasn't a problem in NS1, and is good against heavies.
You've missed the sarcasm in Iacto's post. Both colossus and colossi are correct, unless you have a better reference than Oxford Dictionary.
Plural of onos had been a controversial topic for ages now. Check up this ancient thread <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t9048.html" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/lofive....php/t9048.html</a> . The correct form would be oni only if singular was onus, like servus (pl. servi). Since it is onos we can settle for onoses, which is both intuitive and convenient, and it's all that really matters with such a new word.
that's all from me ...go back to arguing how the plural of onos should be spelled.
I don't even know why you drag counter strike for such an example in here.
Counter Strike is a game where the player skill ceiling is barely limited by game design, in counter strike a single well skilled player can play 1 on 12 and still stand a theoretical chance to win.
Now try to do the same in NS or NS2: 1 on 12, yeah not gonna happen.
In counter strike the only limit on how well a single player performs is his own performance, there are no game mechanics in place that give teamplayers statistical advantages over non-teamplayers. It's a different game by design and it places a different role on the single player on the map.
I just get annoyed when people go "It's not fun, i do not like it", because that's a bad rule to design a game around. If you make a game only "all fun and enjoyable moments" then the player will never get the real feeling of getting an accomplishment. Without challenge and frustration the feeling of success won't last or even set in.
A good game frustrates it's players on purpose in the right situations and rewards them with "fun" in other situations, when they play by the games mechanics.
Sure you can have a game that's all "fun moments" and no frustration but then you end up with something like Saints Row 3 ;)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->L4D is actually not a very well designed game. It's fun to play causally with your friends but not much more than that. The competitive scene had to make many modifications as it was too easy at first and good teams would survive every round. It is also famous for having the most rage quits out of any game that I've played. Even organized teams would all quit after 1 mistake and almost no public game finishes with the same people who started playing. If anything it is direct evidence that those mechanics lead to frustrating gameplay for many players.
L4Ds infected side was also pretty boring to play (after the novelty wore off) as you had to rely on your team in order to have any kind of success. The individual classes are basically useless if they attack alone and there is no skill involved in their attacks. It basically all centres around teamwork and timing your attacks together. While teamwork is fun, I don't think it alone is enough to make a game enjoyable. For me the most enjoyable games are ones in which I can distinguish myself as a player as well as co-operate with team mates. A game like counter strike is the perfect example of this. There are no mechanics that directly force the players to work together and yet it still involves lots of team work.
IMO any time you feel like there was nothing you could or that the game was limiting you then that just leads to frustration, pure and simple. That doesn't mean a player would be able to just run off and kill the entire enemy team any more than they could in counter strike or most other team fps games. Things like defending RTs and attacking tech points already herd the players together - you don't need to force them by limiting their abilities.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay... i don't even know what to answer to this, i only used the stun mechanics and the survivor interaction as an example of a game mechanic beeing well designed in such a way that it leads players to a somewhat natural teamplay. It's the only mechanic of L4D i've been talking about and only as an example of designing gameplay mechanics.
So i won't comment on all the other jadajada about how "l4d is a bad game, and nobody played with you, because it's not such a great competive game". Because at this point i think we are speaking different languages :)
<!--quoteo(post=1900878:date=Feb 8 2012, 06:37 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Feb 8 2012, 06:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900878"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Devour (an essentially one-hit kill move with an extra respawn time penalty) will not be compatible with NS2's current resource system, because there is no <b>pooled</b> resource scarcity and therefore no unit scarcity. What this means is that once oni become unlocked, almost everyone will be able to go oni all at once. So devour would essentially be giving the alien team the ability to take the entire marine team out of the game all at once.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dang haven't thought that far yet.. because i consider the current khamm - gorge implementation on the alien site all kinds of broken so i didn't think up to the metagame yet when thinking about fun abilities for the lifeforms :/
But now that you mention that and i read about the fade issues then i'm confused why we try to design the lifeforms abilities around an issues that seems clearly to be rooted in the alien metagame/resource system.
Because if it stays at it is it will be really difficult to balance the higher lifeforms in such a way that the players still get the impression of an asymmetric teambalance in terms of playernumbers and unit strength.
