ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
I want to point out that many of the major changes Charlie/UWE made from NS1->NS2 were both well thought out and in response to serious problems with NS1. For example, here's an <a href="http://www.shacknews.com/article/61103/natural-selection-2-interview-the" target="_blank">interview with Charlie</a> that hits on some of the major issues (difficult learning curve, inability to balance resource system with playercount, etc). The <a href="https://docs.google.com/a/uw.edu/document/d/150pxFW1b_KqgdzIF4MNxO1xBA-jrndZZ9-d_Ez0L1js/edit" target="_blank">High Level Design Doc</a>, <a href="https://docs.google.com/a/uw.edu/document/d/1hsm7f9baZPFETauqIoeWwN6hbaJVGMMZet2bUY24fGk/edit?pli=1" target="_blank">Design FAQ</a>, and <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/wiki/index.php/Design_Direction" target="_blank">Design Direction</a> also contain good principles and reasoning behind some of the changes (though, some of its out-of-date and some I don't agree with). Additionally, combing through the <a href="http://twitter.com/NS2" target="_blank">Twitter feed</a>, <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/wiki/index.php/Build_215" target="_blank">changelogs</a>, or even the <a href="https://docs.google.com/a/uw.edu/document/d/139ySUrBsO0m0Z4ilq0YsDEHJLQhBa6RrIjJIsckL2kE/edit?hl=en&authkey=CLCo8Z0J&pli=1" target="_blank">Design log</a>, you frequently see Charlie/UWE give thanks to specific community members for feedback, suggestions, and even code submissions they incorporated into NS2. This is as close as you can get to community contribution without suffering from the 'design-by-committee' problem.
I certainly have issues behind both the reasoning and implementation of some of these changes, but I think Charlie/UWE has got a pretty good grasp of the biggest problems with NS1 and have implemented changes that will ultimate solve (or mostly mitigate) the problems, once the major kinks are worked out.
The problems he sought out to fix where much bigger in his head then in realilty he tried to fix those problem with a sledge hammer instead of gradual iteration.
<!--quoteo(post=1958372:date=Aug 6 2012, 05:38 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 6 2012, 05:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1958372"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For those who don't know me, I'm an old NS1 player who was around during the NSTR and played for many years.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1958375:date=Aug 6 2012, 07:47 PM:name=Wheeee)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wheeee @ Aug 6 2012, 07:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1958375"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->and far superior already to nuclear dawn.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Just a big bag of disappointment right there.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I want to point out that many of the major changes Charlie/UWE made from NS1->NS2 were both well thought out and in response to serious problems with NS1. For example, here's an interview with Charlie that hits on some of the major issues (difficult learning curve, inability to balance resource system with playercount, etc). The High Level Design Doc, Design FAQ, and Design Direction also contain good principles and reasoning behind some of the changes (though, some of its out-of-date and some I don't agree with). Additionally, combing through the Twitter feed, changelogs, or even the Design log, you frequently see Charlie/UWE give thanks to specific community members for feedback, suggestions, and even code submissions they incorporated into NS2. This is as close as you can get to community contribution without suffering from the 'design-by-committee' problem.
I certainly have issues behind both the reasoning and implementation of some of these changes, but I think Charlie/UWE has got a pretty good grasp of the biggest problems with NS1 and have implemented changes that will ultimate solve (or mostly mitigate) the problems, once the major kinks are worked out.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Unfortunately Flayra's analysis of NS1 failed pretty badly. The most defining feature in NS1 (and in NS2) is melee vs. range combat system and I believe Flayra haven't ever even mentioned this. It's not mention in The High Level Design Doc, which is nothing short from devastating. The whole combat system is based on this! If I would define combat skill for aliens, it would be: "To get close as possible to marines while taking minimum amount damage doing so". And there are three different ways to get close: ambushing, teamwork and movement (btw this also in L4D: the reason I play it). You had to combine at least two of those order to get close against decent marine/marines. The features like teleport blink, lerk spikes, taser, sprint contradicts this basic principle. This is the reason why every high level competitive player knew that teleport blink can't work. It's logical contradiction, you don't have to do empirical test for logical fallacies. I could write book about this topic and there are much more in which melee vs. range combat system effects. The point however is, that Flayra never understood melee vs. range aspect in his game, because he didn't play enough and almost every problem of NS2 can be track down to this.
By the way those two problems you listed (difficult learning curve, inability to balance resource system with playercount) weren't that big issues as Flayra makes them sound. But I let someone else to explain why it is so.
