simple RTS games like starcraft are basically the same at different skill levels. the bad players do the same stuff as the good players - just more slowly
in NS2 the entire gameplay is different at different skill levels. the problem is that a bad alien comm and a good alien comm can basically do the same thing whereas bad marines and good marines are worlds apart in terms of how they play the actual game.
the skill/teamwork needed to limit aliens to 3 harvesters is so much greater than the skill/teamwork needed to keep marines at 3 extractors. if the res count is even, aliens win because onos. and aliens are still getting more res whenever marines are slow, poor shooters, disorganized, and unable to resupply in time (99% of games), whereas the opposite is not true
<!--quoteo(post=2033106:date=Nov 23 2012, 03:25 PM:name=biz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (biz @ Nov 23 2012, 03:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2033106"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->simple RTS games like starcraft are basically the same at different skill levels. the bad players do the same stuff as the good players - just more slowly
in NS2 the entire gameplay is different at different skill levels. the problem is that a bad alien comm and a good alien comm can basically do the same thing whereas bad marines and good marines are worlds apart in terms of how they play the actual game.
the skill/teamwork needed to limit aliens to 3 harvesters is so much greater than the skill/teamwork needed to keep marines at 3 extractors. if the res count is even, aliens win because onos. and aliens are still getting more res whenever marines are slow, poor shooters, disorganized, and unable to resupply in time (99% of games), whereas the opposite is not true<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That assumes they even follow the same build order. Yesterday for example we had a com start with a robo and never use it for anything then dropped a second com station. He then got a armory and went directly to aa. Then before researching any weapons he started to get an arms lab and phase tech and then teched armor with no weapon upgrades. Our team was not that good and we could not hold any res towers b/c of the build order vs what the aliens were doing. We tried to teach the com why this build order does not work but he would not listen. We lost the game but then played the map again. This time the same com but the best players stacked marines and alines had no com for 3min. The marines rolled over the aliens and that same com then is like oh look I know what I am doing.
When teams are close to even the com makes the difference but a team with dramatically better players will usually win regardless. Starcraft has a lot of people watching the pros before and after they play multilayer. This however is not the case in fps games like NS2. While NS2 has a lot of potential for a great pro scene it is a far cry to assume that most players are emulating anything other than what other players tell them or what they learn from trial and error.
<!--quoteo(post=2032604:date=Nov 22 2012, 07:38 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Nov 22 2012, 07:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2032604"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Then you are truly lost in any balance discussion. It gives players something to work up to: a challenge. Otherwise they really have nothing to aspire to.. First of all, you're spinning my remarks far out of context. I'm not suggesting to reduce the skill level to the lowest common denominator. What I am saying is that 'challenge' in NS is less about *individual* play and more about *team* play. That's why you are the one lost in any balance discussion. You are still looking at this from one dimension.
Furthermore you are taking this discussion off topic. As I mentioned in my original post, I'm not talking about individual player balance.
What is needed to 'balance' this game is to get people (like yourself) looking away from individual player balance as the epitome of balance for the game.
This thread is about encouraging TEAMWORK. That's the missing 'balance' in the game right now, and too many people are still blinded by individual player balance that they can't see that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why do you think removing deaths is going to increase teamwork?
Do you believe that if there is no death tally then dying (and losing your shotgun, fade, exosuit, etc) suddenly becomes more fun? Do you really think a majority of players are playing NS2 for the scoreboard?
Until a large group of marines can defend a base from a large group of aliens and not have most (all?) of their FPS drop to below 20, I don't see how any balancing can be done.
FPS drops don't help aliens hit their melee attacks, but it's certainly less disastrous then trying to accurately shoot fast moving targets.
I consider myself great at shooting as a marine with normal FPS. As soon as the drops start hitting even the lowliest skulk can prove an issue.
not showing kills and deaths will probably fix some things not because of logic, but because it might get marines to get out of the spawn
if they replaced it with raw damage numbers (both to structures and to lifeforms) then people might actually bother with attacking things like harvesters and hives...
<!--quoteo(post=2032604:date=Nov 22 2012, 05:38 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Nov 22 2012, 05:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2032604"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Then you are truly lost in any balance discussion. It gives players something to work up to: a challenge. Otherwise they really have nothing to aspire to.. First of all, you're spinning my remarks far out of context. I'm not suggesting to reduce the skill level to the lowest common denominator. What I am saying is that 'challenge' in NS is less about *individual* play and more about *team* play. That's why you are the one lost in any balance discussion. You are still looking at this from one dimension.
Furthermore you are taking this discussion off topic. As I mentioned in my original post, I'm not talking about individual player balance.
What is needed to 'balance' this game is to get people (like yourself) looking away from individual player balance as the epitome of balance for the game.
This thread is about encouraging TEAMWORK. That's the missing 'balance' in the game right now, and too many people are still blinded by individual player balance that they can't see that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are so many reasons already in the game to use teamwork. And it's largely balanced around it already.
I'm not lost at all.. I play 6v6 all the time where the teamwork has to be A++ and I realize it's not one dimension at all. The things you've listed are inaccurate and I'm just pointing it out.
Balancing around low skill players is not the way to go. You balance around what the best players can achieve with the best teamwork.
<!--quoteo(post=2033120:date=Nov 23 2012, 05:48 PM:name=Locklear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Locklear @ Nov 23 2012, 05:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2033120"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I play 6v6 all the time where the teamwork has to be A++ and I realize it's not one dimension at all. The things you've listed are inaccurate and I'm just pointing it out.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->No they're not inaccurate at all, and the fact you bring up 6v6 shows you are still looking at the game in one dimension. (cometitive play) You seem to think that the game should be balanced around the highest skilled players in competitive play, a threshold that most 'pub' players will never attain not just because they won't have the necessary skill, but because pub servers have players of all skill levels. (not to mention most pubs aren't 6v6) Most pub players won't even get CLOSE to what high end competitive players are doing.