And i consider this one of the key elements that made NS so unique and successfull :/
Btw: The plural clearly should allways be "OH NOES!!1" :P
This is because when you currently change resolution to a non widescreen format the game adds more vertical space, rather then removing horizontal space. So, running in a res that has a lot of vertical space shows more of the bottom of the view model (which is just the horn, there's no Onos attached to it, the same way the marine arms in the view model are just arms that are floating) and in some extreme cases of animation where it moves a lot, you may be seeing the bottom of the model, where there is no geometry.
The way we'll probably address this, and what is planned, is to have the resolution add more horizontal viewing space in widescreen formats, rather then changing the vertical viewing space. And that should solve the Onos view model issue.
--Cory
Counter Strike is a game where the player skill ceiling is barely limited by game design, in counter strike a single well skilled player can play 1 on 12 and still stand a theoretical chance to win.
Now try to do the same in NS or NS2: 1 on 12, yeah not gonna happen.
In counter strike the only limit on how well a single player performs is his own performance, there are no game mechanics in place that give team players statistical advantages over non team players. It's a different game by design and it places a different role on the single player on the map.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
sorry to continue this counter-strike derail but this just bothered me so much I'm going to rant a bit.
First, the skill ceiling is determined by the game. What else would it be determined by?
And that second bit makes me think you've never actually played counter-strike. What do you mean teamplay doesn't give an advantage? how can that even make sense? If i set up a crossfire with my teammate and you come out the door we are watching, you can't shoot both of us. At best you will shoot one of us and more likely you will just instantly die because 2x your bullets are coming at you. There are so many situations where having good teamwork pays off that it's just absurd to think it doesn't. At the really high level, most players can instantly kill you if they see you, so aiming no longer becomes the skill to practice and the focus becomes player positioning and synchronization with teammates. You need to cover each others backs and communicate. You need to use smokes and flashes to help teamates advance or fall back. Peeking a corner with 2+ people simultaneously and from different spots is overwhelmingly more effective than peeking by yourself. The list goes on.
This doesn't contribute at all to the conversation but I dedicated a large portion of my teenage years to mastering counter-strike so this post was really offensive to me.
The way we'll probably address this, and what is planned, is to have the resolution add more horizontal viewing space in widescreen formats, rather then changing the vertical viewing space. And that should solve the Onos view model issue.
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good that will be fixed. I know its because of my resolution, but it is the one which suits best to my pc and settings. Also, this only happened with the onos first person view model.
First, the skill ceiling is determined by the game. What else would it be determined by?
And that second bit makes me think you've never actually played counter-strike. What do you mean teamplay doesn't give an advantage? how can that even make sense? If i set up a crossfire with my teammate and you come out the door we are watching, you can't shoot both of us. At best you will shoot one of us and more likely you will just instantly die because 2x your bullets are coming at you. There are so many situations where having good teamwork pays off that it's just absurd to think it doesn't. At the really high level, most players can instantly kill you if they see you, so aiming no longer becomes the skill to practice and the focus becomes player positioning and synchronization with teammates. You need to cover each others backs and communicate. You need to use smokes and flashes to help teamates advance or fall back. Peeking a corner with 2+ people simultaneously and from different spots is overwhelmingly more effective than peeking by yourself. The list goes on.
This doesn't contribute at all to the conversation but I dedicated a large portion of my teenage years to mastering counter-strike so this post was really offensive to me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In a good competitive game the only skill ceiling should be that of your enemy team and not one the game sets, because competitive gamers don't like any skill ceilings at all. A good game always makes you feel like you could improve on something while playing it, giving you <b>the impression</b> there might be some imbalance hidden in there you just have to discover. But in terms of raw gameplay mechanics it's all more or less just a big equation...
That's why in a perfectly balanced game two equally skilled teams will always tie or end up in an endless struggle.
In my previous post i tried to explain gameplay mechanics that give players an advantage, for interacting with each other, by adding resources back to the game. This mechanic would be an direct disadvantage to an solo player in terms of pure theoretical balance. This can be used to create mechanics that balance out individual player skill by giving players with "lower skill" the option of using game mechanics to even out the overall balance against an higher skilled individual player who can't access these options without also using "teamplay".
Your example of "setting up crossfire" is advantage trough player behavior by applying coordinated human coordination, but the game itself doesn't reward teamplay/coordination in any kind of statistical/measurable way trough gameplay mechanics.
