FrozenNew York, NYJoin Date: 2010-07-02Member: 72228Members, Constellation
Which, @nachos, sounds like it would have a positive effect on games of low-skill, varying-skill, and high-skill games.
I feel that @IronHorse should re-read the relevant link in his forum signature.
The big problem is that 90% of players quit before voicing there opinions. 10% of players remain here to defend bad decisions and 9% of them are here to argue the logistics of grammar and polls. And only one subjective reader with any opinion that matters actually actively reads what's written here. But zero objective people with any opinion that counts read what's written here.
The BIGGEST problem is that we're two yeara too late anyway and @Flayra never cared anyway. Every dislike I get here encourages me to continue saying what I'm saying and how I'm saying it. It's why there's a comp mod. People here just tend to blindly trust an official build over the actuality of the game and the quitting players.
It's the same thing with a Community Development team that doesn't actively get involved with the community ranging from new players to veteran players. It's why they're focused on performance improvements; providing NS2 hospice for existing players and/or themselves.
I have made it clear that I believe most people in NS2 are not intelligent enough to play the game to it's fullest potential
Is that the people left, or in general those who play or have played ns2?
If it is in general, don't you see a problem with that? The biggest problem with ns2 is player retention. If most people can not play the game to its fullest does that not mean there is a problem with the games design. I love ns2. I have played it most evenings since b208. I even understand that balance needs to have a top down perspective, but there must be a middle ground here. How can the majority enjoy the game to its fullest while still having a top down perspective on balance? I think that question does have an answer but it will not be easy to find. It will need much discussion to figure that out.
FrozenNew York, NYJoin Date: 2010-07-02Member: 72228Members, Constellation
I don't think people are too dumb, I think he's wrong in his words but correct in what it implies.
Yes I believe primarily in top-down. But in trying so hard to make it otherwise the game is such that it's even harder for casual players to play. And this is because, as people mention, it becomes so easy for people to take advantage of the simplicity of the game.
I can win a game by killing cysts, why is that a good design? Because the devs assumed people wouldn't kill cysts??? I JUST WANNA FUCK UP THE ALIENS THATS ALL. It's not complicated it's oversimplified in a boring way. There's wayyyyyy less commanders that enjoy the game coming from RTS backgrounds than there was in HL:NS because of that.
I've always agreed with the dev idea that FPS>RTS, but that shouldn't mean that decisions should be linear and choiceless 75% of the time, just dependent on the FPS reaction to them. It's why so few RTS players come over to NS2 compared to HL:NS
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
"Dangerous"..? Really? ...
Stop with the fear mongering / ad hominems and instead stick with debating the topic - your content has merit on its own to sway opinion, without the uninformed doomsayer stance that just comes off as horribly abrasive towards new ideas.
Let's lay one fear to rest: I do not make decisions for balance changes.
While I am outspoken about the topic and have provided recommendations many times in the past, my feedback is considered no more than your own, evidenced by the very small amount that has been implemented.
In fact, considering how this game has been balanced thus far by over valuing higher skilled players' opinions, my feedback has typically meant less in comparison, to those who make said decisions.
The only fear that you express that's valid is my ability "to influence other members of the community", which I would hope would occur due to logical, articulate discussion, entirely based on merit - something anyone can achieve.
If you don't balance for the top, and you balance so that an average 1500 hive skilled player can do his job more effectively, the people at the top of the game will do an even better job.
or you implement mechanics that higher skilled players will abuse more often and with greater success than other players and so will have a higher impact on games and lead to less fun for the worse players.
3) If you're going to ignore how teams should have been playing and just implement something that has a huge impact one of two things will happen.
1 - It will be useless because it will be countered easily.
2 - It will be abused relentlessly by high skilled players because they always have a larger impact in games.
No, while that may be true for an unbalanced mechanic this is not true at all for this discussion....
It's ignoring a multitude of factors, the most pertinent being what I and others have already brought up in this thread : Higher skilled games / comp matches are much more capable and equipped with dealing with said comeback mechanics to the point that their effectiveness and thus frequency make them rarely seen or even an issue to be considered. Evidenced by the labels "predictable" and "annoying".
Not to mention if it were an actual issue for the scene, Comp mod would address it for them!! (speaking of which, didn't the comp mod play around with the Flamethrower being a secondary weapon to assist in PvE scenarios? )
"Well I meant used against pubbers in pub games, that's how I meant it will negatively impact and lead to less fun games, Iron"
Ohhh you mean like how higher skilled players absolutely wreck pub games left and right using BB?...................... /sarcasm
By definition a balanced mechanic cannot be exploited by the top - that's why I champion BB as an example, because the scenario you paint simply does not occur, and is why the FT should be modeled after it.
YES these rushes can win you games but if you think winning a game means you always clearly deserved to win, you're looking at comeback mechanics wrong.
Respectfully, I disagree.
I believe that there are many worthy factors in assessing the more skilled team, and that it should remain like this to create more varied rounds in less skillful matches, as I said in my prior post.
If something small is the deciding factor of the victor, like the winning team losing to overextending, or not seeing that tunnel, then so be it... clearly they did not actually "deserve" to win.
You say that a comeback shouldn't reduce the deficit between teams, but rather slow the inevitable from occurring.
I think that's not only avoiding addressing the problem (snowballing), it's pouring salt on the wound.
Is that the people left, or in general those who play or have played ns2?
Doesn't matter.
Easy to play but hard to master.
Yes, exactly. But how is ns2 easy to play for the majority? It simply is not easy to learn.
Again, I want to say I highly doubt anything discussed here will be put in ns2. This has turned simply into a discussion about hypothetical balance. It is a very interesting and polarized topic. Maybe, just maybe, some ideas here might trickle into ns3 but there is no way of knowing.
You say that a comeback shouldn't reduce the deficit between teams, but rather slow the inevitable from occurring.
I think that's not only avoiding addressing the problem (snowballing), it's pouring salt on the wound.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
@mattji104
I don't think you are tracking
If you're following the points nachos and I have been making, you'd know each of our stances, to include my opinion that when balancing for the skill floor one should account for the strong likelihood that :
A pub team that could not play the macro game of RT control so far in a round will NOT suddenly develop these skills to a degree that would lead to victory
This is something he disagrees with me on, therefore to him - or even you, if you agree with him - it might not be the "inevitable" you are slowing.
