I still think that GL and FT would be more viable if there would be a secondary weapon stronger than the default pistol that would give players chance in PvP. Both those weapons are useless without jetpacks in PvP, because FT has little stopping power (you set him alight, he bites off your head), and with GL, you just kill yourself when the enemy gets close.
However, the secondary weapon would bring a problem of increasing further the firepower of LMG and SG players, because they would buy them too - unless they couldn't, if FT and GL came in a set with a more powerful pistol or submachine gun. They are expensive enough already.
Setting both weapons to 20 p-res would increase their use and send the message to new players that they are not superior to the shotgun. Completely disable whips, hydras, crags, and so on would also benefit the use of the FT.
Agree with the cost suggestion. I would agree to the FT disabling active/offensive abilities of alien structures (ie crag's active heal, ink, echo, hallucinations, grenade lob), but not the passive abilities of crags, shifts and shades: that would make it a complete bunker buster, and marines already have arcs that perform that role. The combination of GL and FT would then still be great (and it should be, it costs enough res!), but FT on its own wouldn't be necessarily hugely OP. It would need to remain meh against lifeforms though!
On the whole, in comparison to NS1, NS2 is pretty light on the RTS side, but competitive games take it to a whole new level.
I so dearly hope that as UWE continues to improve the game that they devote a great deal of time and attention to improving the strategic aspects of gameplay, at all levels.
It's not bad as it is, but it could be so much better, and any improvements would be very, very rewarding.
Idk, I guess it could be due to my naivety about how comp. games work from the inside, but the SG just seems like the best weapon. GL/FT have trade-offs, they're not as good against players as they are against buildings. However, the SG doesn't seem to have an trade-offs. It's the best weapon for killing players and is still good against buildings. And if you decide it isn't, every marine has their switch-axe (unless replaced by the welder) which is good at killing buildings.
For aliens, every life-form has a trade-off. The fade is good at killing players, but sucks at killing buildings. Imagine if every life-form had a separate attack that was as good as a skulk bite against buildings. I'd guarantee that you'd see a lot more fades since you could kill players and buildings. It just doesn't seem quite balanced that there should be this one weapon that's good against anything. It makes the other weapons obsolete except for very, very specific instances.
As for the FT, they used to be seen quite often in comp games. You needed them to counter the fade by reducing their energy regen. Never knew that healing put out the fire until a week ago (is this a relatively new change or have I just been oblivious?), but it seems like with the SG buff, that FTs aren't even needed since fades die in 2 hits...
Except that if they respond it will probably take 2 skulks or 1 higher lifeform to do so appropriately, which now means the aliens are down to 3 for their push or 4 for their defense. That or they let the harvester go. I know nothing about competitive of course, I'm just thinking out loud here.
No, they will go in a group -> secure area -> take out your RTs in a group, maybe with enzyme even, and laugh as you poke one RT while they've dominated all of yours.
Why does more players = more strategy? I, personally, don't think you can reason that one follows the other. In starcraft, there is far more strategy involved in 1v1s than there is in 4v4s.
Also, to argue that there is no strategy in NS2 shows a downright lack of competitive experience. Obviously aiming is very important, but what typically decides high end NS2 games is strategy, teamwork, and tactics much more so than a team's minor aim advantage.
Why does more players = more strategy? I, personally, don't think you can reason that one follows the other. In starcraft, there is far more strategy involved in 1v1s than there is in 4v4s.
Also, to argue that there is no strategy in NS2 shows a downright lack of competitive experience. Obviously aiming is very important, but what typically decides high end NS2 games is strategy, teamwork, and tactics much more so than a team's minor aim advantage.
Because when it's essentially 5v5, killing another player is a big fucking deal. Archea doesn't win their games because they are strategic masters, it's because they out skill everyone else in the league when it comes to basic FPS mechanics like aiming.
There is some strategy involved in 6v6 play for sure. But you don't even need strategy when you win every engagement you encounter, you just keep walking at their RTs or Hives and kill them. Strategy compensates for lost engagements.
Flamethrowers kill 1 cyst per tap of the fire button, as long as said cyst actually gets hit, they reduce(or prevent, I can't remember which) alien energy regen while they're on fire(Gorge heal puts flames out), and are generally pretty bad, unless you're either leading the way, or following behind everyone.
I could have sworn I remember reading about a plan to make the flamethrower disable buildings. Whips and Hydras would thrash around and generally do nothing until the fire was out. Was this ever added? Was there a reason it would have been removed? Maybe it was just a suggestion I read.
FT's disable whips from throwing back grenades, but don't stop them from whipping people, last time I saw one on fire (several builds ago). Not sure about hydras.
They definitely need a touch more range, though, as it's hard to hit a whip with it without getting whipped in return.
Why does more players = more strategy? I, personally, don't think you can reason that one follows the other. In starcraft, there is far more strategy involved in 1v1s than there is in 4v4s.
Also, to argue that there is no strategy in NS2 shows a downright lack of competitive experience. Obviously aiming is very important, but what typically decides high end NS2 games is strategy, teamwork, and tactics much more so than a team's minor aim advantage.
Because when it's essentially 5v5, killing another player is a big fucking deal. Archea doesn't win their games because they are strategic masters, it's because they out skill everyone else in the league when it comes to basic FPS mechanics like aiming.
Also NS2 is nothing like Starcraft.
No, this isn't true. While Arc has probably the best shooters in the game, they don't outright win games on skill. If they were all skill and no/little strategy then they would consistently lose to teams like Godar, Nxzl, coolclan, etc. It's a combination of both skill and strategy which lead to success in high end NS2 games.