Even if I write without mercy I do hope NS2 will be great game and of course UWE has my eternal respect. That goes without saying.
<!--quoteo(post=1958406:date=Aug 6 2012, 10:26 PM:name=RisingSun)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RisingSun @ Aug 6 2012, 10:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1958406"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS1 was free, NS2 is not. I dont believe it will have the time to grow. I played MW for a week and was digusted, i havent touched it since. Same with its rival which i forget the name of. People will do the same with NS2 as far as snap judgements go. Let's hope it js up to par enough for the unforgiving mainstream.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Those people are going to make snap judgements in any game.
It doesnt matter if NS1 was free or that NS2 costs money, it can and most likely will change.
AngeluszHarmonic entropistJoin Date: 2003-07-10Member: 18072Members, Forum Moderators, Constellation, NS2 Playtester
Good to see that this thread re-railed itself after going off topic for a bit.
I see comments like 'why not stick with the things that worked well in NS1'. Even though I understand where these come from, I think it's important to keep looking for <b>new</b> ways to do things. How else will you make something that's better than what already exists?
If it'd become an exact NS1 clone on a new engine, that would be a huge waste. Sure, it'd be nice to have a 'NS1 mod' in NS2, I'd probably hop in a few times for nostalgia's sake, but there has to be progress. Depart from what you've got and find new and innovative ways to improve.
Sure, sometimes 'wrong' choices will be made for certain individuals. Trial and error, trial and error. :)
There are two main categories of why I am unsatisfied with NS2:
<ul><li>The large amount of discarded lessons from NS1.</li><li>Many of the newly introduced features seem bloated and overly complex which I feel reduces my enjoyment of the game.</li></ul>
In many cases these two complaints bleed together.
My first point has been illustrated well by many in this thread already. Melee vs. ranged combat basics and NS1 mapping concepts seem to have been often overlooked. For example, I believe docking is visually impressive but many of the areas are just large cuboids with a couple of bottleneck entrances and very little actual architecture useful to gameplay. The supposed reduction in map complexity (i.e. getting rid of all the confusing little corridors) is a worthy goal to help out new players but it's a lesson already learnt by the competitive community a long long time ago in NS1. It was only the "fun" maps such as bast and agora that sort of just did what they wanted that really suffered from the endless corridor syndrome. I honestly find myself getting just as lost on the NS2 maps as I ever did on any of the half-decent NS1 maps.
My second point is to do with the way new features have been implemented. I'd like to state that I've never been opposed to new features or removal of old ones and have generally been very open to Alien Commander and no Bhop (for example), but it depends on what replaces them. One example is the unified res system, on the surface it seems like a good fix for player no. variance but... it falls short of creating particularly interesting choices. My point can best be illustrated with an analogy: the design differences between the more recent Command and Conquer games and StarCraft 2. C&C design was a seemingly "that's fun, put that in!" style of band-aid design fixes whereas the stated design goals of SC2 were to create as much diversity of gameplay using only variations in range, unit speed, rate of fire and damage. NS2 for me leans far more towards the C&C camp than the SC2 camp. That doesn't have to be a problem, but I just don't enjoy those style of games very much.
ALL the people except one which I "converted" to NS2 (6 players including 2 who enjoyed NS1) tell me that the actual performance and hitreg prevent them from enjoying the game.
They also complain about balance issues, but I think they have not played enough to well judge this.
So right now I've only one friend left to play with me :) But they're all aware that this is beta, and seemed to be quite happy with the rest of the game. I hope they come on this forum to give their feedback.
<!--quoteo(post=1958576:date=Aug 7 2012, 08:36 AM:name=Jwam)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jwam @ Aug 7 2012, 08:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1958576"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->ALL the people except one which I "converted" to NS2 (6 players including 2 who enjoyed NS1) tell me that the actual performance and hitreg prevent them from enjoying the game.
They also complain about balance issues, but I think they have not played enough to well judge this.
So right now I've only one friend left to play with me :) But they're all aware that this is beta, and seemed to be quite happy with the rest of the game. I hope they come on this forum to give their feedback.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The performance and hit reg is the major issue preventing me from playing the game too. I don't think "this is a beta" is a good excuse though, since the game is supposed to be coming out very soon and I've seen very little improvement since I first played the game back in February.
I agree that the map design has not achieved perfection yet. Official maps are full of details that have no gameplay function. Ideally you should never add something if it isn't useful gameplay wise. Then you can make it look good, function and aesthetic blending together in harmony. Easy to say but very hard to do :)
I see a lot of potential in the new features, and I like the idea and justifications for them.
