First of all: Nice changes that are coming. Looking forward to test it.
@all the projectile spore crowd: It is really ridiculous, how everybody tries to argument against trailing spores but fails to get one argument for projectile spores. I can't see how it is beneficial for gameplay in any way, when the lerk has the option to simultaneous camp in a difficult to hit vent-location and can use an area denial weapon. Why should the lerk need such a mechanic? Everybody just arguments against trailing spores and forgetting, that besides melancholia, there is no place for projectile spores.
A lerk that is forced to actually get into the fight is simply much better in game play aspects than a camping area denial unit. If the trailing spores are really underpowered, because the lerk is to fragile to get close into the fight, than that can be balanced.
Remember the overpowered lerk with hide armor? The problem was, that he was to powerful in long range combat, but fine in close range. Adding projectile spores will only make it more difficult to balance long-range lerks. (Btw. thats why the spikes are so inaccurate.) And for what? For what benefit we are sacrificing all this, when adding projectile spores?
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited May 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1939646:date=May 29 2012, 03:26 AM:name=World Construct)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (World Construct @ May 29 2012, 03:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939646"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><distilled essence of ignorance><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> A thirteen year old mod is still the most popular multiplayer FPS on the market. Must be because the players don't know about "contemporary game design", right?
<!--quoteo(post=1939693:date=May 29 2012, 09:46 AM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ May 29 2012, 09:46 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939693"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It is really ridiculous, how everybody tries to argument against trailing spores but fails to get one argument for projectile spores.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Projectile spores worked perfectly in NS1. Trailing spores are a complete mess in NS2. Why waste more words?
<!--quoteo(post=1939732:date=May 29 2012, 03:22 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ May 29 2012, 03:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939732"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Projectile spores worked perfectly in NS1. Trailing spores are a complete mess in NS2. Why waste more words?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because this is not NS1 and we don't need to make everything like in NS1. And your second point is simply wrong and in the best case only your personal opinion, not a fact. If we don't need to use facts here, than this is my argument: I like trailing spore clouds.
What's good with ranged spores is that you need to aim. If it's no hit-scan you need to aim and predict the landing zone. If you want to shoot ranged spores while escaping you need to do some 180deg shoot 180deg tricks without loosing too much speed, which is pretty cool. Just some positive things.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited May 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1939746:date=May 29 2012, 04:06 PM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ May 29 2012, 04:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939746"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because this is not NS1 and we don't need to make everything like in NS1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You may as well reply with "herp-de-derp" as it's clear you haven't understood a word. The argument isn't that NS2 should be like NS1, the argument is that NS2 <b>is</b> so similar to NS1 that the same principles apply; in this case that since projectile spores were balanced and fun in NS1, they will also be balanced and fun in NS2.
The proper counter-argument to that would be to suggest that NS2 should be less similar to NS1 than it currently is, but that's a bit of a digression to say the least...
<!--quoteo(post=1939746:date=May 29 2012, 04:06 PM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ May 29 2012, 04:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939746"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And your second point is simply wrong and in the best case only your personal opinion, not a fact.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you try to use trailing spores against a good player, you will die horribly. I personally never use spores during competitive matches, nor do I see any of the other good Lerks do it, and the reason for that is simple; it's a great way to get yourself killed.
Arguing the pros and cons of trailing spores properly takes a lot of effort and words, and has already been done in multiple other threads in the past, some going back as far as two years ago. Having to repeat the argument every time this gets brought up in a thread (about once a week -- should tell you something about the severity of this gameplay issue) is more work and hassle than anyone can be bothered with. I suggest you read those threads before you burst in here complaining.
this is pretty funny, summer release and charlie finally puts in lerk bite? I wonder what other great ideas he will finally bring back. We told him, months and months ago. And the list of so many other NS1 things must be ported to NS2, but no, we have to waste time on silly ideas that could have been removed by thought alone. But hey, it made sense on paper, so let the game suffer for months and months, and when summer release is near we can start porting ignored ideas.
"You aren't forced to fly into the barrel of a shotgun to apply the spores.. "
jesus dude, you realize how of an easy target you are when you're spreading spores. Just because of the current bad performance you feel you're doing well. Once (maybe) we going to get 100fps, spreading spores will be a death trap even more then now. My idea was (because of people like you) if you want to spread spores trailing them, keep it. BUT allow the lerk to click spores to shoot spores as projectiles but holding it while flying would start trailing spores behind the lerk. pretty simple, and mind blowing it hasn't been done yet.
so what else are we porting from NS1 to NS2, which worked for years but somebody will reply this isn't NS2...
fmponeJoin Date: 2011-07-05Member: 108086Members, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1939765:date=May 29 2012, 12:22 PM:name=luns)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (luns @ May 29 2012, 12:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939765"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->this is pretty funny, summer release and charlie finally puts in lerk bite? I wonder what other great ideas he will finally bring back. We told him, months and months ago. And the list of so many other NS1 things must be ported to NS2, but no, we have to waste time on silly ideas that could have been removed by thought alone. But hey, it made sense on paper, so let the game suffer for months and months, and when summer release is near we can start porting ignored ideas.
"You aren't forced to fly into the barrel of a shotgun to apply the spores.. "
jesus dude, you realize how of an easy target you are when you're spreading spores. Just because of the current bad performance you feel you're doing well. Once (maybe) we going to get 100fps, spreading spores will be a death trap even more then now. My idea was (because of people like you) if you want to spread spores trailing them, keep it. BUT allow the lerk to click spores to shoot spores as projectiles but holding it while flying would start trailing spores behind the lerk. pretty simple, and mind blowing it hasn't been done yet.
so what else are we porting from NS1 to NS2, which worked for years but somebody will reply this isn't NS2...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1939765:date=May 29 2012, 12:22 PM:name=luns)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (luns @ May 29 2012, 12:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939765"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"You aren't forced to fly into the barrel of a shotgun to apply the spores.. "
jesus dude, you realize how of an easy target you are when you're spreading spores. Just because of the current bad performance you feel you're doing well. Once (maybe) we going to get 100fps, spreading spores will be a death trap even more then now. My idea was (because of people like you) if you want to spread spores trailing them, keep it. BUT allow the lerk to click spores to shoot spores as projectiles but holding it while flying would start trailing spores behind the lerk. pretty simple, and mind blowing it hasn't been done yet.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Dude, I think you horribly misunderstood what I was saying.. It's trailing that is "flying into the barrel (and get insta-killed)", I'm all for projectile spores (+ bite)
<!--quoteo(post=1939633:date=May 29 2012, 03:23 AM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ May 29 2012, 03:23 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939633"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->yes I've used the flamethrower
yes I've played pyro in TF2, and it's a trashcan class because it's balanced around a weapon that gives you free damage and is easier to use than any of the others
need I say more?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Does any of those effects last until death like so many assumed would be the case with lerk bite? That was the point I was making with the flame thrower comparison. I also brought up dota and RP games. Both of which tend to have forms of DoT effects in very varied shapes and forms. That you have a negative experience with the pyro is not a valid argument for every kind of DoT effect being rubbish. It would be the same thing like claiming all hitscan weapons are bad, because the AWP in CS is balanced around instant killing people.
