Some praise and a bit of feedback
Kamamura
Join Date: 2013-03-06 Member: 183736Members, Reinforced - Gold
Join Date: 2013-03-06 Member: 183736Members, Reinforced - Gold
Hello, I have been playing the game since the Christmas sale quite a lot. I would say I am a pretty average player, but I would still like to offer a few bits of feedback to anyone who might be interested. I have never played NS1, so I am untouched by the prevailing nostalgia that seems to be very strong in these forums. What I write is related only to NS2.
First, the game deserves a great praise for what it does very well - it managed to bring a strategic layer to a first person shooter. There were many shooters that experimented with some tactical elements and cooperation incentives, like Left for Dead, but NS2 managed to emphasize what IMO a good combat game should be about - executing a plan in hostile condition. That requires both strategic thinking (what to build, when and where), and cooperation, and that in turn requires communication. It's not optional like in many other games, it's mandatory, especially when playing marines. So once again great achievement, guys, I don't think it has been achieved to this level before in a FPS.
The game also seems to be quite balanced for how asymmetric it is, I have seen both sides dominating, I have even seen games that seemed lost, but the other side managed to turn the game around completely. Similar to chess, the game has opening, middle game and endgame that are quite distinctive and a bad transition from one to another may be a recipe for disaster. I have enjoyed playing the game enormously and continue doing so.
On the other hand the game is quite rigid - there is usually a strict build order that "makes sense", and deviating from it is often an outright blunder. Forgetting to research phase gates before doing weapon upgrades usually loses the game outright. This information is not immediately obvious, it must be either gained by personal experience, or obtained by reading other materials, like these forums. Being a commander is quite difficult a task, especially for beginners, who don't seem to do anything right and the reaction of the other players are often quite harsh. I would really wish people were more supportive to someone offering an honest effort, but well, emotions play their role too.
I really wish people bought microphones for this game and used them. There is really nothing worse than a player that does not speak, and votes to kick a commander after 2 minutes of play. Maybe he is right, maybe there was a mistake, but without explaining, it is quite detrimental to the playing experience. On the other hand, I have experienced sessions with so friendly and enjoyable atmosphere even when losing, but in all cases, the game becomes so much better when people talk. The commander especially should let the team know what he is up to, what is a priority and what is not, he should support the important attacks with scans and medpacks, and so on.
That all being said, there are elements in the game that are very counter-intuitive, and take some time before a player "gets" them. Shotguns, for example, are portrayed as armor piercing weapons, completely contrary to how real shotguns work. An armor-piercing ammunition usually concentrates all the energy given to the projectile by the powder charge into a single point, like a tip of a spear - AP pistol rounds, sabotted tank rounds, etc. Shotgun, on the other hand dissipates the energy into each individual pellet, being a weapon primarily against soft, unarmored targets that move fast - like birds, rabbits... or skulks, and not against for example elephants. Well, it's just a game I guess, but still. Safety has limited value in the game, hiding somewhere for a long time usually puts the team at a disadvantage. Killing an extractor and dying is often worthwile, not many new players understand this.
There are elements in the game with negligible value and use, it would be worthwile if they are balanced to become useful again. Rifle butt strike, xenocide, sentries, etc. Sentries especially are very counter-intuitive, because they are almost never worth the resources, and many players build them intuitively when losing and on the defensive, which furthe aggravates the problem as the resources are then mising somewhere else (mines vs sentries are very counter-intuitive, since sentries seem permanent and therefore more economical, but they are not).
I am quite happy with some of the fixes in the last patches, especially skulk movement became less erratic and messy, and the "quantum skulk" phenomenon is fortunately mostly gone.
more readable, fluid movement will IMO contribute to better gameplay, and it's good that the hitbox has been fixed too. The lerk tracers look very strange, but it's true that his invisible attacks before were too great an advantage. Quietly eating a power node from great distance can be quite unbalancing. The babblers are a strange addition, one that I am not fond of, because it's a clumsy, unreliable, awkward to use feature.
The biggest concern now for me is game performance, but I remain hopeful that in can be improved yet in the future - or at least that it won't plummet to unplayability with new features.
So once again, excellent game, best purchase in a year or so by far! Thank you very much, devs.