Are they perfect right now? No. Will they be perfect on release? Probably not.
But NS 1.0x was...well, yeah.
3.2 was the culmination of multiple iterations and lessons learned from 1.0 and 2.0.
To just make an HD version of 3.2 and do a couple of tiny changes would hardly justify the price point. Yes, it may have worked, but there were limitations to what could be accomplished that were able to be cast off when making a stand-alone sequel, ideas that could be explored and implemented that weren't feasible in HL1.
Things I like:
Skulks can actually wall walk now. (I never liked bunny hopping, and I don't miss it) Power Node/Infestation (I'd like to it to see play a bigger role though) Dynamic Infestation Personal Res/Team Res (Still needs some tweaks though) Tech Points (NS always felt very formulaic, with the random spawns maps can play out very differently each time) Smaller Maps (Big maps are cool, but feature a lot of dead space)
Things I don't:
Alien commander a little too passive Alien upgrades need some work End game needs work
<!--quoteo(post=1958587:date=Aug 7 2012, 05:09 PM:name=Cloud King)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cloud King @ Aug 7 2012, 05:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1958587"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The performance and hit reg is the major issue preventing me from playing the game too. I don't think "this is a beta" is a good excuse though, since the game is supposed to be coming out very soon and I've seen very little improvement since I first played the game back in February.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I would not worry. I've beta tested many games which performance was more than crappy until the latest beta phase. Optimization is adressed in the late developement stages, that's what devs are working on at the moment. They were probably not previously, at least not to that extent.
But I'm not a dev nor a UWE staff, so I'm just commenting on what I've read on these forums. I may be wrong! (at least let's hope I'm not!)
<!--quoteo(post=1958594:date=Aug 7 2012, 03:30 PM:name=Jwam)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jwam @ Aug 7 2012, 03:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1958594"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would not worry. I've beta tested many games which performance was more than crappy until the latest beta phase. Optimization is adressed in the late developement stages, that's what devs are working on at the moment. They were probably not previously, at least not to that extent.
But I'm not a dev nor a UWE staff, so I'm just commenting on what I've read on these forums. I may be wrong! (at least let's hope I'm not!)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's something that has been said early and often (though at least you've kept it to late stages, instead of the last stage), but it isn't really true. If you're working on the fringe of what computers can handle (which AAA+ tend to do all the time), you make sure that for every new portion you implement along the way, you keep testing whether it is functioning within the design-parameters and the limitations of the machine you're building it for. Imagine writing a rather amazing graphical-game, but haven't bothered to actually thoroughly evaluate how performance was going to pan out until at the very end, and then discover it runs at 5 FPS, at which point the game has basically been written, and going back tearing it open again to fix it is not an option. Now how important these evaluations are of course also depends on the technology you're using. If you're building a game on say, the Source-engine, which has proven itself to be capable of delivering, constantly verifying performance becomes a bit less mandatory (but still necessary). But here we have NS2, an engine essentially from scratch (or almost, not sure on the exact story), using Lua-scripts in a way it hasn't really been used before (FarCry came closest I believe, but even that game pulled a lot back into the engine for, you guessed it, performance-reasons).
Argh, why you make me keep posting about performance...
<!--quoteo(post=1958592:date=Aug 8 2012, 01:29 AM:name=Casus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Casus @ Aug 8 2012, 01:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1958592"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->3.2 was the culmination of multiple iterations and lessons learned from 1.0 and 2.0.
To just make an HD version of 3.2 and do a couple of tiny changes would hardly justify the price point. Yes, it may have worked, but there were limitations to what could be accomplished that were able to be cast off when making a stand-alone sequel, ideas that could be explored and implemented that weren't feasible in HL1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I would have paid $100 for HD NS1 3.2.... I'm sure many other old school players would as well...
Just reflect on this every change that has been made to NS2 that bought it closer to NS1 made the game significantly better...
<!--quoteo(post=1958603:date=Aug 7 2012, 08:49 AM:name=player)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (player @ Aug 7 2012, 08:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1958603"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Argh, why you make me keep posting about performance...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because right now, this close to deployment, it's the biggest enjoyment factor.