The developers aren't going to balance the game around competitive play. They've made that clear, and the last three patches were specifically designed to address pub play imbalance.
This thread is not about competitive play.
For the game to survive and prosper it *MUST* be balanced for pub play. I hate to break it to you, but the average player could care less about competitive play, and those "average players" represent 99.9% of the player base. Do you really expect the developers to give these people the collective finger and expect the game to still sell copies? Really?
<!--quoteo(post=2033325:date=Nov 23 2012, 07:28 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Nov 23 2012, 07:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2033325"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No they're not inaccurate at all, and the fact you bring up 6v6 shows you are still looking at the game in one dimension. (cometitive play) You seem to think that the game should be balanced around the highest skilled players in competitive play, a threshold that most 'pub' players will never attain not just because they won't have the necessary skill, but because pub servers have players of all skill levels. (not to mention most pubs aren't 6v6) Most pub players won't even get CLOSE to what high end competitive players are doing.
The developers aren't going to balance the game around competitive play. They've made that clear, and the last three patches were specifically designed to address pub play imbalance.
This thread is not about competitive play.
For the game to survive and prosper it *MUST* be balanced for pub play. I hate to break it to you, but the average player could care less about competitive play, and those "average players" represent 99.9% of the player base. Do you really expect the developers to give these people the collective finger and expect the game to still sell copies? Really?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> all of your points from this and your previous posts have already been addressed, not sure why you're replying without bothering to respond to them
<!--quoteo(post=2033325:date=Nov 23 2012, 10:28 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Nov 23 2012, 10:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2033325"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No they're not inaccurate at all, and the fact you bring up 6v6 shows you are still looking at the game in one dimension. (cometitive play) You seem to think that the game should be balanced around the highest skilled players in competitive play, a threshold that most 'pub' players will never attain not just because they won't have the necessary skill, but because pub servers have players of all skill levels. (not to mention most pubs aren't 6v6) Most pub players won't even get CLOSE to what high end competitive players are doing.
The developers aren't going to balance the game around competitive play. They've made that clear, and the last three patches were specifically designed to address pub play imbalance.
This thread is not about competitive play.
For the game to survive and prosper it *MUST* be balanced for pub play. I hate to break it to you, but the average player could care less about competitive play, and those "average players" represent 99.9% of the player base. Do you really expect the developers to give these people the collective finger and expect the game to still sell copies? Really?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This mindset is 100% incorrect. There is no such thing as balance for pubs. Balance is balance, it is an objective point when two sides have equal potency given the player variable is mitigated. What you're talking about is "fun" in pubs when the skill level of two teams is most likely quite different. Both can be attained but the game being balanced needs to come first. The game plays well in pubs already, there are just some things that are too good in environments where people lack basic teamwork that should be presumed to be present when speaking of balance.
So the things you're bringing up are going to be subjective, what you personally think the pub environment needs, not what will actually balance the game. Which is fine, but it needs to be seen as such and handled with care as to not mess up actual balance.
<!--quoteo(post=2033106:date=Nov 23 2012, 01:25 PM:name=biz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (biz @ Nov 23 2012, 01:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2033106"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->simple RTS games like starcraft are basically the same at different skill levels. the bad players do the same stuff as the good players - just more slowly
in NS2 the entire gameplay is different at different skill levels. the problem is that a bad alien comm and a good alien comm can basically do the same thing whereas bad marines and good marines are worlds apart in terms of how they play the actual game.
the skill/teamwork needed to limit aliens to 3 harvesters is so much greater than the skill/teamwork needed to keep marines at 3 extractors. if the res count is even, aliens win because onos. and aliens are still getting more res whenever marines are slow, poor shooters, disorganized, and unable to resupply in time (99% of games), whereas the opposite is not true<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty much this ^ . I wouldn't say starcraft is a "simple" RTS though.
But I agree, the skill level required to play marines well is somewhat higher than to play aliens well, sadly, in both the commander and the player role.
I think there's an elegant solution though: make aliens require more skill to play well too (i.e. remove glancing bites would be a start?). That way the comp games won't be affected as much, and the pub games will (maybe?) be affected greatly... Maybe.
Public games come down to lack of strategy = lose. Shouldn't matter about difference in skill on pubs because both teams should be bad. Granted a bad marine commander is slightly worse for your team than a bad alien commander but its swings and roundabouts....
<!--quoteo(post=2033344:date=Nov 24 2012, 01:40 AM:name=Asmodies)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Asmodies @ Nov 24 2012, 01:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2033344"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So the things you're bringing up are going to be subjective, what you personally think the pub environment needs, not what will actually balance the game. Which is fine, but it needs to be seen as such and handled with care as to not mess up actual balance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Perhaps you need to reread the thread title.
<b>The problem with balance isn't about balance at all</b>
You can balance the game without 'balancing' the game. That was what I first suggested. Perhaps people need to reread my original post and then reply again. Bringing up balance issues in this thread is pointless since that is not what the thread is about. I've been trying to drag things back on topic, but people aren't making it easy.
So please take a look back over my original post. My suggestion is to improve game balance *not* by altering game balance, but by altering how players interact with the game. If something as simple as changing how the scoreboard is displayed could provide better pub balance, then why not do it?
