If the goal is to help aliens to get a second hive up it cannot be a tier two ability.
For those who don't remember how it was working in NS1, a skulk would sneak to a hive location and gorge while the whole team would gather around the first hive waiting for the hive drop. When the hive was dropped the team would teleport and take out any defense there. Big shift in map control, and how the game flows.
The mechanism is not very elegant (hive teleportation, how does that work?) but it was working well gameplay wise, marines needed to scan and listen to gorge sounds to prevent the hive drop, and it was one of theses big team event that makes a game fun.
<!--quoteo(post=1952531:date=Jul 19 2012, 02:15 PM:name=Typhon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Typhon @ Jul 19 2012, 02:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1952531"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem is its second hive abilities, not the life form itself, that allow aliens to mount any semblance of a defense against jps.
What you're saying is the equivalent of "yeah, the jet pack immediately shuts off if the protolab shuts down, but you're still wearing it on your back and your shotgun still works so its fine."
Its not about promoting stalemates, its about giving the aliens a reason to continue playing the game when they lose their second hive to jps, instead of just rring.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree that the current way promotes stalemates. It actually does the opposite, but we have already discussed this and disagree, np.
I only have a problem with one major part of your post. You are comparing marine tech lv 3 to alien tech lv 2 and 1. Sure tech 2 stands a chance but really you should have allowed the marines to reach tech 3 before you.
I do understand your gripe though when marines can rush jet packs early game and aliens have little to answer in the lower techs. Maybe to advance in tech levels there could be a clear barrier put in like other RTS games of old did it. The Town Hall (WC3) or in this case Command Chair could be your clear indication of tech by having to upgrade it to the next CC level which allows for the next tech when all buildings are present that meet upgrade criteria. Sure, it is another step, but it delays a tech 3 rush, which i think is your major gripe. I might be wrong though.
<!--quoteo(post=1952535:date=Jul 19 2012, 02:32 PM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Jul 19 2012, 02:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1952535"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree to this. I prefer a huge amount of random battle lines (=RT positions + hive positions) over a fixed amount of 2 or 3 battle fields. Simply because its better in the long-term. You don't fight at the always same locations. But this may be personal preference too. I can't even understand how the CS-people can play de_dust over and over again or even this game... but thats another story.
So yes, I like variance in play and battle lines. And you are also right, that you can tell in some games in NS2 who's going to win and this is bad and not fun. But I'm all against focusing on this mechanic and increasing it occurrence by making the 2nd hive even more of a game decider. This way you can end the game right after all tech points are captured and let the one win who has more. But at least you will see many games where half of the people go to ready room after this event. I don't consider this fun.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny you should say that haha, i love Dust because of the simplicity and guaranteed choke points.
I see your point but what i liked about the second hive importance was that it was a critical point for the game. If marines took it out yet that was pretty much a game ender, but you have a chance to recover (albeit small), BUT if you got the second hive up this is when things got fun. It didnt end things for the marines, just made things more complicated. Not only did they now have to take down a hive but prevent the game ending hive 3.
This is where i had to most fun, between hive 2 and hive 3 (or the denial of), but i feel as though you have to have those crappy hive 1 only games to achieve the epic games of hive 2-3. Without the second hives importance you wouldnt have such decisive gameplay which as we have discovered we each have polar opposite views on =)
<!--quoteo(post=1952545:date=Jul 19 2012, 03:10 PM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ Jul 19 2012, 03:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1952545"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We were playing a gather yesterday on eclipse and marines won both rounds by denying the second hive.
Thinking about why eclipse seemed so imba in NS2 but was fine in NS1 it occurred to me that in NS1 you can teleport to any attacked hive using another hive. This is a <b>huge</b> difference and make holding a second hive very difficult on eclipse (which is a four tech points map).
So either:
- Bring back hive teleportation or something similar (gorge canal). - The layout of maps like eclipse needs to be changed to make it easier to hold a second hive. - Make the second hive less important.