People really make this more complicated than it ought to be. The big question is, "Is the game fun?" Speaking as an NS1 player, I have to say the answer, for me, is absolutely. It's not better or worse than NS1, it just plays differently. Whatever my personal opinion may be on new game mechanics, or the removal of old ones, what it boils down to is whether or not I have fun with NS2, and I do have fun with it. There was a lot wrong with NS1, there's a lot wrong with NS2. But it's still worlds better than most PC games currently on the market. That isn't even a joke. NS2 is some of the most fun I've ever had with a game, and in terms of PC titles released in the past five years, this is one of the rare gems that stands out among a deluge of disappointments. I could nitpick it, but it'd only be fair to nitpick the games I DON'T enjoy, and nobody wants to see that.
I played quite a bit of NS1 and I'm not enjoying NS2 at all for a lot of the same reasons already stated, especially performance and hit-reg. Assuming they fix those two things, I hope someone makes a good NS1 mod and/or a competitive NS2 mod, a la Quake CPMA.
SecurityJoin Date: 2005-01-07Member: 33133Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1958603:date=Aug 7 2012, 05:49 PM:name=player)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (player @ Aug 7 2012, 05:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1958603"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's something that has been said early and often (though at least you've kept it to late stages, instead of the last stage), but it isn't really true. If you're working on the fringe of what computers can handle (which AAA+ tend to do all the time), you make sure that for every new portion you implement along the way, you keep testing whether it is functioning within the design-parameters and the limitations of the machine you're building it for. Imagine writing a rather amazing graphical-game, but haven't bothered to actually thoroughly evaluate how performance was going to pan out until at the very end, and then discover it runs at 5 FPS, at which point the game has basically been written, and going back tearing it open again to fix it is not an option. Now how important these evaluations are of course also depends on the technology you're using. If you're building a game on say, the Source-engine, which has proven itself to be capable of delivering, constantly verifying performance becomes a bit less mandatory (but still necessary). But here we have NS2, an engine essentially from scratch (or almost, not sure on the exact story), using Lua-scripts in a way it hasn't really been used before (FarCry came closest I believe, but even that game pulled a lot back into the engine for, you guessed it, performance-reasons).
Argh, why you make me keep posting about performance...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like reading your posts. They are so objective and true. ;)
NS2 seems much slower then NS1 as far as movement and stuff goes, yet the games themselves take less time. It's very weird and I don't like the speed of things.
<!--quoteo(post=1958565:date=Aug 7 2012, 02:01 PM:name=Angelusz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Angelusz @ Aug 7 2012, 02:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1958565"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I see comments like 'why not stick with the things that worked well in NS1'. Even though I understand where these come from, I think it's important to keep looking for <b>new</b> ways to do things. How else will you make something that's better than what already exists?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think Mu somewhat answers this:
<!--quoteo(post=1958567:date=Aug 7 2012, 02:06 PM:name=MuYeah)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MuYeah @ Aug 7 2012, 02:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1958567"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd like to state that I've never been opposed to new features or removal of old ones and have generally been very open to Alien Commander and no Bhop (for example), but it depends on what replaces them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's too much of new stuff. Not necessarily in the sense that the game changes too much, but in the sense that none of the new things get enough of development time, attention and refinement to grow to the level of the things they replaced. There's a plenty of unexplored and to-be-refined stuff even for a AAA title sized team. A small indie team just runs out of manpower at that point.
For example I was really looking forward to see MACs in action when they were first announced. At best they could potentially add a whole new layer of interaction between the marines and the commander and give completely new kind of challenges and possibilities for the commander. However, that would really require the MACs to actually be extremely responsive and reliable, have a solid pathing routine and add extra value and possibilites to marine groups. Meanwhile they are still rather clunky and their role has been tossed back and forth all development long. A potentially interesting feature has turned into a nuisance more than anything else.
<!--quoteo(post=1958571:date=Aug 7 2012, 10:20 AM:name=Security)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Security @ Aug 7 2012, 10:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1958571"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think that the massive number of people who pre-ordered NS2 and the low number of people who are <b>actually playing</b>, speaks for itself.
It shows that there is something very wrong with the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think this actually shows anything. Nor do we have anything to compare it against.
How many people bought sc2 that are concurrently playing sc2 right now? I'd bet that is a really small fraction and sc2 is one of the best games ever created with an insane level of map diversity built into custom maps.
Players have been buying NS2 for years during its development cycle. I was part of a clan that bought 10-20 copies during the black armor sale. About 5 of them I still keep in contact with. They haven't logged on since rockdown was the only playable map and building >3 hydras effectively killed the server. Are those guys "unhappy" about NS2? I don't know. You don't know. They don't even know because they haven't actually played the game within the last few patches. I would feel confident guessing that a huge majority of preorders that are not playing have also not played in the past 5 patches.