Instead, to you it could be creating a very narrow window for the losing team to suddenly and magically outperform the other in consecutive waves of winning at things that they were previously losing at, that subsequently overturn the improbable odds and result in a hard fought victory that was entirely fueled by ...? *shrug* Idk, I don't pretend to know the rest of that thought process
We each have only our anecdotal pubber experience to draw on (oh and the many many forums posts of the pasts about snowballs and conceding) to come to such a viewpoint.
Mine is in the quote above.
FrozenNew York, NYJoin Date: 2010-07-02Member: 72228Members, Constellation
@IronHorse I have hundreds of hours of pubs, hundreds of hours of pugs/gathers, and hundreds of hours of competitive to draw from. Included in that is talking to people about much of what i mention in all three zones. The one thing that I come to consensus upon the most, and to get to consensus you wind up losing specifics, is that cysts and power nodes make this game play out in a very silly way.
So yes, "A pub team that could not play the macro game of RT control so far in a round will NOT suddenly develop these skills to a degree that would lead to victory." The game is just built to snowball, and you're suggesting more snowball mechanics to band-aid snowball mechanics but calling them comeback mechanics. This is how we get an infection, no one ever peeled off the band-aids before adding new ones. You've agreed with me that gorge tunnels are "shoehorned" in, as you put it, but then you defend their implementation.
No one can follow it, no one wants to follow what I said, and that's a reason so few people play this game.
Please answer this: Why can a marine team invest 200 res on a base, but lose all the investment because someone killed the free power node by itself? Please follow up with why a gorge should undermine this ~15 minutes of investment with a single tunnel without referencing the minor lane blocking failure that is letting one skulk through. Maybe we should just go on voip and post the discussion afterward
@IronHorse I have hundreds of hours of pubs, hundreds of hours of pugs/gathers, and hundreds of hours of competitive to draw from. Included in that is talking to people about much of what i mention in all three zones. The one thing that I come to consensus upon the most, and to get to consensus you wind up losing specifics, is that cysts and power nodes make this game play out in a very silly way.
So yes, "A pub team that could not play the macro game of RT control so far in a round will NOT suddenly develop these skills to a degree that would lead to victory." The game is just built to snowball, and you're suggesting more snowball mechanics to band-aid snowball mechanics but calling them comeback mechanics. This is how we get an infection, no one ever peeled off the band-aids before adding new ones. You've agreed with me that gorge tunnels are "shoehorned" in, as you put it, but then you defend their implementation.
No one can follow it, no one wants to follow what I said, and that's a reason so few people play this game.
Please answer this: Why can a marine team invest 200 res on a base, but lose all the investment because someone killed the free power node by itself? Please follow up with why a gorge should undermine this ~15 minutes of investment with a single tunnel without referencing the minor lane blocking failure that is letting one skulk through. Maybe we should just go on voip and post the discussion afterward
Can someone put together a mod quickly that removes the usage of cysts and powernodes, run the mod on a server for a few weeks and see how the gameplay pans out then? I know there was a NS classic mod for that but it changed alot more things to revert it to NS1 than just simply removing cysts and powernodes?
I would genuinely love to try myself but unfortunately too stupid to know how to do it haha
A pub team that could not play the macro game of RT control so far in a round will NOT suddenly develop these skills to a degree that would lead to victory
Honestly, I've seen quite a lot of pub games, actually, where alien teams spontaneously develop the ability to bite res and make a huge comeback, or at least have the opportunity to make a comeback.
Don't ask me how a public ns2 team spontaneously develops the ability to work as a team, together... Lets call it emergent intelligence, it just happens sometimes, out of all the chaos.
And conversely, marine teams that have been winning the round thus far with hyper-aggression can suddenly completely fall apart as soon as they're required to, you know, actually play the game and defend something.
I had to jump in and give my 0.5 cents, that this actually does happen. Pub teams are dumb :P
A pub team that could not play the macro game of RT control so far in a round will NOT suddenly develop these skills to a degree that would lead to victory
Honestly, I've seen quite a lot of pub games, actually, where alien teams spontaneously develop the ability to bite res and make a huge comeback, or at least have the opportunity to make a comeback.
Don't ask me how a public ns2 team spontaneously develops the ability to work as a team, together... Lets call it emergent intelligence, it just happens sometimes, out of all the chaos.
And conversely, marine teams that have been winning the round thus far with hyper-aggression can suddenly completely fall apart as soon as they're required to, you know, actually play the game and defend something.
I had to jump in and give my 0.5 cents, that this actually does happen. Pub teams are dumb :P
The big problem is that 90% of players quit before voicing there opinions. 10% of players remain here to defend bad decisions and 9% of them are here to argue the logistics of grammar and polls. And only one subjective reader with any opinion that matters actually actively reads what's written here. But zero objective people with any opinion that counts read what's written here.
And 10% throw out bullshit statistics out of their ass, with no source, no methodology, for no reason.
Lerks synergise very well with every other lifeform. Lerks are very good at making a comeback after 5 minutes if the marines are in control, however when W3 comes out its like a marine comeback mechanic which then reduces the damage to the marine's winning position by lerks. Fades are even better at doing this role later in the game when marines have more tech.
And this exactly describes what the game is balanced for. Especially early to mid-game there are certain time windows in which one team has an advantage. Typically within the first minutes where it's only marine vs skulk the marines are in an advantage when it comes to engagements. When lerks come out aliens are in an advanteage. With getting higher upgrades the marine can take the upper hand again until fades and so on and so forth. Shifting the advantage back and forth until one team can utilize it's advantage to win is the way how NS2 works.
Of course noone would call these small shifts due to higher lifeforms or marine upgrades a comeback mechanic. However, a (comback) mechanik that completely breaks the idea of the little shifting and that is able to give the losing team a huge lead or even an instant win within seconds is (in my eyes) broken and no fun.
"Dangerous"..? Really? ...
Stop with the fear mongering / ad hominems
I'm trying to draw attention to how convincing your arguments may be because of how you write, because what you write is in my mind a dangerous philosophy to how the game could be developed. I don't dismiss your argument because of it, I only ask that others try to read more into what you say. It may well be doomsaying, but that doesn't make what I say invalid; perhaps others feel differently.
I would happily argue and debate with someone like @SantaClaws because I feel like there's an intrinsic part of him that shares some fundamental view points which could convince me when I'm wrong on a topic and I could concede happily. However with you I feel like there are so many fundamental differences in the vision of the game that you must be challenged because I am afraid of how you see what NS2 should be like.