Very good point Yuuki. I miss the old movement chamber mechanic. It was like PG tech with alien flavor. A self beacon if you will. It would be required on the old maps as you said. It was the reason why it was always hive #1 for steady games. (SC for the aggressive games and DC for the slow games). I miss that clear choice of chambers and how it changed the game at the start.
Personally i think hive teleportation was a mechanic promoting bad gameplay, basically making it easier for aliens to rush drop hives. NS2's game pace is completely different, where the hive drop timing is extremely variable, its pretty difficult to predict exactly when the alien comm will drop the hive, and they build much quicker. If you cannot drop a hive because the marines have the entire map then you are getting outplayed, teleporting to hives by using them wouldnt help you win, just delay the game most likely. Its important to note that in NS1 you could use the hive to teleport to any hive under attack, you didnt need a movement chamber.
I think the biggest issue hurting aliens currently is no-pres when dead, which slows the lifeforms sooo much when the aliens cannot stay alive for long periods of time. Unless you play quite cautious as a skulk you generally wont have fade till long after the second hive fight is decided.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you cannot drop a hive because the marines have the entire map then you are getting outplayed<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is that on eclipse marines can deny reinforcement path by holding a single point, they don't need entire map control.
Eclipse has a pretty expansive vent system, I find it hard to believe they cut off the map by holding one point... I will agree that powersub is arguably the most important room in the map, it doesnt stop the aliens from dropping computer core if the marines have powersub (not sure what point your talking about tho).
<b>Uh, you're not supposed to come back from the game with one hive versus jetpacks;</b> unless of course your redropped second hive is just moments from finishing I suppose.
Just like you're not supposed to come back from having 0 workers and 40 minerals.
But yeah, if aliens can't drop their second hive it's either a map problem or a skill problem. And it's usually the latter.
I doubt eclipse's layout played a hand in that. Powersub is not easy for marines to hold. And it doesn't even prevent the second hive from being dropped. It makes it more difficult, but I would be willing to bet both commanders were just not willing to drop it because for whatever reason you couldn't get enough skulks + a gorge into comp core. And if you were trying to get any other hive and were unable to then you had bigger problems than eclipse imo.
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
Shouldn't there always been *some* form or method of a sneaky comeback? Not saying it should be easy or without risk.. but surprise PGs are such a staple of NS tactics..
If we are going with the ''FPS first, RTS second'' mantra then comebacks should always be possible. Tech 3 should always be beatable by Tech 1, to some extent, it should just be a lot more challenging. Gameplay becomes incredibly stale and predictable if a second CC or second hive loss means automatic win for the other side. This when instead it should remain as dynamic as it was in NS 1.
<!--quoteo(post=1952757:date=Jul 20 2012, 06:56 AM:name=Xarius)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Xarius @ Jul 20 2012, 06:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1952757"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If we are going with the ''FPS first, RTS second'' mantra then comebacks should always be possible.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Everyone knows the best part of Counterstrike is making clutch 1v5s with only a deagle and 10 people spectating you.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Everyone knows the best part of Counterstrike is making clutch 1v5s with only a deagle and 10 people spectating you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yeah, now try that with 1 skulk (without leap) and 1 or 2 JP marines.
even if 10 people are spectating, it aint much fun believe me...
The aliens have a pretty easy suprise tatic, and thats a randomly timed hive drop in the far tech location... Unless the marine commander is extremely attentive, lucky, or someone happens to go there you can usually sneak it up.
And for your comparision, try 1 lmg marine vs 1 or 2 onos... the situation works out the same... The game is an RTS/FPS... there needs to be tech progression otherwise you just have a class based shooter... and might as well remove the commanders.