<!--quoteo(post=1958565:date=Aug 7 2012, 04:01 PM:name=Angelusz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Angelusz @ Aug 7 2012, 04:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1958565"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I see comments like 'why not stick with the things that worked well in NS1'. Even though I understand where these come from, I think it's important to keep looking for <b>new</b> ways to do things. How else will you make something that's better than what already exists?
If it'd become an exact NS1 clone on a new engine, that would be a huge waste. Sure, it'd be nice to have a 'NS1 mod' in NS2, I'd probably hop in a few times for nostalgia's sake, but there has to be progress. Depart from what you've got and find new and innovative ways to improve.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The sad thing is, that I - and probably many other NS1 players - never wanted an exact copy with better graphics. I expected the core gameplay to stay more or less the same, but beyond that I was looking forward to additions and refinements. Unfortunately many changes negatively affected the core gameplay which has suffered noticeably. I'm thinking of things like the general movement feel, the tech explosion problem or the new fade blink here. On top of that I dislike most of the additons made to NS2. Not because they are new, far from it, but because they don't improve the game in my opinion. Power nodes would be a prominent example in this category.
All in all I expected less change for the sake of change. A sequel comparable to Battlefield 2 or Diablo 2. At the moment NS2 compares more to Diablo 3: An OK game, but far from its potential greatness.
<!--quoteo(post=1958623:date=Aug 7 2012, 05:45 PM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Aug 7 2012, 05:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1958623"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's a plenty of unexplored and to-be-refined stuff even for a AAA title sized team. A small indie team just runs out of manpower at that point.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <b>Man</b>power being the most important word. There is literally one person, who is at real risk of not being able to see the forest through the trees, working on the entire game design - nobody else in UWE is especially equipped. Sure, he's selecting bits and pieces of feedback from here and there but the feedback selected is inherently biased towards one view because all feedback is merely a suggestion. I don't mean to say that people should be able to overrule Charlie, only that there should at least be a team he has entrusted with some responsibility and weight and that this team should be treated as the first port of call for intelligent and/or experienced advice. And, as I said earlier, there are plenty of people who fit the bill who don't tick the dreaded NS1-fan box. Why do I think this is important? Well, quite frankly, because I think that the information and insight that would come out of such a team would be vastly superior to Charlie's own. Ego and insults aside, I think this would be best for the game.
<!--quoteo(post=1958623:date=Aug 7 2012, 05:45 PM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Aug 7 2012, 05:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1958623"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For example I was really looking forward to see MACs in action when they were first announced. At best they could potentially add a whole new layer of interaction between the marines and the commander and give completely new kind of challenges and possibilities for the commander. However, that would really require the MACs to actually be extremely responsive and reliable, have a solid pathing routine and add extra value and possibilites to marine groups. Meanwhile they are still rather clunky and their role has been tossed back and forth all development long. A potentially interesting feature has turned into a nuisance more than anything else.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree here. MACs were one of the new features that I was most looking forward to and I felt that it could be the answer to the handsoff commander experience. I guess its unfortunate that, as Scardybob as kindly reminded us, he wants commanding to be much more 'accessible' (that said, he also wanted there to be no magic numbers but then what the heck is the damage system doing here? He also said NS1 was crap when you couldn't see what killed you which is ironic...) but I still think MACs could have been a net-gain overall. They had the potential to create really interesting ways for commanders to differentiate themselves from eachother in how they employed MACs, which I envisaged would be very versatile machines with multiple purposes that meant they could offer some kind of support at the front lines or defence/warning at the backlines (not welding structures because that's annoying for aliens). Instead, they're trash and the commander is still crying out for things to do in the late game.
Just answering the topic, NS1 combat mode was the thing I found least fun in NS1, and I had more fun there then ever currently in NS2. Also had more fun in early alpha NS2 than late alpha now.
I still think it's silly that they do not have a balance team at this point. You cannot create an aspiring e-sports title with 1 man's ideas and experience on balance. There is no internal balance team, there is no balance team at all. It's all 1 persons ideas being thrown at the wall to see if they stick (the beta respectively), and we don't even know what those changes are based off of experience-wise (how much does he play the game? what does he base the changes off of?). I'm pretty sure these forums get ignored 95% of the time. Game is out in like 2 months and they are still trying to inject ridiculous ideas and changes into the game that no one has even asked for or suggested.
They have a hugely passionate competitive community and yet they refuse to tap into that enthusiasm and pool of experience because why?