Equally, I don't argue against @mattji104 because his ideas don't seem to be popular enough to warrant fear even though I disagree.
If you don't balance for the top, and you balance so that an average 1500 hive skilled player can do his job more effectively, the people at the top of the game will do an even better job.
or you implement mechanics that higher skilled players will abuse more often and with greater success than other players and so will have a higher impact on games and lead to less fun for the worse players.
3) If you're going to ignore how teams should have been playing and just implement something that has a huge impact one of two things will happen.
1 - It will be useless because it will be countered easily.
2 - It will be abused relentlessly by high skilled players because they always have a larger impact in games.
No, while that may be true for an unbalanced mechanic this is not true at all for this discussion....
It's ignoring a multitude of factors, the most pertinent being what I and others have already brought up in this thread : Higher skilled games / comp matches are much more capable and equipped with dealing with said comeback mechanics to the point that their effectiveness and thus frequency make them rarely seen or even an issue to be considered. Evidenced by the labels "predictable" and "annoying".
This is why they are not good comeback mechanics and so you should stop talking about them as if they are good comeback mechanics. Yes they can significantly bring aliens back into a game, but that does not make a comeback mechanic good.
Biomass itself has a slight bearing in comeback mechanics because you get a little extra hp. Leap can present itself as a comeback mechanic because it helps res biting and doesn't leave yourself so vulnerable against jetpackers. Umbra and an onos can help you build more expansion to take more map as a comeback. It's difficult to use all of these mechanics to claim back some of the deficit between the teams if marines have been strong all game, but it's still possible because all of those mechanics help aliens so that if they play with sufficient skill, they might be able to turn the game around. If they don't play with sufficient skill, than the marine team is better and simply deserves to win.
Not to mention if it were an actual issue for the scene, Comp mod would address it for them!! (speaking of which, didn't the comp mod play around with the Flamethrower being a secondary weapon to assist in PvE scenarios? )
Yes and it didn't really work out, however the cluster grenade adopted the FT utility like setting everything on fire to reduce effectiveness of umbra and healing (i.e. crag and hive heal) and with a quicker throw animation, are actually quite useful. I wouldn't mind seeing the utility of cluster grenades being adopted from comp mod to combat PvE in pub games. Nerve gas is also very good in public and even better when in synergy of cluster. Comp mod also changed grenades so you could buy 1 at a time (max 2 grenades and must be same type) although I'd like to see it be more of a counterstrike system where you can have different types (max 2 in total) but I understand that it's impossible to code more weapon slots.
"Well I meant used against pubbers in pub games, that's how I meant it will negatively impact and lead to less fun games, Iron"
Ohhh you mean like how higher skilled players absolutely wreck pub games left and right using BB?...................... /sarcasm
Ok so now I imagine there is a big disconnect between NA and EU pub scenes. Higher skilled players do use BB and higher skilled players do make good escorts for gorges to break through. I know I've coordinated games where aliens weren't even that far behind and we did split pressure using a gorge tunnel BB on marine start and lifeform crush on another point.
because the scenario you paint simply does not occur
I don't blame you tbh, I've played on NA pub servers and it does feel like you have a bigger proportion of muppets:good players. It's quite funny actually because you do get good examples of articulate players using microphones in NA pubs who spout awful advice and are listened to just because of how they say things and not the reasoning behind things
YES these rushes can win you games but if you think winning a game means you always clearly deserved to win, you're looking at comeback mechanics wrong.
Respectfully, I disagree.
I believe that there are many worthy factors in assessing the more skilled team, and that it should remain like this to create more varied rounds in less skillful matches, as I said in my prior post.
If something small is the deciding factor of the victor, like the winning team losing to overextending, or not seeing that tunnel, then so be it... clearly they did not actually "deserve" to win.
I'm not saying we should nerf gorge tunnels or bile bomb because of the mistakes made by a marine team. I'm saying we shouldn't model comeback mechanics based on GT + BB because it's not a good comeback mechanic for all the reason's I've laid out.
So this is an impasse for us which is quite a surprise as that point of view of "Winning at all costs" is normally depicted as a competitive player's attitude. IMO winning at all costs does not make a game fun. I refer you back to the two competitive games I linked earlier; best games I ever played in either competitive or public. It was a tough grind from being put on the back foot that took many many feats of good timing, skill, and fortune to pull of plays that turned the game around for us.
You say that a comeback shouldn't reduce the deficit between teams, but rather slow the inevitable from occurring.
I think that's not only avoiding addressing the problem (snowballing), it's pouring salt on the wound.
That's not what I said. I said it should reduce the rate at which the opposing team can accrue a lead over you such that if a team consistently makes the correct plays and wins them, they can gain more map control, and even take the lead and perhaps win.
One game I played about a month ago was on jambi, we were stuck JUST on pipeworks hive with about 34 pres on my teammates (having flashed my own lerk). Bilebomb on biomass 3, full spurs, we pulled the game back by breaking ARC seiges, res biting, sensible expansion, just because our fades popped and managed to pull of the perfect balance of defense and offence by killing res cappers.
It is possible to organise people in publics. It is possible to comeback from just 1 hive 1 RT. It is possible to grind your way back from a losing position. To say it never happens and to suggest modeling something on something as destructive as a BB rush is quite terrifying.
I agree that more often than not a winning team will go on to win, and perhaps there should be more subtle comeback mechanics for marines to help aid the killing of lifeforms because when aliens have so many RTs, lifeforms reappear so quickly and because it seems to be the biggest thing holding back marine victories. However I think making something as devastating as bilebomb rush would be silly because as @vartija said, PvP is the main comeback mechanic for marines (as it should be).
The big problem is that 90% of players quit before voicing there opinions. 10% of players remain here to defend bad decisions and 9% of them are here to argue the logistics of grammar and polls. And only one subjective reader with any opinion that matters actually actively reads what's written here. But zero objective people with any opinion that counts read what's written here.
And 10% throw out bullshit statistics out of their ass, with no source, no methodology, for no reason.
Don't worry you're in the 9% who care more about grammar
I'm not sure why you guys turned this into a skill level balance discussion, but the original point was pretty clear. While some may view bilebomb rushes as a 'comeback mechanic' they are really anything but that, arguably much more akin to a cheese tactic. While they are reasonably preventable by a vigilant marine team, that doesn't excuse their ease of pulling off and their risk vs reward. A comeback mechanic, as described numerous times in this thread, does not completely flip the pacing of the game on its head like a successful bile rush can. It simply allows the team that is behind a way back into the game, but still requires them to outplay the other team. This is something that has no real relation to individual player skill.