<!--quoteo(post=1939645:date=May 29 2012, 04:21 AM:name=Banzai¥)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Banzai¥ @ May 29 2012, 04:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939645"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->@ Fluid Core Your dream-lerk makes it the most modular class though. Sounds like an incredibly annoying and over-powered unit where it comes equipped with both 'semi-heavy' melee and ranged attacks early on when marines are weak and only gets stronger with them. By the time marines can pump-out exosuits and weapons/armour 2 the lerk should be at a disadvantage...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <i> You are probably right about the bite, tweaked the numbers to make it less lethal (45 normal + 15 biological over 3 sec)</i>
I haven't done the maths, but you would probably need 3 bites to kill a a0 marine including the bleed. (90 normal damage+30 biological shouldn't be enough). And if the bleed doesn't just reset the timer and build up in damage, you can never get insane bleed ticks that can't be healed through either. The "early ranged" you talk about I assume to be the projectile spores. The way I'd like them would be as temporary area denial, you should use it to temporary block an area but quickly run out of adrenaline. Hell, you could even make it a continuous spray of spores that drains your adrenaline, and dissipate a few seconds after you stop. Combined with momentum it could make the lerk able to deny an area for some time from medium range, or throw in puffs of spores over larger distances using their speed.
Late game lerks will be at a dissadvantage. An exo suit absorbs 95% of the damage to armor, making the bite initial damage just deal 2.25 damage to health. The poison dart is taken from the lua files and isn't my numbers. Let's say you can bite every 0.5 sec. Over 1 second your poison dart will tick once for 10 damage, you will bite twice for 4.5 damage and they will bleed twice for 5+5 damage. Total you do 24.5 dps (for 5 seconds, then it's down to 14.5), making you need just over 4 seconds to kill them from full health. If try to make them bleed out, you need to bite them 3 times for 6.75 initial damage and 45 bleed ending 4.5 seconds after you started biting and 50 damage ending 5 seconds after your dart. I feel that should make it balanced, making the lerk able to be useful against exos, but still requiring it to make it there and bite it 3 times over 1 second and not get killed. If it weren't for poison dart, you would need to bite it 6 times. That would take 2.5 sec of biting and the exo would die 3 seconds after that. Assuming no medpacks in any case.
<!--quoteo(post=1939746:date=May 29 2012, 10:06 AM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ May 29 2012, 10:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939746"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because this is not NS1 and we don't need to make everything like in NS1. And your second point is simply wrong and in the best case only your personal opinion, not a fact. If we don't need to use facts here, than this is my argument: I like trailing spore clouds.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with you in your first statement. It's not like NS1 in so many ways, and that's a shame. It also shows clearly.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1939748:date=May 29 2012, 08:17 AM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ May 29 2012, 08:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939748"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What's good with ranged spores is that you need to aim.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You also need to aim your body and it's trajectory in a room while being shot at when using spores, utilizing evasive maneuvers - arguably much more skill demanding than projectile spores? Statistical success rate with sporing and the quote below demonstrate this. <!--quoteo(post=1939751:date=May 29 2012, 08:26 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ May 29 2012, 08:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939751"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->and the reason for that is simple; it's a great way to get yourself killed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Despite him not actually going into any detail, this is a much better argument of how projectile spores worked better : you didn't put yourself in as much/any risk to use it. (Which imo is a bad thing<i> as not too many weapons give you that OP bonus.</i>) And the issue with spore success rates can obviously be solved by a million different methods, even ways which raise the skill ceiling further if desired. (faster lerk speed etc)
<!--quoteo(post=1939748:date=May 29 2012, 05:17 PM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ May 29 2012, 05:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939748"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What's good with ranged spores is that you need to aim.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You also need to aim your body and it's trajectory in a room while being shot at when using spores, utilizing evasive maneuvers - arguably much more skill demanding than projectile spores?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Aiming your body" is called flying, and you need to do it as well with ranged spores, otherwise you end up in a wall and that's not very good. Anyway I wasn't trying to argue that ranged spored are more skilled. Someone wanted some positive stuffs, and aiming is a decent thing to do in a fps.
Frankly I don't care about spore or bite, give me the barrel roll and the looping already!
<!--quoteo(post=1939656:date=May 28 2012, 11:11 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ May 28 2012, 11:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939656"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How many thousands of hours of TF2 have you played? How many seasons and in what leagues did you play?
Also, my ideal game already exists.<a href="http://www.quakelive.com" target="_blank"> Join us!</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Seriously? Thousands of hours? Seasons and leagues? Competitive gaming is the minority. I hope I never play any game for thousands of hours. Your experience is not enough to qualify you to judge an entire aspect of the game as "trash".
Quake LIVE is an entirely different game that should be approached, designed, and structured differently than Natural Selection 2. Can we both agree on that much, at least?
<!--quoteo(post=1939732:date=May 29 2012, 09:22 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ May 29 2012, 09:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939732"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A thirteen year old mod is still the most popular multiplayer FPS on the market. Must be because the players don't know about "contemporary game design", right?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I said his philosophy disagreed with it, actually. The distilled essence of ignorance, eh? I think that would probably be responding to something without understanding its meaning. I'm glad that any singular poster thinks blanket statements like calling a class from another game a "trashcan class" is somehow relevant, helpful, or even objectively correct.
I'm amazed that anyone could focus on a simple game mechanic like damage over time and <i>vehemently</i> disagree with it. I've pointed this out before, but we're not discussing sociopolitical issues on these forums. Many games that millions upon millions of people have enjoyed employed damage over time mechanics, and I doubt that many people would think "Oh, that game was WONDERFUL except for the poison!". Warcraft III, Diablo II, any number of Bethesda and GoD Games products have ALL EMPLOYED THIS MECHANIC. Actually, damage over time dates back to before the Amiga.