Creating a balance team is more difficult then it may seem, and honestly i cannot think of that many people in the community currently that would make good canidates... There is alot more to it then just being reasonably compentent with the game, you need alot of patience and a certain kind of attitude.. You may need to play certain encounters or situations over and over and over to get a good idea of how things play.. Honestly there has only been one person that ever wanted to do basic lmg/skulk, or try lmg lerk/ shotgun fade against me.. and I think those kind of fights need to be played quite a bit to make good deterministic balance decisions.
Comments
I certainly have issues behind both the reasoning and implementation of some of these changes, but I think Charlie/UWE has got a pretty good grasp of the biggest problems with NS1 and have implemented changes that will ultimate solve (or mostly mitigate) the problems, once the major kinks are worked out.
I remember you!
Just a big bag of disappointment right there.
I certainly have issues behind both the reasoning and implementation of some of these changes, but I think Charlie/UWE has got a pretty good grasp of the biggest problems with NS1 and have implemented changes that will ultimate solve (or mostly mitigate) the problems, once the major kinks are worked out.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunately Flayra's analysis of NS1 failed pretty badly. The most defining feature in NS1 (and in NS2) is melee vs. range combat system and I believe Flayra haven't ever even mentioned this. It's not mention in The High Level Design Doc, which is nothing short from devastating. The whole combat system is based on this! If I would define combat skill for aliens, it would be: "To get close as possible to marines while taking minimum amount damage doing so". And there are three different ways to get close: ambushing, teamwork and movement (btw this also in L4D: the reason I play it). You had to combine at least two of those order to get close against decent marine/marines. The features like teleport blink, lerk spikes, taser, sprint contradicts this basic principle. This is the reason why every high level competitive player knew that teleport blink can't work. It's logical contradiction, you don't have to do empirical test for logical fallacies. I could write book about this topic and there are much more in which melee vs. range combat system effects. The point however is, that Flayra never understood melee vs. range aspect in his game, because he didn't play enough and almost every problem of NS2 can be track down to this.
By the way those two problems you listed (difficult learning curve, inability to balance resource system with playercount) weren't that big issues as Flayra makes them sound. But I let someone else to explain why it is so.
Even if I write without mercy I do hope NS2 will be great game and of course UWE has my eternal respect. That goes without saying.
Those people are going to make snap judgements in any game.
It doesnt matter if NS1 was free or that NS2 costs money, it can and most likely will change.
I see comments like 'why not stick with the things that worked well in NS1'. Even though I understand where these come from, I think it's important to keep looking for <b>new</b> ways to do things. How else will you make something that's better than what already exists?
If it'd become an exact NS1 clone on a new engine, that would be a huge waste. Sure, it'd be nice to have a 'NS1 mod' in NS2, I'd probably hop in a few times for nostalgia's sake, but there has to be progress. Depart from what you've got and find new and innovative ways to improve.
Sure, sometimes 'wrong' choices will be made for certain individuals. Trial and error, trial and error. :)
<ul><li>The large amount of discarded lessons from NS1.</li><li>Many of the newly introduced features seem bloated and overly complex which I feel reduces my enjoyment of the game.</li></ul>
In many cases these two complaints bleed together.
My first point has been illustrated well by many in this thread already. Melee vs. ranged combat basics and NS1 mapping concepts seem to have been often overlooked. For example, I believe docking is visually impressive but many of the areas are just large cuboids with a couple of bottleneck entrances and very little actual architecture useful to gameplay. The supposed reduction in map complexity (i.e. getting rid of all the confusing little corridors) is a worthy goal to help out new players but it's a lesson already learnt by the competitive community a long long time ago in NS1. It was only the "fun" maps such as bast and agora that sort of just did what they wanted that really suffered from the endless corridor syndrome. I honestly find myself getting just as lost on the NS2 maps as I ever did on any of the half-decent NS1 maps.
My second point is to do with the way new features have been implemented. I'd like to state that I've never been opposed to new features or removal of old ones and have generally been very open to Alien Commander and no Bhop (for example), but it depends on what replaces them. One example is the unified res system, on the surface it seems like a good fix for player no. variance but... it falls short of creating particularly interesting choices. My point can best be illustrated with an analogy: the design differences between the more recent Command and Conquer games and StarCraft 2. C&C design was a seemingly "that's fun, put that in!" style of band-aid design fixes whereas the stated design goals of SC2 were to create as much diversity of gameplay using only variations in range, unit speed, rate of fire and damage. NS2 for me leans far more towards the C&C camp than the SC2 camp. That doesn't have to be a problem, but I just don't enjoy those style of games very much.