You could argue that NS2 needs more RTS mechanics to allow a tactical commander more opportunities to counter the other team, but that would simply put more power in a single players hands which doesn't really fix anything either IMO.
I really think many people look at bilebomb rushes and how they can sometimes lead to a victory against a stacked team, and think that its a good answer to that problem... when the real answer is to fix the stacking problem... What I really don't understand is how people support how one player in the right place using bilebomb can completely change the outcome of a round, but then will also point out how skilled players have too much influence on a round... are those not one in the same problems?
Could you imagine if Dota2 had a comeback mechanic like bilebomb? Imagine Nature's Prophets ultimate being changed to deal structure damage instead and keeping similar aspects to how it works currently.
I was really pushing for a "vision" of how comp mod should go in terms of balance and rantology helped make this graph I was trying to describe: http://i.imgur.com/9yn6PfJ.png
I was trying to describe how power spikes happen throughout the game to give which team the advantage (AREA between each time the lines cross each other). Then with a visual understanding of how strong each team is compared to each other at certain points in the game, we could adjust certain abilities to reduce the areas under each curve in an attempt to make them either equal over the whole game, or equal in each segment of the game.
At the moment in vanilla, I believe that both teams have adequate opportunities to take back some map control and increase the time taken for the opposite team to enter the phase of the game where they become stronger. Although perhaps skulks are slightly too weak in a lot of pub games that I see in the early stages...
Honestly, I've seen quite a lot of pub games, actually, where alien teams spontaneously develop the ability to bite res and make a huge comeback, or at least have the opportunity to make a comeback.
Absolutely, I agree that it's possible, I just find the occurrence typically unlikely.
Or at the very least, it's just not anywhere as likely as a predictable outcome is.
@nachos
You seem to agree as well with this sentiment, and where we disagree appears to be the solution.
I agree that more often than not a winning team will go on to win, and perhaps there should be more subtle comeback mechanics for marines to help aid the killing of lifeforms because when aliens have so many RTs, lifeforms reappear so quickly and because it seems to be the biggest thing holding back marine victories.
I guess I take issue with a solution that requires "grind(ing) your way back from a losing position" as I presume it just won't statistically be as successful or frequent of an occurrence if it's still relying on skillsets that have so far caused that team to lose in the round. I also take issue with this approach because, well, it hasn't worked in the years it's been in place, as you point out in the beginning of that quote above.
I guess I just prefer a more surefire way to upset a predictable round, and something that's more accessible to lesser skilled players.
Every comeback I've ever played in a high skill environment has followed your solution of "many many feats of good timing, skill, and fortune to pull off" a victory... but this is not the case in Pubs. This is where we differ in our definition of a "good" comeback mechanic - I feel it should be more accessible and impactful, to ensure a greater frequency of occurrence and success in low skilled environments.
Btw, I do feel like assisting marines in dealing with the increased PvE mid to late game in pubs would allow them to focus on PvP and win back the round through lifeform kills, not a powernode.
What I really don't understand is how people support how one player in the right place using bilebomb can completely change the outcome of a round, but then will also point out how skilled players have too much influence on a round... are those not one in the same problems?
Nope, they are not. There's barely any skill involved with employing BB compared to winning engagements.
When people complain about high skilled players having too much influence on a round they typically are referring to their ability to win engagements consistently enough to make a predictable outcome - conversely, a losing team that successfully wins by utilizing BB with a skilled player will not result in the same complaint precisely because it upset a predictable outcome.
No offense, but I really am surprised some of you don't get this important distinction or the general complaints after all the threads in the years past?...
I was really pushing for a "vision" of how comp mod should go in terms of balance and rantology helped make this graph I was trying to describe: http://i.imgur.com/9yn6PfJ.png
I was trying to describe how power spikes happen throughout the game to give which team the advantage (AREA between each time the lines cross each other). Then with a visual understanding of how strong each team is compared to each other at certain points in the game, we could adjust certain abilities to reduce the areas under each curve in an attempt to make them either equal over the whole game, or equal in each segment of the game.
At the moment in vanilla, I believe that both teams have adequate opportunities to take back some map control and increase the time taken for the opposite team to enter the phase of the game where they become stronger. Although perhaps skulks are slightly too weak in a lot of pub games that I see in the early stages...
I think this graph is great, fantastic really. But what I think it needs are deliberate points where an advantage is gained for one team or the other based on "a global objective." Personally I think this should be the fight over the 2nd hive.
Both teams where equally matched, should come to a point of relatively equal power, at which point they should be fighting over the 2nd hive going up.
So you willingly admit to promoting and even wanting to add to mechanics which effectively make the outcome of a game a coinflip?
I understand the point you are trying to make, but honestly I cannot understand WHY you would want that. Surely you must realize that a big part of the reason why you can so easily 'predict' the outcome of a round so early is because you have played so many games of NS2. And I am pretty sure that baring extreme cases of trolling commanders or whatever randomness that can cause one team to fail completely, that 99% of your prediction is based on the teams overall skill... leading back to the original point. There are many things which make NS2 have extremely predictable outcomes, why not change those areas to make games actually more enjoyable all around? You want low skill players to have 'foo' mechanics which allow them to occasionally win in combat against better players, and now you want more 'foo' mechanics so those same players can win rounds...
I don't think anyone minds the occasional upset, but the frequency and ease with which bilebomb can achieve that causes it to not even feel like a victory. I have seen many people in pubs complain about bilebomb and how frustrating it can be. Remember that while one team might enjoy the feeling of the from behind win, the other team often times is equally or more frustrated by it. There is little point in making something rewarding if its equally punishing for the opposition.
I agree that more often than not a winning team will go on to win, and perhaps there should be more subtle comeback mechanics for marines to help aid the killing of lifeforms because when aliens have so many RTs, lifeforms reappear so quickly and because it seems to be the biggest thing holding back marine victories.
I guess I take issue with a solution that requires "grind(ing) your way back from a losing position" as I presume it just won't statistically be as successful or frequent of an occurrence if it's still relying on skillsets that have so far caused that team to lose in the round.