First, the game deserves a great praise for what it does very well - it managed to bring a strategic layer to a first person shooter. There were many shooters that experimented with some tactical elements and cooperation incentives, like Left for Dead, but NS2 managed to emphasize what IMO a good combat game should be about - executing a plan in hostile condition. That requires both strategic thinking (what to build, when and where), and cooperation, and that in turn requires communication. It's not optional like in many other games, it's mandatory, especially when playing marines. So once again great achievement, guys, I don't think it has been achieved to this level before in a FPS.
The game also seems to be quite balanced for how asymmetric it is, I have seen both sides dominating, I have even seen games that seemed lost, but the other side managed to turn the game around completely. Similar to chess, the game has opening, middle game and endgame that are quite distinctive and a bad transition from one to another may be a recipe for disaster. I have enjoyed playing the game enormously and continue doing so.
On the other hand the game is quite rigid - there is usually a strict build order that "makes sense", and deviating from it is often an outright blunder. Forgetting to research phase gates before doing weapon upgrades usually loses the game outright. This information is not immediately obvious, it must be either gained by personal experience, or obtained by reading other materials, like these forums. Being a commander is quite difficult a task, especially for beginners, who don't seem to do anything right and the reaction of the other players are often quite harsh. I would really wish people were more supportive to someone offering an honest effort, but well, emotions play their role too.
I really wish people bought microphones for this game and used them. There is really nothing worse than a player that does not speak, and votes to kick a commander after 2 minutes of play. Maybe he is right, maybe there was a mistake, but without explaining, it is quite detrimental to the playing experience. On the other hand, I have experienced sessions with so friendly and enjoyable atmosphere even when losing, but in all cases, the game becomes so much better when people talk. The commander especially should let the team know what he is up to, what is a priority and what is not, he should support the important attacks with scans and medpacks, and so on.
That all being said, there are elements in the game that are very counter-intuitive, and take some time before a player "gets" them. Shotguns, for example, are portrayed as armor piercing weapons, completely contrary to how real shotguns work. An armor-piercing ammunition usually concentrates all the energy given to the projectile by the powder charge into a single point, like a tip of a spear - AP pistol rounds, sabotted tank rounds, etc. Shotgun, on the other hand dissipates the energy into each individual pellet, being a weapon primarily against soft, unarmored targets that move fast - like birds, rabbits... or skulks, and not against for example elephants. Well, it's just a game I guess, but still. Safety has limited value in the game, hiding somewhere for a long time usually puts the team at a disadvantage. Killing an extractor and dying is often worthwile, not many new players understand this.
There are elements in the game with negligible value and use, it would be worthwile if they are balanced to become useful again. Rifle butt strike, xenocide, sentries, etc. Sentries especially are very counter-intuitive, because they are almost never worth the resources, and many players build them intuitively when losing and on the defensive, which furthe aggravates the problem as the resources are then mising somewhere else (mines vs sentries are very counter-intuitive, since sentries seem permanent and therefore more economical, but they are not).
I am quite happy with some of the fixes in the last patches, especially skulk movement became less erratic and messy, and the "quantum skulk" phenomenon is fortunately mostly gone.
more readable, fluid movement will IMO contribute to better gameplay, and it's good that the hitbox has been fixed too. The lerk tracers look very strange, but it's true that his invisible attacks before were too great an advantage. Quietly eating a power node from great distance can be quite unbalancing. The babblers are a strange addition, one that I am not fond of, because it's a clumsy, unreliable, awkward to use feature.
The biggest concern now for me is game performance, but I remain hopeful that in can be improved yet in the future - or at least that it won't plummet to unplayability with new features.
So once again, excellent game, best purchase in a year or so by far! Thank you very much, devs.
Comments
The flamer and grenade launcher both look like heavy, formidable weapons, but their stopping power compared to the standard rifle is negligible. You can set a fade on fire, but he will still bite your face off. Grenades are useless up close, they are hard to predict because of the strange physics, and are completely negated by whips in siege situations.
The only upgrade in stopping power is the shotgun, and even that is not so clear, because the shotgun user loses his ability to hit at range.
Both the flamer and launcher are specialized, situational tools, that require a jetpack or squadmates with conventional weapons for protection.
I would therefore think that an upgrade for the secondary weapon could be nice - maybe not exactly cheap, definitely not powerful than the standard rifle, but something that could increase the fighting power of a specialist for a price. A heavier, larger caliber pistol, or a light submachine gun like Mac or Scorpion.
Just an idea.
Wow, well, thank you for your friendly post, and best of luck improving your already excellent game.
Good post.