It shows that there is something very wrong with the game.
They also complain about balance issues, but I think they have not played enough to well judge this.
So right now I've only one friend left to play with me :) But they're all aware that this is beta, and seemed to be quite happy with the rest of the game. I hope they come on this forum to give their feedback.
They also complain about balance issues, but I think they have not played enough to well judge this.
So right now I've only one friend left to play with me :) But they're all aware that this is beta, and seemed to be quite happy with the rest of the game. I hope they come on this forum to give their feedback.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The performance and hit reg is the major issue preventing me from playing the game too. I don't think "this is a beta" is a good excuse though, since the game is supposed to be coming out very soon and I've seen very little improvement since I first played the game back in February.
I see a lot of potential in the new features, and I like the idea and justifications for them.
Are they perfect right now? No. Will they be perfect on release? Probably not.
But NS 1.0x was...well, yeah.
3.2 was the culmination of multiple iterations and lessons learned from 1.0 and 2.0.
To just make an HD version of 3.2 and do a couple of tiny changes would hardly justify the price point. Yes, it may have worked, but there were limitations to what could be accomplished that were able to be cast off when making a stand-alone sequel, ideas that could be explored and implemented that weren't feasible in HL1.
Things I like:
Skulks can actually wall walk now. (I never liked bunny hopping, and I don't miss it)
Power Node/Infestation (I'd like to it to see play a bigger role though)
Dynamic Infestation
Personal Res/Team Res (Still needs some tweaks though)
Tech Points (NS always felt very formulaic, with the random spawns maps can play out very differently each time)
Smaller Maps (Big maps are cool, but feature a lot of dead space)
Things I don't:
Alien commander a little too passive
Alien upgrades need some work
End game needs work
I would not worry. I've beta tested many games which performance was more than crappy until the latest beta phase. Optimization is adressed in the late developement stages, that's what devs are working on at the moment. They were probably not previously, at least not to that extent.
But I'm not a dev nor a UWE staff, so I'm just commenting on what I've read on these forums. I may be wrong! (at least let's hope I'm not!)
But I'm not a dev nor a UWE staff, so I'm just commenting on what I've read on these forums. I may be wrong! (at least let's hope I'm not!)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's something that has been said early and often (though at least you've kept it to late stages, instead of the last stage), but it isn't really true. If you're working on the fringe of what computers can handle (which AAA+ tend to do all the time), you make sure that for every new portion you implement along the way, you keep testing whether it is functioning within the design-parameters and the limitations of the machine you're building it for. Imagine writing a rather amazing graphical-game, but haven't bothered to actually thoroughly evaluate how performance was going to pan out until at the very end, and then discover it runs at 5 FPS, at which point the game has basically been written, and going back tearing it open again to fix it is not an option. Now how important these evaluations are of course also depends on the technology you're using. If you're building a game on say, the Source-engine, which has proven itself to be capable of delivering, constantly verifying performance becomes a bit less mandatory (but still necessary). But here we have NS2, an engine essentially from scratch (or almost, not sure on the exact story), using Lua-scripts in a way it hasn't really been used before (FarCry came closest I believe, but even that game pulled a lot back into the engine for, you guessed it, performance-reasons).
Argh, why you make me keep posting about performance...
To just make an HD version of 3.2 and do a couple of tiny changes would hardly justify the price point. Yes, it may have worked, but there were limitations to what could be accomplished that were able to be cast off when making a stand-alone sequel, ideas that could be explored and implemented that weren't feasible in HL1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would have paid $100 for HD NS1 3.2.... I'm sure many other old school players would as well...
Just reflect on this every change that has been made to NS2 that bought it closer to NS1 made the game significantly better...
Because right now, this close to deployment, it's the biggest enjoyment factor.
Argh, why you make me keep posting about performance...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like reading your posts. They are so objective and true. ;)
I think Mu somewhat answers this:
<!--quoteo(post=1958567:date=Aug 7 2012, 02:06 PM:name=MuYeah)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MuYeah @ Aug 7 2012, 02:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1958567"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd like to state that I've never been opposed to new features or removal of old ones and have generally been very open to Alien Commander and no Bhop (for example), but it depends on what replaces them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's too much of new stuff. Not necessarily in the sense that the game changes too much, but in the sense that none of the new things get enough of development time, attention and refinement to grow to the level of the things they replaced. There's a plenty of unexplored and to-be-refined stuff even for a AAA title sized team. A small indie team just runs out of manpower at that point.