Also, I highly doubt that CS 1.6 or 1.5 (which is not 13 years old) is still the most popular FPS on the market. I hope you notice that I said "I doubt", not "you're wrong", when you respond to <i>this</i> post. I'm not really sure how it is relevant if it is the most popular FPS, either.
This thread is rapidly devolving due to hardliners. I'm not sure why people treat these games like they're sacred and worth warring over. If we want to influence the development, can we avoid extreme, indefensible statements?
Hugh is streaming right now, showing e.g. the new Lerk, Shift evolutions etc.. <a href="http://www.twitch.tv/naturalselection2" target="_blank">http://www.twitch.tv/naturalselection2</a>
Edit: The Lerk bite model is a placeholder in the stream though, (but the NS1 Lerk bite sound is back!).
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1939839:date=May 29 2012, 10:27 PM:name=World Construct)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (World Construct @ May 29 2012, 10:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939839"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I said his philosophy disagreed with it, actually. The distilled essence of ignorance, eh?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I was replying to the concept of "contemporary game design" being something to aim for -- which it isn't. Contemporary game design is a cesspool.
I don't even understand what the rest of your post is supposed to be a reply to, but I assume it's due to you misunderstanding my post. I do have to comment on this though:
<!--quoteo(post=1939839:date=May 29 2012, 10:27 PM:name=World Construct)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (World Construct @ May 29 2012, 10:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939839"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->CS 1.6 or 1.5 (which is not 13 years old)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> CS 1.6 isn't a game. Counter-Strike is a game. 1.6 is an update to that game. Claiming that a game's age is determined by when its last update was released is amusing to say the least.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1939838:date=May 29 2012, 02:22 PM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ May 29 2012, 02:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939838"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Aiming your body" is called flying, and you need to do it as well with ranged spores, Frankly I don't care about spore or bite, give me the barrel roll and the looping already!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, and when projectile spores were implemented for roughly a year, "flying" was not a requirement to use it, just edging your face around the corner for half a second.
Barrel rolls sound amazing as long as they buff you / deflect % of shots of something cool like that. (since barrel rolls are meant to "shake" the tracking enemy, i dont see that applying in tight corridors.)
Problem with protjectile spores is this you can gas entire room from save distance with out any risk or danger.
I think also reason why they change it to trail instead of range.
I dont see the fun sitting in a conour with lerk or 6 gassing entire room blocking marines view and killing them at the same time, yes you could do the same now but with trails marines got s change to fight it back and you got be more carefull when to enter and gas the area.
Range sporing is OP in many ways toward marines even if only block your view and did no damage would be OP, aliens can see true spores with alien view, skuls eating you while you cant see ###### and let stand see the lerks.
<b><!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->Reminder <!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->that "spores take on lerk's momentum" is the perfect half-way point between ranged and local spores. It means you can't fire them from idle positions in vents, but you also never have to fly into a shotgun barrel to make a spore shot effective. It ties in with the Lerk's core flight mechanic and is a good idea for the game!</b>
<!--quoteo(post=1939839:date=May 29 2012, 05:27 PM:name=World Construct)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (World Construct @ May 29 2012, 05:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939839"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Seriously? Thousands of hours? Seasons and leagues? Competitive gaming is the minority. I hope I never play any game for thousands of hours. Your experience is not enough to qualify you to judge an entire aspect of the game as "trash".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whose experience is enough to say it isn't? Yours? The burden is on you to show me how the pyro isn't a disgusting failure. So far all you've done is imply that someone who has played a bazillion times more TF2 than you doesn't know anything about the game (which is silly!)
<!--quoteo(post=1939839:date=May 29 2012, 05:27 PM:name=World Construct)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (World Construct @ May 29 2012, 05:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939839"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Quake LIVE is an entirely different game that should be approached, designed, and structured differently than Natural Selection 2. Can we both agree on that much, at least?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope. Quake Live is a multiplayer FPS/RTS game (seriously, the level of strategy around item timings/control at high levels is very similar to how most RTS games work) that is designed with very sound principles, and enjoys a strong consistent playerbase despite being older than even NS1 (a now dead game), when you consider that it's <i>basically </i>Quake 3.
The NS2 developers could learn a lot about design by looking at QL, and that includes how to approach damage over time effects (don't have them at first, add them if they solve a problem in the game instead of as another case of "wouldn't it be fun if..."). This is a trait of good designs (and designers) - they allow themselves to be influenced by seemingly unrelated ideas, and profit from it.
<!--quoteo(post=1939839:date=May 29 2012, 05:27 PM:name=World Construct)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (World Construct @ May 29 2012, 05:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939839"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm amazed that anyone could focus on a simple game mechanic like damage over time and <i>vehemently</i> disagree with it. I've pointed this out before, but we're not discussing sociopolitical issues on these forums. Many games that millions upon millions of people have enjoyed employed damage over time mechanics, and I doubt that many people would think "Oh, that game was WONDERFUL except for the poison!". Warcraft III, Diablo II, any number of Bethesda and GoD Games products have ALL EMPLOYED THIS MECHANIC. Actually, damage over time dates back to before the Amiga.
Also, I highly doubt that CS 1.6 or 1.5 (which is not 13 years old) is still the most popular FPS on the market. I hope you notice that I said "I doubt", not "you're wrong", when you respond to <i>this</i> post. I'm not really sure how it is relevant if it is the most popular FPS, either.
This thread is rapidly devolving due to hardliners. I'm not sure why people treat these games like they're sacred and worth warring over. If we want to influence the development, can we avoid extreme, indefensible statements?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That a mechanic works well in some games does not mean it works well in others. That something is popular/prevalent doesn't mean it makes sense or isn't part of a horrid design pattern that creates more problems than it solves. Appealing to Diablo II in talking about how to design NS2 is pretty silly, pal!
Counterstrike is relevant because it's from the same 'era' as NS1. They're both very different games, but they share some core elements: FPS, competitive, multiplayer, two asymmetric teams etc etc. Again, NS2's development would benefit from looking at how simply CS can pull off creating a game with mass appeal, that can be enjoyed in a highly developed competitive setting as well. If the MP5 poisoned people and gave you free damage, CS would be a worse game because the mechanic simply doesn't fit. Now, before you reply, I want you to ask yourself "How is NS2 really different from CS in order to warrant DoT effects?"<b> In which ways do the design of this game (as abstract platonic ideas, not related to "aliens" or "atmosphere") require poison, fire and so on?</b>
We treat Quake and CS like they're sacred because they are sacred to us. They're model games even if they don't have resource towers or Lerks, and games that try to reinvent the entire artform never accomplish the things NS2 is trying to accomplish. Designs (in general) that are allowed to have things added "for fun" also have a history of not meeting their goals.