There is some strategy involved in 6v6 play for sure. But you don't even need strategy when you win every engagement you encounter, you just keep walking at their RTs or Hives and kill them. Strategy compensates for lost engagements.
The point here is that teams of relatively equal individual skill (ie most of the top 5-6 teams in NS2) have games that are often determined by both skill (who plays better) and strategy (teamwork, tactics, etc). Skill is your weapon, like a gun or a knife, but strategy is your ability to use that weapon to win. A crappy person with a gun is likely to beat a person with a knife, but a good person with a gun is likely to beat a bad person with a gun.
I'd also disagree with the guy who says maps are too large. It's actually quite easy to cover most of the area of a map with 5 field players. You see competitive teams constantly zone out base rushes with tactics that block most or all of the map with just their 5 players.
There is some strategy involved in 6v6 play for sure. But you don't even need strategy when you win every engagement you encounter, you just keep walking at their RTs or Hives and kill them. Strategy compensates for lost engagements.
The point here is that teams of relatively equal individual skill (ie most of the top 5-6 teams in NS2) have games that are often determined by both skill (who plays better) and strategy (teamwork, tactics, etc). Skill is your weapon, like a gun or a knife, but strategy is your ability to use that weapon to win.
If anything, the more players you put in the less strategic the game will get... it's not very hard for a group of 5 marines to take down a life form... ? The more players you put in the more of a clusterfuck it will become. And adding more players doesn't mean you're going to see flamethrowers and grenade launchers... you're just gonna see even more people running around with shotguns. No reason to have a flame thrower to kill structures when you can have a shotgun that kills the aliens and the structures. GL's have some uses, like one guy with a GL covering an arc push, but they're incredibly expensive to get out onto the field and usually not worth it.
The strategy that archea possesses has to do with teamwork and timing. This is the type of strategy that is not unique to any game. Their cohesion would flourish in any game.
The strategy that we'd like to suggest is one that involves using all these advanced weapons, exos, and alternative tech paths. But like most games, gameplay strategy converges to a single solid plan. Then it's up to skill to determine champions.
Comments
However, the secondary weapon would bring a problem of increasing further the firepower of LMG and SG players, because they would buy them too - unless they couldn't, if FT and GL came in a set with a more powerful pistol or submachine gun. They are expensive enough already.
Agree with the cost suggestion. I would agree to the FT disabling active/offensive abilities of alien structures (ie crag's active heal, ink, echo, hallucinations, grenade lob), but not the passive abilities of crags, shifts and shades: that would make it a complete bunker buster, and marines already have arcs that perform that role. The combination of GL and FT would then still be great (and it should be, it costs enough res!), but FT on its own wouldn't be necessarily hugely OP. It would need to remain meh against lifeforms though!
I so dearly hope that as UWE continues to improve the game that they devote a great deal of time and attention to improving the strategic aspects of gameplay, at all levels.
It's not bad as it is, but it could be so much better, and any improvements would be very, very rewarding.
For aliens, every life-form has a trade-off. The fade is good at killing players, but sucks at killing buildings. Imagine if every life-form had a separate attack that was as good as a skulk bite against buildings. I'd guarantee that you'd see a lot more fades since you could kill players and buildings. It just doesn't seem quite balanced that there should be this one weapon that's good against anything. It makes the other weapons obsolete except for very, very specific instances.
As for the FT, they used to be seen quite often in comp games. You needed them to counter the fade by reducing their energy regen. Never knew that healing put out the fire until a week ago (is this a relatively new change or have I just been oblivious?), but it seems like with the SG buff, that FTs aren't even needed since fades die in 2 hits...
Sad realization
No, they will go in a group -> secure area -> take out your RTs in a group, maybe with enzyme even, and laugh as you poke one RT while they've dominated all of yours.
This is why I think NS2 would be better if it was 7v7 or 8v8.
6/7 players on the field, plus the Commander on each side.
The teams with better aim would still come out on top, but it'd add more depth to the game beyond "Shoot better than them."
Also, to argue that there is no strategy in NS2 shows a downright lack of competitive experience. Obviously aiming is very important, but what typically decides high end NS2 games is strategy, teamwork, and tactics much more so than a team's minor aim advantage.
NS2 maps are way too big for 6v6*.
*5v5+1 Commander
Because when it's essentially 5v5, killing another player is a big fucking deal. Archea doesn't win their games because they are strategic masters, it's because they out skill everyone else in the league when it comes to basic FPS mechanics like aiming.
Also NS2 is nothing like Starcraft.
The game says "The game will start when both teams have a Commander", there's nothing there about a hivemind.
They definitely need a touch more range, though, as it's hard to hit a whip with it without getting whipped in return.
You've been oblivious
No, this isn't true. While Arc has probably the best shooters in the game, they don't outright win games on skill. If they were all skill and no/little strategy then they would consistently lose to teams like Godar, Nxzl, coolclan, etc. It's a combination of both skill and strategy which lead to success in high end NS2 games.
The point here is that teams of relatively equal individual skill (ie most of the top 5-6 teams in NS2) have games that are often determined by both skill (who plays better) and strategy (teamwork, tactics, etc). Skill is your weapon, like a gun or a knife, but strategy is your ability to use that weapon to win. A crappy person with a gun is likely to beat a person with a knife, but a good person with a gun is likely to beat a bad person with a gun.
I'd also disagree with the guy who says maps are too large. It's actually quite easy to cover most of the area of a map with 5 field players. You see competitive teams constantly zone out base rushes with tactics that block most or all of the map with just their 5 players.
I agree.
The strategy that we'd like to suggest is one that involves using all these advanced weapons, exos, and alternative tech paths. But like most games, gameplay strategy converges to a single solid plan. Then it's up to skill to determine champions.
I love this game!