And im not sure how you can say as dynamic as NS1 where in NS2 loosing the second hive is not nearly as big of a deal.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1952757:date=Jul 20 2012, 03:56 AM:name=Xarius)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Xarius @ Jul 20 2012, 03:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1952757"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If we are going with the ''FPS first, RTS second'' mantra then comebacks should always be possible.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I largely think this is one of the major areas of conflict between the FPS and RTS portions of the game. FPS's generally tend to allow comebacks in even the most hopeless of situations (e.g. ninjaing a flag in a CTF gamemode), but RTS's favor allowing early game advantages to snowball into larger advantages towards the late-game (e.g. getting more crystal/vespene in SC1/2 leads to more units/tech and, therefore, more crystal/vespene, etc). The trade-off is that many RTS players simply resign once they've become the clear loser.
I think how FPS/RTS games deals with this conflict will help define the genre. Personally, my view is that: - Any advantage or disadvantage should be as gradual as possible, such that it takes several and consistent advantages or disadvantages before the games outcome is determined - There is an effective mechanism for the losing team to resign and for the game to end at once, when it becomes clear that they have no path to victory
<!--quoteo(post=1952850:date=Jul 20 2012, 04:34 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Jul 20 2012, 04:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1952850"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I largely think this is one of the major areas of conflict between the FPS and RTS portions of the game. FPS's generally tend to allow comebacks in even the most hopeless of situations (e.g. ninjaing a flag in a CTF gamemode), but RTS's favor allowing early game advantages to snowball into larger advantages towards the late-game (e.g. getting more crystal/vespene in SC1/2 leads to more units/tech and, therefore, more crystal/vespene, etc). The trade-off is that many RTS players simply resign once they've become the clear loser.
I think how FPS/RTS games deals with this conflict will help define the genre. Personally, my view is that: - Any advantage or disadvantage should be as gradual as possible, such that it takes several and consistent advantages or disadvantages before the games outcome is determined - There is an effective mechanism for the losing team to resign and for the game to end at once, when it becomes clear that they have no path to victory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, the two genres do have quite different expectations regarding end of game. I definitely lean towards the FPS side, I think NS should be more forgiving than most RTSs in terms of the possibility of a comeback.
Clearly ns already has an effective resign feature, everyone readyrooms. Could even make that more of an official resigning option, say if one team has 1/3 or less players than the other that immediately ends the game as a resignation.
A resign feature would be far superior to the F4ing we have currently. F4ing pretty much ends a game whether or whether not there is a majority because of the imbalance it causes. F4ing doesn't need to be taken out but I would like to at least have an option to signal my resignation without forcing my wishes upon others.
Also dislike no-res while dead for Kharaa. Whole team suddenly dies and you're in for 20 seconds of no-res, gg. It's also not fun thinking "I could take out that obs, but I would die, and gain less res".
LOVE Nydus worm gorge -idea :D This NEEDS to be tier 3 for gorges, making them able to dig tunnels for the team to use! ...oh God, adding this, the game would start looking SO much like StarCraft. :P
swalkSay hello to my little friend.Join Date: 2011-01-20Member: 78384Members, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1951778:date=Jul 15 2012, 11:16 PM:name=MisterNubs)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MisterNubs @ Jul 15 2012, 11:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1951778"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It isn't sentries that I would use acid rockets on, it's grouped up shotgun marines. You know, giving the anti-marine lifeform more tools to do what they are suppose to do? Like killing marines. I haven't had one situation where I've been like "Thank god I had vortex". I've actually had moments where I'm flipping desks because idiot fades vortexing ###### I was trying to destroy. Vortex is better gone.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> +1
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
that was really well said, scardy. Great breakdown of the conflicting pillars. Makes me confirm that I believe tech should be lost to allow for come backs.
<!--quoteo(post=1953133:date=Jul 22 2012, 04:00 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Jul 22 2012, 04:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1953133"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->that was really well said, scardy. Great breakdown of the conflicting pillars. Makes me confirm that I believe tech should be lost to allow for come backs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're missing a 'not' in there, right? "not lost to allow for comebacks"?