I <b>want </b>NS2 to be sacred to me in 10 years the way NS1 is for people like fana. I don't want to say "yeah, I played that game the same year Deus Ex Human Revolution came out, and they were both pretty incomplete games"
I don't see how the set of ideas that make NS2 implies a need for a poison bite, rather than a regular bite (or no bite, or a shotgun spike instead of a bite), and I don't see anyone explaining it either. There are a lot of people saying THEY'RE SUPER EXCITED FOR IT without explaining why (or even thinking about it at all), of course. This is how crappy features get put into this game.
There's nothing indefensible about saying DoT doesn't belong on the lerk/in this game/wherever. I even explained in my original post how the Pyro is an example of DoT gone wrong (but you didn't reply to this yet):
<!--quoteo(post=1939633:date=May 28 2012, 09:23 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ May 28 2012, 09:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939633"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->it's a trashcan class <b><!--sizeo:5--><span style="font-size:18pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->because<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--> it's <i>balanced around</i> a weapon that gives you free damage and is easier to use than any of the others</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Will the same thing (necessarily) happen to any poison effects on the lerk? Why or why not? [5]
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Whose experience is enough to say it isn't? Yours? The burden is on you to show me how the pyro isn't a disgusting failure. So far all you've done is imply that someone who has played a bazillion times more TF2 than you doesn't know anything about the game (which is silly!)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Russell's Teapot. The burden of proof is actually on the person who originally made the statement (and held the belief) about the pyro being a trashcan which in this case... is you. You can't waltz into an argument provide your <i>opinion</i>, give anecdotal evidence without any steadfast empirical backing and expect to be taken seriously.
Sell us on why dots (and your example of pyro) are awful. Bring numbers, bring videos, bring an actual argument. Don't just say it stamp your foot defiantly and put your fingers in your ears because you think are right and everyone is wrong.
Hah...I dunno if I want to. Should I post a 10gb folder of demos or what? Do I need to get a quote from some fat nerd like Sirlin to "prove" my point?
Plenty has already been written about the pyro in TF2, but how you understand it depends heavily on what type of player you are. For instance, if you're the type of person who thinks Diablo II is a better game to model NS2 on than Counterstrike or Quake, you might say "b-b-b-but I totally owned some pubs as the pyro so it's good and you're wrong".......which is what will happen if I waste any time at all posting real evidence of what I said.
I could post a vod of ESEA finals where several people played pyro and it was an ineffective class, but someone would tell me with a straight face that people who played TF2 for a living weren't approaching the pyro correctly. I could post any of the publically-available numbers (flamethrower has approximately half the DPS of most weapons at normal range, to compensate for the fact that it requires almost zero aim), or point to TF2's patch history steadily adding more and more gimmick mechanics (airblast, flaregun (mini)crit changes, phlogistinator mechanics) and someone who never played the game against anyone who was actually good would say "it's great for sowing fear and I got a high score here check out this scoreboard!" Hell, I could grab forum posts from developers lamenting what a bad design the pyro is. It's all out there if you take 5 or 10 minutes to google for it, and it's all 4+ years old. It's not worth my time to look any of it up, only to have an NS2 fanboy skim over my post and write a bunch of dumb garbage in response.
Looks like you'll have to take my word for it this time.
<!--quoteo(post=1939844:date=May 29 2012, 05:48 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ May 29 2012, 05:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939844"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I was replying to the concept of "contemporary game design" being something to aim for -- which it isn't. Contemporary game design is a cesspool.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The meat of the argument, right here.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->CS 1.6 isn't a game. Counter-Strike is a game. 1.6 is an update to that game. Claiming that a game's age is determined by when its last update was released is amusing to say the least.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What a wonderful argument for the sake of arguing! Many people refer to Counter-Strike as CS 1.6. I apologize for my gross semantic error.
<!--quoteo(post=1939867:date=May 29 2012, 06:48 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ May 29 2012, 06:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939867"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hah...I dunno if I want to. Should I post a 10gb folder of demos or what? Do I need to get a quote from some fat nerd like Sirlin to "prove" my point?
Plenty has already been written about the pyro in TF2, but how you understand it depends heavily on what type of player you are. For instance, if you're the type of person who thinks Diablo II is a better game to model NS2 on than Counterstrike or Quake, you might say "b-b-b-but I totally owned some pubs as the pyro so it's good and you're wrong".......which is what will happen if I waste any time at all posting real evidence of what I said.
Looks like you'll have to take my word for it this time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You have to back up your arguments. The vehemence with which you argue is not enough to prove any point.
Let me put it another way: I don't really care about your "competitive" game experience. These games are released for people to buy and play; they are NOT released to become the next e-sport. If you want to enjoy it, if the developers want to make certain changes that make parts of the game more conducive to competitive play, that's fine. But you must remember that, first and foremost, these are games designed to be played by "pubs" as you refer to them so derisively.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We treat Quake and CS like they're sacred because they are sacred to us. They're model games even if they don't have resource towers or Lerks, and games that try to reinvent the entire artform never accomplish the things NS2 is trying to accomplish. Designs (in general) that are allowed to have things added "for fun" also have a history of not meeting their goals.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This! Prove THIS! And prove your single sentence "it's a trashcan class because it's balanced around a weapon that gives you free damage and is easier to use than any of the others"!
<!--quoteo(post=1939869:date=May 29 2012, 06:52 PM:name=World Construct)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (World Construct @ May 29 2012, 06:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939869"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Let me put it another way: I don't really care about your "competitive" game experience. These games are released for people to buy and play; they are NOT released to become the next e-sport. If you want to enjoy it, if the developers want to make certain changes that make parts of the game more conducive to competitive play, that's fine. But you must remember that, first and foremost, these are games designed to be played by "pubs" as you refer to them so derisively.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This always happens as well. People want to subtly claim that games are either "public/casual" or "competitive", but not both, or that those are mutually exclusive, and so on. Any time anyone mentions competition outside of a competitive environment (like teamliquid or esreality) a bunch of people get on the defensive and try to make it into a huge dumb argument over a false dichotomy. It suuuucks!