Having another player next besides you in counter strike gives you no advantage at all in terms of numbers over the other guy who stands alone, because there are no mechanics build in counter strike that allow for direct interaction between teammates, that could lead to a statistical advantage for any of them.
The simplest example for such an game mechanic in NS2 would be the marine ability to weld each other, giving both players an statistical advantage over 2 players that wouldn't weld each other.
Imagine people in counter strike could repair each others vests, allowing them to take more shots before they die if they keep getting "repaired", then in the above example of an 1 vs 13 match the statistical odds would heavily disfavor the guy who's fighting alone, because unlike all the other 13 guys he can't use the gameplay mechanic of "repairing each other" so in that situation the gameplay mechanics would work to his disadvantage.
If we are talking about balance and gameplay mechanics then too many people are dragging examples of situational player behavior into the mechanics discussions. Just like you did by using the "setting up crossfire" example or the smoke grenades (very situational advantage that can also end up as an disadvantage). You have to take situational player behavior out of the picture for a moment if you want to break a game down to it's mechanics to discuss them and their impact on the overall game balance. But for the sake of creating balanced game mechanics you always have to assume that teams are equal in player skill and both teams try to min-max out all involved game mechanics to their favor.
And I've played Counter Strike since beta 5.0 and for quite some time on a professional level, i know very well how the game works and what dynamics make it tick. But unlike many other people i don't look at games like "videogames", but rather a collection of interesting mechanics that key into each other. I guess that's why you seem to have missed my point with the counter strike example and the other one with the L4D example.
In counter strike a single skilled player can (and will) steamroll a team of noobs, it's that easy and simple. If the skill difference is too big then you need a giant number of players to compensate out that skill difference because there are no gameplay mechanics that give a less skilled individual player an advantage who cooperates with another less skilled one.
Now try to play that same scenario to Natural Selection: 1 Very skilled player vs a team of noobs
It doesn't even matter who is playing on which side, the guy who is alone on his team won't stand a chance in hell no matter how good he is. The gameplay mechanics build into NS prevent him from having even remotely a chance no matter how high his personal skill might be.
I guess the problem is that english is not my native language so sometimes i have trouble getting my point across in the way i intend to. I'm really sorry about that and i will try to keep my toughts more organized and readable in the future :)
What sarcasm?
<!--quoteo(post=1901073:date=Feb 9 2012, 05:17 AM:name=reh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (reh @ Feb 9 2012, 05:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901073"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Plural of onos had been a controversial topic for ages now. Check up this ancient thread <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t9048.html" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/lofive....php/t9048.html</a> . The correct form would be oni only if singular was onus, like servus (pl. servi). Since it is onos we can settle for onoses, which is both intuitive and convenient, and it's all that really matters with such a new word.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, you're wrong. It's <b>oni</b>.
I know this because I asked a Japanese guy, and he said that it means ogre or demon. Have the Japanese ever been wrong before?
<!--quoteo(post=1901076:date=Feb 9 2012, 05:38 AM:name=kingmob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kingmob @ Feb 9 2012, 05:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901076"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->BTW I totally loved the idea of devour and xenocide as consumables.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
:) Thanks. They're extremely powerful abilities, so I believe they (each use) shouldn't come free, and that upgrading (making the choice of whether or not to get it) should be deliberate.
Actually, it'd be nice if we could think of "final abilities" for every alien that are reasonably powerful consumables, to keep it consistent across the board.
<!--quoteo(post=1901079:date=Feb 9 2012, 06:36 AM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Feb 9 2012, 06:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901079"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Dang haven't thought that far yet.. because i consider the current khamm - gorge implementation on the alien site all kinds of broken so i didn't think up to the metagame yet when thinking about fun abilities for the lifeforms :/
But now that you mention that and i read about the fade issues then i'm confused why we try to design the lifeforms abilities around an issues that seems clearly to be rooted in the alien metagame/resource system.
Because if it stays at it is it will be really difficult to balance the higher lifeforms in such a way that the players still get the impression of an asymmetric teambalance in terms of playernumbers and unit strength.
And i consider this one of the key elements that made NS so unique and successfull :/<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, the biggest problem with the current resource system is the lack of unit scarcity, because purchasing a higher lifeform or receiving better equipment is no longer really a team expense (it definitely was in NS1). The goal should be that there should only be, say, around 1/6~1/3 of the team being onos in play at once, once it gets unlocked.