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
@Typhon: No, losing tech as well as earning it allows for comebacks from either side. If tech progression is linear and non reversible then you have the snowballing effect that is present in RTS play, as scardy mentioned. While i am all for a "resign" vote.. i really dont think we should design or balance around this.. just as there is not a time limit to decide the winner - thanks to the winning conditions - neither do i think that we should have such snowballing and thus a need for a resigning system...
and i'm not remotely referring to turtles, thats obviously unintended and undesired. <b>But the chance for a comeback comes through with being able to reverse tech</b> (ninja PG into hive and take it down, disabling the enemy's BB and other abilities etc)
Players makes plenty of comebacks in RTS games. In starcraft 1 people makes come back mainly by taking risks, doing all-in's, and taking advantage of the mistakes of their opponent.
The game is so hard that even at the top level people make mistakes and bad decisions, allowing their opponent to come back.
So:
- Allow to take risks (don't really know how though). - Allow for all-in's. - Make the game very hard.
There is also number effects in starcraft that makes advantages gained early to disappear with time, but that's not very relevant in NS because of the fixed army size.
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
Havent played that game in forever. Refresh my memory: when you lose tech structures, do you ever lose tech? Or is all the tech linear?
And for the record i wasn't saying the only method for comebacks is loss of tech - but it certainly is an effective method (if not the most) that gives the sense of impact to the FPS player. But just so we're clear: a hybrid game like NS2 should not be dependent on the enemy team making a mistake or bad decision <i>as the sole requirement</i> for a comeback. That would lend to constant snowballing and rage quitting if it were <i>two equally skilled teams, in a balanced NS2.</i> Thus, soft counters and loss of tech do allow for those last second skulk rushes/all-in to make an impact enough to sway the tides of the game.
You loose some stuff when killing a tech building, but not everything, like upgrades. Killing a tech building is not very common but it does happens, I would put that in the general category of taking risks, because you need to go into the enemy base, where you are likely to die. I think it is be more or less the same in NS2 now, sniping some tech buildings in marine base should help aliens to come back from a bad situation.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->a hybrid game like NS2 should not be dependent on the enemy team making a mistake or bad decision as the sole requirement for a comeback<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's suppose your opponent is playing perfectly, how do you do a comeback then ? Seems impossible to me in deterministic game (i.e. without random component).
<!--quoteo(post=1953142:date=Jul 23 2012, 08:14 AM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ Jul 23 2012, 08:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1953142"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Let's suppose your opponent is playing perfectly, how do you do a comeback then ? Seems impossible to me in deterministic game (i.e. without random component).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Make it very hard to play perfectly?
<!--quoteo(post=1953136:date=Jul 22 2012, 04:44 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Jul 22 2012, 04:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1953136"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->@Typhon: No, losing tech as well as earning it allows for comebacks from either side. If tech progression is linear and non reversible then you have the snowballing effect that is present in RTS play, as scardy mentioned. While i am all for a "resign" vote.. i really dont think we should design or balance around this.. just as there is not a time limit to decide the winner - thanks to the winning conditions - neither do i think that we should have such snowballing and thus a need for a resigning system...
and i'm not remotely referring to turtles, thats obviously unintended and undesired. <b>But the chance for a comeback comes through with being able to reverse tech</b> (ninja PG into hive and take it down, disabling the enemy's BB and other abilities etc)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I see where we're disconnecting.
You're looking at it from the perspective of "having been the victim of an attack, I can take my opponent down a notch and even the field through a counterattack on their tech. Therefore, tech should be lost so as to enable comebacks."
I'm looking at it from the perspective of "having been the victim of an attack, how am I going to mount a counterattack if I'm now at a major tech disadvantage? Therefore, tech shouldn't be lost so as to enable comebacks."
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
Soft counters is what you are referring to, then, i believe. The ability for a skulk to take down a lvl 3 JPer is a soft counter. (which is the worst example one can give, given their late game uselessness. but you know what i mean) <b>You don't have to retain tech</b> (which comes with severe consequences as i mentioned above) to be able to have a chance at your enemy who is winning currently. RPS mechanics help with this further. Especially if the damn grenade launcher loses some of it's OP player dmg..