The problem is that the most successful games are great for public play and great for competition. The history of games for at least the last 10 years is staring you in the face - Quake, Counterstrike, TF2, DOTA, League of Legends (a game that's basically more popular than Jesus at this point), Starcraft, Halo, Call of Duty...on and on and on. All games where public and competitive play benefits from the same design choices. Do I have to prove this to you? Because I won't. If you don't recognize this we're not from the same universe.
I don't think most games are designed "first and foremost" for pub/comp play, and I don't care either way (there are examples of both, and the in-between but it's not important to me). At the end of the day, I want NS2 to be designed for both. The developers have said this is their intention, but I question some of their choices as they relate to that goal. One of those is the poison effect for the lerk. SQUARE ONE REACHED.
So, back to my very specific NS2 design questions: <ul><li>What makes the poison effect necessary?</li><li>Is the poison effect sufficient as a solution to whatever problem it was created for?</li><li>Will the lerk need to be rebalanced around a DoT mechanic? (trading free damage for viability in other situations, raw skill-indexed power)</li></ul>
<!--quoteo(post=1939871:date=May 29 2012, 06:59 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ May 29 2012, 06:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939871"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This always happens as well. People want to subtly claim that games are either "public/casual" or "competitive", but not both, or that those are mutually exclusive, and so on.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> They <u>are</u> mutually exclusive. That's what the fact that competition happens in its own games means. Public games don't become competitive games are vice versa. They each exist in their own world.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Prove that games are released for people to buy and play, not to become the next e-sport. Prove that games are designed 'first and foremost' for any particular reason. Prove _______
See? I can do it too, and it's still useless.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is unbelievable. The proof that they are released for people to buy and play is that the majority of people who do buy and play the game do not play it competitively. Would you like to provide me with some numbers of members of these various leagues and then we can compare them to the overall sales? Competitive play is a fraction of the game. It's so rare that you wouldn't expect half the population to understand what you meant if you told them you were a "professional gamer".
In South Korea, this is not the case. In North America and Europe, it is.
You are right, I could only definitely prove that some games are designed first and foremost for any purpose by scouring the internet for developer posts that imply, directly state, or otherwise intone that they are making the game for the players. I'm sure Quake Live was designed with competitive play in mind. I think Counter-Strike: Source might have been or have not been, as most competitive players don't enjoy it, right? Or at least they didn't at first. And yes, I too have read that Natural Selection 2 is being designed with both in mind. Therefore, why should concerns about how any mechanic will affect competitive play trump all other concerns?
For God's sake, can't we at least see the bite in action before we preach doom and gloom?
Comments
@all the projectile spore crowd:
It is really ridiculous, how everybody tries to argument against trailing spores but fails to get one argument for projectile spores.
I can't see how it is beneficial for gameplay in any way, when the lerk has the option to simultaneous camp in a difficult to hit vent-location and can use an area denial weapon. Why should the lerk need such a mechanic? Everybody just arguments against trailing spores and forgetting, that besides melancholia, there is no place for projectile spores.
A lerk that is forced to actually get into the fight is simply much better in game play aspects than a camping area denial unit. If the trailing spores are really underpowered, because the lerk is to fragile to get close into the fight, than that can be balanced.
Remember the overpowered lerk with hide armor? The problem was, that he was to powerful in long range combat, but fine in close range. Adding projectile spores will only make it more difficult to balance long-range lerks. (Btw. thats why the spikes are so inaccurate.) And for what? For what benefit we are sacrificing all this, when adding projectile spores?
A thirteen year old mod is still the most popular multiplayer FPS on the market. Must be because the players don't know about "contemporary game design", right?
<!--quoteo(post=1939693:date=May 29 2012, 09:46 AM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ May 29 2012, 09:46 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939693"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It is really ridiculous, how everybody tries to argument against trailing spores but fails to get one argument for projectile spores.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Projectile spores worked perfectly in NS1. Trailing spores are a complete mess in NS2. Why waste more words?
Because this is not NS1 and we don't need to make everything like in NS1.
And your second point is simply wrong and in the best case only your personal opinion, not a fact.
If we don't need to use facts here, than this is my argument: I like trailing spore clouds.
You may as well reply with "herp-de-derp" as it's clear you haven't understood a word. The argument isn't that NS2 should be like NS1, the argument is that NS2 <b>is</b> so similar to NS1 that the same principles apply; in this case that since projectile spores were balanced and fun in NS1, they will also be balanced and fun in NS2.
The proper counter-argument to that would be to suggest that NS2 should be less similar to NS1 than it currently is, but that's a bit of a digression to say the least...
<!--quoteo(post=1939746:date=May 29 2012, 04:06 PM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ May 29 2012, 04:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939746"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And your second point is simply wrong and in the best case only your personal opinion, not a fact.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you try to use trailing spores against a good player, you will die horribly. I personally never use spores during competitive matches, nor do I see any of the other good Lerks do it, and the reason for that is simple; it's a great way to get yourself killed.
Arguing the pros and cons of trailing spores properly takes a lot of effort and words, and has already been done in multiple other threads in the past, some going back as far as two years ago. Having to repeat the argument every time this gets brought up in a thread (about once a week -- should tell you something about the severity of this gameplay issue) is more work and hassle than anyone can be bothered with. I suggest you read those threads before you burst in here complaining.
"You aren't forced to fly into the barrel of a shotgun to apply the spores.. "
jesus dude, you realize how of an easy target you are when you're spreading spores. Just because of the current bad performance you feel you're doing well. Once (maybe) we going to get 100fps, spreading spores will be a death trap even more then now. My idea was (because of people like you) if you want to spread spores trailing them, keep it. BUT allow the lerk to click spores to shoot spores as projectiles but holding it while flying would start trailing spores behind the lerk. pretty simple, and mind blowing it hasn't been done yet.
so what else are we porting from NS1 to NS2, which worked for years but somebody will reply this isn't NS2...
"You aren't forced to fly into the barrel of a shotgun to apply the spores.. "
jesus dude, you realize how of an easy target you are when you're spreading spores. Just because of the current bad performance you feel you're doing well. Once (maybe) we going to get 100fps, spreading spores will be a death trap even more then now. My idea was (because of people like you) if you want to spread spores trailing them, keep it. BUT allow the lerk to click spores to shoot spores as projectiles but holding it while flying would start trailing spores behind the lerk. pretty simple, and mind blowing it hasn't been done yet.
so what else are we porting from NS1 to NS2, which worked for years but somebody will reply this isn't NS2...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
oh for God sake
jesus dude, you realize how of an easy target you are when you're spreading spores. Just because of the current bad performance you feel you're doing well. Once (maybe) we going to get 100fps, spreading spores will be a death trap even more then now. My idea was (because of people like you) if you want to spread spores trailing them, keep it. BUT allow the lerk to click spores to shoot spores as projectiles but holding it while flying would start trailing spores behind the lerk. pretty simple, and mind blowing it hasn't been done yet.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dude, I think you horribly misunderstood what I was saying..