There are ways you could overhaul the resource model to be more of a team expense (e.g. by making everyone purchase lifeforms/equipment using resources out of a team pool), but a simpler approach would be to make it so that saving up is severely discouraged: the gains from saving (for later) should be much less than the gains from spending (now). So naturally, a successful team needs to have most of the team consistently purchasing upgrades while a small portion is carried/supported by them while they save up for better stuff. If everyone on the team tries to save, the team should lose miserably. One way to approach this would be to have more consumables.
Lol competitive tactics are anything but 'situational', if you don't do them every round you will have an automatic disadvantage. I've been in the competitive scene since 1.5 and setting up crossfires isn't situational, its standard practice. Smoke nades can be thrown every round and be used to your benefit, how exactly is that situational too? You can't lecture someone on how to break down a game when you don't even grasp the real inner-workings of it yourself. I don't know how 'professional' you sound pretty OGL to me.
That's why I brought it up. It's a game that doesn't have any of these mechanics to force players to work together and yet team play is still a major part of it. In any team based multiplayer game, working together will always bring you an advantage even if there aren't any mechanics forcing you to.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I just get annoyed when people go "It's not fun, i do not like it", because that's a bad rule to design a game around. If you make a game only "all fun and enjoyable moments" then the player will never get the real feeling of getting an accomplishment. Without challenge and frustration the feeling of success won't last or even set in.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I straight up disagree. The challenge comes from fighting against the other players. In a well designed game even when you die you don't feel extremely frustrated because you know you got out-played (and you feel like if you did something different you might have had a chance). If the game mechanics themselves are making players shout and scream at each other and quit out often then that's bad. L4D is the perfect example of that.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So i won't comment on all the other jadajada about how "l4d is a bad game, and nobody played with you, because it's not such a great competive game". Because at this point i think we are speaking different languages :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's pretty obvious to me that you don't have clue what you're talking about. You think that you need certain mechanics to force players to work together and to close the gap between lower skilled players and experts. IMO this approach will lead to a bad game with frustrating gameplay and a lack of depth. I have gave examples of how these mechanics haven't worked well in other games and also how you don't need these mechanics for teamplay to play a big role.
I have no idea why you would want to close the gap between a bad player and a good one as that just decreases depth. Only reason I can think for this argument is you are butt hurt from getting killed by players better than you so you want to change the mechanics instead of improving. Sacrificing depth to make the game more accessible to newbies is a huge mistake. There will always be players who are better and who have mastered the mechanics even when you reduce the difference between them. Unless you completely close the gap and then the game would have no depth at all and no one would play.
Also your example of 1 very skilled player vs team of noobs does happen in NS2. I remember being on servers countless times playing against Fana and my entire team were constantly dying and claiming he was hacking. One guy even offered to buy the first person to kill him a steam game. This situation will happen in ANY well designed game. An expert player should be able to kill noobs. Go play snooker against Ronnie O'Sullivan or chess against Magnus Carlsen and see how well you do. That's the reason these games are successful is because people can continue to practice and continue to improve their abilities. Accessibility should come from players playing against others of a similar skill level, not from mechanics which limit the players ability.
If the Onos could have an increased base speed I think it would be much more fair to play. Being an Onos building a charge to hit marines takes the appropriate amount of space to begin the charge, so when you charge into them and maybe get 1-2 kills before having to retreat makes the Onos incredibly vulnerable. I have chased down a countless amount of Onos' and killed them simple because they could not retreat fast enough or they bumped into a tiny ledge that halted the charge and forced them to build speed again, but by then its too late for the Onos because i have already killed it, its quite sad when it takes just one marine with any gun to kill an Onos.
On the other hand Onos can be very powerful when supported by aliens. Building the charge speed and plowing through 4 marines knocking them down is extremely overpowering at times, because before they regain focus of what their model is actually doing they are being hit by the Onos or other aliens.
My suggestion is to remove the gore ability to knock marines to the ground and making them disoriented at the same time. Increase the base speed for Onos and possibly give it a shift ability, such as original NS charge, so if it does happen to bump into a ledge and loose all its momentum it can still have a chance to escape quickly. Possibly a quick charge, that could be useful for an Onos that uses cloak, if you come out of cloak you are slow until you have enough room to build speed which just isnt the case most of the time and you will die unless you can kill the marine squad before they tear the pathetic Onos health to shreds. With the LMG/GL combo its nearly impossible to survive an encounter of 4 or so marines(Marines that actually play the game correctly, synergy of guns).