Far more downsides that i can see from keeping tech than from losing it, basically. :shrug:
twilitebluebug stalkerJoin Date: 2003-02-04Member: 13116Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
I would prefer if killing a Hive disables the passive upgrades associated with the Hive type (eg. Crag Hive -> Carapace/Regen), instead of alien abilities. The shift in power will be subtle, and comparable to Marines losing an Arms Lab, but significant enough to change the balance.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Allow to take risks and all-in's<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think all of those should be successful to some extend. If not scouted and countered correctly they should be very efficient, and inefficient if countered correctly. The more costly/risky the push is the more efficient it should be (big risk -> big reward).
Basically the idea is that at any moment in the game the enemy can kill you with one big risky punch, so if you make a mistake (by not seeing it coming and countering it properly) you will loose the game, even though you had a advantage.
I feel like most of this stuff have been nerfed too much, we don't see them so much anymore, and not for the good reason that people learned how to deal with them, but because they are simply bad.
*
On the second hive and tech, what kind of risky strategy can aliens do after loosing their second hive to get an advantage back ?
@elodea, yes exactly. If the game is too easy comebacks are just impossible.
<!--quoteo(post=1952350:date=Jul 18 2012, 05:38 PM:name=hapro)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hapro @ Jul 18 2012, 05:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1952350"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Mineshaft isn't really a great example because it's inherently a linear map, where you each start at one end and push back and forth in the middle. Compared to.... whatever map has crossroads, where if you lose a hive, you have 2 other hive locations to expand to (or 3 if you can retake the hive that just dropped). If marines only have 1 room under control and you lose your second hive, you can definitely come back and push the opposite direction, or try to stealth up a hive in crossroads or something. If the marines have every room under control and there's no where to push, well, you should lose at that point anyway after losing your second hive.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you misunderstood me here. We were at two hives, attacked their rts, and defended the third hive location quite well. So basically we were in a better/equal position overall. We just couldn't defend our main hive, because the gl attack finished it off (from full hp), before anyone was able to go there (< 5 secs). I guess my main point here is, that gls are too strong against structures... It imo is comparable to the powerpoint/command station problem marines had a long time, where they could dominate a game, and be finished off by a surprise attack in seconds.
My other point was that there's basically no way for a comeback if marines have jps and kill your second hive. Which is quite common, since jps are out very early. Without blink or leap, it's just pointless, so aliens can basically rr when they lose their second hive atm.
What you should have done, is to scout the marine base for advanced armory, realized that a gl push was possible, maybe build some whips, then have someone scouting the push path constantly, and get the team ready to ambush when the push was coming.
If you've done all that and still lost the hive maybe there is a problem with gl, otherwise it just look like a valid and desirable strategy.
For the jetpacks I think the lerk should be a decent counter, it's cheap and fly pretty well. The problem is that dot bite is wonky and he has no ranged attack on tier 1. Solution: fix bite and switch spikes and bite tier, or make spores ranged again.
Comments
For those who don't remember how it was working in NS1, a skulk would sneak to a hive location and gorge while the whole team would gather around the first hive waiting for the hive drop. When the hive was dropped the team would teleport and take out any defense there. Big shift in map control, and how the game flows.
The mechanism is not very elegant (hive teleportation, how does that work?) but it was working well gameplay wise, marines needed to scan and listen to gorge sounds to prevent the hive drop, and it was one of theses big team event that makes a game fun.
What you're saying is the equivalent of "yeah, the jet pack immediately shuts off if the protolab shuts down, but you're still wearing it on your back and your shotgun still works so its fine."
Its not about promoting stalemates, its about giving the aliens a reason to continue playing the game when they lose their second hive to jps, instead of just rring.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree that the current way promotes stalemates. It actually does the opposite, but we have already discussed this and disagree, np.