Why is this a bad thing? Why should you not rely on coordination, communication, and aim in a game that is about working with teammates to shoot/bite bad guys? It sounds like you're literally saying "I want people of all skills to be able to win" which is just bonkers because you'd make the game random.
I also take issue with this approach because, well, it hasn't worked in the years it's been in place, as you point out in the beginning of that quote above.
Why is this a bad thing? This isn't even true. A lot of public players are actually getting better and are becoming more intelligent at least in the Thirsty Onos servers.
There are many things which make NS2 have extremely predictable outcomes, why not change those areas to make games actually more enjoyable all around?
Identify those and propose solutions for them, I am all ears, honestly. Especially if it works in multiple skill level environments.
We have had waaaayy more complaints of snowballing/predictable outcomes/conceding early than we ever have had of "BB won the round for the losers and it's unfair" both in steam forums, these forums, and every other avenue of feedback.
You frequent these forums enough that I am sure that's not news. And I am sure you play pubs enough to know the frequency of predictable outcomes.
Yes, predictable outcomes are often the product of a team's overall skill in multiple areas- something that sometimes cannot be apparent until midway through a round. (it's not always kdr, sometimes its teamwork etc)
This skill difference is typically due to being better at the winning formulas such as RT control or winning engagements - which is the only reason why they can sometimes have their assured victory upset by what you call cheese tactic, because they are challenged in another area, such as not being situationally aware or responsive enough to a coordinated attack etc.
Sigh. Again, I advocate not for "coin flips" for determining a winner as I've already said in here multiple times!
I do feel like assisting marines in dealing with the increased PvE mid to late game in pubs would allow them to focus on PvP and win back the round through lifeform kills, not a powernode.
I advocate for allowing more than just a couple of methods for achieving victory so as to allow more chances of comebacks in multi tiered skilled environments.
It should not be "either do X or have fun waiting 10 minutes for a round to end".. there should be options available.
I ask: What is wrong with having rounds that are not nearly as predictable and provide for 'foo' mechanics that assist the lesser skilled teams without effecting the higher end games?
FrozenNew York, NYJoin Date: 2010-07-02Member: 72228Members, Constellation
@IronHorse, what's wrong with it is that it's probably a leading cause of rage quits. It takes away 10-20 minutes of hard work and deserving victory to give the other team an undeserved smile
You have way more complaints of that because its caused by many different things, IE stacked teams. If you took away all the complaints which were caused by considerable skill discrepancies, I'm pretty sure you would see that its not nearly as common. The games where skill levels are reasonably even generally come down to individual plays and circumstance which cannot be predicted. The problem with such mechanics is that they will always impact all levels of play.. If you can come up with a mechanic that allows comebacks that can be executed irrelevantly of skill which cannot be abused by higher level players, I would be really surprised. I cannot tell you how many rounds I have sat around and done nothing as Aliens for 15+ minutes, just to rush the base with bilebomb and win. It got to a point where it would succeed more than 50% of the time, even in rounds that playing normally we would have lost.
And as always the dream of multi-tiered skill environments (whatever that means) is just that - a dream. You will never be able to have people from all skill levels play well on the same server, even if they are counterbalanced on each team. It just will not be nearly as enjoyable for the lower players, that is not something you can really hope to solve. I have no problem with lower skill players having 'foo' mechanics so that they can still get kills, but 'comeback' mechanics balanced like that is really just damaging to gameplay.
A gorge tunnel taken to bile bomb rush is hardly a coordinated attack, its something that can be setup and executed in 10 seconds if one person has a microphone... that's hardly something which deserves such a reward. The reason I call that a 'coinflip' victory is because the entire round up to that point is essentially meaningless, its all decided within those few seconds. The commander being occupied elsewhere or some bad timing with marine locations can all but assure the alien victory.
As for adjustments to make the gameplay less predictable, these are things which have been suggested in the past. A big part of what makes rounds so predictable IMO is that RTs are the only source of income. This makes a majority of the gameplay centered around holding RTs at any cost, and makes the outcome quite predictable from who is holding what at about 4-5 minutes.
The reasons why bile bomb rushes can be so potent in a pub is because it's usually when the aliens actually decides to work together (because they are losing) and plan a relatively well-executed attack while the marines are more loosely working together.
When a team is closed in and losing, it becomes harder for them to just do their own thing so they are more likely to try to formulate a team-based attack.
The reasons why bile bomb rushes can be so potent in a pub is because it's usually when the aliens actually decides to work together (because they are losing) and plan a relatively well-executed attack while the marines are more loosely working together.
When a team is closed in and losing, it becomes harder for them to just do their own thing so they are more likely to try to formulate a team-based attack.
And if they can do that without a gorge tunnel, there's no problem with it what-so-ever.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
How do you guys feel about late-game ninja phase gates? Do you like them as a mechanic? Do you think they should be more or less powerful than they currently are, or are they just right?
Part of the motivation for this discussion is that I think ninja phase gates are a ton of fun for both sides, but they are so rarely effective that they are robbed of a bit of excitement. The aliens can afford to be slow to respond, confident that the PvE morass will keep the marines slowed down. The marines can focus all their energy and still not materially damage the aliens.
Fixing that, through the flamethrower or any other means, would make things better IMHO. Do the people who generally disagree with bilebomb-like mechanics agree with this?
FrozenNew York, NYJoin Date: 2010-07-02Member: 72228Members, Constellation
edited April 2015
Well you touched on the reason why I don't believe ninja gates are a problem: hive defence is completely different than base defence.
I'm largely a proponent of removing the building requirements of cysting and power nodes which would increase ninja phase viability. I think it's a good thing to give it more power, because it still makes sense. Aliens in this case have the advantage of better hive defence and the movement advantage to keep this scouted with lerks. The alien vision advantage. And marines need time to build the gate.
But at the same time it changes nothing about tunnel-bile rushes. Tunnels should still be limited to cysted areas.
Edit: Also note the pres cost differential between the two rushes. Shotguns are alot more expensive than gorges.
Comments
I feel that @IronHorse should re-read the relevant link in his forum signature.
The big problem is that 90% of players quit before voicing there opinions. 10% of players remain here to defend bad decisions and 9% of them are here to argue the logistics of grammar and polls. And only one subjective reader with any opinion that matters actually actively reads what's written here. But zero objective people with any opinion that counts read what's written here.
The BIGGEST problem is that we're two yeara too late anyway and @Flayra never cared anyway. Every dislike I get here encourages me to continue saying what I'm saying and how I'm saying it. It's why there's a comp mod. People here just tend to blindly trust an official build over the actuality of the game and the quitting players.