Competitive players are getting really greedy with respect to their demands on how the game is to be balanced. This attitude of "pub games shouldn't count towards balance" is getting really old really fast. It would be nice if instead of constantly crapping on everyone else's ideas on how to better balance pubs that people would instead contribute their own ideas.
<!--quoteo(post=2033370:date=Nov 24 2012, 12:14 AM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Nov 24 2012, 12:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2033370"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Perhaps you need to reread the thread title.
<b>The problem with balance isn't about balance at all</b>
You can balance the game without 'balancing' the game. That was what I first suggested. Perhaps people need to reread my original post and then reply again. Bringing up balance issues in this thread is pointless since that is not what the thread is about. I've been trying to drag things back on topic, but people aren't making it easy.
So please take a look back over my original post. My suggestion is to improve game balance *not* by altering game balance, but by altering how players interact with the game. If something as simple as changing how the scoreboard is displayed could provide better pub balance, then why not do it?
Competitive players are getting really greedy with respect to their demands on how the game is to be balanced. This attitude of "pub games shouldn't count towards balance" is getting really old really fast. It would be nice if instead of constantly crapping on everyone else's ideas on how to better balance pubs that people would instead contribute their own ideas.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no evidence that removing deaths from the scoreboard would improve balance.
<!--quoteo(post=2033361:date=Nov 23 2012, 10:06 PM:name=PsympleJester)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PsympleJester @ Nov 23 2012, 10:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2033361"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Lolz thread is lolz.
Public games come down to lack of strategy = lose. Shouldn't matter about difference in skill on pubs because both teams should be bad. Granted a bad marine commander is slightly worse for your team than a bad alien commander but its swings and roundabouts....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lack of strategy? LOL.
There's only so much a marine com can do. You can tell your team to hold a phase gate up, even let them know it's going to be attacked in advance, but if they can't shoot, they just die.
And unfortunately, you can pretty much see it in every server. It's much easier to bunnyhop and strafe or ambush as a skulk, and then land 3 bites (even if two are half-assed 50 hits or one is a "glancing" bite with 2 good ones) on a marine, than shoot a good skulk, especially when surprised/ambushed.
Conversely, it's hard to miss with a skulk, especially with glancing bites, whereas it's very easy to miss as marine.
Mix camo in, and the "easiness" of playing a skulk, while the "difficulty" of playing a marine just got multiplied by 5.
For some reason, most marine teams on pubs are utterly horrible at just about everything, while alien teams actually work really well together.
Maybe the good people got bored with marines and are stacking aliens; I don't know. But it seems to me playing skulks ends up much easier for people with little experience than playing marines does. The impact of being bad on marines, both in the com and player positions, also seems to be much more pronounced.
The biggest challenge is how to "fix" this, when in the last serious tournament, marines won like 7 out of 8 games...
P.S. I think the "I must build" dimension also adds some challenge to the marine gameplay. Aliens are entirely "I must kill players/structures." Marines have to also build things. I've seen many people being confused about what to build first, when to build it, when to stop building and shoot, how to position yourself when building, etc. etc., especially in aggressive positions.
<!--quoteo(post=2033373:date=Nov 24 2012, 02:19 AM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Nov 24 2012, 02:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2033373"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is no evidence that removing deaths from the scoreboard would improve balance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Can people please read the original post? Seriously? How about the topic name even.
I'm not sure what part of "The problem with balance isn't about balance at all" that some people don't understand.
No. Changing the scoreboard or even removing it entirely would not change the game balance since the scoreboard won't affect weapon damage or health etc.
Changing the scoreboard will change <b>BEHAVIOUR</b>. That in turn will alter the game chemistry.
For example. If we changed the score so that it was points only and to be #1 on the scoreboard you had to do things that were 'team based' (like following orders, protecting buildings, assisting teammates etc) then many people would do more of those things since they want to be on top of the scoreboard. Anyone who disagrees with this knows nothing about human psychology.
<!--quoteo(post=2031257:date=Nov 22 2012, 01:26 AM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Nov 22 2012, 01:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031257"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->introduce a scoring system that puts less emphasis on kills, and more on teamwork. Give players points for building structures. Give players points for defending a teammate (killing an enemy attacking a player on your team). Give players points for kills that are in the vicinity of other players. Give players points for killing enemies attacking your res nodes. Give players points for following orders. Get the idea? Points should represent a player's contribution to the TEAM, not an indication of how good a shot he is. The guy with the most points on a team should be the one with the best teamwork ethic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I love this idea so much, I wish it was implemented. There are people who neglect orders to try and rack up kills, thinking they're playing Counterstrike, and it's a detriment to the team. And then after the match, they're all "durr hurr I got the most kills", not a good impression for newer players either
<!--quoteo(post=2033404:date=Nov 24 2012, 01:16 AM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Nov 24 2012, 01:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2033404"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Can people please read the original post? Seriously? How about the topic name even.
I'm not sure what part of "The problem with balance isn't about balance at all" that some people don't understand.
No. Changing the scoreboard or even removing it entirely would not change the game balance since the scoreboard won't affect weapon damage or health etc.
Changing the scoreboard will change <b>BEHAVIOUR</b>. That in turn will alter the game chemistry.