I only have a problem with one major part of your post. You are comparing marine tech lv 3 to alien tech lv 2 and 1. Sure tech 2 stands a chance but really you should have allowed the marines to reach tech 3 before you.
I do understand your gripe though when marines can rush jet packs early game and aliens have little to answer in the lower techs. Maybe to advance in tech levels there could be a clear barrier put in like other RTS games of old did it. The Town Hall (WC3) or in this case Command Chair could be your clear indication of tech by having to upgrade it to the next CC level which allows for the next tech when all buildings are present that meet upgrade criteria. Sure, it is another step, but it delays a tech 3 rush, which i think is your major gripe. I might be wrong though.
<!--quoteo(post=1952535:date=Jul 19 2012, 02:32 PM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Jul 19 2012, 02:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1952535"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree to this. I prefer a huge amount of random battle lines (=RT positions + hive positions) over a fixed amount of 2 or 3 battle fields. Simply because its better in the long-term. You don't fight at the always same locations. But this may be personal preference too. I can't even understand how the CS-people can play de_dust over and over again or even this game... but thats another story.
So yes, I like variance in play and battle lines. And you are also right, that you can tell in some games in NS2 who's going to win and this is bad and not fun. But I'm all against focusing on this mechanic and increasing it occurrence by making the 2nd hive even more of a game decider. This way you can end the game right after all tech points are captured and let the one win who has more. But at least you will see many games where half of the people go to ready room after this event. I don't consider this fun.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny you should say that haha, i love Dust because of the simplicity and guaranteed choke points.
I see your point but what i liked about the second hive importance was that it was a critical point for the game. If marines took it out yet that was pretty much a game ender, but you have a chance to recover (albeit small), BUT if you got the second hive up this is when things got fun. It didnt end things for the marines, just made things more complicated. Not only did they now have to take down a hive but prevent the game ending hive 3.
This is where i had to most fun, between hive 2 and hive 3 (or the denial of), but i feel as though you have to have those crappy hive 1 only games to achieve the epic games of hive 2-3. Without the second hives importance you wouldnt have such decisive gameplay which as we have discovered we each have polar opposite views on =)
<!--quoteo(post=1952545:date=Jul 19 2012, 03:10 PM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ Jul 19 2012, 03:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1952545"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We were playing a gather yesterday on eclipse and marines won both rounds by denying the second hive.
Thinking about why eclipse seemed so imba in NS2 but was fine in NS1 it occurred to me that in NS1 you can teleport to
any attacked hive using another hive. This is a <b>huge</b> difference and make holding a second hive very difficult on eclipse (which is a four tech points map).
So either:
- Bring back hive teleportation or something similar (gorge canal).
- The layout of maps like eclipse needs to be changed to make it easier to hold a second hive.
- Make the second hive less important.
<img src="http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090726184938/starcraft/images/b/b6/SC1_Nydus_Canal.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very good point Yuuki. I miss the old movement chamber mechanic. It was like PG tech with alien flavor. A self beacon if you will. It would be required on the old maps as you said. It was the reason why it was always hive #1 for steady games. (SC for the aggressive games and DC for the slow games). I miss that clear choice of chambers and how it changed the game at the start.
I think the biggest issue hurting aliens currently is no-pres when dead, which slows the lifeforms sooo much when the aliens cannot stay alive for long periods of time. Unless you play quite cautious as a skulk you generally wont have fade till long after the second hive fight is decided.
The problem is that on eclipse marines can deny reinforcement path by holding a single point, they don't need entire map control.
No-pres when dead is bad I agree.
Just like you're not supposed to come back from having 0 workers and 40 minerals.
But yeah, if aliens can't drop their second hive it's either a map problem or a skill problem. And it's usually the latter.
I doubt eclipse's layout played a hand in that. Powersub is not easy for marines to hold. And it doesn't even prevent the second hive from being dropped. It makes it more difficult, but I would be willing to bet both commanders were just not willing to drop it because for whatever reason you couldn't get enough skulks + a gorge into comp core. And if you were trying to get any other hive and were unable to then you had bigger problems than eclipse imo.