It's the same thing with a Community Development team that doesn't actively get involved with the community ranging from new players to veteran players. It's why they're focused on performance improvements; providing NS2 hospice for existing players and/or themselves.
Natural Selection needs some artificial selection
Is that the people left, or in general those who play or have played ns2?
If it is in general, don't you see a problem with that? The biggest problem with ns2 is player retention. If most people can not play the game to its fullest does that not mean there is a problem with the games design. I love ns2. I have played it most evenings since b208. I even understand that balance needs to have a top down perspective, but there must be a middle ground here. How can the majority enjoy the game to its fullest while still having a top down perspective on balance? I think that question does have an answer but it will not be easy to find. It will need much discussion to figure that out.
Yes I believe primarily in top-down. But in trying so hard to make it otherwise the game is such that it's even harder for casual players to play. And this is because, as people mention, it becomes so easy for people to take advantage of the simplicity of the game.
I can win a game by killing cysts, why is that a good design? Because the devs assumed people wouldn't kill cysts??? I JUST WANNA FUCK UP THE ALIENS THATS ALL. It's not complicated it's oversimplified in a boring way. There's wayyyyyy less commanders that enjoy the game coming from RTS backgrounds than there was in HL:NS because of that.
I've always agreed with the dev idea that FPS>RTS, but that shouldn't mean that decisions should be linear and choiceless 75% of the time, just dependent on the FPS reaction to them. It's why so few RTS players come over to NS2 compared to HL:NS
Doesn't matter.
Easy to play but hard to master.
Stop with the fear mongering / ad hominems and instead stick with debating the topic - your content has merit on its own to sway opinion, without the uninformed doomsayer stance that just comes off as horribly abrasive towards new ideas.
Let's lay one fear to rest: I do not make decisions for balance changes.
While I am outspoken about the topic and have provided recommendations many times in the past, my feedback is considered no more than your own, evidenced by the very small amount that has been implemented.
In fact, considering how this game has been balanced thus far by over valuing higher skilled players' opinions, my feedback has typically meant less in comparison, to those who make said decisions.
The only fear that you express that's valid is my ability "to influence other members of the community", which I would hope would occur due to logical, articulate discussion, entirely based on merit - something anyone can achieve.
____________________________________________________
On Topic:
No, while that may be true for an unbalanced mechanic this is not true at all for this discussion....
It's ignoring a multitude of factors, the most pertinent being what I and others have already brought up in this thread : Higher skilled games / comp matches are much more capable and equipped with dealing with said comeback mechanics to the point that their effectiveness and thus frequency make them rarely seen or even an issue to be considered. Evidenced by the labels "predictable" and "annoying".
Not to mention if it were an actual issue for the scene, Comp mod would address it for them!! (speaking of which, didn't the comp mod play around with the Flamethrower being a secondary weapon to assist in PvE scenarios?
"Well I meant used against pubbers in pub games, that's how I meant it will negatively impact and lead to less fun games, Iron"
Ohhh you mean like how higher skilled players absolutely wreck pub games left and right using BB?...................... /sarcasm
By definition a balanced mechanic cannot be exploited by the top - that's why I champion BB as an example, because the scenario you paint simply does not occur, and is why the FT should be modeled after it.
Respectfully, I disagree.
I believe that there are many worthy factors in assessing the more skilled team, and that it should remain like this to create more varied rounds in less skillful matches, as I said in my prior post.
If something small is the deciding factor of the victor, like the winning team losing to overextending, or not seeing that tunnel, then so be it... clearly they did not actually "deserve" to win.
You say that a comeback shouldn't reduce the deficit between teams, but rather slow the inevitable from occurring.
I think that's not only avoiding addressing the problem (snowballing), it's pouring salt on the wound.
Yes, exactly. But how is ns2 easy to play for the majority? It simply is not easy to learn.
Again, I want to say I highly doubt anything discussed here will be put in ns2. This has turned simply into a discussion about hypothetical balance. It is a very interesting and polarized topic. Maybe, just maybe, some ideas here might trickle into ns3 but there is no way of knowing.
Woah please read once more and edit
I don't think you are tracking
If you're following the points nachos and I have been making, you'd know each of our stances, to include my opinion that when balancing for the skill floor one should account for the strong likelihood that : This is something he disagrees with me on, therefore to him - or even you, if you agree with him - it might not be the "inevitable" you are slowing.
Instead, to you it could be creating a very narrow window for the losing team to suddenly and magically outperform the other in consecutive waves of winning at things that they were previously losing at, that subsequently overturn the improbable odds and result in a hard fought victory that was entirely fueled by ...? *shrug* Idk, I don't pretend to know the rest of that thought process
We each have only our anecdotal pubber experience to draw on (oh and the many many forums posts of the pasts about snowballs and conceding) to come to such a viewpoint.
Mine is in the quote above.
So yes, "A pub team that could not play the macro game of RT control so far in a round will NOT suddenly develop these skills to a degree that would lead to victory." The game is just built to snowball, and you're suggesting more snowball mechanics to band-aid snowball mechanics but calling them comeback mechanics. This is how we get an infection, no one ever peeled off the band-aids before adding new ones. You've agreed with me that gorge tunnels are "shoehorned" in, as you put it, but then you defend their implementation.
No one can follow it, no one wants to follow what I said, and that's a reason so few people play this game.
Please answer this: Why can a marine team invest 200 res on a base, but lose all the investment because someone killed the free power node by itself? Please follow up with why a gorge should undermine this ~15 minutes of investment with a single tunnel without referencing the minor lane blocking failure that is letting one skulk through. Maybe we should just go on voip and post the discussion afterward
Can someone put together a mod quickly that removes the usage of cysts and powernodes, run the mod on a server for a few weeks and see how the gameplay pans out then? I know there was a NS classic mod for that but it changed alot more things to revert it to NS1 than just simply removing cysts and powernodes?
I would genuinely love to try myself but unfortunately too stupid to know how to do it haha
Don't ask me how a public ns2 team spontaneously develops the ability to work as a team, together... Lets call it emergent intelligence, it just happens sometimes, out of all the chaos.
And conversely, marine teams that have been winning the round thus far with hyper-aggression can suddenly completely fall apart as soon as they're required to, you know, actually play the game and defend something.