All in all the onos is actually fun and intuitive to play but the aspects of balance the developers have come up with just doesnt seem like a good idea. Basically loosing control or speed means certain death for both sides.
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uhh, are you sure about that? That means that players with a widescreen will get a higher FOV as players with 4:3 or such. I'm not sure if this will keep it fair. Besides, I have a 16:9 screen, so it won't hurt me. But having a lower FOV with 4:3 will be a huge disadvantage for a player.
There are ways you could overhaul the resource model to be more of a team expense (e.g. by making everyone purchase lifeforms/equipment using resources out of a team pool), but a simpler approach would be to make it so that saving up is severely discouraged: the gains from saving (for later) should be much less than the gains from spending (now). So naturally, a successful team needs to have most of the team consistently purchasing upgrades while a small portion is carried/supported by them while they save up for better stuff. If everyone on the team tries to save, the team should lose miserably. One way to approach this would be to have more consumables.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Imho i still think it would be kida counter-productive to fix an imbalance in the metagame by trying to mess around with the single units abilities, because then you have think about more variables that get affected by any balance changes compred to just overhauling the resource model which is why more "up" in the chain of mechanics and the original source of the problem.
The other issue is also that Flayra tries to combine mechanics that made NS unique and at the same time follow some "new age game rules" of instant gratification for every single player. Making the higher lifeforms more accessible is one of these examples, while for the individual player that change might sound/look good for somebody who likes/understands the mechanics behind the original NS this idea instantly looks like all kinds of trouble.
<!--quoteo(post=1901168:date=Feb 9 2012, 05:51 AM:name=coldsmoke)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (coldsmoke @ Feb 9 2012, 05:51 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901168"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Lol competitive tactics are anything but 'situational', if you don't do them every round you will have an automatic disadvantage. I've been in the competitive scene since 1.5 and setting up crossfires isn't situational, its standard practice. Smoke nades can be thrown every round and be used to your benefit, how exactly is that situational too? You can't lecture someone on how to break down a game when you don't even grasp the real inner-workings of it yourself. I don't know how 'professional' you sound pretty OGL to me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once again... stop looking at these things as "videogames" but rather as actual "games" as in mechanics that key into each other.
Basicly try applying <a href="http://www.sfb504.uni-mannheim.de/glossary/game.htm" target="_blank">game theory</a> (nope, nothing to do with VIDEOgames) to game design as that's the very first basic step to see why a game works for the player and why it's not working. It's also an really usefull tool to discover imbalances on a metascale between two asynchronous build teams.
People keep on dragging anecdotal examples of situational player behavior into this discusion when in game theory player behavior and skill differences are subtracted to very basic terms as in: skill = equal, skill != equal, a game designer only knows these two states of difference in player skill. If you break it down anymore then it becomes useless in the whole game theory process because you will add too many random variables by weighting random player behavior so heavily.
These examples also matter to discover abusive/exploitable mechanics but these mechanics usually get discovered by players in playtesting through simple crowdsourcing mechanics. But they do not matter if you are talking purely on a theoretical level about game mechanics, which is what we do right now right here imho.
Because it's better to think mechanics and how they key into reach other trough on a theoretical level first, instead of just "throwing them into the game, to see how it works", it saves alot of effort and workload on the actual developing side.
<!--quoteo(post=1901182:date=Feb 9 2012, 06:48 AM:name=Wilson)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wilson @ Feb 9 2012, 06:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901182"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's why I brought it up. It's a game that doesn't have any of these mechanics to force players to work together and yet team play is still a major part of it. In any team based multiplayer game, working together will always bring you an advantage even if there aren't any mechanics forcing you to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hate to do this because i know it makes me look/sound like some prick who is full of himself or something like that, but i believe we are still talking past each other.
And i've allready used up all the easy examples to explain what i'm trying to explain, so i'm kinda lost on my end as to how else i should explain to you this very simple difference in game design between CS and NS.
The other problem is that it seems like you just want to missunderstand me, because i believe other people around here like Harimau have no trouble understanding the terms i use to desrcibe the mechanics i'm talking about.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I straight up disagree. <b>The challenge comes from fighting against the other players. </b>In a well designed game even when you die you don't feel extremely frustrated because you know you got out-played (and you feel like if you did something different you might have had a chance). If the game mechanics themselves are making players shout and scream at each other and quit out often then that's bad. L4D is the perfect example of that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay now you have given me an example to work with by repeating such a "rule" like the one i marked bold above.