For example. If we changed the score so that it was points only and to be #1 on the scoreboard you had to do things that were 'team based' (like following orders, protecting buildings, assisting teammates etc) then many people would do more of those things since they want to be on top of the scoreboard. Anyone who disagrees with this knows nothing about human psychology.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. Removing deaths from the score board will not result in the positive teamwork-oriented behavior changes that you think it will.
re: the page 4 replies to the starcraft analogy and why marine is more difficult than alien
starcraft is NOT the same at all skill levels. if you can't see this then i'm guessing you're a bronze-gold leaguer. once players go beyond the 'average' skill level, they start to exploit weaknesses. each race has several weaknesses, and to improve as a player you must overcome these weaknesses to stop yourself from being exploited - massive learning curve.
i believe marine is primarily more difficult than alien because of the 'glancing blow' and medpack mechanics. marines simply need medpack drops and a certain level of aiming skill in order to match the aliens, which means the marine commander and team need to be a certain level of skill before the game reaches an 'equilibrium'.
if anyone has tried to play while drunk or stoned, i'm sure you've seen your 10:1 marine turn into a 1:10 marine.
<!--quoteo(post=2033072:date=Nov 23 2012, 07:35 PM:name=Radiocage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Radiocage @ Nov 23 2012, 07:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2033072"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is amazing. This right here is what I am talking about. The majority of people playing this game do not understand what teamwork is. Teamwork != 8 marines building an armory. Team work is 2-3 marines scouting for res in different directions, 1-2 marines building the base structures.
Ergo, bad teamwork is arguably less useful than individual skill, which is definitely (not arguably) less useful than actual competent teamwork.
Sometimes I wonder if I'm playing the same game as other people.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
missed point is missed.
unless i totally misundersood the OP, he wants the scoreboard to focus on teamplay to urge people to focus on teamplay. even though teamplay is a load of cobblers without a level of individual skill and strategy.
so he wants to give points as a cookie reward for teamplay, because ppl are too dumb to learn the game on their own? i gave an example of people learning teamplay by doing useless dumb stuff like all following eachother and all building the same structure for a cookie.
you simply cannot reward the important stuff because it's too situational. for example your team are attacking an extractor, you stand there on 'look out' for skulks - how the f*** do you get points for that? because that's more important than herpderp left clicking on an extractor.
on top of that, removing deaths is bad for plenty of reasons already mentioned in this thread.
<!--quoteo(post=2033416:date=Nov 24 2012, 01:42 AM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Nov 24 2012, 01:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2033416"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No. Removing deaths from the score board will not result in the positive teamwork-oriented behavior changes that you think it will.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty sure he's trying to say that by removing deaths or downplaying K/D in general, players (marines specifically) will be more aggressive and willing to make big plays (killing upgrade chambers, etc) even though it results in their death. Dying to save a phase gate is good, for example, even if it ruins the players KDR.
The only problem I have with that logic is that I've never seen someone turn down an order in order to preserve their KDR.
What I do see, everyday, is a commander begging people to go through a phase gate only to watch them wander off to a worthless part of the map. I've stopped commanding because, as a commander, I wasn't able to tolerate players who consistently ignore me. Again, these players had K/Ds of 1/5 so I doubt they cared about K/D at all. K/D isn't a problem.
I think the OP's general point does have some merit, though. It would be nice to change behavior in order to get players listen and so they can see the bigger picture. I have no idea how UWE could accomplish that. When players won't respond to communication and are overall disorganized I doubt there is a feature NS2 could implement to change player behavior.
<!--quoteo(post=2033429:date=Nov 24 2012, 07:00 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Nov 24 2012, 07:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2033429"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Pretty sure he's trying to say that by removing deaths or downplaying K/D in general, players (marines specifically) will be more aggressive and willing to make big plays (killing upgrade chambers, etc) even though it results in their death. Dying to save a phase gate is good, for example, even if it ruins the players KDR.
The only problem I have with that logic is that I've never seen someone turn down an order in order to preserve their KDR.
What I do see, everyday, is a commander begging people to go through a phase gate only to watch them wander off to a worthless part of the map. I've stopped commanding because, as a commander, I wasn't able to tolerate players who consistently ignore me. Again, these players had K/Ds of 1/5 so I doubt they cared about K/D at all. K/D isn't a problem.
I think the OP's general point does have some merit, though. It would be nice to change behavior in order to get players listen and so they can see the bigger picture. I have no idea how UWE could accomplish that. When players won't respond to communication and are overall disorganized I doubt there is a feature NS2 could implement to change player behavior.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
wtf kind of player are you talking about?
if i have a 50:0 score, i will still thrust my giant balls through the phase gate to save it - even if there's an onos on the other side.
new or casual players don't understand the significance of events around them... giving them bonus points for building structures and removing deaths won't change a darn thing. the only thing achieved by removing deaths would be to remove the 'selfish frag ###### epeen' aspect, which hardly even exists in ns2 because it loses the game.
do free2play guys in tf2 magically learn how to play just because deaths and frags are hidden? no, they still play scared and passive... unequivocal proof that your idea doesn't work.
<!--quoteo(post=2033436:date=Nov 24 2012, 02:08 AM:name=tarquinbb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tarquinbb @ Nov 24 2012, 02:08 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2033436"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->wtf kind of player are you talking about?
if i have a 50:0 score, i will still thrust my giant balls through the phase gate to save it - even if there's an onos on the other side.
new or casual players don't understand the significance of events around them... giving them bonus points for building structures and removing deaths won't change a darn thing. the only thing achieved by removing deaths would be to remove the 'selfish frag ###### epeen' aspect, which hardly even exists in ns2 because it loses the game.
do free2play guys in tf2 magically learn how to play just because deaths and frags are hidden? no, they still play scared and passive... unequivocal proof that your idea doesn't work.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Were you able to comprehend anything I wrote? In my first sentence, "he" is the original poster, not you. I'm not sure why you'd assume I was referring to you.
You quoted me and then angrily agreed with everything I said.
<!--quoteo(post=2033446:date=Nov 24 2012, 07:21 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Nov 24 2012, 07:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2033446"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Were you able to comprehend anything I wrote? In my first sentence, "he" is the original poster, not you. I'm not sure why you'd assume I was referring to you.