Not saying it should be easy or without risk.. but surprise PGs are such a staple of NS tactics..
Everyone knows the best part of Counterstrike is making clutch 1v5s with only a deagle and 10 people spectating you.
yeah, now try that with 1 skulk (without leap) and 1 or 2 JP marines.
even if 10 people are spectating, it aint much fun believe me...
And for your comparision, try 1 lmg marine vs 1 or 2 onos... the situation works out the same... The game is an RTS/FPS... there needs to be tech progression otherwise you just have a class based shooter... and might as well remove the commanders.
And im not sure how you can say as dynamic as NS1 where in NS2 loosing the second hive is not nearly as big of a deal.
I largely think this is one of the major areas of conflict between the FPS and RTS portions of the game. FPS's generally tend to allow comebacks in even the most hopeless of situations (e.g. ninjaing a flag in a CTF gamemode), but RTS's favor allowing early game advantages to snowball into larger advantages towards the late-game (e.g. getting more crystal/vespene in SC1/2 leads to more units/tech and, therefore, more crystal/vespene, etc). The trade-off is that many RTS players simply resign once they've become the clear loser.
I think how FPS/RTS games deals with this conflict will help define the genre. Personally, my view is that:
- Any advantage or disadvantage should be as gradual as possible, such that it takes several and consistent advantages or disadvantages before the games outcome is determined
- There is an effective mechanism for the losing team to resign and for the game to end at once, when it becomes clear that they have no path to victory
I think how FPS/RTS games deals with this conflict will help define the genre. Personally, my view is that:
- Any advantage or disadvantage should be as gradual as possible, such that it takes several and consistent advantages or disadvantages before the games outcome is determined
- There is an effective mechanism for the losing team to resign and for the game to end at once, when it becomes clear that they have no path to victory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, the two genres do have quite different expectations regarding end of game. I definitely lean towards the FPS side, I think NS should be more forgiving than most RTSs in terms of the possibility of a comeback.
Clearly ns already has an effective resign feature, everyone readyrooms. Could even make that more of an official resigning option, say if one team has 1/3 or less players than the other that immediately ends the game as a resignation.
LOVE Nydus worm gorge -idea :D This NEEDS to be tier 3 for gorges, making them able to dig tunnels for the team to use! ...oh God, adding this, the game would start looking SO much like StarCraft. :P
+1
You're missing a 'not' in there, right? "not lost to allow for comebacks"?
No, losing tech as well as earning it allows for comebacks from either side.
If tech progression is linear and non reversible then you have the snowballing effect that is present in RTS play, as scardy mentioned.
While i am all for a "resign" vote.. i really dont think we should design or balance around this.. just as there is not a time limit to decide the winner - thanks to the winning conditions - neither do i think that we should have such snowballing and thus a need for a resigning system...
and i'm not remotely referring to turtles, thats obviously unintended and undesired.
<b>But the chance for a comeback comes through with being able to reverse tech</b> (ninja PG into hive and take it down, disabling the enemy's BB and other abilities etc)
The game is so hard that even at the top level people make mistakes and bad decisions, allowing their opponent to come back.
So:
- Allow to take risks (don't really know how though).
- Allow for all-in's.
- Make the game very hard.
There is also number effects in starcraft that makes advantages gained early to disappear with time, but that's not very relevant in NS because of the fixed army size.
And for the record i wasn't saying the only method for comebacks is loss of tech - but it certainly is an effective method (if not the most) that gives the sense of impact to the FPS player.
But just so we're clear: a hybrid game like NS2 should not be dependent on the enemy team making a mistake or bad decision <i>as the sole requirement</i> for a comeback. That would lend to constant snowballing and rage quitting if it were <i>two equally skilled teams, in a balanced NS2.</i>
Thus, soft counters and loss of tech do allow for those last second skulk rushes/all-in to make an impact enough to sway the tides of the game.