What you fail to realize that just "fighting against other players" as an simple mechanic offers no challenge on it's own.
What makes this feel challenging and "fun" to players are other mechanics that tie into a competetive game where "players fight each other".
Or to break it down into an even easier example:
Fighting against other players is fun <b>IF</b>:
..both teams are equal in player skill. Nobody has fun steamrolling a team of noobs because there is no challenge involved that forces the winning team to rethink their approach. They can just steamroll the enemyteam with the same effective tactic again and again, because of this repetive game dynamics build up that make the game feel "boring/frustrating" for both sides of the game in the long run.
...both teams play by the same rules/have the same resources to start out with. Playing against somebody who has an advantage just because he has chosen another team doesn't feel fun. That's why you need to make sure that both teams are equal in term of the pure raw numbers. And if you decide tho put mechanics into your game that give players a situational advantage under certain conditions then you have to make sure that such mechanics are there for both teams, otherwise the game will be "imbalanced".
If these (and a few other things) do not apply then no matter how much "playing against other players"mechanics you add to your game, it still won't be fun because the pure basics of the metagame are allready broken (imbalanced) if one of the two sides has an advantage in terms of player skill or game mechanics.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's pretty obvious to me that you don't have clue what you're talking about. You think that you need certain mechanics to force players to work together and to close the gap between lower skilled players and experts. IMO this approach will lead to a bad game with frustrating gameplay and a lack of depth. I have gave examples of how these mechanics haven't worked well in other games and also how you don't need these mechanics for teamplay to play a big role.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think that we "need" mechanics, i simply understand that a "game" is mostly just a collection of mechanics that key into each other. The difficult and troublesome part is where these mechanics start meeting player interaction, because unlike game mechanics players NEVER behave in a very predictable way. That is why you have to design games in such a way that you naturally lead the player into a situation you can predict by giving them incentive to go that way, the easiest way to give a player incentive to move somewhere is by giving him the impression that he will get an advantage (for himself) trough that kind of behavior.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>I have no idea why you would want to close the gap between a bad player and a good one as that just decreases depth. </b>Only reason I can think for this argument is you are butt hurt from getting killed by players better than you so you want to change the mechanics instead of improving. Sacrificing depth to make the game more accessible to newbies is a huge mistake. There will always be players who are better and who have mastered the mechanics even when you reduce the difference between them. Unless you completely close the gap and then the game would have no depth at all and no one would play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? I'm using a game mechanic as an example to start an discussion and throw ideas around. And suddenly i "want to do something"? Right now i'm only throwing ideas around and discussing things, sadly it's so far very one sided because too many people around here can't keep this discussion on a theoretical level and instead instantly think things like "WHAT YOU WANT TO ADD FLYING UNICORNS LIKE THESE FROM L2D TO MY NS2?!! NOO L4D IS A ###### GAME YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT".
People are dragging subjective thinking into a discussion i tried to keep objective by having it stay on a very theoretical level..
Once again using the bold part of your quote:
Even NS1 and NS2 currently have mechanics in place that give players using teamplay a real meassurable statistical advantage over a more skilled team not using the tool of "teamplay". This is a direct result of how the games mechanics key into each other..
Simple example: Imagine 2 very skilled vs 2 players that lack skills in term of "reaction time" or "twitch". In a game like counter strike the second team tjhe "noobs" would be at an direct disadvantage.
In an game like NS/NS2 the 2 lesser skilled people can still beat the better skilled team IF: The lesser skilled team discovers/makes use of teamplay mechanics that give them a direct statistical advantage over the 2 players not using/knowing that same mechanic and instead only depend on their "twitch skills" to win.
What will happen? The less skilled team will turn the imbalance around into their favor, at least for 1 round. In the next round the 2 players with the "twitch skills" will now also know that teamplay mechanic and also use it, leveling the playing field in terms of knowledge about game mechanics once again.