You quoted me and then angrily agreed with everything I said.
These forums are going to ###### lately.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
nah... you said his post had some merit. it doesn't have any merit.
also, i'm not angry and neither did i mistakingly think you were referring to me in your post...
the problem with NS2 is that it's being advertised as a first person shooter, in reality it's a real time strategy game played out in first person view. Most new comers stack marine because they want to run and gun call of duty style and blow up some aliens. This is nothing new, it's been a problem since NS1 days.
I play aliens exclusively for this very reason. People on rine side aren't team players.
<!--quoteo(post=2033429:date=Nov 24 2012, 04:00 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Nov 24 2012, 04:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2033429"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only problem I have with that logic is that I've never seen someone turn down an order in order to preserve their KDR.
What I do see, everyday, is a commander begging people to go through a phase gate only to watch them wander off to a worthless part of the map. I've stopped commanding because, as a commander, I wasn't able to tolerate players who consistently ignore me. Again, these players had K/Ds of 1/5 so I doubt they cared about K/D at all. K/D isn't a problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->You are probably the first person in this thread to offer a dissenting POV that actually is based on gameplay and not in ego.
You do raise a good point. There are many players that my changes "won't reach" for whatever reason. Like you suggested, they almost seem to treat the game as a simple-player FPS. However, I'm not suggesting that this change is a magic fix and that it will impact all players. Even if it impacts 1 out of 4 players, that's a huge change.
I had one person compare NS to WoW with respect to Marines being Alliance and Kharaa being Horde. The Marine side does attract a certain demographic of player that makes balancing the game tricky. It's for this reason that I think we should explore every possible measure that doesn't actually involve changing game variables.
<!--quoteo(post=2033427:date=Nov 24 2012, 04:00 AM:name=tarquinbb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tarquinbb @ Nov 24 2012, 04:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2033427"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->he wants to give points as a cookie reward for teamplay, because ppl are too dumb to learn the game on their own?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Excuse me? Right now we have a game with no tutorial/training mode. (no BS about watching videos being useful please) Even explore mode has been broken most of the time. Just how are players supposed to learn?
The idea to change the scoreboard is because the scoreboard is universal. Anyone who has played ANY online FPS will know about it, and they will learn how to improve their score. Right now there is no incentive to learn anything more about the game. <i>"My kills are there, and my deaths are there, so the game must be all about kills and deaths amirite?"</i>
No, it's not. That's why a change like this is useful. I'm amazed how some players who object to this have such huge egos that they can't stand the thought that others won't be able to bask in the glory of their awesome K/D ratios.
It's amazing how other FPS shooters have been able to manage without this. I mean, certainly a 'crappy' game like TF2 will never survive without having their kills and deaths posted on the scoreboard, right? Even if it does, it will certainly 'gimp' it I'm sure. :-/
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
This entire thread is full of fail. The only thing that will "change" player behaviour into the patterns you want, is more experience playing. Strange notion, isn't it, that you actually have to play the game to learn how to do it properly?
Wait six months and the problem will not be nearly as bad as you perceive it to be now.
<!--quoteo(post=2033635:date=Nov 24 2012, 02:03 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Nov 24 2012, 02:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2033635"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This entire thread is full of fail. The only thing that will "change" player behaviour into the patterns you want, is more experience playing. Strange notion, isn't it, that you actually have to play the game to learn how to do it properly?
Wait six months and the problem will not be nearly as bad as you perceive it to be now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Six months is an eternity. What you're basically saying is that NS2 is not suitable to new players and the game only becomes balanced after they've all either become veterans or quit playing. That might have been good enough for NS, but there's no reason NS2 shouldn't attempt to bridge that gap. UWE is depending on continued purchases for the foreseeable future, so it's important that new players not get frustrated.
Comments
in NS2 the entire gameplay is different at different skill levels. the problem is that a bad alien comm and a good alien comm can basically do the same thing whereas bad marines and good marines are worlds apart in terms of how they play the actual game.
the skill/teamwork needed to limit aliens to 3 harvesters is so much greater than the skill/teamwork needed to keep marines at 3 extractors.
if the res count is even, aliens win because onos. and aliens are still getting more res whenever marines are slow, poor shooters, disorganized, and unable to resupply in time (99% of games), whereas the opposite is not true
in NS2 the entire gameplay is different at different skill levels. the problem is that a bad alien comm and a good alien comm can basically do the same thing whereas bad marines and good marines are worlds apart in terms of how they play the actual game.
the skill/teamwork needed to limit aliens to 3 harvesters is so much greater than the skill/teamwork needed to keep marines at 3 extractors.
if the res count is even, aliens win because onos. and aliens are still getting more res whenever marines are slow, poor shooters, disorganized, and unable to resupply in time (99% of games), whereas the opposite is not true<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That assumes they even follow the same build order. Yesterday for example we had a com start with a robo and never use it for anything then dropped a second com station. He then got a armory and went directly to aa. Then before researching any weapons he started to get an arms lab and phase tech and then teched armor with no weapon upgrades. Our team was not that good and we could not hold any res towers b/c of the build order vs what the aliens were doing. We tried to teach the com why this build order does not work but he would not listen. We lost the game but then played the map again. This time the same com but the best players stacked marines and alines had no com for 3min. The marines rolled over the aliens and that same com then is like oh look I know what I am doing.
When teams are close to even the com makes the difference but a team with dramatically better players will usually win regardless. Starcraft has a lot of people watching the pros before and after they play multilayer. This however is not the case in fps games like NS2. While NS2 has a lot of potential for a great pro scene it is a far cry to assume that most players are emulating anything other than what other players tell them or what they learn from trial and error.