For example I was really looking forward to see MACs in action when they were first announced. At best they could potentially add a whole new layer of interaction between the marines and the commander and give completely new kind of challenges and possibilities for the commander. However, that would really require the MACs to actually be extremely responsive and reliable, have a solid pathing routine and add extra value and possibilites to marine groups. Meanwhile they are still rather clunky and their role has been tossed back and forth all development long. A potentially interesting feature has turned into a nuisance more than anything else.
It shows that there is something very wrong with the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think this actually shows anything. Nor do we have anything to compare it against.
How many people bought sc2 that are concurrently playing sc2 right now? I'd bet that is a really small fraction and sc2 is one of the best games ever created with an insane level of map diversity built into custom maps.
Players have been buying NS2 for years during its development cycle. I was part of a clan that bought 10-20 copies during the black armor sale. About 5 of them I still keep in contact with. They haven't logged on since rockdown was the only playable map and building >3 hydras effectively killed the server. Are those guys "unhappy" about NS2? I don't know. You don't know. They don't even know because they haven't actually played the game within the last few patches. I would feel confident guessing that a huge majority of preorders that are not playing have also not played in the past 5 patches.
If it'd become an exact NS1 clone on a new engine, that would be a huge waste. Sure, it'd be nice to have a 'NS1 mod' in NS2, I'd probably hop in a few times for nostalgia's sake, but there has to be progress. Depart from what you've got and find new and innovative ways to improve.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The sad thing is, that I - and probably many other NS1 players - never wanted an exact copy with better graphics. I expected the core gameplay to stay more or less the same, but beyond that I was looking forward to additions and refinements. Unfortunately many changes negatively affected the core gameplay which has suffered noticeably. I'm thinking of things like the general movement feel, the tech explosion problem or the new fade blink here. On top of that I dislike most of the additons made to NS2. Not because they are new, far from it, but because they don't improve the game in my opinion. Power nodes would be a prominent example in this category.
All in all I expected less change for the sake of change. A sequel comparable to Battlefield 2 or Diablo 2. At the moment NS2 compares more to Diablo 3: An OK game, but far from its potential greatness.
<b>Man</b>power being the most important word. There is literally one person, who is at real risk of not being able to see the forest through the trees, working on the entire game design - nobody else in UWE is especially equipped. Sure, he's selecting bits and pieces of feedback from here and there but the feedback selected is inherently biased towards one view because all feedback is merely a suggestion. I don't mean to say that people should be able to overrule Charlie, only that there should at least be a team he has entrusted with some responsibility and weight and that this team should be treated as the first port of call for intelligent and/or experienced advice. And, as I said earlier, there are plenty of people who fit the bill who don't tick the dreaded NS1-fan box. Why do I think this is important? Well, quite frankly, because I think that the information and insight that would come out of such a team would be vastly superior to Charlie's own. Ego and insults aside, I think this would be best for the game.
<!--quoteo(post=1958623:date=Aug 7 2012, 05:45 PM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Aug 7 2012, 05:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1958623"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For example I was really looking forward to see MACs in action when they were first announced. At best they could potentially add a whole new layer of interaction between the marines and the commander and give completely new kind of challenges and possibilities for the commander. However, that would really require the MACs to actually be extremely responsive and reliable, have a solid pathing routine and add extra value and possibilites to marine groups. Meanwhile they are still rather clunky and their role has been tossed back and forth all development long. A potentially interesting feature has turned into a nuisance more than anything else.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree here. MACs were one of the new features that I was most looking forward to and I felt that it could be the answer to the handsoff commander experience. I guess its unfortunate that, as Scardybob as kindly reminded us, he wants commanding to be much more 'accessible' (that said, he also wanted there to be no magic numbers but then what the heck is the damage system doing here? He also said NS1 was crap when you couldn't see what killed you which is ironic...) but I still think MACs could have been a net-gain overall. They had the potential to create really interesting ways for commanders to differentiate themselves from eachother in how they employed MACs, which I envisaged would be very versatile machines with multiple purposes that meant they could offer some kind of support at the front lines or defence/warning at the backlines (not welding structures because that's annoying for aliens). Instead, they're trash and the commander is still crying out for things to do in the late game.
Just answering the topic, NS1 combat mode was the thing I found least fun in NS1, and I had more fun there then ever currently in NS2. Also had more fun in early alpha NS2 than late alpha now.
They have a hugely passionate competitive community and yet they refuse to tap into that enthusiasm and pool of experience because why?
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v242/Drakuu/wat-2.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />