<sup><!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro-->*snip* If you wish to talk about our moderation, send a PM. Thank you. - Angelusz<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></sup>
Anyway, what do people here think about BF3's supression mechanic, which is a large part of the game, and is generally well received by those who play it.
<!--quoteo(post=2036327:date=Nov 27 2012, 10:05 PM:name=xDragon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xDragon @ Nov 27 2012, 10:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036327"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Does anyone actually think/see a reason for umbra to look the way it does in NS2? Does it really help you get that much more immersed in the game? <img src="http://i.imgur.com/oFJgP.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why is it always the argument that visual effects are for immersion? Have you considered that, while "realism" is somewhat relevant to make the environment believable and "immersive," throwing that word out there in a game which simulates humans shooting aliens in space mining installations is a bit ridiculous sometimes?
Maybe they could be because it's a design decision? Maybe it's for balancing? Maybe it's simulating the lerks having PMS episodes?
Personally, I see vision obstructing effects, in NS2 as in other games, an additional challenge and something to develop skills around. Sure, I might get smoked, glared, flashbanged, umbra'd, spored, whatever'd, but with experience I've learned to "see through" these things, in this and other games where they occur. I find it fun to challenge myself to be able to "see through" the visual pressure, and still score kills or at least deal damage.
To me, it's a skill that can be learned and practiced. The spores might be 100%, but you can learn things like how to get out of the spore clouds, not stay in a group, etc. etc. The "100% block" effects are very few, and they disappear extremely quickly in NS2, to the point where they're not even usable in comp games because they're considered not worth their cost from what I'm seeing.
Just because it's not aiming and moving/jumping skill, doesn't mean it's not skill. If you have played BF games, you'll know that positioning and vision are heavily emphasized there, and while they're different from the "twitch aiming, bunny-hop-movement, weapon-switching" skills in quake/unreal/"insert new age old-skool arena shooter", I don't understand why people deprecate those skills so much. They might be easier to learn, but they're still something to learn and practice.
If you want to raise the "skill ceiling" in NS2 to something like Q3, you have to make aliens and marines move and shoot/hit like Q3. In my opinion, that would just ruin the entire feeling of the game. Sure, the "skill ceiling" would be infinite, but the game would be infinitely stupid as well IMO - not because it's not "skill-based," but because I won't like it xD .
I enjoy NS2 because it's not Q3, UT, Warsow, or whatever else, and I'm not looking forward to having it made into that.
<!--quoteo(post=2036327:date=Nov 28 2012, 05:05 AM:name=xDragon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xDragon @ Nov 28 2012, 05:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036327"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><img src="http://i.imgur.com/oFJgP.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is just one of a hundred pictures that can be used to illustrate the sprawling mass of ways in which you can find it difficult to see :(.
So, I kinda read through the thread and I can't really find why being difficult to see through is a problem.
The only reason I see quoted is "because I don't like it." Well, that's kind of interesting, because I also don't like falling to the ground when an onos stomps me, lerks biting me when I fly around with a jetpack, being eaten by a skulk, and being 1-shot as a lerk. I learn how to play around those things and develop skills/experience to know how to avoid them as much as possible, because I like the game.
So, why is vision obscuring a "bad thing?" Notice that I'm not saying vision obstruction, i.e. abilities which are designed to be a "100% block" like gorge spit, cyst erupt, spores, etc. The "100% block" abilities might be deemed necessary by game design, but things like misting, jetpack smoke, onos stomp dust, umbra, etc. - you can still see through them. It's more difficult, but it's not impossible. Why are they a problem, objectively speaking?
<!--quoteo(post=2036779:date=Nov 28 2012, 03:07 PM:name=HeatSurge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (HeatSurge @ Nov 28 2012, 03:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036779"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So, I kinda read through the thread and I can't really find why being difficult to see through is a problem.
The only reason I see quoted is "because I don't like it." Well, that's kind of interesting, because I also don't like falling to the ground when an onos stomps me, lerks biting me when I fly around with a jetpack, being eaten by a skulk, and being 1-shot as a lerk. I learn how to play around those things and develop skills/experience to know how to avoid them as much as possible, because I like the game.
So, why is vision obscuring a "bad thing?" Notice that I'm not saying vision obstruction, i.e. abilities which are designed to be a "100% block" like gorge spit, cyst erupt, spores, etc. The "100% block" abilities might be deemed necessary by game design, but things like misting, jetpack smoke, onos stomp dust, umbra, etc. - you can still see through them. It's more difficult, but it's not impossible. Why are they a problem, objectively speaking?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In american football, they call mud the 'great equalizer.'
When you play on a muddy field, it doesn't matter how good you are. A team that is generally worse then some other team can have a hope of winning, or at least tieing a game that is played in the mud. This isn't because they have practiced in the mud, and adapted to it. It is because the skill ceiling for playing foot ball on a muddy field is lower than on a dry field.
In an FPS, vision obscuring particle effects, are like mud. They just lower the skill ceiling for marine play.
Now some times this is okay, because it is intentional, and there is some risk to using the vision obscuring weapon or spell. I think this is why flashbangs are okay (they cost money, and some times they do nothing), and spores are okay (you have to close distance and fly slowly to use them). Jet pack smoke, flamethrower smoke, umbra, gorge spit, cyst rupture etc, are relatively random compared to the other examples.
At the same time, the over abundance of visual impairment mechanics, really combine together to fill the game with mud.
<!--quoteo(post=2036812:date=Nov 28 2012, 03:41 PM:name=Katana-)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Katana- @ Nov 28 2012, 03:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036812"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In an FPS, vision obscuring particle effects, are like mud. They just lower the skill ceiling for marine play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Is this just your opinion, or can you support that statement somehow? It doesn't seem to be self-evident, and you provided no reasons for us to believe it, so why should we?
<!--quoteo(post=2036812:date=Nov 29 2012, 01:41 AM:name=Katana-)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Katana- @ Nov 29 2012, 01:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036812"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In american football, they call mud the 'great equalizer.'
When you play on a muddy field, it doesn't matter how good you are. A team that is generally worse then some other team can have a hope of winning, or at least tieing a game that is played in the mud. This isn't because they have practiced in the mud, and adapted to it. It is because the skill ceiling for playing foot ball on a muddy field is lower than on a dry field.
In an FPS, vision obscuring particle effects, are like mud. They just lower the skill ceiling for marine play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's quite an elegant argument. I can see the merits it has, but I'm inclined to disagree with it.
It all depends on your perspective really. Your argument, I assume, is that obscuring effects reduce a players ability to utilize their aim effectively, which is a skill equalizer. However, to me, aim <i>is </i>a skill equalizer. Be honest, do you really want to play a game in which the primary "skill" is moving your mouse around and placing a crosshair on a target? I certainly don't, because that is an incredibly one dimensional game. This is the primary reason I stay away from games like CS, COD and the other cookie cutter FPS games.
In my opinion, you could take any 13 year old COD kiddie who only knows point and click, and throw him into NS2, and he will be redeemed of all his shortcomings if he simply knows how to aim well. This I do not like. Therefore, I am fully for any mechanic which removes a players ability to rely solely on his aim.
Daredevil was blind, not deaf, because deaf people don't get better eye sight.
<!--coloro:#FFC0CB--><span style="color:#FFC0CB"><!--/coloro-->I agree that some mechanics that intentionally obscure vision are fine. There is a handful of such abilities, and there is no real issue with them. But as Elodea mentioned in the OP, <b>there should be a clear distinction between these abilities and other effects which are just "fluff" or "detail."</b>
Jetpack dust, for example, can make it harder to see skulks beneath you. Why should it have a drawback at all? I actually trolled Elodea last night by spamming my JP in his face during a combat game. :P<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--quoteo(post=2036995:date=Nov 29 2012, 07:06 AM:name=Kallistrate)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kallistrate @ Nov 29 2012, 07:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036995"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I actually trolled Elodea last night by spamming my JP in his face during a combat game. :P[/color]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2036995:date=Nov 29 2012, 04:06 PM:name=Kallistrate)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kallistrate @ Nov 29 2012, 04:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036995"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Jetpack dust, for example, can make it harder to see skulks beneath you. Why should it have a drawback at all? I actually trolled Elodea last night by spamming my JP in his face during a combat game. :P<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If i was an exo, i probably couldn't have seen anything anyway. Too immersed in the gun barrels flashing, and the pew pew, and the firing smoke, and the bilebomb, and the huge bullet impact smoke, and the fire burning.
*seriously though, why do the bullet impacts make so much dust? This isn't even a case of actual vision blocking, but vision obfuscation. You're trying to pick out moving objects, and all around you have these flashing, moving, visual effects. Sure you adapt at the end of the day, but why do we have this really annoying middle step?
<!--coloro:#FFC0CB--><span style="color:#FFC0CB"><!--/coloro-->Yeah I think it got drowned out by all the other crap on screen, haha.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
this thread is hilarious but should have been closed long ago (if not having the admins finally do their jobs (they did before the official release, even more hard-core)), so let's just close this because ppl are comparing their epeen's.
<!--quoteo(post=2036987:date=Nov 29 2012, 04:56 AM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ Nov 29 2012, 04:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036987"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your argument, I assume, is that obscuring effects reduce a players ability to utilize their aim effectively, which is a skill equalizer. However, to me, aim <i>is </i>a skill equalizer.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Really, <i>really</i>? Just because you don't like aiming because it's moving a mouse, doesn't mean you can effectively argue that it is a skill equaliser. If aim is one of the things that differentiates players so much, then it's hardly skill equalising irrespective of what other components of a game you happen to like. The fact is that visual obscuration is everywhere, like mud, and it's incredibly easy to use. So easy, in fact, that a good deal of time is spent trying to achieve X, Y, Z while visual obscuration happens as a side-effect. There's no omnipresent aim modifier that makes it harder to play the game.
<!--quoteo(post=2037043:date=Nov 29 2012, 08:19 AM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Nov 29 2012, 08:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2037043"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Really, <i>really</i>? Just because you don't like aiming because it's moving a mouse, doesn't mean you can effectively argue that it is a skill equaliser. If aim is one of the things that differentiates players so much, then it's hardly skill equalising irrespective of what other components of a game you happen to like. The fact is that visual obscuration is everywhere, like mud, and it's incredibly easy to use. So easy, in fact, that a good deal of time is spent trying to achieve X, Y, Z while visual obscuration happens as a side-effect. There's no omnipresent aim modifier that makes it harder to play the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think we have different ideas of what is meant by a skill equalizer. Lets go back to the football analogy, its a good one. So when playing in the mud, much of an individual players skill is set to a base line, which is very similar among all the players present. Does this mean that everyone obeys this base line? Of course not. Throw in some pro mud wrestlers, or some pig farmers, and hey presto, you have people who are actually vastly superior at rolling around in the mud. But, of course, you don't ask pig farmers to join your football team, do you?
basically, a skill equalizer, as I see it, is something that detracts from the primary skill of the game, or otherwise places focus on a skill which is not in line with the primary skill of the game. In my opinion, in a game as team oriented, and as reliant on strategy as natural selection is, aim is not the primary skill that should be focused on. I can tell that you have a different opinion, and that's fine, but its important to understand that due to my particular stance, vision obscuring effects don't affect my experience in the slightest. In fact, they enhance it (within reason). more on that soon
<!--quoteo(post=2037058:date=Nov 28 2012, 10:42 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ Nov 28 2012, 10:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2037058"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think we have different ideas of what is meant by a skill equalizer. Lets go back to the football analogy, its a good one. So when playing in the mud, much of an individual players skill is set to a base line, which is very similar among all the players present. Does this mean that everyone obeys this base line? Of course not. Throw in some pro mud wrestlers, or some pig farmers, and hey presto, you have people who are actually vastly superior at rolling around in the mud. But, of course, you don't ask pig farmers to join your football team, do you?
basically, a skill equalizer, as I see it, is something that detracts from the primary skill of the game, or otherwise places focus on a skill which is not in line with the primary skill of the game. In my opinion, in a game as team oriented, and as reliant on strategy as natural selection is, aim is not the primary skill that should be focused on. I can tell that you have a different opinion, and that's fine, but its important to understand that due to my particular stance, vision obscuring effects don't affect my experience in the slightest. In fact, they enhance it (within reason). more on that soon<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't get it, are you claiming that vision obscuring effects are skill equalizers? I haven't yet seen any reason to believe that vision obscuring effects are skill equalizers according to the intuitively inferred meaning of the phrase, and no reason to believe they are skill equalizers according to your definition of the phrase.
<!--quoteo(post=2036269:date=Nov 27 2012, 07:37 PM:name=purephoenix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (purephoenix @ Nov 27 2012, 07:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036269"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->? No, you get off your high horse. There wasn't even an official NS2 ladder until this month. "Veteran competitive NS2 players" don't exist. Fact.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So can you get this? Or trying for the alternatives??
I'm not sure the analogy is a 100% fit, but I can see what you're saying.
More accurately, it'd be like playing football in the rain or snow (but if it doesn't make the ground wet/slippery) or with smoke bombs thrown by either team, and mostly by the QB lol...
But anyway, I LOLd at the pig farmer thing above. I don't even understand the point of that post, but it was funny.
JektJoin Date: 2012-02-05Member: 143714Members, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow
Pig farmers made this thread so much better than <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=122043&hl=" target="_blank">this one.</a>
<!--quoteo(post=2036322:date=Nov 28 2012, 12:59 PM:name=purephoenix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (purephoenix @ Nov 28 2012, 12:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036322"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, the most skilled commander in the Aus/Asia region from NS1 and member of two of the oldest NS1/2 clans in the world, is a "Nobody".
Right. You just proved me 100% right on the troll claims. I'm not bothering any more because to be frank, the trolling in this thread is just sub-human levels of retardedly poor. Obvious trolls are obvious.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2037739:date=Nov 30 2012, 08:29 AM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Nov 30 2012, 08:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2037739"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The point is not that you could have pig farmers overcoming the mud, it's that even pig farmers would do better without it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Incorrect. In the context of the analogy, the proverbial pig farmer would be better at playing football against an opponent in the mud, than he would playing football against an opponent not in the mud. Football isn't about throwing a ball to yourself and running around on a field, its about beating another team.
To bring it back to NS2, imagine a fictitious gamer who primarily uses audio and some form of ninja intuition to aim. While his aim may indeed be inferior to others who use the more traditional sense of sight, he would be vastly superior at aiming in an environment which has vastly reduced visibility. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if his aim is worse overall, all that matters is that his aim is better than the people he is against.
Uh... Hrm, this is awkward. You may actually have a valid point there, Imbalanxd. I feel dirty now.
Still, this just makes me believe even more strongly that we need clearly defined, skill-based vision blockers. I want a couple of awesomely powerful abilities that are designed from the ground up to be fun and rewarding to use well. Then I want the background-noise toned down a bit so that it really makes a difference when someone who is skillful at vision blocking shows up.
I am fine with all the visual obsturctions except for 1. Marine flashlight.. isn't it ment to make the vision better? When there's 2 marines or more using flashlights, it's becoming hard to see. Like.. W T F. This is the only thing that they must fix in my opinion, and hurry up in doing so.
<!--quoteo(post=2037748:date=Nov 29 2012, 10:46 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ Nov 29 2012, 10:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2037748"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To bring it back to NS2, imagine a fictitious gamer who primarily uses audio and some form of ninja intuition to aim. While his aim may indeed be inferior to others who use the more traditional sense of sight, he would be vastly superior at aiming in an environment which has vastly reduced visibility. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if his aim is worse overall, all that matters is that his aim is better than the people he is against.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would agree with this, except your example is horrible contrived. Vision + hand eye coordination are primary parts of video games (note the word <b>video</b>.) I think it is pretty preposterous to argue that there exists some players who especially skilled at seeing through opaque things.
When we are all firing blind, it doesn't matter how good our ability to aim is, and I don't think there is any way a player can be significantly better at dealing with these situations then some other player.
I disagree about "there is no skill at seeing through opaque things." If they're 100% opaque, yes, there is no skill, except maybe simple prediction about where the player could be, extrapolated from the last seen trajectory (not sure if that counts since there's a huge random element to it, but it's somewhat of a "skill" :-P).
However, if it's something that can be seen through, even if it's difficult to see through, there is definitely skill that you can develop around that.
I'm a little surprised this is even a thing. Perhaps it's fair to want a little more parity between turning ON and OFF the atmospheric effects or improved infestation graphics, because right now the game strongly encourages you to use intentionally worse graphics in order to achieve a cleaner easier-to-dominate environment, but things like Umbra or Spores feel completely fine.
Ironically OP's example shows exactly why it's <i>not</i> such a big problem, because he had motion-tracking circles calling out the locations of every alien in the area at the start.
A little late to the party, but... imo if there is any visual obstruction in the game not there for the express purpose of obstruction vision from a balance perspective, and is only there from a graphical perspective, then it doesn't belong in the game. Visual obstructions weight more heavily on balance than almost anything else in the game.
<!--quoteo(post=2037748:date=Nov 30 2012, 06:46 AM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ Nov 30 2012, 06:46 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2037748"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Incorrect. In the context of the analogy, the proverbial pig farmer would be better at playing football against an opponent in the mud, than he would playing football against an opponent not in the mud. Football isn't about throwing a ball to yourself and running around on a field, its about beating another team.
To bring it back to NS2, imagine a fictitious gamer who primarily uses audio and some form of ninja intuition to aim. While his aim may indeed be inferior to others who use the more traditional sense of sight, he would be vastly superior at aiming in an environment which has vastly reduced visibility. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if his aim is worse overall, all that matters is that his aim is better than the people he is against.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're crafting the mud analogy into oblivion, no offence. Like Katana said, seeing through opaque things and a billion particles is hardly a skillful endeavour. The only thing vaguely skillful is avoiding visual obscuration in the first place. Not only is this pretty impossible without staying in base all day long, but the "skill" involved in avoiding it is the same "skill" you use in the game already. Good positioning, tactical advances and clever approaches didn't suddenly come into existence with visual obscuration and placing more emphasis on it doesn't make it any more skillful, it just makes it a requirement (personally, I think not being able to see actually limits my creative options in combat but meh, we'll disagree).
It's not just about beating the other team. We could justify the inclusion of absolutely anything with that line of thought so it's completely pointless. It's not like we blindfold people playing sports to make things more interesting. Why? Because we like to work/play within environments that don't hamper our basic senses and we like to use those senses to overcome obstacles and opponents. I started a thread a while ago about feeling restricted and I maintain that you want to avoid that sensation of restriction wherever possible.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
This thread is amazing on several levels.
On one level you have great feedback regarding visual clutter in the game, with particularly sensible posts by Yuuki and a lovely comparison of umbra in NS1 and NS2 by xDragon.
On the other level, you have some A+ standup comedy by purephoenix, including "reporting" elodea to VAC for speedhacking and swinging his enormous e-###### around (man, nobody knows who you are/were, but you sure are awesome!).
tl;dr: Read this thread twice. Once without reading any of purephoenix's posts for serious discussion, and then a second time only reading purephoenix's posts to lighten the mood.
Comments
<sup><!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro-->*snip* If you wish to talk about our moderation, send a PM. Thank you. - Angelusz<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></sup>
Anyway, what do people here think about BF3's supression mechanic, which is a large part of the game, and is generally well received by those who play it.
Why is it always the argument that visual effects are for immersion? Have you considered that, while "realism" is somewhat relevant to make the environment believable and "immersive," throwing that word out there in a game which simulates humans shooting aliens in space mining installations is a bit ridiculous sometimes?
Maybe they could be because it's a design decision? Maybe it's for balancing? Maybe it's simulating the lerks having PMS episodes?
Personally, I see vision obstructing effects, in NS2 as in other games, an additional challenge and something to develop skills around. Sure, I might get smoked, glared, flashbanged, umbra'd, spored, whatever'd, but with experience I've learned to "see through" these things, in this and other games where they occur. I find it fun to challenge myself to be able to "see through" the visual pressure, and still score kills or at least deal damage.
To me, it's a skill that can be learned and practiced. The spores might be 100%, but you can learn things like how to get out of the spore clouds, not stay in a group, etc. etc. The "100% block" effects are very few, and they disappear extremely quickly in NS2, to the point where they're not even usable in comp games because they're considered not worth their cost from what I'm seeing.
Just because it's not aiming and moving/jumping skill, doesn't mean it's not skill. If you have played BF games, you'll know that positioning and vision are heavily emphasized there, and while they're different from the "twitch aiming, bunny-hop-movement, weapon-switching" skills in quake/unreal/"insert new age old-skool arena shooter", I don't understand why people deprecate those skills so much. They might be easier to learn, but they're still something to learn and practice.
If you want to raise the "skill ceiling" in NS2 to something like Q3, you have to make aliens and marines move and shoot/hit like Q3. In my opinion, that would just ruin the entire feeling of the game. Sure, the "skill ceiling" would be infinite, but the game would be infinitely stupid as well IMO - not because it's not "skill-based," but because I won't like it xD .
I enjoy NS2 because it's not Q3, UT, Warsow, or whatever else, and I'm not looking forward to having it made into that.
This is just one of a hundred pictures that can be used to illustrate the sprawling mass of ways in which you can find it difficult to see :(.
The only reason I see quoted is "because I don't like it." Well, that's kind of interesting, because I also don't like falling to the ground when an onos stomps me, lerks biting me when I fly around with a jetpack, being eaten by a skulk, and being 1-shot as a lerk. I learn how to play around those things and develop skills/experience to know how to avoid them as much as possible, because I like the game.
So, why is vision obscuring a "bad thing?" Notice that I'm not saying vision obstruction, i.e. abilities which are designed to be a "100% block" like gorge spit, cyst erupt, spores, etc. The "100% block" abilities might be deemed necessary by game design, but things like misting, jetpack smoke, onos stomp dust, umbra, etc. - you can still see through them. It's more difficult, but it's not impossible. Why are they a problem, objectively speaking?
The only reason I see quoted is "because I don't like it." Well, that's kind of interesting, because I also don't like falling to the ground when an onos stomps me, lerks biting me when I fly around with a jetpack, being eaten by a skulk, and being 1-shot as a lerk. I learn how to play around those things and develop skills/experience to know how to avoid them as much as possible, because I like the game.
So, why is vision obscuring a "bad thing?" Notice that I'm not saying vision obstruction, i.e. abilities which are designed to be a "100% block" like gorge spit, cyst erupt, spores, etc. The "100% block" abilities might be deemed necessary by game design, but things like misting, jetpack smoke, onos stomp dust, umbra, etc. - you can still see through them. It's more difficult, but it's not impossible. Why are they a problem, objectively speaking?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In american football, they call mud the 'great equalizer.'
When you play on a muddy field, it doesn't matter how good you are. A team that is generally worse then some other team can have a hope of winning, or at least tieing a game that is played in the mud. This isn't because they have practiced in the mud, and adapted to it. It is because the skill ceiling for playing foot ball on a muddy field is lower than on a dry field.
In an FPS, vision obscuring particle effects, are like mud. They just lower the skill ceiling for marine play.
Now some times this is okay, because it is intentional, and there is some risk to using the vision obscuring weapon or spell. I think this is why flashbangs are okay (they cost money, and some times they do nothing), and spores are okay (you have to close distance and fly slowly to use them). Jet pack smoke, flamethrower smoke, umbra, gorge spit, cyst rupture etc, are relatively random compared to the other examples.
At the same time, the over abundance of visual impairment mechanics, really combine together to fill the game with mud.
Is this just your opinion, or can you support that statement somehow? It doesn't seem to be self-evident, and you provided no reasons for us to believe it, so why should we?
When you play on a muddy field, it doesn't matter how good you are. A team that is generally worse then some other team can have a hope of winning, or at least tieing a game that is played in the mud. This isn't because they have practiced in the mud, and adapted to it. It is because the skill ceiling for playing foot ball on a muddy field is lower than on a dry field.
In an FPS, vision obscuring particle effects, are like mud. They just lower the skill ceiling for marine play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's quite an elegant argument. I can see the merits it has, but I'm inclined to disagree with it.
It all depends on your perspective really. Your argument, I assume, is that obscuring effects reduce a players ability to utilize their aim effectively, which is a skill equalizer. However, to me, aim <i>is </i>a skill equalizer. Be honest, do you really want to play a game in which the primary "skill" is moving your mouse around and placing a crosshair on a target? I certainly don't, because that is an incredibly one dimensional game. This is the primary reason I stay away from games like CS, COD and the other cookie cutter FPS games.
In my opinion, you could take any 13 year old COD kiddie who only knows point and click, and throw him into NS2, and he will be redeemed of all his shortcomings if he simply knows how to aim well. This I do not like. Therefore, I am fully for any mechanic which removes a players ability to rely solely on his aim.
Daredevil was blind, not deaf, because deaf people don't get better eye sight.
Jetpack dust, for example, can make it harder to see skulks beneath you. Why should it have a drawback at all? I actually trolled Elodea last night by spamming my JP in his face during a combat game. :P<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Did this sound dirty to anyone else? Just me?
If i was an exo, i probably couldn't have seen anything anyway. Too immersed in the gun barrels flashing, and the pew pew, and the firing smoke, and the bilebomb, and the huge bullet impact smoke, and the fire burning.
*seriously though, why do the bullet impacts make so much dust? This isn't even a case of actual vision blocking, but vision obfuscation. You're trying to pick out moving objects, and all around you have these flashing, moving, visual effects. Sure you adapt at the end of the day, but why do we have this really annoying middle step?
Really, <i>really</i>? Just because you don't like aiming because it's moving a mouse, doesn't mean you can effectively argue that it is a skill equaliser. If aim is one of the things that differentiates players so much, then it's hardly skill equalising irrespective of what other components of a game you happen to like. The fact is that visual obscuration is everywhere, like mud, and it's incredibly easy to use. So easy, in fact, that a good deal of time is spent trying to achieve X, Y, Z while visual obscuration happens as a side-effect. There's no omnipresent aim modifier that makes it harder to play the game.
I think we have different ideas of what is meant by a skill equalizer. Lets go back to the football analogy, its a good one. So when playing in the mud, much of an individual players skill is set to a base line, which is very similar among all the players present. Does this mean that everyone obeys this base line? Of course not. Throw in some pro mud wrestlers, or some pig farmers, and hey presto, you have people who are actually vastly superior at rolling around in the mud. But, of course, you don't ask pig farmers to join your football team, do you?
basically, a skill equalizer, as I see it, is something that detracts from the primary skill of the game, or otherwise places focus on a skill which is not in line with the primary skill of the game. In my opinion, in a game as team oriented, and as reliant on strategy as natural selection is, aim is not the primary skill that should be focused on. I can tell that you have a different opinion, and that's fine, but its important to understand that due to my particular stance, vision obscuring effects don't affect my experience in the slightest. In fact, they enhance it (within reason). more on that soon
basically, a skill equalizer, as I see it, is something that detracts from the primary skill of the game, or otherwise places focus on a skill which is not in line with the primary skill of the game. In my opinion, in a game as team oriented, and as reliant on strategy as natural selection is, aim is not the primary skill that should be focused on. I can tell that you have a different opinion, and that's fine, but its important to understand that due to my particular stance, vision obscuring effects don't affect my experience in the slightest. In fact, they enhance it (within reason). more on that soon<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't get it, are you claiming that vision obscuring effects are skill equalizers? I haven't yet seen any reason to believe that vision obscuring effects are skill equalizers according to the intuitively inferred meaning of the phrase, and no reason to believe they are skill equalizers according to your definition of the phrase.
"Veteran competitive NS2 players" don't exist. Fact.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So can you get this? Or trying for the alternatives??
More accurately, it'd be like playing football in the rain or snow (but if it doesn't make the ground wet/slippery) or with smoke bombs thrown by either team, and mostly by the QB lol...
But anyway, I LOLd at the pig farmer thing above. I don't even understand the point of that post, but it was funny.
Right. You just proved me 100% right on the troll claims. I'm not bothering any more because to be frank, the trolling in this thread is just sub-human levels of retardedly poor. Obvious trolls are obvious.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Name in NS1?
Also name your clan as well.
99% sure you're full of ######.
Incorrect. In the context of the analogy, the proverbial pig farmer would be better at playing football against an opponent in the mud, than he would playing football against an opponent not in the mud. Football isn't about throwing a ball to yourself and running around on a field, its about beating another team.
To bring it back to NS2, imagine a fictitious gamer who primarily uses audio and some form of ninja intuition to aim. While his aim may indeed be inferior to others who use the more traditional sense of sight, he would be vastly superior at aiming in an environment which has vastly reduced visibility. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if his aim is worse overall, all that matters is that his aim is better than the people he is against.
Still, this just makes me believe even more strongly that we need clearly defined, skill-based vision blockers. I want a couple of awesomely powerful abilities that are designed from the ground up to be fun and rewarding to use well. Then I want the background-noise toned down a bit so that it really makes a difference when someone who is skillful at vision blocking shows up.
I would agree with this, except your example is horrible contrived. Vision + hand eye coordination are primary parts of video games (note the word <b>video</b>.) I think it is pretty preposterous to argue that there exists some players who especially skilled at seeing through opaque things.
When we are all firing blind, it doesn't matter how good our ability to aim is, and I don't think there is any way a player can be significantly better at dealing with these situations then some other player.
However, if it's something that can be seen through, even if it's difficult to see through, there is definitely skill that you can develop around that.
Ironically OP's example shows exactly why it's <i>not</i> such a big problem, because he had motion-tracking circles calling out the locations of every alien in the area at the start.
To bring it back to NS2, imagine a fictitious gamer who primarily uses audio and some form of ninja intuition to aim. While his aim may indeed be inferior to others who use the more traditional sense of sight, he would be vastly superior at aiming in an environment which has vastly reduced visibility. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if his aim is worse overall, all that matters is that his aim is better than the people he is against.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're crafting the mud analogy into oblivion, no offence. Like Katana said, seeing through opaque things and a billion particles is hardly a skillful endeavour. The only thing vaguely skillful is avoiding visual obscuration in the first place. Not only is this pretty impossible without staying in base all day long, but the "skill" involved in avoiding it is the same "skill" you use in the game already. Good positioning, tactical advances and clever approaches didn't suddenly come into existence with visual obscuration and placing more emphasis on it doesn't make it any more skillful, it just makes it a requirement (personally, I think not being able to see actually limits my creative options in combat but meh, we'll disagree).
It's not just about beating the other team. We could justify the inclusion of absolutely anything with that line of thought so it's completely pointless. It's not like we blindfold people playing sports to make things more interesting. Why? Because we like to work/play within environments that don't hamper our basic senses and we like to use those senses to overcome obstacles and opponents. I started a thread a while ago about feeling restricted and I maintain that you want to avoid that sensation of restriction wherever possible.
On one level you have great feedback regarding visual clutter in the game, with particularly sensible posts by Yuuki and a lovely comparison of umbra in NS1 and NS2 by xDragon.
On the other level, you have some A+ standup comedy by purephoenix, including "reporting" elodea to VAC for speedhacking and swinging his enormous e-###### around (man, nobody knows who you are/were, but you sure are awesome!).
tl;dr: Read this thread twice. Once without reading any of purephoenix's posts for serious discussion, and then a second time only reading purephoenix's posts to lighten the mood.