I had to jump in and give my 0.5 cents, that this actually does happen. Pub teams are dumb :P
This is the hive mind at its finest
And this exactly describes what the game is balanced for. Especially early to mid-game there are certain time windows in which one team has an advantage. Typically within the first minutes where it's only marine vs skulk the marines are in an advantage when it comes to engagements. When lerks come out aliens are in an advanteage. With getting higher upgrades the marine can take the upper hand again until fades and so on and so forth. Shifting the advantage back and forth until one team can utilize it's advantage to win is the way how NS2 works.
Of course noone would call these small shifts due to higher lifeforms or marine upgrades a comeback mechanic. However, a (comback) mechanik that completely breaks the idea of the little shifting and that is able to give the losing team a huge lead or even an instant win within seconds is (in my eyes) broken and no fun.
I'm trying to draw attention to how convincing your arguments may be because of how you write, because what you write is in my mind a dangerous philosophy to how the game could be developed. I don't dismiss your argument because of it, I only ask that others try to read more into what you say. It may well be doomsaying, but that doesn't make what I say invalid; perhaps others feel differently.
I would happily argue and debate with someone like @SantaClaws because I feel like there's an intrinsic part of him that shares some fundamental view points which could convince me when I'm wrong on a topic and I could concede happily. However with you I feel like there are so many fundamental differences in the vision of the game that you must be challenged because I am afraid of how you see what NS2 should be like.
Equally, I don't argue against @mattji104 because his ideas don't seem to be popular enough to warrant fear even though I disagree.
This is why they are not good comeback mechanics and so you should stop talking about them as if they are good comeback mechanics. Yes they can significantly bring aliens back into a game, but that does not make a comeback mechanic good.
Biomass itself has a slight bearing in comeback mechanics because you get a little extra hp. Leap can present itself as a comeback mechanic because it helps res biting and doesn't leave yourself so vulnerable against jetpackers. Umbra and an onos can help you build more expansion to take more map as a comeback. It's difficult to use all of these mechanics to claim back some of the deficit between the teams if marines have been strong all game, but it's still possible because all of those mechanics help aliens so that if they play with sufficient skill, they might be able to turn the game around. If they don't play with sufficient skill, than the marine team is better and simply deserves to win.
Yes and it didn't really work out, however the cluster grenade adopted the FT utility like setting everything on fire to reduce effectiveness of umbra and healing (i.e. crag and hive heal) and with a quicker throw animation, are actually quite useful. I wouldn't mind seeing the utility of cluster grenades being adopted from comp mod to combat PvE in pub games. Nerve gas is also very good in public and even better when in synergy of cluster. Comp mod also changed grenades so you could buy 1 at a time (max 2 grenades and must be same type) although I'd like to see it be more of a counterstrike system where you can have different types (max 2 in total) but I understand that it's impossible to code more weapon slots.
Ok so now I imagine there is a big disconnect between NA and EU pub scenes. Higher skilled players do use BB and higher skilled players do make good escorts for gorges to break through. I know I've coordinated games where aliens weren't even that far behind and we did split pressure using a gorge tunnel BB on marine start and lifeform crush on another point.
I don't blame you tbh, I've played on NA pub servers and it does feel like you have a bigger proportion of muppets:good players. It's quite funny actually because you do get good examples of articulate players using microphones in NA pubs who spout awful advice and are listened to just because of how they say things and not the reasoning behind things
I'm not saying we should nerf gorge tunnels or bile bomb because of the mistakes made by a marine team. I'm saying we shouldn't model comeback mechanics based on GT + BB because it's not a good comeback mechanic for all the reason's I've laid out.
So this is an impasse for us which is quite a surprise as that point of view of "Winning at all costs" is normally depicted as a competitive player's attitude. IMO winning at all costs does not make a game fun. I refer you back to the two competitive games I linked earlier; best games I ever played in either competitive or public. It was a tough grind from being put on the back foot that took many many feats of good timing, skill, and fortune to pull of plays that turned the game around for us.
That's not what I said. I said it should reduce the rate at which the opposing team can accrue a lead over you such that if a team consistently makes the correct plays and wins them, they can gain more map control, and even take the lead and perhaps win.
One game I played about a month ago was on jambi, we were stuck JUST on pipeworks hive with about 34 pres on my teammates (having flashed my own lerk). Bilebomb on biomass 3, full spurs, we pulled the game back by breaking ARC seiges, res biting, sensible expansion, just because our fades popped and managed to pull of the perfect balance of defense and offence by killing res cappers.
It is possible to organise people in publics. It is possible to comeback from just 1 hive 1 RT. It is possible to grind your way back from a losing position. To say it never happens and to suggest modeling something on something as destructive as a BB rush is quite terrifying.
I agree that more often than not a winning team will go on to win, and perhaps there should be more subtle comeback mechanics for marines to help aid the killing of lifeforms because when aliens have so many RTs, lifeforms reappear so quickly and because it seems to be the biggest thing holding back marine victories. However I think making something as devastating as bilebomb rush would be silly because as @vartija said, PvP is the main comeback mechanic for marines (as it should be).
Don't worry you're in the 9% who care more about grammar
You could argue that NS2 needs more RTS mechanics to allow a tactical commander more opportunities to counter the other team, but that would simply put more power in a single players hands which doesn't really fix anything either IMO.
I really think many people look at bilebomb rushes and how they can sometimes lead to a victory against a stacked team, and think that its a good answer to that problem... when the real answer is to fix the stacking problem... What I really don't understand is how people support how one player in the right place using bilebomb can completely change the outcome of a round, but then will also point out how skilled players have too much influence on a round... are those not one in the same problems?
Could you imagine if Dota2 had a comeback mechanic like bilebomb? Imagine Nature's Prophets ultimate being changed to deal structure damage instead and keeping similar aspects to how it works currently.
I was trying to describe how power spikes happen throughout the game to give which team the advantage (AREA between each time the lines cross each other). Then with a visual understanding of how strong each team is compared to each other at certain points in the game, we could adjust certain abilities to reduce the areas under each curve in an attempt to make them either equal over the whole game, or equal in each segment of the game.
At the moment in vanilla, I believe that both teams have adequate opportunities to take back some map control and increase the time taken for the opposite team to enter the phase of the game where they become stronger. Although perhaps skulks are slightly too weak in a lot of pub games that I see in the early stages...
Or at the very least, it's just not anywhere as likely as a predictable outcome is.