It's trailing that is "flying into the barrel (and get insta-killed)", I'm all for projectile spores (+ bite)
yes I've played pyro in TF2, and it's a trashcan class because it's balanced around a weapon that gives you free damage and is easier to use than any of the others
need I say more?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Does any of those effects last until death like so many assumed would be the case with lerk bite? That was the point I was making with the flame thrower comparison. I also brought up dota and RP games. Both of which tend to have forms of DoT effects in very varied shapes and forms. That you have a negative experience with the pyro is not a valid argument for every kind of DoT effect being rubbish. It would be the same thing like claiming all hitscan weapons are bad, because the AWP in CS is balanced around instant killing people.
<!--quoteo(post=1939645:date=May 29 2012, 04:21 AM:name=Banzai¥)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Banzai¥ @ May 29 2012, 04:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939645"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->@ Fluid Core
Your dream-lerk makes it the most modular class though. Sounds like an incredibly annoying and over-powered unit where it comes equipped with both 'semi-heavy' melee and ranged attacks early on when marines are weak and only gets stronger with them. By the time marines can pump-out exosuits and weapons/armour 2 the lerk should be at a disadvantage...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i>
You are probably right about the bite, tweaked the numbers to make it less lethal (45 normal + 15 biological over 3 sec)</i>
I haven't done the maths, but you would probably need 3 bites to kill a a0 marine including the bleed. (90 normal damage+30 biological shouldn't be enough). And if the bleed doesn't just reset the timer and build up in damage, you can never get insane bleed ticks that can't be healed through either. The "early ranged" you talk about I assume to be the projectile spores. The way I'd like them would be as temporary area denial, you should use it to temporary block an area but quickly run out of adrenaline. Hell, you could even make it a continuous spray of spores that drains your adrenaline, and dissipate a few seconds after you stop. Combined with momentum it could make the lerk able to deny an area for some time from medium range, or throw in puffs of spores over larger distances using their speed.
Late game lerks will be at a dissadvantage. An exo suit absorbs 95% of the damage to armor, making the bite initial damage just deal 2.25 damage to health. The poison dart is taken from the lua files and isn't my numbers. Let's say you can bite every 0.5 sec. Over 1 second your poison dart will tick once for 10 damage, you will bite twice for 4.5 damage and they will bleed twice for 5+5 damage. Total you do 24.5 dps (for 5 seconds, then it's down to 14.5), making you need just over 4 seconds to kill them from full health. If try to make them bleed out, you need to bite them 3 times for 6.75 initial damage and 45 bleed ending 4.5 seconds after you started biting and 50 damage ending 5 seconds after your dart. I feel that should make it balanced, making the lerk able to be useful against exos, but still requiring it to make it there and bite it 3 times over 1 second and not get killed. If it weren't for poison dart, you would need to bite it 6 times. That would take 2.5 sec of biting and the exo would die 3 seconds after that. Assuming no medpacks in any case.
And your second point is simply wrong and in the best case only your personal opinion, not a fact.
If we don't need to use facts here, than this is my argument: I like trailing spore clouds.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with you in your first statement. It's not like NS1 in so many ways, and that's a shame. It also shows clearly.
It's best to just skip his posts. All 786 of them read the same and don't add much of anything that is constructive.
You also need to aim your body and it's trajectory in a room while being shot at when using spores, utilizing evasive maneuvers - arguably much more skill demanding than projectile spores? Statistical success rate with sporing and the quote below demonstrate this.
<!--quoteo(post=1939751:date=May 29 2012, 08:26 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ May 29 2012, 08:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939751"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->and the reason for that is simple; it's a great way to get yourself killed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Despite him not actually going into any detail, this is a much better argument of how projectile spores worked better : you didn't put yourself in as much/any risk to use it. (Which imo is a bad thing<i> as not too many weapons give you that OP bonus.</i>) And the issue with spore success rates can obviously be solved by a million different methods, even ways which raise the skill ceiling further if desired. (faster lerk speed etc)
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
"Aiming your body" is called flying, and you need to do it as well with ranged spores, otherwise you end up in a wall and that's not very good. Anyway I wasn't trying to argue that ranged spored are more skilled. Someone wanted some positive stuffs, and aiming is a decent thing to do in a fps.
Frankly I don't care about spore or bite, give me the barrel roll and the looping already!
Also, my ideal game already exists.<a href="http://www.quakelive.com" target="_blank"> Join us!</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seriously? Thousands of hours? Seasons and leagues? Competitive gaming is the minority. I hope I never play any game for thousands of hours. Your experience is not enough to qualify you to judge an entire aspect of the game as "trash".
Quake LIVE is an entirely different game that should be approached, designed, and structured differently than Natural Selection 2. Can we both agree on that much, at least?
<!--quoteo(post=1939732:date=May 29 2012, 09:22 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ May 29 2012, 09:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939732"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A thirteen year old mod is still the most popular multiplayer FPS on the market. Must be because the players don't know about "contemporary game design", right?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I said his philosophy disagreed with it, actually. The distilled essence of ignorance, eh? I think that would probably be responding to something without understanding its meaning. I'm glad that any singular poster thinks blanket statements like calling a class from another game a "trashcan class" is somehow relevant, helpful, or even objectively correct.
I'm amazed that anyone could focus on a simple game mechanic like damage over time and <i>vehemently</i> disagree with it. I've pointed this out before, but we're not discussing sociopolitical issues on these forums. Many games that millions upon millions of people have enjoyed employed damage over time mechanics, and I doubt that many people would think "Oh, that game was WONDERFUL except for the poison!". Warcraft III, Diablo II, any number of Bethesda and GoD Games products have ALL EMPLOYED THIS MECHANIC. Actually, damage over time dates back to before the Amiga.
Also, I highly doubt that CS 1.6 or 1.5 (which is not 13 years old) is still the most popular FPS on the market. I hope you notice that I said "I doubt", not "you're wrong", when you respond to <i>this</i> post. I'm not really sure how it is relevant if it is the most popular FPS, either.
This thread is rapidly devolving due to hardliners. I'm not sure why people treat these games like they're sacred and worth warring over. If we want to influence the development, can we avoid extreme, indefensible statements?