Using the above mechanic you can give players an advantage that posses others skills besides just beeing "twitchy", it's that kind of "skill" that makes NS so fun. Because every player can play a usefull role to the team even if he is not the "best twitcher" on the world.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also your example of 1 very skilled player vs team of noobs does happen in NS2. I remember being on servers countless times playing against Fana and my entire team were constantly dying and claiming he was hacking. One guy even offered to buy the first person to kill him a steam game. This situation will happen in ANY well designed game. An expert player should be able to kill noobs. Go play snooker against Ronnie O'Sullivan or chess against Magnus Carlsen and see how well you do. That's the reason these games are successful is because people can continue to practice and continue to improve their abilities. Accessibility should come from players playing against others of a similar skill level, not from mechanics which limit the players ability.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes anecdotal evidence.. how usefull and helpfull that stuff is for theorycrafting and game theory :/
This isn't about it beeing "mechanicaly impossible to happen!" it's about the likeness of it happening, it's about frequency distribution.
And for somebody to win a 1 on 13 in NS the imbalance in terms of player skill has to be GIANT for him to be able to win or the other team needs to be AFK/not aware of how the game works (which also just means giant imbalance in player skill in theory terms). The mechanics inside the game make sure that such a giant discrepancy between player skill and playernumbers is required for such an unlikely outcome to happen.
Now i could go into details which mechanic exactly and how they key into each other, but then i would be writing a design document about NS1 and i believe we don't need anything like that because flayra should have something like that allready for years :P
<b>Both sides are right.</b> The plural of Onos is typed <i>Oni</i> and pronounced <i>Oh-######</i> (American) or <i>Oh-Nigh</i> (Everywhere Else). Both are correct.
Oni/Oh-######, tomato/tom-oh-######
Continue debating gamplay-defining mechanics if you wish; I think the real question of the thread has been solved.
Yes. The reasons you state were why we implemented it the other way, first, so that players running the game in widescreen didn't get an unfair advantage. However, the majority of players have requested it be changed, since many people are running in widescreen. Also, NS2 is actually a bit different from other games, and having more vertical space can actually give players more of an advantage then horizontal space, with skulks running around below your view on the floor and up on the ceilings. So, really, there's no perfect way to do it, but for a variety of reasons we think it will be better to change it for widescreen formats.
--Cory
This is a pc game, why cant we have any choices? :(
(I know we can change the fov serverside, but it forces the settings for everybody)
Basicly try applying <a href="http://www.sfb504.uni-mannheim.de/glossary/game.htm" target="_blank">game theory</a> (nope, nothing to do with VIDEOgames) to game design as that's the very first basic step to see why a game works for the player and why it's not working. It's also an really usefull tool to discover imbalances on a metascale between two asynchronous build teams.
People keep on dragging anecdotal examples of situational player behavior into this discusion when in game theory player behavior and skill differences are subtracted to very basic terms as in: skill = equal, skill != equal, a game designer only knows these two states of difference in player skill. If you break it down anymore then it becomes useless in the whole game theory process because you will add too many random variables by weighting random player behavior so heavily.
These examples also matter to discover abusive/exploitable mechanics but these mechanics usually get discovered by players in playtesting through simple crowdsourcing mechanics. But they do not matter if you are talking purely on a theoretical level about game mechanics, which is what we do right now right here imho.
Because it's better to think mechanics and how they key into reach other trough on a theoretical level first, instead of just "throwing them into the game, to see how it works", it saves alot of effort and workload on the actual developing side.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anecdotal examples are still better than long winded posting with lot of words but little substance. How you still call standard practices 'situational' just confirms what myself and others already know. Still sounding pretty OGL.
It goes beyond skill = equal herp derp no s***, once you reach max level the raw hardcore skill part disappears since everyone kills everyone the instant they see them, as someone else said it's all about player positioning and teammate synchronization which is where all the tactics come in that you write off as anecdotal occasional player behavior (LOL).
It's ok to admit you don't know what you're talking about as you clearly are just puling things out of your butt so you don't look wrong.
Why people say they're pro then spew nonsense that sounds like rantings of a scrub with no grasp of the fundamental mechanics in the game are beyond me.
We also have plans to have marines be affected by the Stomp in some way, as well, it just won't be the NS1 style of being locked to the ground unable to move, which was very frustrating.
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Heres a great idea have it shake their screens ie TF 1 conq grenade
what do you think -
We are talking about the wrong principles because sadly i didn't go into detail with the "anecdotal example" in NS2.