@nachos
You seem to agree as well with this sentiment, and where we disagree appears to be the solution. I guess I take issue with a solution that requires "grind(ing) your way back from a losing position" as I presume it just won't statistically be as successful or frequent of an occurrence if it's still relying on skillsets that have so far caused that team to lose in the round. I also take issue with this approach because, well, it hasn't worked in the years it's been in place, as you point out in the beginning of that quote above.
I guess I just prefer a more surefire way to upset a predictable round, and something that's more accessible to lesser skilled players.
Every comeback I've ever played in a high skill environment has followed your solution of "many many feats of good timing, skill, and fortune to pull off" a victory... but this is not the case in Pubs.
This is where we differ in our definition of a "good" comeback mechanic - I feel it should be more accessible and impactful, to ensure a greater frequency of occurrence and success in low skilled environments.
Btw, I do feel like assisting marines in dealing with the increased PvE mid to late game in pubs would allow them to focus on PvP and win back the round through lifeform kills, not a powernode.
Nope, they are not. There's barely any skill involved with employing BB compared to winning engagements.
When people complain about high skilled players having too much influence on a round they typically are referring to their ability to win engagements consistently enough to make a predictable outcome - conversely, a losing team that successfully wins by utilizing BB with a skilled player will not result in the same complaint precisely because it upset a predictable outcome.
No offense, but I really am surprised some of you don't get this important distinction or the general complaints after all the threads in the years past?...
I think this graph is great, fantastic really. But what I think it needs are deliberate points where an advantage is gained for one team or the other based on "a global objective." Personally I think this should be the fight over the 2nd hive.
Both teams where equally matched, should come to a point of relatively equal power, at which point they should be fighting over the 2nd hive going up.
I understand the point you are trying to make, but honestly I cannot understand WHY you would want that. Surely you must realize that a big part of the reason why you can so easily 'predict' the outcome of a round so early is because you have played so many games of NS2. And I am pretty sure that baring extreme cases of trolling commanders or whatever randomness that can cause one team to fail completely, that 99% of your prediction is based on the teams overall skill... leading back to the original point. There are many things which make NS2 have extremely predictable outcomes, why not change those areas to make games actually more enjoyable all around? You want low skill players to have 'foo' mechanics which allow them to occasionally win in combat against better players, and now you want more 'foo' mechanics so those same players can win rounds...
I don't think anyone minds the occasional upset, but the frequency and ease with which bilebomb can achieve that causes it to not even feel like a victory. I have seen many people in pubs complain about bilebomb and how frustrating it can be. Remember that while one team might enjoy the feeling of the from behind win, the other team often times is equally or more frustrated by it. There is little point in making something rewarding if its equally punishing for the opposition.
Why is this a bad thing? Why should you not rely on coordination, communication, and aim in a game that is about working with teammates to shoot/bite bad guys? It sounds like you're literally saying "I want people of all skills to be able to win" which is just bonkers because you'd make the game random.
Why is this a bad thing? This isn't even true. A lot of public players are actually getting better and are becoming more intelligent at least in the Thirsty Onos servers.
We have had waaaayy more complaints of snowballing/predictable outcomes/conceding early than we ever have had of "BB won the round for the losers and it's unfair" both in steam forums, these forums, and every other avenue of feedback.
You frequent these forums enough that I am sure that's not news. And I am sure you play pubs enough to know the frequency of predictable outcomes.
Yes, predictable outcomes are often the product of a team's overall skill in multiple areas- something that sometimes cannot be apparent until midway through a round. (it's not always kdr, sometimes its teamwork etc)
This skill difference is typically due to being better at the winning formulas such as RT control or winning engagements - which is the only reason why they can sometimes have their assured victory upset by what you call cheese tactic, because they are challenged in another area, such as not being situationally aware or responsive enough to a coordinated attack etc.
Sigh. Again, I advocate not for "coin flips" for determining a winner as I've already said in here multiple times!
I advocate for allowing more than just a couple of methods for achieving victory so as to allow more chances of comebacks in multi tiered skilled environments.
It should not be "either do X or have fun waiting 10 minutes for a round to end".. there should be options available.
I ask: What is wrong with having rounds that are not nearly as predictable and provide for 'foo' mechanics that assist the lesser skilled teams without effecting the higher end games?
And as always the dream of multi-tiered skill environments (whatever that means) is just that - a dream. You will never be able to have people from all skill levels play well on the same server, even if they are counterbalanced on each team. It just will not be nearly as enjoyable for the lower players, that is not something you can really hope to solve. I have no problem with lower skill players having 'foo' mechanics so that they can still get kills, but 'comeback' mechanics balanced like that is really just damaging to gameplay.
A gorge tunnel taken to bile bomb rush is hardly a coordinated attack, its something that can be setup and executed in 10 seconds if one person has a microphone... that's hardly something which deserves such a reward. The reason I call that a 'coinflip' victory is because the entire round up to that point is essentially meaningless, its all decided within those few seconds. The commander being occupied elsewhere or some bad timing with marine locations can all but assure the alien victory.
As for adjustments to make the gameplay less predictable, these are things which have been suggested in the past. A big part of what makes rounds so predictable IMO is that RTs are the only source of income. This makes a majority of the gameplay centered around holding RTs at any cost, and makes the outcome quite predictable from who is holding what at about 4-5 minutes.
When a team is closed in and losing, it becomes harder for them to just do their own thing so they are more likely to try to formulate a team-based attack.
And if they can do that without a gorge tunnel, there's no problem with it what-so-ever.
Part of the motivation for this discussion is that I think ninja phase gates are a ton of fun for both sides, but they are so rarely effective that they are robbed of a bit of excitement. The aliens can afford to be slow to respond, confident that the PvE morass will keep the marines slowed down. The marines can focus all their energy and still not materially damage the aliens.
Fixing that, through the flamethrower or any other means, would make things better IMHO. Do the people who generally disagree with bilebomb-like mechanics agree with this?
I'm largely a proponent of removing the building requirements of cysting and power nodes which would increase ninja phase viability. I think it's a good thing to give it more power, because it still makes sense. Aliens in this case have the advantage of better hive defence and the movement advantage to keep this scouted with lerks. The alien vision advantage. And marines need time to build the gate.
But at the same time it changes nothing about tunnel-bile rushes. Tunnels should still be limited to cysted areas.
Edit: Also note the pres cost differential between the two rushes. Shotguns are alot more expensive than gorges.