<a href="http://www.twitch.tv/naturalselection2" target="_blank">http://www.twitch.tv/naturalselection2</a>
Edit: The Lerk bite model is a placeholder in the stream though, (but the NS1 Lerk bite sound is back!).
I was replying to the concept of "contemporary game design" being something to aim for -- which it isn't. Contemporary game design is a cesspool.
I don't even understand what the rest of your post is supposed to be a reply to, but I assume it's due to you misunderstanding my post. I do have to comment on this though:
<!--quoteo(post=1939839:date=May 29 2012, 10:27 PM:name=World Construct)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (World Construct @ May 29 2012, 10:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939839"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->CS 1.6 or 1.5 (which is not 13 years old)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
CS 1.6 isn't a game. Counter-Strike is a game. 1.6 is an update to that game. Claiming that a game's age is determined by when its last update was released is amusing to say the least.
Frankly I don't care about spore or bite, give me the barrel roll and the looping already!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, and when projectile spores were implemented for roughly a year, "flying" was not a requirement to use it, just edging your face around the corner for half a second.
Barrel rolls sound amazing as long as they buff you / deflect % of shots of something cool like that. (since barrel rolls are meant to "shake" the tracking enemy, i dont see that applying in tight corridors.)
I think also reason why they change it to trail instead of range.
I dont see the fun sitting in a conour with lerk or 6 gassing entire room blocking marines view and killing them at the same time, yes you could do the same now but with trails marines got s change to fight it back and you got be more carefull when to enter and gas the area.
Range sporing is OP in many ways toward marines even if only block your view and did no damage would be OP, aliens can see true spores with alien view, skuls eating you while you cant see ###### and let stand see the lerks.
<!--quoteo(post=1939839:date=May 29 2012, 05:27 PM:name=World Construct)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (World Construct @ May 29 2012, 05:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939839"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Seriously? Thousands of hours? Seasons and leagues? Competitive gaming is the minority. I hope I never play any game for thousands of hours. Your experience is not enough to qualify you to judge an entire aspect of the game as "trash".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whose experience is enough to say it isn't? Yours? The burden is on you to show me how the pyro isn't a disgusting failure. So far all you've done is imply that someone who has played a bazillion times more TF2 than you doesn't know anything about the game (which is silly!)
<!--quoteo(post=1939839:date=May 29 2012, 05:27 PM:name=World Construct)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (World Construct @ May 29 2012, 05:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939839"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Quake LIVE is an entirely different game that should be approached, designed, and structured differently than Natural Selection 2. Can we both agree on that much, at least?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope. Quake Live is a multiplayer FPS/RTS game (seriously, the level of strategy around item timings/control at high levels is very similar to how most RTS games work) that is designed with very sound principles, and enjoys a strong consistent playerbase despite being older than even NS1 (a now dead game), when you consider that it's <i>basically </i>Quake 3.
The NS2 developers could learn a lot about design by looking at QL, and that includes how to approach damage over time effects (don't have them at first, add them if they solve a problem in the game instead of as another case of "wouldn't it be fun if..."). This is a trait of good designs (and designers) - they allow themselves to be influenced by seemingly unrelated ideas, and profit from it.
<!--quoteo(post=1939839:date=May 29 2012, 05:27 PM:name=World Construct)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (World Construct @ May 29 2012, 05:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939839"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm amazed that anyone could focus on a simple game mechanic like damage over time and <i>vehemently</i> disagree with it. I've pointed this out before, but we're not discussing sociopolitical issues on these forums. Many games that millions upon millions of people have enjoyed employed damage over time mechanics, and I doubt that many people would think "Oh, that game was WONDERFUL except for the poison!". Warcraft III, Diablo II, any number of Bethesda and GoD Games products have ALL EMPLOYED THIS MECHANIC. Actually, damage over time dates back to before the Amiga.
Also, I highly doubt that CS 1.6 or 1.5 (which is not 13 years old) is still the most popular FPS on the market. I hope you notice that I said "I doubt", not "you're wrong", when you respond to <i>this</i> post. I'm not really sure how it is relevant if it is the most popular FPS, either.
This thread is rapidly devolving due to hardliners. I'm not sure why people treat these games like they're sacred and worth warring over. If we want to influence the development, can we avoid extreme, indefensible statements?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That a mechanic works well in some games does not mean it works well in others. That something is popular/prevalent doesn't mean it makes sense or isn't part of a horrid design pattern that creates more problems than it solves. Appealing to Diablo II in talking about how to design NS2 is pretty silly, pal!
Counterstrike is relevant because it's from the same 'era' as NS1. They're both very different games, but they share some core elements: FPS, competitive, multiplayer, two asymmetric teams etc etc. Again, NS2's development would benefit from looking at how simply CS can pull off creating a game with mass appeal, that can be enjoyed in a highly developed competitive setting as well. If the MP5 poisoned people and gave you free damage, CS would be a worse game because the mechanic simply doesn't fit. Now, before you reply, I want you to ask yourself "How is NS2 really different from CS in order to warrant DoT effects?"<b> In which ways do the design of this game (as abstract platonic ideas, not related to "aliens" or "atmosphere") require poison, fire and so on?</b>
We treat Quake and CS like they're sacred because they are sacred to us. They're model games even if they don't have resource towers or Lerks, and games that try to reinvent the entire artform never accomplish the things NS2 is trying to accomplish. Designs (in general) that are allowed to have things added "for fun" also have a history of not meeting their goals.
I <b>want </b>NS2 to be sacred to me in 10 years the way NS1 is for people like fana. I don't want to say "yeah, I played that game the same year Deus Ex Human Revolution came out, and they were both pretty incomplete games"
I don't see how the set of ideas that make NS2 implies a need for a poison bite, rather than a regular bite (or no bite, or a shotgun spike instead of a bite), and I don't see anyone explaining it either. There are a lot of people saying THEY'RE SUPER EXCITED FOR IT without explaining why (or even thinking about it at all), of course. This is how crappy features get put into this game.