Furthermore you are taking this discussion off topic. As I mentioned in my original post, I'm not talking about individual player balance.
What is needed to 'balance' this game is to get people (like yourself) looking away from individual player balance as the epitome of balance for the game.
This thread is about encouraging TEAMWORK. That's the missing 'balance' in the game right now, and too many people are still blinded by individual player balance that they can't see that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why do you think removing deaths is going to increase teamwork?
Do you believe that if there is no death tally then dying (and losing your shotgun, fade, exosuit, etc) suddenly becomes more fun? Do you really think a majority of players are playing NS2 for the scoreboard?
FPS drops don't help aliens hit their melee attacks, but it's certainly less disastrous then trying to accurately shoot fast moving targets.
I consider myself great at shooting as a marine with normal FPS. As soon as the drops start hitting even the lowliest skulk can prove an issue.
not because of logic, but because it might get marines to get out of the spawn
if they replaced it with raw damage numbers (both to structures and to lifeforms) then people might actually bother with attacking things like harvesters and hives...
Furthermore you are taking this discussion off topic. As I mentioned in my original post, I'm not talking about individual player balance.
What is needed to 'balance' this game is to get people (like yourself) looking away from individual player balance as the epitome of balance for the game.
This thread is about encouraging TEAMWORK. That's the missing 'balance' in the game right now, and too many people are still blinded by individual player balance that they can't see that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are so many reasons already in the game to use teamwork. And it's largely balanced around it already.
I'm not lost at all.. I play 6v6 all the time where the teamwork has to be A++ and I realize it's not one dimension at all. The things you've listed are inaccurate and I'm just pointing it out.
Balancing around low skill players is not the way to go. You balance around what the best players can achieve with the best teamwork.
The developers aren't going to balance the game around competitive play. They've made that clear, and the last three patches were specifically designed to address pub play imbalance.
This thread is not about competitive play.
For the game to survive and prosper it *MUST* be balanced for pub play. I hate to break it to you, but the average player could care less about competitive play, and those "average players" represent 99.9% of the player base. Do you really expect the developers to give these people the collective finger and expect the game to still sell copies? Really?
The developers aren't going to balance the game around competitive play. They've made that clear, and the last three patches were specifically designed to address pub play imbalance.
This thread is not about competitive play.
For the game to survive and prosper it *MUST* be balanced for pub play. I hate to break it to you, but the average player could care less about competitive play, and those "average players" represent 99.9% of the player base. Do you really expect the developers to give these people the collective finger and expect the game to still sell copies? Really?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
all of your points from this and your previous posts have already been addressed, not sure why you're replying without bothering to respond to them
The developers aren't going to balance the game around competitive play. They've made that clear, and the last three patches were specifically designed to address pub play imbalance.
This thread is not about competitive play.
For the game to survive and prosper it *MUST* be balanced for pub play. I hate to break it to you, but the average player could care less about competitive play, and those "average players" represent 99.9% of the player base. Do you really expect the developers to give these people the collective finger and expect the game to still sell copies? Really?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This mindset is 100% incorrect. There is no such thing as balance for pubs. Balance is balance, it is an objective point when two sides have equal potency given the player variable is mitigated. What you're talking about is "fun" in pubs when the skill level of two teams is most likely quite different. Both can be attained but the game being balanced needs to come first. The game plays well in pubs already, there are just some things that are too good in environments where people lack basic teamwork that should be presumed to be present when speaking of balance.
So the things you're bringing up are going to be subjective, what you personally think the pub environment needs, not what will actually balance the game. Which is fine, but it needs to be seen as such and handled with care as to not mess up actual balance.
in NS2 the entire gameplay is different at different skill levels. the problem is that a bad alien comm and a good alien comm can basically do the same thing whereas bad marines and good marines are worlds apart in terms of how they play the actual game.
the skill/teamwork needed to limit aliens to 3 harvesters is so much greater than the skill/teamwork needed to keep marines at 3 extractors.
if the res count is even, aliens win because onos. and aliens are still getting more res whenever marines are slow, poor shooters, disorganized, and unable to resupply in time (99% of games), whereas the opposite is not true<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty much this ^ . I wouldn't say starcraft is a "simple" RTS though.
But I agree, the skill level required to play marines well is somewhat higher than to play aliens well, sadly, in both the commander and the player role.
I think there's an elegant solution though: make aliens require more skill to play well too (i.e. remove glancing bites would be a start?). That way the comp games won't be affected as much, and the pub games will (maybe?) be affected greatly... Maybe.
It's a start, at least.
Also, performance improvements...
Public games come down to lack of strategy = lose.
Shouldn't matter about difference in skill on pubs because both teams should be bad.
Granted a bad marine commander is slightly worse for your team than a bad alien commander but
its swings and roundabouts....
<b>The problem with balance isn't about balance at all</b>
You can balance the game without 'balancing' the game. That was what I first suggested. Perhaps people need to reread my original post and then reply again. Bringing up balance issues in this thread is pointless since that is not what the thread is about. I've been trying to drag things back on topic, but people aren't making it easy.
So please take a look back over my original post. My suggestion is to improve game balance *not* by altering game balance, but by altering how players interact with the game. If something as simple as changing how the scoreboard is displayed could provide better pub balance, then why not do it?
Competitive players are getting really greedy with respect to their demands on how the game is to be balanced. This attitude of "pub games shouldn't count towards balance" is getting really old really fast. It would be nice if instead of constantly crapping on everyone else's ideas on how to better balance pubs that people would instead contribute their own ideas.