Who doesn't love back and forth games?
I think it is be more or less the same in NS2 now, sniping some tech buildings in marine base should help aliens to come back from a bad situation.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->a hybrid game like NS2 should not be dependent on the enemy team making a mistake or bad decision as the sole requirement for a comeback<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's suppose your opponent is playing perfectly, how do you do a comeback then ? Seems impossible to me in deterministic game (i.e. without random component).
Make it very hard to play perfectly?
No, losing tech as well as earning it allows for comebacks from either side.
If tech progression is linear and non reversible then you have the snowballing effect that is present in RTS play, as scardy mentioned.
While i am all for a "resign" vote.. i really dont think we should design or balance around this.. just as there is not a time limit to decide the winner - thanks to the winning conditions - neither do i think that we should have such snowballing and thus a need for a resigning system...
and i'm not remotely referring to turtles, thats obviously unintended and undesired.
<b>But the chance for a comeback comes through with being able to reverse tech</b> (ninja PG into hive and take it down, disabling the enemy's BB and other abilities etc)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I see where we're disconnecting.
You're looking at it from the perspective of "having been the victim of an attack, I can take my opponent down a notch and even the field through a counterattack on their tech. Therefore, tech should be lost so as to enable comebacks."
I'm looking at it from the perspective of "having been the victim of an attack, how am I going to mount a counterattack if I'm now at a major tech disadvantage? Therefore, tech shouldn't be lost so as to enable comebacks."
The ability for a skulk to take down a lvl 3 JPer is a soft counter. (which is the worst example one can give, given their late game uselessness. but you know what i mean)
<b>You don't have to retain tech</b> (which comes with severe consequences as i mentioned above) to be able to have a chance at your enemy who is winning currently. RPS mechanics help with this further. Especially if the damn grenade launcher loses some of it's OP player dmg..
Far more downsides that i can see from keeping tech than from losing it, basically. :shrug:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Allow to take risks and all-in's<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Possible all-in's or risky strategy:
Shotgun rush, GL rush, Arc rush, Gorge rush, Lerk rush, JP rush, hive first, ...
I think all of those should be successful to some extend. If not scouted and countered correctly they
should be very efficient, and inefficient if countered correctly. The more costly/risky the push is the more efficient
it should be (big risk -> big reward).
Basically the idea is that at any moment in the game the enemy can kill you with one big
risky punch, so if you make a mistake (by not seeing it coming and countering it properly) you will
loose the game, even though you had a advantage.
I feel like most of this stuff have been nerfed too much, we don't see them so much anymore, and
not for the good reason that people learned how to deal with them, but because they are simply bad.
*
On the second hive and tech, what kind of risky strategy can aliens do after loosing their second hive to get
an advantage back ?
@elodea, yes exactly. If the game is too easy comebacks are just impossible.
I think you misunderstood me here. We were at two hives, attacked their rts, and defended the third hive location quite well. So basically we were in a better/equal position overall. We just couldn't defend our main hive, because the gl attack finished it off (from full hp), before anyone was able to go there (< 5 secs). I guess my main point here is, that gls are too strong against structures... It imo is comparable to the powerpoint/command station problem marines had a long time, where they could dominate a game, and be finished off by a surprise attack in seconds.
My other point was that there's basically no way for a comeback if marines have jps and kill your second hive. Which is quite common, since jps are out very early. Without blink or leap, it's just pointless, so aliens can basically rr when they lose their second hive atm.
What you should have done, is to scout the marine base for advanced armory, realized that a gl push was possible, maybe build some whips, then have someone scouting the push path constantly, and get the team ready to ambush when the push was coming.
If you've done all that and still lost the hive maybe there is a problem with gl, otherwise it just look like a valid and desirable strategy.
For the jetpacks I think the lerk should be a decent counter, it's cheap and fly pretty well. The problem is that dot bite is wonky and he has no ranged attack on tier 1. Solution: fix bite and switch spikes and bite tier, or make spores ranged again.