There's nothing indefensible about saying DoT doesn't belong on the lerk/in this game/wherever. I even explained in my original post how the Pyro is an example of DoT gone wrong (but you didn't reply to this yet):
<!--quoteo(post=1939633:date=May 28 2012, 09:23 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ May 28 2012, 09:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939633"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->it's a trashcan class <b><!--sizeo:5--><span style="font-size:18pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->because<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--> it's <i>balanced around</i> a weapon that gives you free damage and is easier to use than any of the others</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Will the same thing (necessarily) happen to any poison effects on the lerk? Why or why not? [5]
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Whose experience is enough to say it isn't? Yours? The burden is on you to show me how the pyro isn't a disgusting failure. So far all you've done is imply that someone who has played a bazillion times more TF2 than you doesn't know anything about the game (which is silly!)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Russell's Teapot. The burden of proof is actually on the person who originally made the statement (and held the belief) about the pyro being a trashcan which in this case... is you. You can't waltz into an argument provide your <i>opinion</i>, give anecdotal evidence without any steadfast empirical backing and expect to be taken seriously.
Sell us on why dots (and your example of pyro) are awful. Bring numbers, bring videos, bring an actual argument. Don't just say it stamp your foot defiantly and put your fingers in your ears because you think are right and everyone is wrong.
Plenty has already been written about the pyro in TF2, but how you understand it depends heavily on what type of player you are. For instance, if you're the type of person who thinks Diablo II is a better game to model NS2 on than Counterstrike or Quake, you might say "b-b-b-but I totally owned some pubs as the pyro so it's good and you're wrong".......which is what will happen if I waste any time at all posting real evidence of what I said.
I could post a vod of ESEA finals where several people played pyro and it was an ineffective class, but someone would tell me with a straight face that people who played TF2 for a living weren't approaching the pyro correctly. I could post any of the publically-available numbers (flamethrower has approximately half the DPS of most weapons at normal range, to compensate for the fact that it requires almost zero aim), or point to TF2's patch history steadily adding more and more gimmick mechanics (airblast, flaregun (mini)crit changes, phlogistinator mechanics) and someone who never played the game against anyone who was actually good would say "it's great for sowing fear and I got a high score here check out this scoreboard!" Hell, I could grab forum posts from developers lamenting what a bad design the pyro is. It's all out there if you take 5 or 10 minutes to google for it, and it's all 4+ years old. It's not worth my time to look any of it up, only to have an NS2 fanboy skim over my post and write a bunch of dumb garbage in response.
Looks like you'll have to take my word for it this time.
The meat of the argument, right here.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->CS 1.6 isn't a game. Counter-Strike is a game. 1.6 is an update to that game. Claiming that a game's age is determined by when its last update was released is amusing to say the least.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What a wonderful argument for the sake of arguing! Many people refer to Counter-Strike as CS 1.6. I apologize for my gross semantic error.
<!--quoteo(post=1939867:date=May 29 2012, 06:48 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ May 29 2012, 06:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1939867"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hah...I dunno if I want to. Should I post a 10gb folder of demos or what? Do I need to get a quote from some fat nerd like Sirlin to "prove" my point?
Plenty has already been written about the pyro in TF2, but how you understand it depends heavily on what type of player you are. For instance, if you're the type of person who thinks Diablo II is a better game to model NS2 on than Counterstrike or Quake, you might say "b-b-b-but I totally owned some pubs as the pyro so it's good and you're wrong".......which is what will happen if I waste any time at all posting real evidence of what I said.
Looks like you'll have to take my word for it this time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have to back up your arguments. The vehemence with which you argue is not enough to prove any point.
Let me put it another way: I don't really care about your "competitive" game experience. These games are released for people to buy and play; they are NOT released to become the next e-sport. If you want to enjoy it, if the developers want to make certain changes that make parts of the game more conducive to competitive play, that's fine. But you must remember that, first and foremost, these are games designed to be played by "pubs" as you refer to them so derisively.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We treat Quake and CS like they're sacred because they are sacred to us. They're model games even if they don't have resource towers or Lerks, and games that try to reinvent the entire artform never accomplish the things NS2 is trying to accomplish. Designs (in general) that are allowed to have things added "for fun" also have a history of not meeting their goals.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This! Prove THIS! And prove your single sentence "it's a trashcan class because it's balanced around a weapon that gives you free damage and is easier to use than any of the others"!
This always happens as well. People want to subtly claim that games are either "public/casual" or "competitive", but not both, or that those are mutually exclusive, and so on. Any time anyone mentions competition outside of a competitive environment (like teamliquid or esreality) a bunch of people get on the defensive and try to make it into a huge dumb argument over a false dichotomy. It suuuucks!
The problem is that the most successful games are great for public play and great for competition. The history of games for at least the last 10 years is staring you in the face - Quake, Counterstrike, TF2, DOTA, League of Legends (a game that's basically more popular than Jesus at this point), Starcraft, Halo, Call of Duty...on and on and on. All games where public and competitive play benefits from the same design choices. Do I have to prove this to you? Because I won't. If you don't recognize this we're not from the same universe.
I don't think most games are designed "first and foremost" for pub/comp play, and I don't care either way (there are examples of both, and the in-between but it's not important to me). At the end of the day, I want NS2 to be designed for both. The developers have said this is their intention, but I question some of their choices as they relate to that goal. One of those is the poison effect for the lerk. SQUARE ONE REACHED.
So, back to my very specific NS2 design questions:
<ul><li>What makes the poison effect necessary?</li><li>Is the poison effect sufficient as a solution to whatever problem it was created for?</li><li>Will the lerk need to be rebalanced around a DoT mechanic? (trading free damage for viability in other situations, raw skill-indexed power)</li></ul>
They <u>are</u> mutually exclusive. That's what the fact that competition happens in its own games means. Public games don't become competitive games are vice versa. They each exist in their own world.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Prove that games are released for people to buy and play, not to become the next e-sport.
Prove that games are designed 'first and foremost' for any particular reason.
Prove _______
See? I can do it too, and it's still useless.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is unbelievable. The proof that they are released for people to buy and play is that the majority of people who do buy and play the game do not play it competitively. Would you like to provide me with some numbers of members of these various leagues and then we can compare them to the overall sales? Competitive play is a fraction of the game. It's so rare that you wouldn't expect half the population to understand what you meant if you told them you were a "professional gamer".
In South Korea, this is not the case. In North America and Europe, it is.
You are right, I could only definitely prove that some games are designed first and foremost for any purpose by scouring the internet for developer posts that imply, directly state, or otherwise intone that they are making the game for the players. I'm sure Quake Live was designed with competitive play in mind. I think Counter-Strike: Source might have been or have not been, as most competitive players don't enjoy it, right? Or at least they didn't at first. And yes, I too have read that Natural Selection 2 is being designed with both in mind. Therefore, why should concerns about how any mechanic will affect competitive play trump all other concerns?
For God's sake, can't we at least see the bite in action before we preach doom and gloom?