<b>The problem with balance isn't about balance at all</b>
You can balance the game without 'balancing' the game. That was what I first suggested. Perhaps people need to reread my original post and then reply again. Bringing up balance issues in this thread is pointless since that is not what the thread is about. I've been trying to drag things back on topic, but people aren't making it easy.
So please take a look back over my original post. My suggestion is to improve game balance *not* by altering game balance, but by altering how players interact with the game. If something as simple as changing how the scoreboard is displayed could provide better pub balance, then why not do it?
Competitive players are getting really greedy with respect to their demands on how the game is to be balanced. This attitude of "pub games shouldn't count towards balance" is getting really old really fast. It would be nice if instead of constantly crapping on everyone else's ideas on how to better balance pubs that people would instead contribute their own ideas.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no evidence that removing deaths from the scoreboard would improve balance.
Public games come down to lack of strategy = lose.
Shouldn't matter about difference in skill on pubs because both teams should be bad.
Granted a bad marine commander is slightly worse for your team than a bad alien commander but
its swings and roundabouts....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lack of strategy? LOL.
There's only so much a marine com can do. You can tell your team to hold a phase gate up, even let them know it's going to be attacked in advance, but if they can't shoot, they just die.
And unfortunately, you can pretty much see it in every server. It's much easier to bunnyhop and strafe or ambush as a skulk, and then land 3 bites (even if two are half-assed 50 hits or one is a "glancing" bite with 2 good ones) on a marine, than shoot a good skulk, especially when surprised/ambushed.
Conversely, it's hard to miss with a skulk, especially with glancing bites, whereas it's very easy to miss as marine.
Mix camo in, and the "easiness" of playing a skulk, while the "difficulty" of playing a marine just got multiplied by 5.
For some reason, most marine teams on pubs are utterly horrible at just about everything, while alien teams actually work really well together.
Maybe the good people got bored with marines and are stacking aliens; I don't know. But it seems to me playing skulks ends up much easier for people with little experience than playing marines does. The impact of being bad on marines, both in the com and player positions, also seems to be much more pronounced.
The biggest challenge is how to "fix" this, when in the last serious tournament, marines won like 7 out of 8 games...
P.S. I think the "I must build" dimension also adds some challenge to the marine gameplay. Aliens are entirely "I must kill players/structures." Marines have to also build things. I've seen many people being confused about what to build first, when to build it, when to stop building and shoot, how to position yourself when building, etc. etc., especially in aggressive positions.
I'm not sure what part of "The problem with balance isn't about balance at all" that some people don't understand.
No. Changing the scoreboard or even removing it entirely would not change the game balance since the scoreboard won't affect weapon damage or health etc.
Changing the scoreboard will change <b>BEHAVIOUR</b>. That in turn will alter the game chemistry.
For example. If we changed the score so that it was points only and to be #1 on the scoreboard you had to do things that were 'team based' (like following orders, protecting buildings, assisting teammates etc) then many people would do more of those things since they want to be on top of the scoreboard. Anyone who disagrees with this knows nothing about human psychology.
I love this idea so much, I wish it was implemented. There are people who neglect orders to try and rack up kills, thinking they're playing Counterstrike, and it's a detriment to the team. And then after the match, they're all "durr hurr I got the most kills", not a good impression for newer players either
I'm not sure what part of "The problem with balance isn't about balance at all" that some people don't understand.
No. Changing the scoreboard or even removing it entirely would not change the game balance since the scoreboard won't affect weapon damage or health etc.
Changing the scoreboard will change <b>BEHAVIOUR</b>. That in turn will alter the game chemistry.
For example. If we changed the score so that it was points only and to be #1 on the scoreboard you had to do things that were 'team based' (like following orders, protecting buildings, assisting teammates etc) then many people would do more of those things since they want to be on top of the scoreboard. Anyone who disagrees with this knows nothing about human psychology.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. Removing deaths from the score board will not result in the positive teamwork-oriented behavior changes that you think it will.
starcraft is NOT the same at all skill levels. if you can't see this then i'm guessing you're a bronze-gold leaguer. once players go beyond the 'average' skill level, they start to exploit weaknesses. each race has several weaknesses, and to improve as a player you must overcome these weaknesses to stop yourself from being exploited - massive learning curve.
i believe marine is primarily more difficult than alien because of the 'glancing blow' and medpack mechanics. marines simply need medpack drops and a certain level of aiming skill in order to match the aliens, which means the marine commander and team need to be a certain level of skill before the game reaches an 'equilibrium'.
if anyone has tried to play while drunk or stoned, i'm sure you've seen your 10:1 marine turn into a 1:10 marine.
Ergo, bad teamwork is arguably less useful than individual skill, which is definitely (not arguably) less useful than actual competent teamwork.
Sometimes I wonder if I'm playing the same game as other people.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
missed point is missed.
unless i totally misundersood the OP, he wants the scoreboard to focus on teamplay to urge people to focus on teamplay. even though teamplay is a load of cobblers without a level of individual skill and strategy.
so he wants to give points as a cookie reward for teamplay, because ppl are too dumb to learn the game on their own? i gave an example of people learning teamplay by doing useless dumb stuff like all following eachother and all building the same structure for a cookie.
you simply cannot reward the important stuff because it's too situational. for example your team are attacking an extractor, you stand there on 'look out' for skulks - how the f*** do you get points for that? because that's more important than herpderp left clicking on an extractor.
on top of that, removing deaths is bad for plenty of reasons already mentioned in this thread.