But i'm writing allready long enough posts as it is so i didn't want to add even more to that part...
I also believe some people here don't understand the idea i'm talking about and because of that feel offended or something, i know that my style of writing often seems offensive to native english speakers but i'm allways talking about an opinion on my side that i try to back up with my reasons as to why i came up with that conclusion.
And the reason why i go into such details with this stuff is so people can follow my line of thought and spot errors in it, to point them out to me. But that doesn't work if people obviously can't follow my line of thinking or don't even take the time to answer in detail why i'm wrong :/
I don't wanna "preach" or anything like that but it really feels like a language barrier here because my native language is german, so please bare with me until we at least can come up with some common understanding?
And to help with that i'm gonna try to clarify why i so carelessly handled that whole "NS2 anectodal evidence" part, gonna quote it again for readings ease so we stay on topic:
<!--quoteo(post=1901182:date=Feb 9 2012, 06:48 AM:name=Wilson)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wilson @ Feb 9 2012, 06:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901182"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also your example of 1 very skilled player vs team of noobs does happen in NS2. I remember being on servers countless times playing against Fana and my entire team were constantly dying and claiming he was hacking. One guy even offered to buy the first person to kill him a steam game. This situation will happen in ANY well designed game. An expert player should be able to kill noobs. Go play snooker against Ronnie O'Sullivan or chess against Magnus Carlsen and see how well you do. That's the reason these games are successful is because people can continue to practice and continue to improve their abilities. Accessibility should come from players playing against others of a similar skill level, not from mechanics which limit the players ability.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said that it will never happen that in an 1 vs 13 round the 1 player will win. I only said that it's very unlikely to happen because the game mechanics heavily disvavor the lone player. But crowdsourcing is a ###### and will allways find the freak accident, we should be happy about that because otherwise playing lottery would be kinda pointless :)
But i would like to know more about this "Fana" guy, so he only played 1 on 13 rounds for how long? Against what people? What builds? Over what timeframe? How many of these rounds did he lose?
And that's why Fana is anecdotal evidence in the context i had been trying to talk about.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->An expert player should be able to kill noobs. Go play snooker against Ronnie O'Sullivan or chess against Magnus Carlsen and see how well you do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You do realize i've been trying to talk about gameplay mechanics in multiplayer games that involve interaction between teammates that gain them a statistical advantage over an enemy team not applying same teammate interaction?
Because now you are talking about games that only involve two players on opposing teams...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's the reason these games are successful is because people can continue to practice and continue to improve their abilities. Accessibility should come from players playing against others of a similar skill level, not from mechanics which limit the players ability.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What "games"? Because as you can see above you are throwing a damn lot of different games together and threat them as the same in terms of mechanics or gameplay even when they couldn't be more different.
Accessibility can be achieved trough a ton of ways and should be really important if you want an commercial viable product.
And I don't think i'm the only one with the opinion that it's also one of NS1 biggest weakpoints that prevents the game from reaching "mainstrean status".
So shouldn't accessibility be one of the focus points for NS2? At least i remember flayra saying something like that at some point, but i've been out of the loop for quite some time now.
But when accessibility is such an important aspect, then shouldn't we aknowledge that there are more options to reach this then just tacking tooltipps on to everything and telling players "to read the forums"? Because accessibility also has alot to do with how you design a game, not just in an "UI, informational"way but also in the way the game world works and interacts with each other because this affects directly how a game "feels" to a new player when he's experiencing it for the first time without guidance.
And please once again: I do not intend to preach, all the things i write are IMHO and if anybody sees a logical flaw with them he should point that out in an detailed way!
After that's what an discussion should be about so all the involved sides learn something new :)
I feel we've tracked off an awfully off from the original topic so i'm trying to bring it back to the Onos and how all this keys into this discussion:
Is the goal to make the onos as strong as in NS1 so that in terms of theoretical value it heavily outweights a single lmg marine?
Or is the whole alien team supposed to be onos at some point in late game even when aliens haven't won yet?
Asking these questions might sound stupid, but to me they are important to me when i'm trying to decide what's off with the onos for me :)
You're essentially trying to force a concept that doesn't apply to make yourself seem so deep & intuitive but you just keep being long winded. It's best you laid off the CS topic as you were just making a fool of yourself.
Condescension under the guise of language barrier combined with an inability to be concise and articulate is all you are. We can do this all day.