Pretty sure he's trying to say that by removing deaths or downplaying K/D in general, players (marines specifically) will be more aggressive and willing to make big plays (killing upgrade chambers, etc) even though it results in their death. Dying to save a phase gate is good, for example, even if it ruins the players KDR.
The only problem I have with that logic is that I've never seen someone turn down an order in order to preserve their KDR.
What I do see, everyday, is a commander begging people to go through a phase gate only to watch them wander off to a worthless part of the map. I've stopped commanding because, as a commander, I wasn't able to tolerate players who consistently ignore me. Again, these players had K/Ds of 1/5 so I doubt they cared about K/D at all. K/D isn't a problem.
I think the OP's general point does have some merit, though. It would be nice to change behavior in order to get players listen and so they can see the bigger picture. I have no idea how UWE could accomplish that. When players won't respond to communication and are overall disorganized I doubt there is a feature NS2 could implement to change player behavior.
The only problem I have with that logic is that I've never seen someone turn down an order in order to preserve their KDR.
What I do see, everyday, is a commander begging people to go through a phase gate only to watch them wander off to a worthless part of the map. I've stopped commanding because, as a commander, I wasn't able to tolerate players who consistently ignore me. Again, these players had K/Ds of 1/5 so I doubt they cared about K/D at all. K/D isn't a problem.
I think the OP's general point does have some merit, though. It would be nice to change behavior in order to get players listen and so they can see the bigger picture. I have no idea how UWE could accomplish that. When players won't respond to communication and are overall disorganized I doubt there is a feature NS2 could implement to change player behavior.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
wtf kind of player are you talking about?
if i have a 50:0 score, i will still thrust my giant balls through the phase gate to save it - even if there's an onos on the other side.
new or casual players don't understand the significance of events around them... giving them bonus points for building structures and removing deaths won't change a darn thing. the only thing achieved by removing deaths would be to remove the 'selfish frag ###### epeen' aspect, which hardly even exists in ns2 because it loses the game.
do free2play guys in tf2 magically learn how to play just because deaths and frags are hidden? no, they still play scared and passive... unequivocal proof that your idea doesn't work.
if i have a 50:0 score, i will still thrust my giant balls through the phase gate to save it - even if there's an onos on the other side.
new or casual players don't understand the significance of events around them... giving them bonus points for building structures and removing deaths won't change a darn thing. the only thing achieved by removing deaths would be to remove the 'selfish frag ###### epeen' aspect, which hardly even exists in ns2 because it loses the game.
do free2play guys in tf2 magically learn how to play just because deaths and frags are hidden? no, they still play scared and passive... unequivocal proof that your idea doesn't work.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Were you able to comprehend anything I wrote? In my first sentence, "he" is the original poster, not you. I'm not sure why you'd assume I was referring to you.
You quoted me and then angrily agreed with everything I said.
These forums are going to ###### lately.
Edit: Tribes: Ascend did this. No deaths. Only kills, score and flag captures
You quoted me and then angrily agreed with everything I said.
These forums are going to ###### lately.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
nah... you said his post had some merit. it doesn't have any merit.
also, i'm not angry and neither did i mistakingly think you were referring to me in your post...
I play aliens exclusively for this very reason. People on rine side aren't team players.
What I do see, everyday, is a commander begging people to go through a phase gate only to watch them wander off to a worthless part of the map. I've stopped commanding because, as a commander, I wasn't able to tolerate players who consistently ignore me. Again, these players had K/Ds of 1/5 so I doubt they cared about K/D at all. K/D isn't a problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->You are probably the first person in this thread to offer a dissenting POV that actually is based on gameplay and not in ego.
You do raise a good point. There are many players that my changes "won't reach" for whatever reason. Like you suggested, they almost seem to treat the game as a simple-player FPS. However, I'm not suggesting that this change is a magic fix and that it will impact all players. Even if it impacts 1 out of 4 players, that's a huge change.
I had one person compare NS to WoW with respect to Marines being Alliance and Kharaa being Horde. The Marine side does attract a certain demographic of player that makes balancing the game tricky. It's for this reason that I think we should explore every possible measure that doesn't actually involve changing game variables.
<!--quoteo(post=2033427:date=Nov 24 2012, 04:00 AM:name=tarquinbb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tarquinbb @ Nov 24 2012, 04:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2033427"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->he wants to give points as a cookie reward for teamplay, because ppl are too dumb to learn the game on their own?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Excuse me? Right now we have a game with no tutorial/training mode. (no BS about watching videos being useful please) Even explore mode has been broken most of the time. Just how are players supposed to learn?
The idea to change the scoreboard is because the scoreboard is universal. Anyone who has played ANY online FPS will know about it, and they will learn how to improve their score. Right now there is no incentive to learn anything more about the game. <i>"My kills are there, and my deaths are there, so the game must be all about kills and deaths amirite?"</i>
No, it's not. That's why a change like this is useful. I'm amazed how some players who object to this have such huge egos that they can't stand the thought that others won't be able to bask in the glory of their awesome K/D ratios.
It's amazing how other FPS shooters have been able to manage without this. I mean, certainly a 'crappy' game like TF2 will never survive without having their kills and deaths posted on the scoreboard, right? Even if it does, it will certainly 'gimp' it I'm sure. :-/
Wait six months and the problem will not be nearly as bad as you perceive it to be now.
Wait six months and the problem will not be nearly as bad as you perceive it to be now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Six months is an eternity. What you're basically saying is that NS2 is not suitable to new players and the game only becomes balanced after they've all either become veterans or quit playing. That might have been good enough for NS, but there's no reason NS2 shouldn't attempt to bridge that gap. UWE is depending on continued purchases for the foreseeable future, so it's important that new players not get frustrated.